Voting by mail from abroad: a political boomerang?

The extension of voting rights to Mexicans living abroad could compromise the extremely successful, ambitious and courageous political reforms of the last decade promoted by president Ernesto Zedillo. Why did Congress enact this legislation? What are its defects? How might it affect the outcome of the 2006 presidential contest?

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

There was no grass-roots movement either in Mexico or the United States for allowing citizens living outside the country to vote. Rather, leaders of the National Action Party (PAN) and the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) had long backed this initiative. They believed that Mexicans residing abroad had no love lost for the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), which failed to provide opportunities for them to live, work and study at home. Thus, the PAN and PRD pushed for legislation to allow direct voting in foreign countries with the placement of electoral booths in towns and cities that abounded in Mexicans.

Although this approach won approval in the Chamber of Deputies, priistas in the Senate-wary of the implications for their party-watered down the proposal to permit only voting by mail. In the absence of a groundswell of support for this concept, why didn't the PRI and its Senate allies simply kill the bill? When I asked a senator and political veteran this question, he responded: "We didn't want to appear anti-chicano. Besides, it was not the politically correct thing to do."

Rather than wasting time and energy on an issue that is irrelevant to Mexicans on both sides of the border, the lawmakers should have concentrated on curbing pre-nomination expenditures in internal contests instead of opening this gaping loophole in the nation's law. Even better, the denizens of San Lazaro and Xicotencatl could have zeroed in on the fiscal, judicial, labor and energy reforms that are crucial to spurring sustained economic growth. Yet it is much easier to fill the air with vapid rhetoric about "obligations to our brothers and sisters who send back home 16 billion dollars in remittances" than to accomplish serious changes that could prevent an even larger exodus of hard-working men and women.

Are Mexicans in the United States clamoring to vote at home? Hardly! They are much more concerned about finding good-paying jobs, helping their families locate decent housing, gaining access to medical care, taking care of their children and -if illegal--avoiding deportation.

Defects

To begin with, there is no way that the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) and its president, Luis Carlos Ugalde, can enforce Mexican electoral laws in California, Texas, Illinois and other states. How can Mexican officials verify the resources that parties and interest groups spend in the United States to support their favorite candidates? The Amigos de Fox imbroglio five years ago indicated the willingness of U.S. residents to lavish greenbacks on Mexican presidential aspirants. Permitting Mexicans to vote in the United States would open the door to even more abuses of this kind. And suppose gross irregularities are discovered after the July 2, 2006 election. Is the IFE or the Mexican Congress likely to reverse the announced outcome?

Then there is the issue of Mexico's Postal Service (Sepomex). In May, director Gonzalo Alarcon Osorio told legislators that, while Sepomex would do its best, he "could not guarantee voter secrecy" and that "we would have limitations handling additional volumes that necessitate special treatment, as the electoral project would require."

In contrast, Manuel Acevedo Gonzalez, head of the National Union of the Mexican Postal Service Workers, stressed that the mail carriers whom he represented could ensure the "secrecy" and "viability" of ballots mailed from outside the country.

These brave words overlooked the fact that mail frequently reaches the addresse late, tampered with or does not arrive at all, reasons for which many individuals and most businesses use Estafeta, FedEx, DHL or some other more expensive delivery system. Simply finding someone who knows the location of the nearest post office has become a challenge for the 8.5 million citizens in Mexico City.

As Convergencia deputy Jesus Gonzalez observed: "We know Sepomex is rife with deficiencies, that its delivery times and its handling of correspondence as compared to that of other countries are excessive, and that losing mail is the norm."

In hopes of obviating such pitfalls, the IFE will require that ballots be sent by certified mail, which contains bar codes for tracking letters. The problem is that the U.S. Postal Service does not send certified letters to Mexico. Thus, the ballots would have to be dispatched to an address in the United States, where they would be retrieved by the IFE. Every additional step in the process gives rise to opportunities for fraud. Of course, "registered" letters could be mailed to Mexico, but they would cost the sender US$ 8.10 for an envelope weighing no more than one ounce.

Luis Rubio, an astute observer of Mexican politics, suggested another boomerang effect of allowing voting from the U.S. Before proceeding with the scheme, he warns, "it's worth taking time to analyze two key factors: credentials and campaigns. To complete a credible census of Mexicans in the U.S. would reveal that there are not 3 or 4 million, which is commonly accepted as the correct figure, but several times more."

Should the number be found to be 10 or 12 million, there would be even less chance of an immigration reform, especially in light of the recent flare ups in Arizona and New Mexico, as well as the closing of the American Consulate in Nuevo Laredo.

"In other words, we run the risk of exposing the enormous number of Mexicans residing [north of the border], all because of our excessive zeal and blind arrogance. This move to kill the goose that lays golden eggs is incredible", the distinguished scholar added.

In addition, is it fair for individuals who have been away from their home country for years--and may not even speak spanish--play a role in choosing the next chief executive? Rather than promote divided loyalties, shouldn't they be concentrating on the political picture in the country in which they live?

Victor Espinoza, a researcher at the Colegio de la Frontera Norte, asks whether Mexico is ready to run the risk of having people elect leaders under whose governance they won't have to live. "This is not democracy. It is despotism", he emphasized to Informe Latinoamericano.

Nativo Lopez, president the expatriate organization Hermandad Mexicana, disagreed: "I predict a growing rapprochement between Mexican groups [at home] and those in the U.S. as a result [of voting abroad]." While this is a possibility, empowering Mexicans abroad with the vote might wind up driving a wedge between them and their counterparts in Mexico.

The upcoming presidential race promises to be a showdown between the PRI's Roberto Madrazo and the PRD's Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. Admittedly, the participation of Mexicans abroad will be tiny, particularly because a citizen must request his ballot on or before February 15, 2006. One election expert told me that he expected only 2 or 3 percent of the 4 million Mexicans with credentials to cast ballots from the U.S. Still, that could represent more than 120,000 votes.

If, for example, Lopez Obrador were to lose by an eye-lash to Madrazo, would he consider the results legitimate? After all, he already has the complaint that no member of his PRD sits on the IFE's nine-member governing Political Council. In the event of a narrow loss, might not Mexico City's mayor launch nationwide protests that could paralyze the country?

Such a chance might be worth taking if there were ubiquitous backing for voting abroad. But should Mexico risk vitiating its internationally esteemed electoral process because of political correctness?

George W. Grayson, who teaches at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, is writing a book on former Mexico City mayor Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. He can be reached at [phone] or [e-mail].