How to use this Page

The weather, the world-more of the same. The ocean was a study in light and dark this morning, with patches of brigh turquoise and strecthes of indeterminable gray/purple/shadow, and in between pacific blue.
______________________________________

As if hearing Wendy Doromal's question, the Marianas Variety apparently tried to track down the information about the release of David Tanaka Diaz. In fact, he was paroled.

Some interesting bits:

1. Diaz's appeal challenged the court's sentencing. The CNMI Supreme Court, in its October 2003 opinion, said that he could be sentenced to either 25 years or more of jail OR a fine. The Supreme Court wasn't sure the trial court realized that it could avoid jail time in sentencing and just order a fine. So it remanded.

2. The sentencing STATUTE 6 CMC sec. 2141(b)(1)(b) (amended in 1991 by P.L. 7-42) specifically says the sentence shall not be subject to suspension.

Any person that violates subsection (a) of this section with respect to
(1) A substance classified in Schedules I or II which is a narcotic drug or methamphetinehydrochloride shall be sentenced for a first offense to a term of imprisonment for a term of not less than 25 years, a fine of not more than $10,000, or both and the term of imprisonment shall not be subject to suspension, probation, or parole...

3. The Supreme Court, among other things, held that the language of this statute meant that the original sentence, which included 5 years suspended sentence after the 25 years mandatory imprisonment, was not authorized. The sentence, whatever the term of imprisonment, could not be subject to suspension, probation or parole.

4. On remand, the Superior Court issued a 25 year sentence of imprisonment, not subject to suspension, probation, or parole.

5. Obviously, by statute and by court order, that sentence is NOT SUBJECT TO SUSPENSION, PROBATION OR PAROLE.

6. The Attorney General, Ed Buckingham, is the legal counsel for the Board of Parole, according to the Marianas Variety.

7. The Board of Parole granted a parole to David Tanaka Diaz, despite having no authority to do so.

8. The Attorney General, Ed Buckingham, seems to also be the legal counsel for the Department of Corrections. (I say this based on the AG's role in massage-gate.)

9. The DOC, knowing that the Board of Parole had no authority, knowing the terms of imprisonment set by law and court order, knowing 25 years has not elapsed since his imprisonment and the sentence has not been satisfied, released David Tanaka Diaz on March 12, 2010.

10. CONCLUSION: We have put the crooks in charge of the prison. We have a breakdown of law and order.

This is the third incident involving DOC in the past couple of months--the Chinese federal detainee-masseuse taken to the Governor in the dead of night by Dolores San Nicolas to massage him; Mr. Aldan, husband to former DOC chief Dolores San Nicolas, in prison but noncompliant with the terms of his plea but getting weekend releases and his gun which has not been returned; and a two-time convicted ice dealer who got caught with the largest amount of the drug in CNMI history now released contrary to statutory law and the court ordered sentence for his crime.

This is really bad.

Display Comments Add a Comment

1. Fitial is being re-elected Governor of the CNMI. He's ahead by 500+ votes, and it seems unlikely (although not impossible) that the absentee ballots will change the outcome of the run-off election.

My previous post on the elections included these:
2009-11-02 The candidates
2009-11-19 On the Spoils System


2. Fitial's lawsuit has been dismissed. It challenged the federalization of the CNMI's immigration, claiming the Consolidated Natural Resources Act violated the Covenant by infringing the CNMI's right of self-government.

Some of my previous posts on this subject, including analysis of the merits of the lawsuit, are here:
2008-12-17 A brief recap of the pending motions
2009-03-11 On the amicus brief


I want to say bad news (Fitial's re-election), good news (dismissal of the federalization lawsuit), but I am reminded of the Chinese story about tao.

What I see as good is that we had an election and we will have a Governor chosen by more than 50% of the people.

What I see as good is that we have a system of justice where anyone can make their claim and have a judge review it, based on written laws and principles.

Who knows? Perhaps it will take 5 more years of Benigno Fitial for us to learn a bit more about the spoils system and what its harms are.

We will have the same 5 years in transition to U.S. immigration. We'll see how it unfolds.

Add a Comment

"...to the victor belong the spoils..."
William L. Marcy

The CNMI electorate has its eyes on the coming run-off gubernatorial election, set for November 23, 2009. But before we vote, I think we need to step back and take a longer view of issues, of where we've been and where we're going.

I look back on the elections I've participated in--every one since 1985--and see a disturbing trend. Party politics has something to do with this, but not everything. Politicians switch parties enough to make me think that it is not the parties that decide the course of the government, but the politicians themselves.

The trend I see is away from a government that has room for selection and advancement based on merit and toward a government that rewards campaign supporters. It seems less likely now that we will, for example, have another personal secretary who serves for decades successive governors of different parties or different factions within the parties. It seems less likely now that we will have continuity among any of the upper- or even mid-level management government officials in any government office or department.

We have a small pool of talent to begin with, because of our size, and the practice of our various political winners drawing their political appointees and new hires from among their supporters means that only a portion of our small talent pool is available to any one administration.

When a political party comes to power, its leaders tend to place many of their faithful followers into important public offices. The use of public offices as rewards for political party work is known as the "Spoils System."
U.S. History.com

The Spoils System has been seen around the world and throughout time. It has been problematic in the U.S. at times, too, especially in the 19th century, when the U.S. fell far behind other nations in civil service standards of ability and government administration. It has been addressed in large part in the federal government by the Civil Service laws.

In the CNMI, we use the Spoils System. Although we have a civil service system, we have so many jobs of all kinds that are "contract" or "excepted service" that our civil service system does not protect us against the Spoils System.

One of the first political expressions I heard when I got here was the saying: "Live by the sword, die by the sword." It was applied to the employee who had a political job in one administration and then lost it in the next. The person who made the comment was rather amused about the gamesmanship of politics.

The Spoils System in the CNMI is reinforced with the immediate profit of close family members being among the rewarded. They then vote again for their meal ticket.

What is wrong with this concept? Why wouldn't you vote for the politician who is going to give you something back, something like a job for you or your family? What is the harm in using the Spoils System?

I've got some thoughts on that subject.

* The Spoils System narrows the talent pool so that we don't have enough qualified individuals in jobs that are important. What do you do when the loyal supporter isn't getting the job done? Do you replace him with the most qualified person? Or do you ignore the problem and wait until he returns to work? Do you turn a blind eye to the repeated warnings of qualified personnel about a

0 Comments on Has the Spoils System Spoiled the CNMI? as of 1/1/1900

Add a Comment

You can read the entire post at Angelo's blog:

I am voting for Heinz Hofschneider in the gubernatorial runoff election. I fully endorse his candidacy and ask that you vote for him on November 23.

