New Mexico's new open primaries bill is just the beginning
Alaska U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski is one of the few Republicans standing up to President Trump and expressing fear that key strategic alliances, our democracy, civil liberties and the rule of law are being under-mind. She also was one of the few Republicans to vote to impeach him.
What makes her different? What allows her to feel free to make those statements and take that action that are nearly unheard of right now within the Republican MAGA party? It is the structure within which she was elected.
Alaska has non-partisan primaries that allow all voters to vote for all candidates. Primaries are no longer controlled by the parties. Then the top four vote getters go to the general election where ranked choice voting is used.
She can move through the primary without fear of being 'primaried' in a race in which only the party base, the most MAGA, can vote. Rather, she is incentivized to reach out to all voters, and the majority of voters want her to be independent and vote her conscience, not tow the party line. This is what democracy reform at all levels is about: Creating a representative government that works for all of us all the time.
This is the opposite of what Wyoming has, which is a closed primary system. Remember how brave Congresswoman Liz Chaney was to buck her party and vote to impeach President Trump because he incited the Capitol riots through his election denialism? Well, she lost her Republican primary election in Wyoming by a huge margin because only Republicans could vote.
But, so what? Why is that important today here in New Mexico?
The New Mexico Legislature recently passed SB16, which allows independent voters to choose one major party ballot. This is one small step toward that ideal where all voters can vote for all candidates. I spent 10 years as founder and president of NM Open Elections working on its passage.
It will set up a situation in which partisan candidates have to reach out to independent voters who will not have the same feelings about party discipline as the party base, and I mean with both the Republicans and the Democrats. It means candidates and incumbents alike will have to do a better job of spreading their message and listening to a broader cross section of the voting public. And it means there is a better chance that incumbents can vote their conscience, rather than bending to a party line that they may or may not agree with all the time. And the outcome of this freedom will be better policies representing a broader cross section of voters.
I know that we are years away from being able to pass the next steps in democracy reform here in New Mexico, but we have taken the first step by ending our closed primary system. But make no mistake there have to be next steps.
Step one: Educate independents that they can vote in the 2026 primary and make sure large majorities do. Let's prove the pundits wrong and show that independent voters will come out to vote when given the chance.
Step two: Support candidates who will prioritize reaching out to those independent voters and teach them how to communicate with these non-aligned voters.
Step three: Plan for the next steps in reform including finally passing an independent redistricting commission, paying our Legislature, placing term limits on our Legislature to match the term limits we have on nearly every other office and moving to a truly open primary system in which all voters can vote for all candidates in first round public elections.
To be sure, Democrats supported SB16 in greater numbers than Republicans and I deeply appreciate that. But Democrats oppose nearly every reform in step three above as do Republicans. The other states that have adopted these reforms, and there are many, all have legislative by-pass through ballot initiate where a voter can gather signatures and place an issue on the ballot. We don't have that here.
Unfortunately, both major parties play politics with the law to game the system. When President Biden declined to seek re-election, why did the Democratic Party refuse to hold a primary or even an open convention so that many candidates could be heard and vetted?
It's time for a party to put voters first and that is why I am now working with others to found the New Mexico Forward Party. We support all the democracy reform issues listed above and will be running candidates in 2026 for the State House of Representatives against those law makers who voted against open primaries. Stay tuned.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
23 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Judge issues injunction preventing FTC from investigating watchdog Media Matters
A federal judge has issued an injunction preventing the Trump administration's Federal Trade Commission from investigating Media Matters for America, the liberal media watchdog group that had alleged the spread of hate speech on X since Elon Musk acquired the social media platform. U.S. District Court Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan ruled Friday that the FTC's probe of Media Matters, 'purportedly to investigate an advertiser boycott concerning social media platforms,' represents a clear violation of the group's freedom of speech. 'It should alarm all Americans when the government retaliates against individuals or organizations for engaging in constitutionally protected public debate,' Sooknanan wrote. Even before the FTC got involved, Media Matters has been defending itself against a lawsuit by Musk following the organization's November 2023 story that, following Musk's purchase of the social media site once known as Twitter, antisemitic posts and other offensive content were appearing next to advertisements there. Sooknanan said the injunction halting any FTC probe was merited because Media Matters is likely to succeed on its claim that the FTC is being used to retaliate against it for a critical article on a Trump supporter. 'The court's ruling demonstrates the importance of fighting over folding, which far too many are doing when confronted with intimidation from the Trump administration,' said Angelo Carusone, chairman and president of Media Matters. There was no immediate comment from an FTC spokesman.
