Front Page  elex

September 27, 2004

Court Hears Arguments in Voter ID Case


   
   
By Deborah Baker
The Associated Press
       SANTA FE   —   With barely a week to go before absentee voting begins, the state Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments in the voter ID dispute but made no immediate decision.
    At issue is how many of New Mexico's tens of thousands of newly registered voters will be required to show identification at the polls.
    The tug-of-war pits Republicans who say a broad ID requirement would curb vote fraud against Democrats who say it would disrupt the election and disenfranchise voters.
    Democratic Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron has interpreted a 2003 state law to mean that only new voters who register by mail must meet the ID requirement.
    Republican Chaves County Clerk David Kunko   —   backed by a Roswell district judge   —   wants to require ID from all new voters who did not register in person at his office.
    "The county clerk in Chaves County is just following the statute," Paul Kennedy, the lawyer for the citizens who brought the case, told the court.
    Vigil-Giron's interpretation of the law is improper, unlawful and "tortured," Kennedy said.
    Under Kunko's interpretation, voters who signed up during registration drives   —   at malls or grocery stores, for example   —   as well as at government agencies such as motor vehicle offices would have to show ID.
    New Mexico is considered a swing state in the race between President Bush, who lost in 2000 by 366 votes, and John Kerry. Voter-registration groups are pushing hard in some areas to sign up new voters.
    Vigil-Giron asked the high court to force Kunko to follow her directive and ensure uniformity throughout the state.
    "She is the constitutional elected officer charged with interpreting the election code," said her lawyer, Assistant Attorney General David Thomson.
    Judges in at least two other counties, Otero and Lincoln, have issued rulings similar to that in Chaves County, bucking the secretary of state, the high court was told.
    Kunko's lawyer, Pat Rogers, argued that Vigil-Giron's interpretation had gutted the law, and county clerks should not be in a position of having to abide by her orders "no matter how ill-conceived or partisan."
    Absentee voting for the Nov. 2 election begins Oct. 5, and may be done either by mail or at county clerks' offices.
    According to the Democratic Party, nearly 120,000 people have registered to vote in the state over the past year   —   44 percent of them as Democrats, about 24 percent as Republicans, and about 32 percent as independents.
    Democrats argue that some voters would be disenfranchised by last-minute ID requirements, especially because they were told when they registered they wouldn't have to show identification.
    Rogers disputed that, contending that voters without the proper ID could cast so-called provisional ballots, which are set aside and reviewed later.
    Thomson said that's no solution, since the provisional ballots would ultimately be rejected for ID reasons and the votes wouldn't count.
    Voters are entitled not just to a vote, but to an "effective vote," he said.
    Democrats and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which filed written arguments supporting Vigil-Giron, contend that the poor and minorities would bear the brunt of the disenfranchisement.
    "What about Navajos on the reservation?" wondered Justice Patricio Serna.
    Hearing the case with Serna were Chief Justice Petra Maes and Justice Pamela Minzner   —   all elected as Democrats   —   and District Judges Thomas Fitch of Socorro and Stephen Quinn of Clovis, elected as Republicans. Fitch and Quinn replaced Justices Edward Chavez and Richard Bosson, Democrats who recused themselves from participation in the case.