OPINION: City elections have become stacked by election code

And another one bites the dust — essentially.

Albuquerque mayoral candidate Darren White is the latest casualty of the city’s “progressive” election code. The only declared Republican in the crowded field bowed out of public financing last week, saying the scramble for tax dollars has turned into an “incumbent protection program.”

Given our recent city elections, it’s hard to disagree with him.

White, a former secretary of the state Department of Public Safety and a former Bernalillo County sheriff, gave public financing — amounting to $756,000 of taxpayer funds — a go. However, he said last week it had become clear he wouldn’t be able to gather the required 3,780 donations of $5 each by the June 21 deadline, so he joins other candidates who will instead have to make it on private funds, leaving incumbent Mayor Tim Keller in the position of probably being the only publicly funded mayoral candidate.

June 21 is also the deadline for mayoral candidates to submit petitions signed by at least 3,000 registered voters in the city, but it’s the requirement to get thousands of registered voters to fork over $5 donations that is paring the field of 11 mayoral candidates to one publicly financed candidate.

White’s withdrawal from public financing follows Alex Uballez’s withdrawal at public financing efforts in late May. If White and Uballez, a former U.S. attorney, can’t qualify for public financing, how is a mechanic with a fix-it plan for the city, or a plumber fluid in local politics, ever going to make it?

Albuquerque City Councilor and former police officer Louie Sanchez, retired Albuquerque firefighter Eddie Varela, former Bernalillo County economic development director Alpana Adair, and 2021 mayoral candidate Patrick Sais have also withdrawn from public financing.

Even Keller, a two-term mayor, former state senator and former state auditor, is having to work late to meet the $5 donation threshold by the June 21 deadline. He has used public financing in his two prior successful mayoral campaigns, so I’m not too worried about him getting a few hundred more $5 donations to make the cut. It’s the fact that he will probably again be the only publicly financed mayoral candidate that is concerning.

The Open and Ethical Campaign code of 2005 seems to be working, if you’re an incumbent. The election law is weeding out candidates before a single vote has been cast in the Nov. 4 election. Although candidates can still benefit from simpatico political action committees known under the city’s election code as Measure Finance Committees, they’re not allowed to coordinate directly with MFCs, and therefore can’t count on them.

“The sum of the two — individual private contributions and Measure Finance Committee monies — might get there. But yeah, it’s hard to raise three-quarters of a million dollars in a race like this,” political analyst Brian Sanderoff told KOAT last week.

Once we finally know the candidates who collected the required 3,000 signatures, we can get down to some campaigning and voting. But even after that there’s the backstop of runoff elections that favors incumbents, and yet another round of taxpayer funding for those who qualify for it.

Supporters of public financing have noted the deficiencies in the current system that have been laid bare, again, after Keller was the only publicly funded mayoral candidate in 2021. But they’re still believers in using other people’s hard-earned tax dollars to fund political campaigns. I remain fully in the “fund your own campaign” camp.

Keller relied on public financing during his 2017 campaign, when there was no incumbent in the race. And unlike publicly financed candidates, privately financed candidates have no fundraising or spending limits, though there are limits on individual contributions.

Voters were misled in 2005 to believe public financing would make it possible for ordinary people to run for public office in Albuquerque. The current mayoral field not only refutes that assertion, it shakes it to its core.

They were also misled to believe public financing would free candidates from needing a handful of big-dollar donors. Well, look where we’re at now. Mayoral candidates unable to qualify for public financing have few remaining options other than wealthy donors.

Some are calling for tweaks to the city’s election code to increase the likelihood of non-incumbents and everyday candidates qualifying for public financing, such as lowering the thresholds and extending the time for mayoral candidates to beg for $5 donations from 64 days to 90 days. But tweaking an inherently flawed system would still leave us with a flawed system.

Voters hoping for a rigorous debate among several mayoral candidates about crime, homelessness, Albuquerque’s Downtown or the Albuquerque Police Department are likely to be disappointed in the coming weeks and months with Keller’s apparent advantage.

They should remember this election cycle and how stacked the deck is, and then demand that the new City Council unstack it.