While Ben Fitial has been a supporter of Beautify CNMI, a campaign I hold very close to my heart, I cannot in good conscience vote for the man that refused to meet with concerned citizens for nearly two years concerning another very important issue, ocean conservation.

Instead of meeting with us to hear what we had to say, instead of engaging us to understand our intentions, instead of hearing our pleas to just listen, he ordered his administration to carry out a campaign appealing to the worst side of our local people. And this was not the only island issue in which he did this. And we were not the only targets of his vindictiveness.

My experience with Heinz Hofschneider was the reverse. He took the time to listen to us. He made a point to educate himself on the subject. He sought out experts that knew more about the subject than himself. And after careful consideration he made his decision.

Heinz is the type of man I want leading our people. I humbly ask you to support his bid as our next governor.

I like this endorsement because it gives specific facts and opinions, and I agree with the values expressed.

Add a Comment

It takes some courage to admit you were wrong, especially in the face of lots of publicity. The CEC is apparently willing to reconsider its decision on what is meant in our CNMI Constitution by the phrase "votes cast" and change its mind.

Where it said before that "votes cast" included all ballots, whether a vote was indicated for the legislative and popular initiatives or not, it has now concluded, according to Tina Sablan's report (and Lani Walker on KSPN news?), that the phrase "votes cast" means actual votes on the initiatives indicating a yes or no.

Thank you.

This preserves our CNMI Constitution.

I don't like the results of the election as to some of the initiatives, but what else is new?!

Display Comments Add a Comment

I know--this is too long and rambling, but still, this is how my mind sometimes works. So fwiw:

“Votes Cast”—a question of law, not politics.

The Commonwealth Election Commission has certified results from the election held November 7, 2009. It has included in its certification 1) a call for the run-off election between two governor/lieutenant governor teams; 2) a determination that none of the legislative initiatives to amend our CNMI Constitution passed; and 3) a determination that the popular initiative to change our statutory law did not pass.

Note that the newspapers immediately reported the need for a run-off election and initially reported that the legislative and popular initiatives all passed.

However, the CEC has certified results that none of the initiatives passed. Each of these three certifications depend in part on the CEC’s assessment of the number of “votes cast.”

You can see the raw numbers on the Saipan Tribune’s website: here

The Run-Off Election

There were 13,536 votes cast for governor/lieutenant governor candidates. These candidates run in teams, pursuant to our CNMI Constitution. It's very clear no candidate got more than 50% of the vote.

P.L. 16-43, codified at 1 CMC § 6509, became law in July 2009, to effectuate the House Legislative Initiative 15-16, S.D. It provides as follows:

“...a runoff election for governor and lieutenant governor is required if no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast and counted for that office.”

This language is very clear: it speaks of votes, it describes the votes as both cast and counted, and it limits the votes to those made for “that” office (meaning the offices of governor/lieutenant governor).

What are votes? When is a vote cast? When is it counted? These are the questions that seem basic and easy to answer.

A vote is generally described as an elector’s choice in an election. It is distinguished from the “ballot” which is the means or method for making the vote known. “Ballots” can be paper with ink or pencil or punch holes or they can be mechanical or electronic signals given from voting machines—and the purpose of the “ballot” is to signify or express the “vote,” which is the choice of the voter/elector.

The United States Supreme Court discussed the difference between votes and ballots in the case of Gutierrez v. Ada, 528 U.S. 25 (2000), which arose out of an election contest in Guam. The Court took the case to resolve the different interpretation that the 9th Circuit had given to the phrase “votes cast” , reading it to include the number of ballots cast in the general election, and not just the votes in the Governor/Lieutenant Governor race; the 3rd Circuit had interpreted the phrase as it applied to the Virgin Islands elections in Todman v. Boschulte, 694 F.2d 939 (3rd Cir. 1982) as limited to votes actually cast in the race, and not to the total number of ballots.

In Gutierrez v. Ada, the U.S. Supreme Court looked at the Guam Organic Act and its language calling for a runoff between the top two gubernatorial slates if one did not get a majority of the votes cast. The U.S. Supreme Court said that:

“It would be equally odd to think that after repeatedly using “votes” or “vote” to mean an expression of choice for the gubernatorial slate, Congress suddenly used “votes cast in any election” to mean “ballots cast.�

25 Comments on A Very Long Ramble on "Votes Cast" and the Initiatives, last added: 12/3/2009

Display Comments

dekada lawyer said, on 11/10/2009 7:55:00 AM

Jane, I agree with you. You did the research, which I appreciate. I think it unfortunate, though, that the OGA initiative, the budget initiative, and the PSS initiative were actually ratified.

This is the consequence of the dismal (almost nonexistent) public education and public discussion on these ballot measures. Now, if someone brings a challenge to the CEC's decision, it will be necessary to bring a counter-challenge to the substantive constitutionality of the measure in quetion or the validity of the vote in the absence of adequate public education.

The OGA initiative was one of those things that strikes a chord with public discontent (almost every legisative candidate happily expressed support) but doesn't bear up so well under close scrutiny.

As a political statement on the need for greater transparency, accountability, and genuine deliberative process, the initiative was great -- but actually enacted into law, it would have been horrible. Stanley went overboard in his criticism, but in main substance he was correct.

dekada lawyer said, on 11/10/2009 8:04:00 AM

More on the OGA initiative:

The Open Government Act as originally enacted contained no exception for the Legislature. However, the Legislature is structurally and functionally different from the executive branch. The particular mandates and prohibitions of the Open Government Act are ill-suited to the legislative process. Moreover, a major issue of constitutional dimensions arises as a consequence of inclusion of the Legislature in the coverage of the OGA. What happens in the event of violation of the OGA by the Legislature in the course of enactment of a law? Is the law invalid? This is not the kind of question the people of the CNMI need in the courts. For these reasons, the Legislature amended the OGA to exclude the Legislature from its coverage (during the first year of my service as Senate counsel).

There is a major transparency and accountability problem with the Legislature, but it is not one that this initiative will solve. Instead, if it goes into effect, the initiative will result in a host of unnecessary issues, conflict, and inefficiency. It is probably constitutionally infirm as well. See CNMI Const. art. II, sec. 14 (b) & (c) (legislative organization and procedures). Further, as a law enacted by initiative, a whole additional legal issue -- one better avoided -- arises. To what extent can the Legislature, by statute enacted pursuant to its own processes, change such a law?

As a consequence of this, a serious risk exists that the legislative response to passage of the initiative may be to repeal the OGA altogether.

I admit I signed the petition to put the measure on the ballot. I did so at Tina's request because I support the political statement she was making -- which is an important one. On the other hand, for the foregoing reasons, I did not support its actual approval into law.

dekada lawyer said, on 11/10/2009 8:13:00 AM

How does the CEC certify the results now when the election law requires absentee ballots received in the 14 days following the election to be counted?

