Christina Sablan

Independent Candidate for Senate

PO Box 500994 Saipan, MP 96950
Tel: (670) 285-3935
tinasablan@gmail.com

August 31, 2009

Mr. Robert Guerrero, Executive Director

Commonwealth Election Commission
PO Box 500470
Saipan, MP 96950

Ms. Frances M. Sablan, Chair

Commonwealth Election Commission
PO Box 500470
Saipan, MP 96950

Mr. Edward Buckingham, Attorney General

CNMI Office of the Attorney General
Caller Box 10007, Capitol Hill
Saipan, MP 96950

RE: Objection to Emergency Amendments to CEC Regulations

Dear Mr. Guerrero, Ms. Sablan, and Mr. Buckingham,

I am writing to formally protest the emergency regulations that were approved by the
Commonwealth Election Commission (hereinafter, “CEC”) on August 25, 2009, and
specifically, Sections 5.1 and 5.2, regarding voting ballots, and ballot design and non-
contestability, respectively.

The CEC declares that the adoption of the emergency regulations is in the public’s interest, and
the specific reason cited for the emergency is that “[c]urrently, recognized political parties are
not accorded the right to a place on the ballot in any election and have its candidates identified in
a columnar format. Such columnar format will ensure party recognition and therefore avoiding
any confusion among the local voter population. By the columnar ballot format, the commission
wishes to reduce or eliminate any such confusion and ensure that recognize [sic] parties are
accorded that right pursuant to regulations.” The CEC goes on to declare that its intent is “to
protect the fundamental rights of citizens in casting a ballot in any election, free from the taint of
intimidation and/or fraud.”

Section 5.1 of the emergency regulations then provides that the names of candidates shall be
printed “in a columnar format for each political party or independent nomination of candidacy
that is listed at the top of the ballot above the names of the nominated candidate for each office.”
Section 5.2 provides that the CEC shall have the primary responsibility for the design for the
ballot, that the CEC “shall have final approval over the design of the ballot,” and that the design
of the ballot as approved by the CEC “shall be final and non-contestable in any Commonwealth
Court or United States Court.” Furthermore, prior to the final publication of the ballot, the
emergency regulations provide that there shall be drawings for “candidate locations and/or
columns for the political parties on the ballot for the various offices.” On a date designated by
the Executive Director of the CEC, “a representative of the political parties and the candidates
(or their representatives)” will draw numbers for drawing order, “the political parties’ columnar
position on the ballot,” and “individual candidates [sic] locations on the ballot where there is
[sic] multiple (at least two) candidates from one political party for an individual office.” The
regulations further provide that any person can act as a representative of a candidate, “provided
that an authorization has been issued by that candidate.”

It is my understanding that pursuant to these new emergency regulations, only the recognized
political parties were summoned by the CEC Executive Director to draw numbers last week. As
an independent candidate, I was not invited nor was I even notified of the drawing, and I know of
no independent candidate for any office who was informed either. A number was apparently
drawn for me by the Executive Director, though I had not authorized the Executive Director to
represent me. The outcome of these new regulations and the recent drawing of numbers by the
political parties is that the ballot design approved by the CEC will display only the Covenant and
Republican candidates for all offices in two columns (one for each party) on the top side of the
ballot sheet. The back side of the ballot will display the Independent and Democrat candidates.

The new regulations and 2009 ballot design appear to be in violation of the spirit and intent of
existing CNMI law. In 2006, with the support of the CEC, the 15th Legislature passed Public
Law 15-7, which expressly intended to “repeal the mandates established by Public Law 14-87”
that required that all candidates of a recognized political party shall be listed consecutively on
the ballot with all the other candidates of the same party. House Standing Committee Report 15-
6 (February 28, 2006), at 2. The House Committee on Judiciary and Governmental Operations
found that ballot design had accounted for substantial differences in the percentage of valid votes
counted in the 2005 election, compared to the 2003 election. Unlike the ballot form used in
2003, the ballot form used in the 2005 election did not list all candidates of a recognized political
party consecutively with the other candidates of the same party, but instead organized candidates
according to the offices sought and indicated whether they were representing a political party or
running independently. In passing the bill that would become Public Law 15-7, the Legislature
declared that “it is in the best interest of the public to follow the ballot design used in the 2005
general election because it promotes less confusion and results in greater percentage of valid
votes.”

On Friday, August 28, 2009, I called the CEC to inquire about the justification for the emergency
regulations, and specifically Sections 5.1 and 5.2. I asked what “rights” of the political parties
were being protected exactly, and why. I was informed by the CEC Executive Director that the
Commissioners’ rationale for the new ballot form they had approved was to make it easier and
less confusing for elderly voters and “less literate” voters to vote straight down party lines if they
wish. The Executive Director further said that voters who are “smart enough” to not vote
straight down party lines “should be smart enough to turn the page.”

The new emergency regulations and the comments made by the CEC Executive Director suggest
an alarming and wholly inappropriate bias by the CEC in favor of political parties, and against
independent candidates. In the CEC’s own words, from a letter to all the candidates dated June
15, “[T]he Commonwealth Election Commission serves a vital role as the disinterested guardian
of the democratic franchise in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The
Commonwealth Election Commission must ensure a free and fair election. It must be indifferent
to the outcome of an election.” These emergency regulations and the CEC Executive Director’s
comments suggest that the CEC is anything but indifferent to the outcome of the upcoming
election, and raise serious questions about just how free and fair this next election will be.

In closing, I request the following from the CEC:

1) Immediately withdraw Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of the emergency amendments to the CEC
regulations adopted on August 25, 2009;

2) If the CEC intends to finalize and approve a ballot design listing candidates for political
parties in consecutive order in columnar form – the CEC should afford all interested
persons reasonable opportunity to submit comments on the said ballot design, and to
issue a concise statement of the principal reasons for and against the adoption of the
ballot design, and incorporate therein the CEC’s reasons for overruling the considerations
urged against the adoption of the said ballot design, pursuant to 1 CMC § 9104 of the
Administrative Procedure Act;

3) Cite the statutory authority, if any, for the CEC regulation which purports to preclude
legal challenges to final ballot designs approved by the CEC;

4) Explain in writing why the new ballot design is not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion, illegal, or in excess of the CEC’s statutory jurisdiction or authority; and

5) Make available for public inspection the minutes, transcripts, recordings, and any other
public record documenting the CEC meeting held on August 25, 2009, and any other
meeting of the CEC during which regulatory changes regarding ballot design were
proposed and discussed. This specific request is submitted pursuant to the Open
Government Act, 1 CMC §§ 9901 et seq., and as such requires your timely response
within 10 days.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

/s/ Christina Sablan

cc: Media