At this point, it’s difficult to determine voter turnout

It’s difficult to determine at this point how voter turnout in today’s Las Cruces municipal election compares to the 2003 election, the last time the same offices were up for grabs.

If my small sample of polling places is any indication, the city isn’t on track to match the turnout from 2003, the last time the mayor’s office, presiding municipal judgeship and city council districts 1, 2 and 4 were up for grabs. Voter turnout that year was 29 percent – 10,753 out of 36,648 registered voters.

But I’m not going to predict that voter turnout will be lower. About 2,400 people voted early this year, compared to 1,581 in 2003. There are about 47,000 registered voters today.

At the polling places I visited, voter turnout appeared to be on track to reach anywhere between 15 and 25 percent, which is still pretty good for a municipal election even if it’s lower than 2003.

For example, at Las Cruces High School in District 2, there had been 115 voters out of a possible 1,593 as of 12:20 p.m. And at Lynn Middle School in District 3, there were 115 voters out of a possible 1,650 at 12:50 p.m.

At Sierra Middle School in District 3, there were 137 voters out of a possible 1,722 at 1 p.m. – the halfway point in the day – and poll workers said they were pleasantly surprised by the turnout.

At Camino Real Middle School in District 6, 379 out of a possible 3,450 people had voted at 1:10 p.m. And at Highland Elementary School in District 5, 294 out of a possible 3,009 people had voted at 1:30 p.m.

There have been some problems. The Las Cruces Sun-News is reporting that, by 10 a.m., more than 1,000 people had called the clerk’s office trying to find their polling places. Some of those are people whose polling places are different than they are in state and county elections. Those people didn’t check before they showed up to vote.

But others, the Sun-News is reporting, include people who live outside the city limits and others who simply don’t know where they’re supposed to vote. I saw two such people turned away at polling places I visited. That could be an indication that they’re inexperienced voters, and conventional wisdom would suggest that such people are voting out of a desire to oust incumbents.

However, there’s another possibility: People have become accustomed, under the relatively new state law, to voting on provisional ballots when they don’t show up at the right polling place. There are no provisionals in municipal elections, so voters are simply being redirected to other polling places. That may explain some of the confusion.

A few thoughts:

• I’m told by reliable sources that Nathan Small’s supporters are turning out in large numbers in the District 4 race, and it’s not clear whether supporters of Isaac Chavez and Steve Montaño are doing the same. Keep in mind that Small had a lot of financial support from Conservation Voters of New Mexico, whose educational arm also sent out targeted mailings and placed phone calls encouraging people who support their issues to vote.

• The highest voter turnout I came across was in the district of Ken Miyagishima – District 6. I would assume that many of those voters support Miyagishima’s bid to unseat Bill Mattiace as mayor.

• Voter turnout appears to also be good in districts 3 and 5, even though those voters don’t get to pick a new councilor. That means they’re showing up to vote for mayor – and many are voting on the growth issue. In District 5 and 6, that’s a no-brainer. That’s where the growth is occurring. In the inner-city District 3, it also makes sense. Traffic problems there have increased significantly as a result of the East Mesa growth.

• Early voting turnout was highest among voters living in districts 5 and 6 on the East Mesa. People concerned about the city’s growth are certainly galvanized. We’ll know in a few hours how much they influenced the election.