Granted, those ballots cannot change who will be in the runoff election -- but, still, can the CEC legally certify without first counting all the votes?

And those ballots could possibly change the result in some other races. Did the CEC certify the results for the other races as well?

So we will now have a runoff election on a Monday?

Glen Hunter said, on 11/10/2009 5:37:00 PM

steve,

"What happens in the event of violation of the OGA by the Legislature in the course of enactment of a law? Is the law invalid?"

as an attorney you should be well aware that all laws are subject to some extent to being made invalid. constitutional court challenges, legislative amendments or repeals, initiative amendments or appeals, overridden by alternative laws, federal and state conflicts, etc.

adding the OGA invalidity should not be feared. If in the course of lawmaking, shortcuts are taken and the OGA is not followed and a law passes that is not acceptable to residents than they can challenge it. why not? if hearings weren't held, if notice wasn't made, than why should that bill be made into a law that should stand?


"For these reasons, the Legislature amended the OGA to exclude the Legislature from its coverage

there were other reasons that they excluded it. i read stanley's letter as i have now read yours and any layman can easily refute the claims made in both. privacy concerns are covered clearly in the OGA, the claim you raised about nullifying also is not as "surprising" as you make it appear. no law is above change or nullification and you know that. you are a lawyer as well and you know that the courts exist to hear such claims as constitutional violations, federal/state violation, etc.

there is no set and sound reason to not apply the OGA to the legislature. can it be tweaked later? sure. have digital and technological upgrades added. force webcasts of ALL public meetings and sessions. i can go on and on.

no more of this closed door nonsense, no minutes, first and final bill passage, no committee reports, no hearings, no notice, etc.

Glen Hunter said, on 11/10/2009 5:39:00 PM

steve,

i believe that the runoff legislation amended the absentee submittal date. all absentee votes needed to be here by november 7th.

in the runoff election they will give absentee voters 14 days after november 23rd to get them here.

Glen Hunter said, on 11/10/2009 5:40:00 PM

steve,

it is odd that they did not hold out on certification of the numbers until saturday so that the runoff would fall on a saturday. the way it is now the runoff will be on a monday.

Saipan Writer said, on 11/10/2009 7:54:00 PM

Wow! go home tired, wake up late and find a long ramble has lots of comments?!!

1. I agree that my analysis, if adopted by the CEC or the courts, would give us at least 2 horrible initiatives--the teacher rep initiative and the emergency budget mess.

2. I disagree that the OGA applied to the Legislature is bad. Quite the contrary--I think it would be good, needed, and beneficial for the CNMI.

3. I also disagree that it creates constitutional issues. Nothing about the OGA upsets the separation of powers--I'm baffled at your "logic" that argues this. Nothing interferes with the independence of elected representatives to exercise their judgment.

4. The government IS the people. If the people want to know what is going on, have the opportunity to be prepared before hand, and participate, they certainly should have that chance. I sincerely hope that the Legislators would not immediately rescind it.

5. There is a possibility that you are trying to justify your participation in the process that rescinded application of the OGA to the Legislature. You liked being an insider. You think you know something unusual about the inner workings of our legislature. You're defensive about your stance. But none of that is persuasive logic.

6. On challenging the other initiatives for lack of public education? Assuming the electorate is ignorant? I think a lot more education could have been done--but the CEC had the initiatives available for reading on their website. It would have been good if they had, as in 2007, made copies available at the public library and advertised that, if they had held public forums on the topics. But challenging an initiative that secures a majority vote because the people didn't understand what they were voting for? Dare I say-how offensive? how absolutely arrogant?

7. One thing all of this shows--public debate is a good thing. It would be helpful to have more of it.

Jim B. said, on 11/10/2009 9:38:00 PM

Jane:

Great post. Thanks for the analysis. By the way, I don't think it is irresponsible at all to question the results, only to suggest that some impropriety such as fraud has occurred without at least some substantiation.

Keep up the good work!

Captain said, on 11/11/2009 4:29:00 AM

Jane,
In your research I am assuming that you did not find anything along these lines that had gone to court about anything that happened in the CNMI, only the one in Guam that you referred to?
I guess that might have been the one that stuck in my mind from years ago, the one that I could not remember.

But this, I assume, sets a legal precedence that would impact any action brought to court in this particular case?
So now what,what is going to happen from here?
Is there not a deadline of 7 days to challenge the CEC, and is that not Monday?

Is Tina (or somebody else) going to officially Challenge the CEC decision?

On another area, by holding the runoff on a Monday, maybe they may hope to get less of the voters out to vote from the private sector while this admin tries to buy votes by making that a holiday.
Maybe only a co=incident.

Anonymous said, on 11/11/2009 6:00:00 AM

How do we justify spending $11,000 on a helicopter and crew to bring in four votes from the Northern Islands? Anyone heard of HF SSB radio. Which the EMO use hourly to communicate with the islands?

dekada lawyer said, on 11/11/2009 8:21:00 AM

Jane, you write:

There is a possibility that you are trying to justify your participation in the process that rescinded application of the OGA to the Legislature. You liked being an insider. You think you know something unusual about the inner workings of our legislature. You're defensive about your stance. But none of that is persuasive logic.

That is just a cheap shot. That is just not my character. That you would even write such a thing shows you don't know me very well.

I don't need to justify anything from my six years as Senate counsel. My track record and firm commitment to principle and the law during that tenure are well known, especially to those who held office or worked there during that time. It did not make me popular with certain legislators, but the respect it earned me from others, legislative staffers and many in the general public was humbling and gratifying.

Moreover, it has been nearly a decade since I served as Senate counsel. Since then I have helped hundreds directly and personally with their individual legal problems. I have no need to concern myself with whether some preceived past glory is tarnished or not. To the contrary, the fact is no one would have recalled I was there when the Legislature exempted itself from the OGA if I had not brought it up. I did so for two reasons: (1) full disclosure, and (2) from experience but present disinterest, I actually know something wherewithabout I speak.

I don't mind being an insider (when I am), not because of any prestige involved, but because of the opportunity it provides to be a positive influence.

Legislatures and executive agencies are different. The OGA is ill-suited to the organization and function of a legislature. This is why the vast majority of state legislatures are exempt.

Application of the OGA to the legislature invades territory constitutionally reserved to the legislature and, more specifically, to each legislature that is organized. See CNMI Const. art. II, sec. 14. The Constitution expressly provides that each house of each Legislature (organized every two years) "shall ... promulgate its rules of procedure." Id. sec. 14(b). The Constitution also provides that the Legislature "shall keep a journal of its proceedings," id., and that "meetings of the legislature and its committees shall be public" except when executive session is authorized by two-thirds vote. Id. sec. 14(c).

