State Republican Chairman Steve Pearce claims duplicitous Democrats in the Legislature are conspiring to help cheaters win elections.
“There’s still time to stop a bill that will cause all kinds of absentee voting violations and fraud,” he said in one statement. “This weekend the House approved [House Bill] 229, legislation that would eliminate the need for three forms of voter identification for absentee ballots.”
Pearce was at it again Tuesday after learning the bill had cleared the Senate Rules Committee with support from none other than the Republican floor leader, Sen. Stuart Ingle of Portales.
Ignoring Ingle’s vote, Pearce again charged that Democrats want to weaken the law on requirements to vote by absentee ballot.
Pearce either needs a refresher course in reading comprehension or he’s intent on misrepresenting a bill that would make elections more secure.
He claims the bill would eliminate the requirement that an absentee voter provide their name, address and year of birth. That’s false. HB 229 makes no such change.
Just as important, the bill would be more rigorous on requirements for a qualified elector who wants to register to vote or for a voter who is updating a certificate of registration immediately before voting.
The bill mandates a form of identification with a photograph that is issued by a government.
Beyond that, the applicant would have to supply two other supporting documents to verify their name and address. These might be a utility bill, a bank statement, a paycheck or a student identification card.
And at least one identifying document would have to contain an address that matches the address on the certificate of registration.
HB 229 would be an upgrade in terms of election security. As it stands, any citizen with a New Mexico driver’s license can register to vote anywhere in the state. Requiring verification of a voter’s address improves the integrity of elections.
“What we’re doing here is a tighter restriction,” said Sen. Daniel Ivey-Soto, D-Albuquerque, a co-sponsor of the bill along with Rep. Linda Trujillo, D-Santa Fe.
Their bill also has teeth to prevent fraud in absentee voting.
Each voter who completes a mailed absentee ballot would be subject to a felony perjury charge if it’s falsified. An absentee voter must attest that they are the person identified on the official mailing envelope and that they will not vote any other ballot in the election.
Ivey-Soto publicly has praised Rep. Greg Nibert, R-Roswell, for working on amendments that improved the bill.
Nibert was absent from the House of Representatives when it approved the bill on a vote of 46-17. Most House Republicans voted against the measure. An exception was Rep. Bill Rehm, R-Albuquerque, a proponent of law-and-order legislation.
With Republicans Ingle, Nibert and Rehm helping the bill in one way or another, why is Pearce contending it would abet election fraud?
Two explanations are plausible.
As his party’s candidate for governor, Pearce headed the Republican slate that failed in the 2018 election. He lost in a rout. Democrats also swept all four races for seats in Congress and widened their advantage in the state House of Representatives.
Having lost big, Pearce is busy trying to lower expectations for Republicans in this year’s election. Plant the idea that the Democrats have paved the way for fraud, and Pearce has a built-in excuse for more losses by Republicans in November.
The other reason Pearce is attacking the bill and Democratic lawmakers is to rehabilitate another losing candidate from 2018.
His friend and loyal follower, Republican Yvette Herrell, is still trying to explain her upset defeat in New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District by claiming it was stolen through fraud with absentee ballots.
Herrell could have contested the election. She did not. With ballots impounded, she got a good look at her alleged evidence and knew she couldn’t make her case that the election was stolen.
Her race against Democrat Xochitl Torres Small was not close. Torres Small won by about 3,700 votes.
Herrell is running for Congress again and faces opponents in the Republican primary. Herrell’s detractors in the party are calling her a loser who shouldn’t be the Republican candidate for a second time. Hoping to quiet them, Herrell’s strategy is to claim she was robbed.
HB 229 is a good bet to become law. It’s a step toward cleaner elections.
Pearce and Herrell will persist with wild conspiracy theories, none of which hold up.
It’s the only alibi they have.
If they shout long enough and loud enough about voter fraud, some will listen. A few might even believe them.
(4) comments
Milan obviously writes commentary in Ringside Seat. If someone doesn't know the difference between commentary and a reporter writing a factual article (and indeed, some reporters don't know the difference) they should figure out out before commenting. Besides, Milan nails this one down with fact after fact.
As far as Milan's opinion on the state GOP, I share it. The fact that I share it upsets me, because we would be a better state with a viable two party system. But with Steve Pearce et al sounding silly, the GOP is becoming irrelevant. Just look at the Roundhouse numbers and recall that old expression about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.
Perhaps the Rio Grande Foundation's Paul Gessing should be the state GOP Chair.
Milan it is apparent that your anti Republican and you and Phil from the New Mexican show your extreme bias. I am surprised your allowed to write for any publication. I like my news balanced and fair.
Fascinating objection to article. Are you suggesting the facts contained in it are false? How does this piece, which is mostly old-fashioned factual reporting display bias? Instead of attacking author, why don’t you show where he’s wrong. Or can’t you?
And yet you fail to provide either argument or evidence that Mr. Simonich is mistaken in any particular.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Thank you for joining the conversation on Santafenewmexican.com. Please familiarize yourself with the community guidelines. Avoid personal attacks: Lively, vigorous conversation is welcomed and encouraged, insults, name-calling and other personal attacks are not. No commercial peddling: Promotions of commercial goods and services are inappropriate to the purposes of this forum and can be removed. Respect copyrights: Post citations to sources appropriate to support your arguments, but refrain from posting entire copyrighted pieces. Be yourself: Accounts suspected of using fake identities can be removed from the forum.