Editorial: Charter yeas, nays ...

| The New Mexican

2/23/2008 - 2/23/08

Just over 10 years ago, city voters approved a local constitution freeing Santa Fe from state rule.

Like any good constitution, our charter has provisions for adjusting it — and during the past year, a really good charter-review commission has been working on amendments. Seven of them will be on the March 5 municipal-election ballot. Some are excellent; others should be put on a shelf for now.

Amendments 1, 2 and 3 would make "activist democracy" easier. Under today's charter, citizens seeking a direct voice in legislation, by initiative or referendum, must gather signatures from 20 percent of the city's registered voters — 10,000 of 'em. The requirement is the same for the recall process.

Petitions have to be back to the City Clerk within 60 days of taking them out. That's too tight a deadline — but it's not an unreasonable signature requirement for this city of more than 62,000.

The proposed amendments would stretch the deadline to 90 days. And the new signature requirement would be one-third of the voters in the last mayoral election — 5,000 or so.

We recommend votes against all three.

Why? What's the matter with concerned citizens and community organizers enacting laws, overriding bad ones, or running rascals out of City Hall through a lower-barrier petition process?

Nothing — on the surface. But what if the people behind the petitions aren't Santa Feans with legitimate concerns, but predatory special-interests from who-knows-where? Should Santa Feans make it a snap for their professional petition-passers to put proposed laws on the local ballot, clearing the way for the big-bucks public-relations people to peddle initiatives?

If these amendments are approved, how long would it take for a slick campaign against, say, Santa Fe's "living wage" ordinance? And could corporate interests cook up the removal of conscientious councilors? Claro.

We like initiatives. We like referenda. We love recall. But they should be carried out by enough citizens to demonstrate the sincerity of their motives.

Amendment 4 promotes "meaningful" publicly financed campaigns — through a law the council would have to come up with. We shudder to think how some councilors would interpret that. The intention — limiting special-interest influence over paid-for politicians — is good. The potential for violating First Amendment rights, though, is enormous. This comes under the category of worth-a-try — and worth a vote for.

Amendment 5 is for "instant runoff," or "ranked-choice" voting.: Make your first choice, second choice, third choice, etc. This would, at last, ensure majority-elected politicians, más o menos — but it depends on well-run elections using special computer programs. We say wait and see how it works in huge numbers of other cities — and, for now, vote against.

Amendment 6 would make the mayor a voting member of the City Council, rather than the tie-breaker he or she is now. This makes the mayor more of a player — and less able to duck responsibility for council votes. We heartily recommend a vote for.

Amendment 7 would require candidates for municipal judge to be lawyers. As attorney/judge Ann Yalman is demonstrating, this is an excellent step for justice in Santa Fe. It deserves a vote for.