The entire field of the OGA with respect to the Legislature is occupied by the Constitution. The OGA initiative is unconstitutional.

dekada lawyer said, on 11/11/2009 8:36:00 AM

The solution to the problem that legitimately nettles OGA initiative supporters is not some linguistic magic bullet like the OGA initiative but election of a better caliber of legislators, more like Tina Sablan.

Structural solutions only go so far (especially in the Commonwealth where they are often honored more in the breach than adherence) and often create as many problems as they solve.

If the two houses of the Legislature did not suspend their rules almost routinely, stealth legislation (the principal bugaboo of OGA initiative supporters) would be a rarity. It really all boils down to how the people in office conduct themselves, and to what standards they are held by the voting public.

dekada lawyer said, on 11/11/2009 8:48:00 AM

Glen, you are right that Public Law 16-43 changed the law to require ballots to be here by election day to be counted in the general election, and allows until 14 days after the election for the runoff.

I had previously misread the law, and that is why I was thinking there was an issue on the timing of the certification. It seems there is not.

dekada lawyer said, on 11/11/2009 9:14:00 AM

Glen, there is great nobility in what Tina does, but she is not right about everything, and legal and public policy judgments should not be personalized but made objectively.

That laws are subject to challenge for constitutional infirmities or preemption by superior law, and change by subsequent repeal or amendment, is by no means justification for lack of concern about making enactments vulnerable to attack on grounds of technical procedural default. Courts and constitutional drafters guard against this, and it is the responsibility of every lawyer involved in the legislative process to take care in the drafting of legislation and in the advice given to legislators to minimize the risk of invalidity or misinterpretation. The CNMI Constitution, for example, expressly provides that violation of the single subject rule is not subject to judicial review. CNMI Const. art. II, sec. 5(b).

Confidence, stability and certainty with respect to enacted law (whether we like the law or not) is an important value and public interest, and one should never be cavilier about the risk of challenges that undermine achievement of those values.

dekada lawyer said, on 11/11/2009 9:24:00 AM

Glen, you write:

there is no set and sound reason to not apply the OGA to the legislature. can it be tweaked later? sure.

Really? Are you a lawyer? I won't say definitively it can't, but I expect you not aware that there is a body of judicial interpretation on the question of whether a law enacted by initiative can be amended by the legisature. The problem is an initiative is an act of the ultimate sovereign, the people, and thus presumptively entitled to a higher standing than acts of the people's elected representatives, one step farther away from the ultimate power.

Digital and technological upgrades? Webcasts? Great ideas, but you don't need an OGA initiative for that.

dekada lawyer said, on 11/11/2009 9:36:00 AM

Jane, you write:

the CEC had the initiatives available for reading on their website

No, they didn't. They had poor summaries (thier "public education" materials) available on the website (as Ruth Tighe has already pointed out in her On My Mind column/newsletter.

Sorry, I think this is really inexcusable. And, yes, I think many people voted "yes" without knowing or understanding what they voted for. Those who did educate themselves tended to mostly oppose the initiatives, as their public comments revealed. Moreover, many people commenting on the results on the initiatives have expressed to me the view that many people voted from ignorance, succumbing to the "if the Legislature passed it, it must be good" syndrome (which many attribute to the respect and deference to power and authority cultural characteristic).

dekada lawyer said, on 11/11/2009 9:48:00 AM

Captain, there is a deadline of seven days to file an election contest, but I don't think that applies to a ruling that the initiatives all failed ratification. I think it is intended to apply only to elective offices.

Still, I like the argument that if not challenged within seven days the decision is impervious to future attack and the initiatives are forever defeated regardless of what the correct reading of "votes cast" is. Application of such a rule would substantially further the important values of finality and certainty with respect to the success or failure of initiatives.

Saipan Writer said, on 11/11/2009 5:21:00 PM

I know I got the full text of the legislative initiatives online. I thought it was at the CEC site; perhaps it was at Joe Camacho's site. The point is, though, that the materials for the legislative nitiatives were publicly available, if not easy to find.

The popular initiative to apply the OGA to the legislature had LOTS of public education and information distributed in the community. The OGA is a public law and available to the public for consideration of whether it should apply to the Legislature or not.

I agree that we benefit with more information and better voter education. But I don't think this makes a vote illegal or unconstitutional. Voters have to take some responsibility to inform themselves.

I also agree that I do not like the results, even if the phrase "votes cast" is read to mean actual votes, and all the initiatives then pass. Ugh.

But I think it essential that we protect the initiative process and not misread the CNMI Constitution. That would be worse even than the initiatives.

I also agree with this sentiment: "The solution to the problem ... is ... a better caliber of legislators..." However, I think structural change can help that happen.

I haven't done the research on OGA as a constitutional impairment of the legislature's power. I'd have to read cases before I'm convinced , though, because I just don't see it on the basic thrust of the Constitution, laws, and your statements. That each Legislature is constitutionally empowered to set its own rules does not mean that it can do whatever it wants and is never subject to the power of the people. And the constitutional proscription to keep a journal etc. is not such a pervasive system of regulation that it pre-empts the field in any way.

I understand the arguments why some states have not applied the OGA to the legislature and I understand that you think it is not a good plan for the CNMI; I just disagree. Strongly.

As for challenging the CEC within 7 days--I think this should be narrowly applied to candidates. I have read cases where criminal laws adopted by initiative were enforced and then challenged by the alleged violators. I think a 7 day statute of limitations would be an unnecessary burden and would also make it impossible for those who actually have standing to make a case.

But I hope Tina takes the challenge on the OGA to court, within the 7 days, so as not to allow for any small argument like that against the matter.

dekada lawyer said, on 11/11/2009 5:53:00 PM

Jane, I agree with around 95 percent of your current comment.

I also agree that it is rare for a vote on a ballot measure to be invalidated on grounds of inadequate public education, and that this is a good thing.

When Tina succeeds on a challenge to the CEC decision, as she almost certainly will, we will be stuck with two bad constitutional amendments that unfortunately are probably immune to any kind of legal attack.

On the other hand, the victory on the OGA initiative will prove hollow as it ultimately will be invalidated on constitutional grounds or otherwise vitiated.

At this point, Tina and other advocates of more responsibility, transparency, deliberation, public participation, and accountability in the conduct legislative business (you and I included) have won a great victory with the expression of public sentiment reflected in the vote on the OGA initiative. By a ratio of more than two to one, CNMI voters have said they are unhappy with the way the Legislature has been doing business.

