A district judge ruled that a Democrat running for office who filed some of her paperwork late can remain on the ballot despite arguments from Republicans that she should be disqualified.
The ruling on Sept. 11 came after a hearing considering Sarah Silva's disqualification as the Democratic nominee for the state House of Representatives District 53 race in eastern Las Cruces and Doña Ana County. It follows other procedural issues that have clouded the race for the Democrats.
In court records and an interview with the Las Cruces Bulletin, Silva acknowledged that she filed her financial disclosure statement—a document revealing the financial interests of state lawmakers and officials, such as income sources and landholdings—two days after the deadline.
It’s a common mistake, according to Secretary of State General Counsel Peter Auh. Auh said that about 200 of the 712 officials required to file failed to file financial disclosure statements on time. Most come into compliance after being contacted, Auh said.
“That is the legislative intent behind the Financial Disclosure Act,” Auh said. “Education and voluntary compliance are the hallmarks of the (law).” He said that since filing, Silva was considered to be in compliance and that, in the view of the Secretary of State’s office, “there hasn't been the kind of violation as alleged by the plaintiff.”
While it might be a common mistake, Silva’s late filing came well after a deadline meant to be the final opportunity to comply with the law.
District Judge Manuel Arrieta did not rule on whether Silva should be disqualified based on the law. Instead, he found that the plaintiff, a Republican voter and party operative in District 53, did not have standing to sue Silva. Standing, in the context of a civil lawsuit, means the plaintiff has some identifiable injury that the court can correct.
“It has to be a genuine and legitimate interest, not something broad and simple, such as general interest in the enforcement of financial disclosure laws or other statutes, and that is essentially what the plaintiff has brought here today,” said Mark Standridge, who represented Silva in the hearing.
Carter Harrison, an Albuquerque attorney who often represents Republicans in election code disputes, argued that the code allows voters to bring qualification challenges forward and that the court was empowered to disqualify Silva based on the voter's complaint.
Judge Arrieta said the Financial Disclosure Act clearly states a person who fails to file paperwork before the deadline should be disqualified. The law provides candidates with a grace period to submit their reports; however, because Silva became a candidate so late in the process, she had no such period, Arrieta noted.
Aside from that, Arrieta said it’s the responsibility of the State Ethics Commission to bring a lawsuit, not a voter.
Irregular process
Silva did not win the March primary to become the Democratic nominee for District 53. She wasn’t even a candidate.
That race featured Jon Hill, an education professional, who beat incumbent Rep. Willie Madrid by 188 votes. Hill was set to face Republican Elizabeth Winterrowd in November, but he withdrew from the race in August after falling ill. He died two weeks later.
Silva, a long-time Las Cruces community organizer, was one of three people who volunteered to fill the vacancy. With Hill’s endorsement, Silva won the nomination on Aug. 24, a Saturday when many state party officials were in Chicago for the Democratic National Convention. The process also drew heat since none of the seven party officials who appointed Silva were from Chaparral, the state’s largest colonia.
To qualify as a candidate, Silva must provide the New Mexico Secretary of State’s office with certification from her party that she won the post-primary nomination, a declaration of her candidacy and the financial disclosure statement via an online portal.
Silva said she submitted most of the documentation on Aug. 26, a Monday, but got hung up on the financial disclosure form.
“The information that is requested is pretty straightforward,” Silva said. “But the ‘submit’ button was never highlighted for me. It never activated, so I couldn't click submit on the website.”
When she asked Democratic Party officials about it, she said they suggested that she had more time to fill it out. But after the deadline passed, the party officials took a different tone.
“On the 28th, I texted the finance team, and I'm like, ‘Hey, I still haven't filled this out. I'd like to just get it done.’ And they're like, ‘Wait, you haven't submitted that yet?’ And then that's when the freak out happens,” Silva said.
According to the form's timestamp, Silva submitted the statement on Aug. 29 just after 9 a.m.
The statement itself is sparse in information. It lists her occupation as a consultant “specializing in organizational development, community organizing, mediation and generative conflict,” and some landholding in Sierra County.
However, the Financial Disclosure Act says the candidate should be disqualified if the statement is not submitted 70 days before the election (Aug. 27). Silva’s submission came in after that deadline.
Voter argues for disqualification
District 53 voter Megan Rupp and a local Republican Party official filed the lawsuit, arguing that Silva’s missed deadline was grounds for disqualification.
Rupp, who participates in voter turnout efforts and party governance for the county Republicans, said her lawsuit was not about opposing Silva’s candidacy on personal grounds. But rules are rules, Rupp said, adding that she doesn’t feel like those rules are applied the same for Democrats and Republicans.
Rupp referred to the earlier disqualification of Republican state House candidate Ronnie Sisneros in District 37. Sisneros was disqualified because he altered his nominating petitions, changing the top of some of his forms from “House of Representatives” to “Statehouse.”
“If it is going to be required that a GOP member not even be allowed to be on the ballot based on paperwork, based on the clerk, then I just didn't think it was fair that (Silva) be given a dispensation,” Rupp said.
Doña Ana County Amanda López Askin denied that claim and pointed to her disqualification of Democrats and Republicans at the start of this year’s election cycle.
“It doesn’t do anything for us to keep people off the ballot,” López Askin said, adding that her office is not involved in any campaign finance processes, such as financial disclosure statements.
As the Bulletin previously reported, López Askin’s office found that the disqualified candidates failed to qualify either because they lacked signatures or, as in Sisneros’ case, they altered paperwork that state law explicitly holds cannot be altered.
She told the Bulletin that her office thoroughly reviews each case and looks for ways not to disqualify any candidate, regardless of party affiliation. That process involves layers of review before a disqualification is made.
"They will see an issue and I have to make the final decision,” López Askin said. “So, if there's anything in a gray area, they'll come and they'll say, ‘Hey, we noticed this.’”
López Askin, who has been county clerk since 2018, also pointed out that her judgement on disqualifications is often challenged in court.
“I have been sued by the Republican Party many, many times,” López Askin said. “I've been here for all of six years, and I do not believe that there's one case in which my judgment has been disagreed with by a judge. … I do my best to make decisions that are fair and impartial and always benefit the voter,” López Askin said.
She also pointed out that, in a society rife with misinformation about election integrity, news articles about lawsuits that go nowhere can give credence to false claims of fraudulent elections.
“And so, whether this was just a very administrative process in which they filed, or they didn't file – it doesn't matter, because there's going to be a story that's going to say the county clerk is biased, and then that feeds that narrative of doubts in our elections,” she said.
“Who loses in this is our voters in our community. Somebody who may want to vote, or is leaning toward registering to vote, may read that headline and say, ‘You know what? Why bother?’ And that’s, that’s the real story here.”
