Views: 239

Comment by Phil_0 on November 1, 2012 at 10:51am

Thanks for the info about the De Anza. I'd been wondering what was up and am happy that Rob Dickson is at least still talking about it like it's going to happen.

So the League of Women Voters election guide constitutes "electioneering"? Boy, that's really's a sad commentary on our democracy if simple information - the text of the amendments and bond issues being voted on, etc. - is seen as somehow a threat.

Comment by Granjero on November 1, 2012 at 11:02am

"Our attorneys took a look and the point was made that within the guide you have the candidates advocating their positions on the issues, and so for that reason it could be considered electioneering."


If they just made a list of positions instead of inserting statement of positions then this wouldn't be an issue.

Comment by Hunter on November 1, 2012 at 11:08am

If the State would publish a voter's guide then the League wouldn't have to.  But maybe that's the point, keep the voters uninformed.  The League guide is available online.

Comment by hettie on November 1, 2012 at 2:09pm

What's the difference between listing a candidate's positions and publishing the candidate's positions in his or her own words. Seriously. If all the candidates have a statement published in the guide, then I don't understand how it's a problem.

Comment by Granjero on November 1, 2012 at 4:53pm

One is a speech and one is just facts. 

Comment by hettie on November 1, 2012 at 7:49pm

Not really. The opinions and positions of candidates aren't facts just because the candidates endorse them. And the vast majority of the issues that candidates have to weigh in on are more complex than a "yes" or "no" position list.

I'm interested to know whether someone asked the secretary of state's office to examine the legality of the guides or whether this was initiated by Duran herself. It's notable that these guides have been available at polling places with no issues for many election cycles.

Comment by Izquierdo on November 2, 2012 at 1:58pm
Approvals on activation of historic resources are never easy at any level, and for good reason. It's easy to let a property that doesn't meet rigid specs slip into the mix and hard to excise it. The creation of Petroglyphs, now a unit of the National Park Service, took years, even with Senator Pete Dominici's strong support. I'm pulling for De Anza, a true gem and good for Albuquerque.
Comment by Michelle Meaders on November 3, 2012 at 1:33am

Actually, the Sec. of State does publish a limited Voter Guide.  It says it's about the "Proposed Constitutional Amendments and General Obligation Bonds -- Content and Purpose."  But that's only a small part of what's on the ballot in each county.

I think it's interesting that the Sec. of State waited untill less than a week before the election to do this, with no warning.  The law she cited was passed in the 2011 Legislature.

Comment by Hunter on November 3, 2012 at 8:39am

@Michelle, that is good to know.  I guess I'm still used to the California model where the guide is actually mailed out to all registered voters and contains pro and con arguments and a fiscal impact analysis.  All we are hearing is how these bonds "won't raise your taxes" but that, of course, is a dishonest and misleading statement.  They won't raise your taxes only if they are sold in the same amount and at the same interest rate as the bonds that they are replacing.  Ask PERA and ERA about predicting economic conditions.  And anyone who just received their property tax bill knows taxes go up due to the "automatic" annual increase in the valuation.


You need to be a member of Duke City Fix to add comments!

Join Duke City Fix

Connect with Us!

Big Changes to the Fix!

We're making changes to the Fix! Check in with us for local news stories, events, photos, all the usual DCF stuff, on Facebook and Instagram starting September 1st. Find out more!

© 2017   Created by Duke City Fix.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service