Badly written or conceived law can reflect very legitimate values, interests, and concerns. Part of our responsibility as lawyers is to work to prevent that clumsiness in expression from having negative practical effects, and that is precisely the situation we now face.

Glen Hunter said, on 11/11/2009 5:57:00 PM

by considering a blank ballot a "no" vote the CEC in essence is placing the vote for someone else. i would think that this is illegal. illegally cast votes are not counted according to Election rules. if a blank ballot comes in front of the CEC and they stamp it as a "no" they, not the voter, are choosing between the "yes" or "no" selection. a vote cast will have to mean the selection of one of the two options by a person qualified to vote in the CNMI and carried out according to our election laws. anything else should not be considered a vote cast.

if the writers of the constitution wanted 2/3rd of all registered voters to be the threshold they would have worded it that way. a blank ballot carries the same weight as a registered voter that did not show up to vote on the 7th.

Anonymous said, on 11/11/2009 5:58:00 PM

I signed the petition "on principal", but "in practice" I don't agree with it?

Try to wrap your brain around that one.

From believing in something on principal to signing a petition in support of changing a law is a BIG step.

Anonymous said, on 11/11/2009 6:00:00 PM

That makes absolute sense to me Geln.

Glen Hunter said, on 11/11/2009 6:12:00 PM

continuation

the original oga contained almost the exact language that the popular initiative seeks to reinstate. are you saying that the law that was passed in the 8th legislature unconstitutional? if so, how “stable” and “certain” was the original oga? how were laws passed before the original oga passed? did catastrophe occur in the legislature after the original oga passed? if it did, we should have heard about it. i do wonder, however, whether or not the amendment that was made in the 9th legislature to exempt the legislature from the oga was actually done in compliance with the oga. were you the senate legal counsel during both the 8th and the 9th legislature? do you remember?

you state as a lawyer that you believe that a popular initiative that amends general law can not be altered by the legislature. i am not a lawyer, but as a citizen i have found compelling case law that addresses this question and it appears that it is possible for the legislature to amend laws created through popular initiative. in fact, it has happened very recently with the rota casino initiative. and although i am not a lawyer, it is rather odd, in my opinion as a citizen, that the legislature would change a law created by popular initiative – created in other words by the will of the people. why would elected representatives of the same people go against their constituents? but that is an issue for another discussion – my point is that the legislature can change laws created by popular initiative, and it has done so in the past.

remember, steve, that the initiative simply reinserts the section that was removed by the 9th legislature. the rest of the oga defines the requirements and procedures for ensuring open records and open meetings, and what exemptions exist. when i mention digital upgrades and other amendments to make the oga better -- this initiative in no way halts or prevents that. if anything, without this initiative passing those amendments are useless when dealing with the legislature. so, first things first, apply the oga to the legislature, then tweak the other parts of the oga to create an even better law. we have already seen that the legislature does not have the political will to do it themselves. we, the people, can do it now by passing this initiative.

as you have undoubtedly seen firsthand, the legislature has passed numerous bills that never went through committee, public hearing, legislative review or even legal review. the legislature has quickly introduced and passed bills in back to back sessions in both chambers, and had them signed by the governor in less than 3 days. we have witnessed, and continue to witness, the enactment of laws that violate the constitution, that cause havoc for public services, including the retirement fund. such chaos could be avoided if we could simply ensure:

1) the ability for that citizenry to know when, where and what is going on; and

2) an active citizenry that cares about the goings-on of government and is actively involved.

we have the latter in people like you, tina, ruth, jane, ron, jim, wendy, and many others. we have yet to have the former. tina was able to help out in that respect over the last 2 years with emails, website updates, event notification, press conferences, post session overviews and meeting notes. we need this to be more general and lasting and we need it not to be tied to a sole legislator who cares. applying the oga to the legislature is the only way to ensure that we know what is going on. as we begin to care more we will begin to elect people to the legislature who embody the higher standards for public service that we all think are needed. the more we know the more we care.

thank you, steve, for this lively and thought-provoking discussion. thank you, jane, for the forum to express ourselves.

glen

Glen Hunter said, on 11/11/2009 6:12:00 PM

steve,

it is nearly impossible to keep things from being personal to some extent. please try to keep in mind that my opinions expressed are mine and not tina's. you stated that she is not right about everything. i don't think that is at all relevant and i hope that you realize that you and i are also imperfect.

i am not a lawyer. i am a citizen. i am one of thousands of citizens who worked tirelessly to get this popular (not legislative) initiative to change a general law (not the constitution) placed on the ballot. that was achieved not by one person but by many concerned individuals, some of whom were lawyers.

you spoke of stability and certainty with respect to our laws. you worked for the senate for a decade and you have lived here long enough to know that “stability”and “certainty” are the exception rather than the rule when it comes to our laws in the cnmi. our laws are ever-changing at the whims of the legislature. the application of the open government act to the legislature is a prime example. it was passed into law and then amended only a few months later.

if your major concern is stability and certainty of laws then you should embrace rather than shun the application of the oga to the legislature. a big reason for the current instability and uncertainty with respect to laws is the fact that, as you have pointed out, the legislature routinely suspends or ignores its own rules, and much of the legislation that gets passed is not properly scrutinized by legal eyes and the general public. applying the oga to the legislature would require more scrutiny through open meetings, public notice, record keeping, and record inspection, and will go a long way towards ensuring that legislation is not passed as quickly and stealthily as it often is today. our laws in the long run would be more stable and more certain, and there would be more public confidence in the legislative process.

does that mean that at times the legislature might violate the law and pass a bill that does not comply with oga requirements? yes.

does the legislature pass laws now that contradict other laws and violate the constitution? yes.

should laws that contradict other laws or that violate the constitution in any way or for any reason be allowed to stand? i think not. such laws should be challenged and that is what the courts are for. people challenge laws all the time. the stability of a law is never guaranteed and i don’t have to be a lawyer to know that. i merely have to look at the many laws that have been passed, amended, repealed, and reenacted over the years.

you assert that applying the oga to the legislature is unconstitutional. how do you know that? what is your assertion based on? i have seen court cases that have stated otherwise. my point is, a statement like that is extremely misleading to the general public – especially coming from a lawyer.

to be continued

Glen Hunter said, on 11/11/2009 9:52:00 PM

many people feel compelled to turn a blind eye to applying the rule of law to the term "votes cast". they have told me that it would be best to not draw attention to the oga dispute because if that is done and the oga passes then the 3 other initiatives pass, as well.

while i did not vote "yes" on any of the other three initiatives and i do not wish that they be ratified into law, i can not turn a blind eye to the proper initiative process in order to prevent that from occurring.

my bigger fear is that the bar for the public initiative process will be set much to high and a precedent would be created that will discourage citizens from using this powerful tool to directly influence law. if the CEC is able to count ballots as votes cast there is a very real chance that initiatives could never ever be passed into law.

the harm that would occur in that case would be much greater than the 3 other initiatives passing. those can be amended and altered in time (perhaps by public initiative).

one important note is that the 3 other initiatives were passed through the legislature. the legislature did not apply the standards in the open government act and thus those 3 initiatives were not subject to public scrutiny (harming the educational aspects as well as the legal concerns).

had the oga been applicable by law prior to these 3 initiatives being introduced we very well may never have had them placed on the ballots in the form they are in now.

should we be having to force our elected representatives to hold public hearings? show us agendas? let us review minutes? conduct open meetings?

sadly, yes.