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Bessent: Trump's Putin meeting like showing off ‘gun case' to ‘uncontrollable neighbor'
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Tuesday commended President Trump's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska last week. 'Alaska was a show of force by President Trump. He invited President Putin to land that the Russians used to own. He displayed a huge amount of military hardware and then did a flyover,' Bessent said during a Tuesday morning appearance on CNBC's ' Squawk Box.' 'It was kind of like inviting your uncontrollable neighbor to your house and showing him your gun case,' he added. The Treasury Secretary said the immediate follow-up meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House on Monday signaled strong strides toward peace between Russia and Ukraine. 'We had a very good meeting with him in and his team in the Oval for about an hour and a half, and then we met with the European leaders who were an incredible group to have in the White House, all led by President Trump,' Bessent said. 'And yes, the culmination of that was a call with President Putin and my strong belief is that there will be a bilateral meeting between President Putin and President Zelensky,' he continued. 'And that's the only way to end this conflict, is to get the two sides talking.' The Kremlin's strikes on Ukraine have continued amid peace negotiations as Russian leaders have urged NATO not to deploy forces in Eastern Europe. On Monday, Russia's foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said troop from NATO member nations 'could lead to an uncontrollable escalation of the conflict with unpredictable consequences.' Some world leaders have maintained that the Trump-Putin summit benefitted Moscow more than the U.S. Former British ambassador to Russia Laurie Bristow said the bilateral meeting 'produced nothing for Mr. Trump and gave Mr. Putin most of what he was looking for,' according to The Associated Press while Zelensky pegged the meeting as a photo-op. Still, Bessent said economic pressures on Moscow will force the over three-years long war to end. 'I think the sense is that both sides are ready for this terrible conflict to end, and one of the ways to make President Putin want it to end is on the economic side,' he told CNBC on Tuesday. 'The Russian economy has 20 percent plus inflation. Right now, it is a war economy. I think more than 25 percent of the GDP is coming from the military buildup. So, you know, it's a very imbalanced economy,' he continued.
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
The Donbas is a poisoned chalice that neither Russia nor Ukraine should want
Whichever side in the Russo-Ukrainian War wins the Donbas loses the war. That is the savage and largely unacknowledged irony at the core of the struggle over the Donbas — a territory that has recently come to occupy center stage in President Trump's post-summit thinking about how to end the war. Inasmuch as Russia has occupied most of the industrial basin known as the Donbas since its first invasion of Ukraine in 2014 — and is highly unlikely to be driven from that territory anytime soon — Russia has already lost the war, regardless of how long it continues and whether or not a U.S.-brokered ceasefire or peace becomes a reality. The Donbas was the industrial powerhouse of the Soviet Union for decades, but the region was already going into decline by the 1970s and 1980s. When Ukraine became independent in 1991, it inherited what had largely become a value-destroying territory. The Donbas fed the corrupt appetites of local politicians, oligarchs and organized crime. Its working-class residents claimed to have an exalted status belied by a wretched reality. As the economist Anders Aslund put it in 2015, 'The Donbas is a rust belt of old mines, steel mills and chemical factories. Almost all the coal mines and chemical factories are inactive … The rebels have blown up railway bridges, complicating bulk transportation.' In 2016, Aslund estimated that it would cost some $20 billion to revive the Donbas. By 2025, the estimated cost of Ukraine's reconstruction had zoomed upward to $524 billion, a 26-fold increase. Much of that money would need to go to the Donbas, where most of the heaviest fighting has taken place. A reasonable guesstimate of how much it would cost to rebuild just the Donbas today is $200 billion — nearly one-tenth of Russia's reported annual GDP and slightly more than Ukraine's. If the fighting continues indefinitely, that sum will surely double or even triple. Neither Ukraine nor Russia has that kind of cash. It is