SOS in trouble

Don Francisco Trujillo

Welcome to The Independent Forum. Every week we ask a different question and solicit responses from a diverse group of New Mexico thinkers, pundits and other observers of the state’s political landscape. We’ll add more responses as they come in, so keep checking back to see how the conversation progresses.

We also invite readers to participate — so please share your thoughts on this question in the comments section. If you have suggestions for how we can improve this feature or have have an idea for a future question, send us an e-mail.

Last week, embattled Secretary of State Mary Herrera named Deputy Secretary of State Don Francisco Trujillo to be the state elections director. But former elections director A.J. Salazar has contended that Trujillo is one of the “elements of corruption” in the SOS office. Trujillo does have experience serving as the interim director of the Bureau of Elections in 2008 and in 2009.

So this week’s question is:

QUESTION: “Should Don Francisco Trujillo serve as state elections director?”

PAUL GESSING, president of the Rio Grande Foundation:

Don Francisco Trujillo: Isn’t he the guy who’s caused all the problems? And now he’s running the show?

STEVEN ROBERT ALLEN, executive director of Common Cause:

Common Cause New Mexico has worked on voter protection issues for many years. Personally, Don Francisco Trujillo has always been friendly and helpful with me, and he does have some election administration expertise acquired through several years of service in the Secretary of State’s office. Also, the County Clerks essentially run elections in this state, so in many ways the Bureau of Elections Director only plays a supporting role.

That said, County Clerks have often mentioned to me that this support –or lack thereof — can be very important. Although I have no idea what the internal working conditions are like at the Secretary of State’s office, it’s problematic to have this much turnover at the top of the Bureau of Elections. The director, at least in theory, is supposed to lead elections in the state of New Mexico, but for months and months
leading up to the 2008 general election, there really was no director in the Bureau of Elections. Not a good thing.

To have this kind of highly public conflict in an election year, just a couple months before the primary, is troubling to say the least. A similar public spat occurred last year regarding a gentleman at the Secretary of State’s office charged with fixing our state’s
dysfunctional online campaign reporting system — a big public blow-up was followed by a lot of finger pointing. We still don’t have a fully functional online campaign reporting system (although a representative from the Secretary of State’s office recently showed me an impressive trial system that hasn’t yet been implemented).

We need stability and we need leadership, and up to this point these things have been in short supply at the Secretary of State’s office.

RICHARD ANKLAM, president and executive director of the New Mexico Tax Research Institute, former director of tax policy for the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department:

The position serves at the pleasure of the Secretary of State.  The reason for such appointed positions is so the executive can “pick her team” of people she feels can serve her and her office best. Appointed positions in New Mexico and other states have certainly been abused in the past and some have been filled with unqualified people. However, many or most of those appointed positions exist for a reason.  Mr. Salazar has served in this particular position before and is apparently qualified.  His boss wants him in the job.  Allegations have been made, but that’s all they are at the moment-allegations. So, Secretary of State Herrera has every right to appoint him if that’s who she feels is best for the job.  The way it’s supposed to work is the voters should hold accountable any elected official who can’t adequately perform the duties of their office, which includes the judgment exercised in their appointments.  Denying any elected official the flexibility to appoint those otherwise qualified and of good character simply ties their hands and provides them excuses for jobs not well done.