Anonymous said, on 11/11/2009 11:23:00 PM

I get it. Because we don't like the initiatives, we shouldn't challenge the CEC's incorrect action on them? Comprende?

Funny to watch you guys tear yourselves apart. First it was the nonresident clubs going at it. Now it is the resident flubs going at it.

Divide and conquer works well.

Jane said, on 11/11/2009 11:36:00 PM

Anon,
I don't think we're tearing ourselves apart. I think all of those who actually support the OGA are also in support of following the law, even if that means putting up with initiatives we don't like.

It's those who are opposed to the OGA who are trying to dissuade the challenge, if you didn't notice.

Glen Hunter said, on 11/12/2009 12:14:00 AM

discussion and exploration of issues doesn't always have to result in parties dividing or even one side or the other being crowned a victor.

this is very constructive dialogue. this type of open conversation is what builds civic minded individuals that learn to question rather than blindly follow.

it is my understanding that we all pretty much agree that the matter of the initiatives passing into law will most likely (and should in my opinion) be decided on by the courts at the end of the day.



"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me."
~Dudley Field Malone

dekada lawyer said, on 11/12/2009 12:21:00 AM

I don't know who is "trying to dissuade the challenge," but it certainly is not me.

To the contrary, I am assuming Tina will challenge and win. The problem with that victory is not the result she will seek to achieve -- a ruling that the OGA initiative was approved -- but the two bad constitutional amendments that will as a consequence also be deemed ratified.

Since so far as I have seen, I am the only person here who sees a problem with applying the OGA to the Legislature, the insinuation in the recent post is unsettling.

It is also misplaced and inappropriate. I too am firmly committed to following the law. It is I who pointed out the constitutional issue involved, and supporters of imposing the OGA on the Legislature who have dismissed that concern. Is not the Constitution also part of the law?

I am troubled by the venom with which proponents of the OGA initiative are advocating their position, often lowering the tone of the debate to the level of personal attack, sarcasm, disdain, and subtle misstatement of what a person with a different view has said.

I had a long and thoughtful response to Glen's first of a series lengthy post, but lost it to the ether when my Internet connection failed after I pressed preview (and I had foolishly neglected to first copy it to the clipboard).

Glen Hunter said, on 11/12/2009 12:31:00 AM

steve,

please regard any venom that you may find visible in my comments to technological limitations with this medium of communication and my haste in typing and hitting send without proper review and alteration.

no venom is/was intended.

dekada lawyer said, on 11/12/2009 12:35:00 AM

Glen, I like the Dudley Field Malone quote.

I agree, as you say, that we need this to be more general and lasting and we need it not to be tied to a sole legislator who cares, but I do not agree that the OGA initiative is the way to achieve this end.

The OGA initiative is like using a blunt instrument to perform brain surgery.

dekada lawyer said, on 11/12/2009 12:36:00 AM

As I stated multiple times, I was Senate counsel for six years -- not a decade.

Glen Hunter said, on 11/12/2009 12:37:00 AM

if the CEC decides to count ballots as votes, i do hope that one or a group of the 7,330 citizens that voted "yes" to the oga also find fault with the "votes cast" methodology of the CEC and pursue a legal remedy.

i hope it is not tina that has to challenged this. it was a popular initiative and therefor anyone (even one that voted against it) can challenge the CEC final decision.

Anonymous said, on 11/12/2009 12:38:00 AM

I don't see any venomous remarks or personal attacks here from proponents of the OGA initiative, or from anyone really. One might disagree with the remarks, that doesn't make them venomous or personal.

I think most people just want to see the votes properly counted. I personally supported the OGA, but I also voted against the other initiatives and was strongly opposed to the last one especially. The CEC has never counted ballots cast instead of actual votes cast on initiatives before. Past practice, election law, the constitution, election regulations, and case law suggest that the CEC shouldn't be counting ballots cast instead of actual votes cast now.

dekada lawyer said, on 11/12/2009 12:40:00 AM

Thanks, Glen. I appreciate the anti-venom.

Glen Hunter said, on 11/12/2009 12:46:00 AM

steve,

the earliest brain surgeons ( used blunt lava stones (obsidian) to perform the operations.

it was crude but at the time was better than nothing. over time we have honed the skill but even today we are still learning so much in the field of brain surgery.

maybe 1000 years from today they will consider the scalpel a "blunt instrument" compared to high tech lasers or other still unknown unintrusive techniques.

my point: using the blunt oga instrument to ensure that our laws are enacted with full public knowledge is so much better than no assurance that we have now and have had.

we can in time hone the oga to be a more precise tool. almost all of the states did just that. some still apply an oga type law to the legislature, some have changed it a bit and others have created other forms of the the same tool specific to just the legislative branch.

dekada lawyer said, on 11/12/2009 12:56:00 AM

As I have made clear, the CEC ruling that the initiatives all failed is legally indefensible.

If no one challenges, the decision stands and none of the initiatives can be implemented or enforced.

However we look at it, we are faced with an unsatisfactory state of affairs.

It is probably best that this abomination of a ruling be challenged promptly, so that this error is not left unresolved to contaminate future elections.

I also agree with Jane that it is best to meet the 7 day deadline, which is almost upon us. Existing court precedent in the CNMI points to strict construction of this deadline and suggests no exception for ballot measures as opposed to elective offices (despite Jane's and my view of this distinction).

Glen Hunter said, on 11/12/2009 12:59:00 AM

steve,

thanks so much for the 7 day information. i really did not even look into that or have any knowledge of that as applied to initiatives. i will see if someone can make a last minute appeal.

hand me that blunt exemption, please said, on 11/12/2009 12:59:00 AM

the legislature's action to completely exempt themselves from the OGA strikes me as a good example of taking a blunt instrument to perform brain surgery.

=)

Saipan Writer said, on 11/12/2009 1:52:00 AM

There have been all kinds of suggestions made--not necessarily on this blog--that challenging the initiatiatives would be a bad thing.

