Toulouse Oliver’s actions provoked legal challenges
Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver’s unlawful attempt to unilaterally impose straight-party voting was unanimously smacked down by the New Mexico Supreme Court, which found that previous legislative efforts to either ban or require straight-party voting were proof that legislators had not delegated, but rather retained, plenary authority over elections. Unfortunately, her lawless hyper-partisanship is not an isolated example. New Mexicans are already on the hook for her attack against the (U.S. Rep. Steve) Pearce (gubernatorial) campaign to the tune of $133,000 — not including her attorney fees, and the costs associated with the straight-party voting debacle are still undisclosed.
Toulouse Oliver’s crusade against churches and charities will likely provoke similarly robust legal challenges, given the Supreme Court’s reasoning. In 2017, SB 96 (which included campaign finance disclosures), failed to gain sufficient traction in the Legislature to override the governor’s veto, a defeat that seems stingingly similar to the situation with straight-party voting. Once again undeterred by lack of legal authority, she forged ahead with a rule that is simultaneously unconstitutional at both the state and federal levels and ultimately constitutes a threat not only to free speech but also to public safety. The only thing in doubt is whether state or federal courts will strike it down first.
If your pastor, rabbi or imam even mentions politics in any way, perhaps urging you to vote your values, to vote pro-life, or to vote in support of marriage equality, Toulouse Oliver believes she has the right to force your congregation to turn over the names and home addresses of all its members. Saccharine bromides about transparency and the public interest cannot gloss over the possibility of angry mobs from Antifa or Westboro Baptist Church pursuing donors all the way home to their private residences.
Just as she did with straight-party voting, Toulouse Oliver disregarded any suggestion she might be wrong, including testimony that her proposed rule could lead to “threats, harassment, or reprisals” against charitable and religious donors . ...
New Mexico needs a new secretary of state who recognizes that their role is only to administer the laws as written while putting personal politics on ice. If they want to make laws, as was said at the Supreme Court, they should “resign and run for the Legislature.”