conceivable that Vladimir Putin's fascist regime could squeeze some money out of its subjects, but Ukraine's democracy could not. Fixing the Donbas would bankrupt either state, especially as the international community and business are unlikely to offer much in the way of assistance. But the burden of owning the Donbas isn't just financial. It is also demographic, environmental and political. According to Aslund, writing in 2016, 'Ukraine claims 1.2 million internally displaced persons, while Russia reports half a million refugees from the Donbas, and the United Nations estimates that some 100,000 have fled elsewhere. If these numbers are reasonably correct, 1.8 million have fled and 1.5 million remain. Apart from some 45,000 fighters, the remaining population largely consists of pensioners and the destitute.' This was the Donbas 10 years ago. We don't know how many people fled after the full-scale Russian invasion of 2022, but the numbers must be substantial. In addition, the armed militias that served in the phony Luhansk and Donetsk 'People's Republics' were thrown at the front and suffered enormous losses. Whatever its exact size, the Donbas's overwhelmingly aged and impoverished population can hardly be the basis of an economic boom. And how many refugees will return? How many people will move there from other parts of Ukraine or Russia if and when peace is attained? The questions are largely rhetorical, especially as the Donbas is an environmental hell hole. According to the Conflict and Environment Observatory, the fighting since 2014 has 'created a risk of environmental emergencies and will leave a lasting legacy of groundwater contamination from flooded coal mines.' Moreover, 'following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, hundreds of environmentally sensitive sites have been caught up in the conflict.' The Donbas will also become the site of endless political instability. If Ukraine inherits the territory, pro-Russian elements, in cahoots with the Russian security services, are sure to stage provocations, assassinate local officials, sabotage plants and so on. If Russia keeps the Donbas, Ukraine is sure to engage in equally subversive activities. How fair and free elections could take place under such conditions is anybody's guess. Despite these similarities, there is one fundamental difference. Putin's fascist regime will thrive on repression and violence; Ukraine's democracy won't. Indeed, while Putin can crush whatever opposition he encounters, Ukraine will have to mollify and integrate it — a test it failed before 2014 and one that it is unlikely to pass after years of war. Will failing this test make Ukraine more or less likely to overcome existing hurdles and join the European Union and NATO? Again, the question is rhetorical. The Donbas's transformation into a permanent source of instability will have at least two negative consequences for Putin. It will divert Russia's coercive resources from other, equally unstable parts of the Russian Federation. It will also encourage some non-Russian regions — the north Caucasus comes immediately to mind — to press for greater autonomy and less Kremlin oversight. France and the German states fought for centuries over Alsace-Lorraine and the Rhineland. That made some sense, since both regions were economically, politically and socially developed. Not so the Donbas. It is a black hole and will remain so for years to come. For better or for worse, neither Ukraine nor Russia can just turn their backs on the territory without violating their constitutions and courting mass demonstrations. Of course, as far as Putin is concerned, a constitution is just a piece of paper. Even so, to abandon the Donbas would be to admit defeat and experience political suicide. Ditto for Ukraine and its president, Volodymyr Zelensky. If winning means losing, does losing mean winning? Regardless of how they answer that question and what the terms of a possible peace deal might be, Ukrainians may take some consolation from the fact that, thanks to Putin's heady territorial ambitions, Russia will be stuck with that black hole for years to come. Indeed, Russia itself will progressively come to resemble the Donbas. That could be Ukraine's greatest victory. Alexander J. Motyl is a professor of political science at Rutgers University-Newark. A specialist on Ukraine, Russia and the USSR, and on nationalism, revolutions, empires and theory, he is the author of 10 books of nonfiction, as well as ' Imperial Ends: The Decay, Collapse, and Revival of Empires' and ' Why Empires Reemerge: Imperial Collapse and Imperial Revival in Comparative Perspective.'