I disagree. It took me a little while to firm up that position, because of the practical effect regarding the other initiatives. But the need for clarity on our constitution and its meaning weighs strongly in favor of the challenge.

As repeated by me and the posters here so far, the courts are the place where the decision should be made.

I also disagree with the comments in the newspaper that people should leave their governor choice blank on the run-in election as a way of testing the "votes cast" language. That would be real suicide. Vote for one of the two candidates in the run-off. VOTE!

I'm not sure when the deadline actually is for a challenge for the initiatives, but I agree with Steve it is safest to meet the most restrictive deadline and that is 7 days from the certification.

Steve, do you know if the 7 days is calendar days or business days?

Anonymous said, on 11/13/2009 2:09:00 PM

6 years in the Senate shyster? No wonder we have such crummy laws on the books.

dekada lawyer said, on 11/13/2009 6:59:00 PM

Actually, Noni, it is well established that the highest quality legislative product was during my tenure at the Senate, Maya Kara's at the House, and Joel Bergsma's and Tim Bellas's at the House (in the 3rd Legislature when Benigno Fital was Speaker -- not to be read as an endorsement of Ben's gubernatorial ticket).

Saipan Writer said, on 11/13/2009 7:14:00 PM

Ah, Steve, I see you got here to comment before I did.

I have never done a comparison of the various Legislatures to even know which ones I think did the best job (although I do remember the 3rd Legislature did a lot of legislating).

But the point I think is most important is to recognize that it is not the lawyers /legislative counsels who make or enact our laws; it is our elected Legislators, and they are ultimately responsible.

Besides passing the laws, they also choose who to hire as their lawyers. So while Senate and House counsel (the Legislative Bureau) have some influence as guides and advisors, they are not responsible for the laws we get.

If only we would get to the point of recognizing who is actually responsible for things, we could do a better job of creating the kind of community we want.

dekada lawyer said, on 11/13/2009 9:52:00 PM

Jane, I believe it is calendar days. The 7 days runs from the date of discovery of the facts supporting the contest. The election code also has an absolute 15-day limitations period. If it were working days, a certification on a Friday would mean 11 of the 15 days would already have expired by the time the 7 days had run.

In Atalig v. Inos, 2006 MP 1, the Supreme Court relied on a statement in Mundo v. Superior Court, 4 N.M.I. 395 (1996), a case arising under the old election law, that "election statutes are to be construed strictly," to hold that the 7 days are to be counted from the earliest possible date that an argument can be made that the person challenging the election knew sufficient facts to bring a contest, notwithstanding that the plaintiff might not at that time yet know sufficient facts to support the contention, also required by the statute, that the error in the election was sufficient to change the result (actual prejudice).

Construction that strict, I think, would require the 7 days to be read as calendar days.

Atalig facts: election Nov. 5, 2005. Absentee ballots counted and results certified Nov. 19, 2005.
Inos beats Atalig by 11 votes. 72 absentee ballots Commonwealth-wide neither opened nor counted. CEC refuses to provide a break-down of how many of the 72 rejected ballots (missing or illegible postmarks) pertained to the election on Rota Nov. 28, 2005. Complaint filed Dec. 2, 2005

Saipan Writer said, on 11/13/2009 10:13:00 PM

Thanks, Steve.

Strict interpretation might very well support a reading for calendar days.

dekada lawyer said, on 11/14/2009 5:59:00 AM

Fortunately, now that the CEC has reversed its earlier blunder (I wonder where that came from in the first place), nobody has to worry about it this year (at least so long as nothing in the runoff calls for a contest).

Add a Comment

We have an election to vote in this week. The field is less inspiring that many of us would like. Nonetheless, it is important to vote, to choose the lesser of evils, the more capable, the more likely to lead.

The following are my OPINIONS only.

I've been in Saipan for nearly 25 years (that anniversary comes 11/30). I've voted in every election since I got here.

I hate it when any U.S. citizen who lives here talks as if she has no interest, right, or responsibility to vote in local elections. I hate it even more when they claim ignorance. (These are mostly haoles, like me.) It's important that we exercise this freedom, that we educate ourselves. And it's the lowest form of arrogance and lack of commitment to community that leads eligible voters to slack off and fail to vote. I guess, I feel more disgust toward the non-voters than I do toward even our worst candidate.

I also hear a lot of reasons from various people about what influences their decisions. Some try to guess in advance who is likely to win--they want to be part of the winner's circle. They want to back a winner. I think this is stupid and irrational. This is not a horse-race. It's not a popularity contest. And deciding to vote because everyone else is going that way is not much better than not voting at all. I think every voter should make up his or her own mind and follow his or her own conscience in choosing whom to vote for.

There is a strong pull to vote for family members. I understand this. Family members are people we love, people we know, people to whom we owe family loyalty and devotion and respect. And candidates do need to know they have family support, or they'll never be able to withstand the pressures and temptations of public office. So I don't think this concept should be discounted completely. But I do think it is just one factor to consider and shouldn't be the only factor, or even the most important factor. If all other factors were equal, then I could see choosing the closest family member.

But it's rare that all other factors are equal. What are those factors? This is a difficult list to comprise. I like intelligent and honest candidates; but I also want those who tend to lean in the same political direction that I do (which is toward the liberal side that respects civil rights, promotes equality, relies on education, and protects the environment, and places these considerations above personal wealth, which is often wrapped up in the name of the "economy," and ahead of personal ambition).

So my assessment of some of our candidates for office?

Governor-Lieutenant Governor:
Fitial-Inos. (Covenant) I see Fitial as intelligent but less than honest. He's in favor of shutting off public access to information about the workings of government. He elevates the needs of individual businessmen above the rights of workers. He has an angle with a profit motive for every problem. I don't see him as a leader so much as a profiteer who wants the power and position to increase his own wealth and situation. He would be at the bottom of my list for Governor; and there is nothing about Inos that makes me want to vote for the ticket.

Juan Pan Guerrero-Camacho. (Independent) Juan Pan is another businessman who has been very willing to take from the CNMI government whatever he could. His recruitment deals for his company Paras Enterprises have been riddled with questions, both for public agency deals and private recruitment scandals. His contributions to the Red Cross do not cancel or outweigh his history. I don't see him as friendly toward rights or equality or the environment. JJ Camacho has a public record of voting. He's been very good at sharing information and making the House record accessible, and this is his great contribution. But I disagree with nearly every vote he's made. He's a backer of Fitial's agenda. To me, a vote for this team is the same as a vote for Fitial-Inos. And that would be a no.

