Walt Rubel Commentary: Petition rejection a familiar play

I don’t trust the Las Cruces city government to faithfully execute the citizen’s referendum process.

In 2014 a group of politically active residents on the left headed by the faith-based public advocacy group CAFE launched a petition drive to increase the minimum wage. Members of the City Council were not pleased.

When the effort was successful, the Council had two choices under the law. They could pass the ordinance as written by the petitioners, or they could put it up for a vote in the next general election. Then the city attorney invented a loophole.

Yes, the law says you must pass the ordinance, he advised members of the Council. But there’s nothing that says you can’t just repeal or change it with your next order of business. Which is what they did.

This year, a group of politically active residents on the right launched a petition drive in opposition to the city’s new zoning ordinance called Realize Las Cruces. And, once again, members of the City Council were not pleased. 

This time the City Council didn’t rely on slimy lawyer’s tricks to avoid the horrors of having their decisions put to the test by a vote of the people. They simply relied on the tried and true method of rejecting every petition that was not filled out perfectly.

Las Cruces resident Sarah Smith, who led the petition drive, said they collected 4,671 signatures, far more than the 3,240 needed. But only 2,547 were deemed valid, meaning a whopping 2,123 were rejected.

Before going any further, I should probably make clear that I support Realize Las Cruces. I think the changes will be good for the city, and I would eagerly vote for it if given the opportunity.

But as much as I support the new ordinance, I support democracy more. And, elected leaders picking and choosing which signatures are valid based on political expediency is not good for our democracy. Those arguing that petitions should be rejected today will be arguing that mail-in ballots with the exact same irregularities must be accepted in November.

It’s unfortunate that racial division was injected into an already difficult discussion. City Council member Joanna Bencomo claimed that those opposed to the new ordinance have “segregationist tendencies.” Fellow Council Member Yvonne Flores likened zoning opponents to racists demanding school segregation in El Paso when she was a child. 

Maybe. Or, maybe they just like seclusion and tranquility. Maybe they have invested their life’s savings into that house and are legitimately concerned that the property value might go down. I can’t look into their hearts and make that determination.

Ultimately, I don’t think these decisions by the City Council are about zoning or the minimum wage. I don’t think they're about supporting liberal causes or conservative causes. I think they’re about power. It doesn’t seem to matter which side is launching the referendum, City Council members respond reflexively by defending their turf.

I understand that every decision required to operate the government can’t be put to a popular vote, which is why we have a representative democracy. But there’s nothing wrong with letting voters weigh in on the big decisions every now and then.


Walter Rubel can be reached at [email protected]

Listen to the audio version