Public discussion of the possibility of reducing the role of money in politics, including Michael Swickard’s recent post on this site, has omitted one effective solution: We could decrease the number of elections.
The United States holds elections for more offices than any other country. Our elections are very frequent, and, because of our system of primaries, holding an election probably means holding two. It should come as no surprise that candidates feel a need to raise large amounts of money and spend much time and effort doing so.
In New Mexico, we should consider three possible steps to reduce the role money plays in our system. First, reduce the number of offices subject to primaries. Second, make some elective offices appointive. Third, lengthen the terms of elected officials.
Primary elections
Expensive primary elections in New Mexico could be replaced in whole or in part by less-expensive party conventions. Currently, statewide and congressional offices are subject to convention designation, but subsequent primaries can override the convention designations.
However, it is well-known that the primaries seldom produce results different from the convention results. In the unusual case that an unsuccessful convention candidate defeats the convention choice in the primary, it is very likely that he had much more money to spend or better TV spots.
Primary elections suppose a non-existent set of facts: a concerned and informed party electorate making wise nominating decisions, free of the party machines that supposedly control conventions.
Candidates do not believe in an informed electorate; they principally rely on superficial campaign advertisements. Further, there are no real party machines any more.
In fact, the participants in the convention system resemble the concerned, informed electorate desired by the original advocates of the primary system. They are likely to be serious about politics and representative democracy; they are likely to know the candidates over a period of time and likely to be informed about issues. They may be a better nominating body than the broader, ad-influenced electorate.
In any event, they are generally representative, nearly always selecting the eventual primary winner.
Elective offices
In New Mexico we elect many state and local offices that are less policy-making than administrative. Such elections could be replaced with either civil service, merit-based appointments, or with gubernatorial appointments subject to state Senate review and confirmation.
State treasurer and secretary of state are two offices for which administrative competence seems the most important credential. If a lieutenant governor is necessary, a gubernatorial appointment and Senate confirmation could produce one. Alternatively, another executive official could be the designated gubernatorial successor.
On the local level, county clerk, county treasurer and county assessor could be appointed. It is not clear that counties are better served by elected sheriffs than are cities with an appointed police chief.
Length of terms
Finally, it may be appropriate to extend the terms of elected officials. Electing executives to a six-year term and prohibiting their re-election would avoid the problem of a governor or other official using his first term in office to raise money for his re-election. Also, second terms are frequently less successful than first.
State senators could be elected for six-year terms, with one-third elected every two years, and state representatives could be elected for four years, with half elected every two years. These changes would, of course, delay the time when the voters can defeat an incumbent, but, under the present system, well over 90 percent of the incumbent legislators running for re-election are successful.
The trade-off may be worthwhile
Altering the primary election system would only require changes in New Mexico statutes. Changing offices from elective to appointive and changing the lengths of terms of office would require amendments to the state constitution. However, most other ideas for reducing the role of money in politics either require changes to the United States Constitution or invite substantial constitutional litigation.
There may be some disadvantages to the changes suggested above. But if we want to reduce the ever-increasing role of money in politics, the trade-off may be worthwhile.
Minzner is an attorney and legislative lobbyist. He previously served as secretary of the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department and as a state representative.