Ray Guerrero-Borja. (Independent) Uncle Ray is family. That said, in all honesty, I don't think he's got the imagination or ideas to address the challenges of the office. Recycling his old slogan is an example of how worn-out he seems. Borja is a bright spot on the ticket. I think he's intelligent and capable. But he's not enough. I'd rather see this ticket prevail, though, than either Fitial-Inos or Pan Guerrero-Camacho, despite the extreme unlikelihood of that happening.

Hofschneider-Palacios. (Republican) Heinz has been in the CNMI Legislature a long time and we don't have all that much good to show from his work. Same for Arnold. Heinz has brains, but often fails to listen to other intelligent voices. Arnold cares little for the environment and would just as soon see his own interests take precedence. Despite the weaknesses of this team, though, I think they offer the best of a bad lot. I think Heinz appreciates the need for open government; and both could work hard to balance the extremely divergent interests of our community.


Senator from Saipan We're supposed to vote for two:

CAMACHO, Paul William (Independent) I know very little about this candidate. Most notably missing from his webpage bio is his education. We need smart, educated public officials. Even his experience is a bit thin. I'm not impressed. This is a likely no for me.

CRUZ, Gregorio Sanchez (Independent) Greg has gained notoriety of sorts for his Taotao Tano. I admire his willingness to stick his neck out, to complain, to demand answers, to be a loud mouth. But there's also some question whether his opinions are his own, or whether he's just the puppet. And again, what educational qualifications do we have here? This is a likely no for me.


SABLAN, Christina Marie Elise (Independent) Summa cum laude from College of Santa Fe. A term of experience in the House. The ability to articulate issues and generate discussions on hot issues; the ability to listen as others speak; the ability to open doors and documents for public view; the desire and attention to public rights and the environment. We are so lucky to have Tina as a candidate. I hope she wins by a landslide. YES, YES, YES. (Can I give her both of my votes?)

TEREGEYO, Ana Sablan (Covenant) She's on facebook, but mostly she's from a generation that has retired. I respect Ana Teregeyo and know she's intelligent. I disagree with her politics and even where I don't, I think she's not going to bring the energy and vision we need to the CNMI Senate. For me-a no.

KAIPAT, Jacinta Matagolai (Covenant) She educated (holding a law degree) and intelligent, and cares about the environment. She's on Facebook and has a unique grasp of both modern technology and the best of our cultural history. But she also supports Governor Fitial's vision of a segregated work-force, with foreign workers consigned to low pay and no rights--a two-tiered system that is a violation of civil liberties and an evil. And she's blind to the problems of this labor system. I can't support her candidacy.

QUITUGUA, Justo Songao (Democrat) He's intelligent and educated, and has been an educator himself. He has experience in the House and has authored bills promoting different kinds of education reform--a mixed bag in my opinion. The good being to promote vocational training in our public schools; the less good to give money to Tony Pellegrino for his private business ventures to do similarly. He failed to support the national marine monument; and he hasn't been much in favor of civil rights. He's a Democrat in name, and we could use a few more of those in our local politics, but I'm on the fence here.

REYES, Pete Pangelinan (Republican) He's intelligent and values education, giving us his intelligent and educated children. He's also been in the Senate a very long time, so knows the ropes. On the other hand, his very experience also counts somewhat against him--we need change. We need a different kind of leadership that depends less on entrenched politics and more on deep thinking and analysis. I'm on the fence here, too.

TORRES, Ralph Anthony Deleon Guerrero (Republican) Aack. He's young, intelligent, and educated--and more caught up in the old-boys network and hardening-of-the-arteries thinking than most of the old-timers. I see nothing positive from his time in the House and nothing that makes me think he's a leader. He's got a well-oiled machine, and there is nothing good I can say about that kind of politics. For me-a definite no.


Mayor of Saipan.
CAMACHO, Antonio Muna (Independent) Old style politician. Pleasant and friendly and smart. But too long out of the loop. Not my choice.

TENORIO, Lino Sablan (Independent) A lackluster career at DPS. Not my choice.

BENAVENTE, Roman Cepeda (Independent) Smart, friendly, and caring. A history of public service. If Angelo weren't in the race, I'd consider him for the job.

SANCHEZ, Jose Deleon Guerrero (Independent) I know little about him. He's a former educator, so I'm guessing he's intelligent, but not my choice.

DEMAPAN, Juan Sablan (Independent) Supports casino gambling in Saipan. Too much baggage of questionable nature. (I couldn't find the link to the Tinian school construction debacle.) A definite no.

TAMAN, Candido Babauta (Independent)Good singer. Opposed the national marine monument. I think he supports Fitial. We need a different kind of voice, imho. No for senate.

TUDELA, Marian Deleon Guerrero (Covenant) Intelligent. Director of Upward Bound; but bound to the Covenant party and Fitial's views. That would be a no for me.

VILLAGOMEZ, Angelo O’Connor (Democrat). Intelligent, educated, and dedicated to environmental concerns. He's got loads of energy and vision. He's done a lot to organize people and protect our environment. This would be a big YES in my book.

FLORES, Donald Glenn (Republican) Intelligent, educated. I sometimes like his letters in the newspapers. But I'm worried that he's going to promote business interests, not human interests. There's a difference. I'm not against business--but I think we need government to be on the side of people, or, at the very least, neutral when it comes to the differences between business interests and human interests and needs.


House-Precinct 5: Vote for 2
MENDIOLA, Joseph Muna (Independent)--I don't know much about this guy. He doesn't seem to have a lot of education or a track record that makes me want to go out and vote for him. Any one else have more details?

DELEON GUERRERO, Frederick Peters (Independent) He's too close to Covenant for me.

QUITUGUA, Daniel Ogo (Covenant)--Not my party. That would be no. And to be clear, I don't usually care what party a candidate is. I'll vote for whomever I think is best. But I see the Covenant party members as lining up behind Fitial's agenda, and I disagree with that so vehemently, I can't support any of these Covenant candidates (or the independents who are Covenant in disguise).

BASA, Ramon Sablan (Covenant)--Not my party.(See note above) That would be no.

BRUNDIDGE Jr., Willie Lee (Democrat)--He's got a job now. I see no reason to want him in the House.

TORRES, Jesse David Jones (Democrat). I love his letters to the editor in the newspapers and his support of community projects. I think he's got the brains, education, energy and values that I want in a Congressman. That would be YES!

DEMAPAN, Jose Sablan (Republican). Did he buy a counterfeit diploma from a Spokane diploma mill? I'm not otherwise sure of his background. DPW-right? I'm hesitant to vote for him.

SANTOS, Rosemond Blanco (Republican) Rosemond is definitely smart and educated. I'm disappointed in her performance this past term. Too many absences from voting sessions. Nothing much I agreed with, except her vote for the budget.

Well, express your opinions here--or at the ballot box where it really counts.

Display Comments Add a Comment