No basis in fact or in law

Letter to the Editor: mvariety 122807

THERE were recent allegations about the qualification of candidates in a Dec. 24th letter to the editor.When viewed in their full context, the allegations show that they have no basis in fact or in law.One of the allegations is that the residency requirement to be eligible to run for office in the House of Representatives is 120 days. This is incorrect. The 120 day requirement, stated in 1 CMC § 6201 (c) reads: “Under the authority of Article VII, Section 1 of the Commonwealth Constitution, no person shall be eligible to vote who has not resided in the Commonwealth at least 120 days prior to the election day.” In this year’s election cycle, the deadline for establishing Commonwealth lawful residency to register to vote was July 6, 2007.The eligibility qualifications for candidates for the House of Representatives stated in 1 CMC § 6303 reads:“A candidate for the House of Representatives shall be qualified to vote in the Commonwealth, at least twenty-one (21) years of age, a resident and a domiciliary of the Commonwealth for at least (3) years immediately preceding the date on which a representative would take office. A candidate for the House of Representatives shall also be a registered voter and a resident of the election precinct where he or she is a candidate. No person convicted of a felony in the Commonwealth or in any area under the jurisdiction of the United States may be eligible for this office unless a full pardon has been granted.” In this year’s election cycle, the deadline for establishing election district residency to be a House of Representatives candidate was September 14, 2007.1 CMC § 6201 (c) sets forth the 120 days that is the lawful residency requirement to register to vote in the Commonwealth and 1 CMC § 6303 sets forth the qualifications, including the 50 day election district residency requirement, for candidates for the House of Representatives. These are entirely separate and different provisions of law. I have no knowledge of the allegation that Mr. Oscar M. Babauta challenged the residency of Mr. Andrew S. Salas in 2002 after Mr. Salas was sworn into office.The Election Commission has no record of any such matter taking place and we do not know if a challenge took place in the Courts or at the Legislature.The Commission can only determine prospective candidates’ eligibility after they submit their petition and candidacy documents. We need to receive and review the packets or else we can never tell who is, and who is not eligible, to run for office. After we receive the packets, the review takes place and the Commissioners then determine whether or not to certify candidates. In the 2005 election cycle, the Commissioners certified the candidacy petitions, and certified the candidates for offices, except for two. One individual failed to vote in the 2003 election and the other individual did not meet the five-year CNMI domiciliary and residency requirement that was the law at that time. These individuals’ candidacies were not certified until after the enactment of P.L. 14-87. I did not have anything to do with a Senator’s introduction of the legislation. I recall discussing the historical and factual context of the matter with the OAG’s Chief of the Civil Division, and maybe with the Governor’s Legal Counsel after the bill passed the Legislature and it was being considered for approval or disapproval, but I had no discussion with Governor Babauta urging its approval into law. When the Governor approved the bill and it became law, since it had a retroactivity provision in its applicability clause, the two previously not certified individuals were deemed eligible and, consistent with the law, were certified as candidates for the 2005 general election. To do otherwise would obviously be a crime. The fact that I knew both candidates had nothing to do with our accepting their petition packets because we accept all petition packets submitted by all prospective candidates. The fact that the Commissioners did not certify these two individuals at the time they certified all the other candidates is more telling of the truth. The Governor does not need to subpoena documents and information from the Commission. The Governor’s authority to demand information he needs is explicit in the NMI Constitution and all he should do is ask and the Commission shall provide. If the information Governor Fitial is being asked to review pertains to the candidates’ eligibility for the 2005 and 2007 elections, then, as the Speaker of the House of Representatives when Public Law 14-87 was passed by the Legislature, he would know the letter, intent and spirit of the law. As for the other allegations raised in the Dec. 24th and in the many other letters, those have been properly addressed by the Office of the Attorney General. If someone has a problem with the way I perform my government job, then I am fair game for criticism. However, it is unfair to level baseless and false accusations against the Commission’s Chairwoman, the Public Auditor, the Deputy Attorney General, candidates and others when they are and have been in full compliance with the CNMI’s laws, rules and regulations. It is also a disservice to the Commonwealth’s citizens and residents when someone continues to make public pronouncements that have no basis in fact or in law.

GREGORIO C. SABLAN Executive Director Commonwealth Election Commission