Voters retain magistrates, ConCon fails

All three magistrates seeking retention obtained the necessary votes for a second term at the CNMI Judiciary, while the Constitutional Convention question failed to get the required number of affirmative answers to sail through in the Nov. 5 general elections.

Although 1,526 absentee ballots have yet to be counted, the retention of Supreme Court Chief Justice Miguel S. Demapan, Associate Justice Alexandro Castro, and Superior Court David A. Wiseman has already obtained enough affirmative votes to meet the constitutional requirement for retention for a second term.

The Constitution requires the “yes” votes to constitute majority of the votes cast regarding the question on whether a judge or justice shall be retained in office.

Although preliminary, the election turnout appears to assure Demapan and Castro of another eight-year terms, and Wiseman of a second six-year term. Affirmative votes in favor of the magistrates’ retention not only reached majority of the votes cast, but also even exceeded half of 15,118, the total number of registered voters.

Demapan’s retention obtained 7,861 affirmative votes and 3,716 “no” votes; Castro got 9,218 “yes” votes and 2,309 “no” votes; 8,053 voted in favor of Wiseman’s retention, while those who did not totaled only 3,248.

Not enough votes for ConCon

Even as the CEC waits for some 1,526 absentee ballots that have yet to be counted, the question whether there shall be a Constitutional Convention failed to get the required number of affirmative votes.

Unlike the magistrates’ retention, which requires affirmative votes that constitute majority of votes cast to sail through, the Constitution requires that the affirmative votes for the Constitutional Convention question reach two-thirds—or approximately 66.66-percent—of the votes cast.

Without the absentee votes, the ConCon question only obtained 6,708 affirmative votes versus 4,766 “no” votes, which translates to only 58 percent of the total 11,474 votes favoring the holding of a Constitutional Convention.

Even if all the 1,526 absentee votes turn out in favor of a ConCon, affirmative votes could only get 8,234 votes—63 percent of the new total votes of 13,000. The percentage turnout stands to get lower if the absentee ballots include “no” answers or even abstentions.

Had the ConCon question sailed through, the Legislature would have been mandated to convene a convention promptly pursuant to the CNMI Constitution. A ConCon paves the way for proposing amendments to the Constitution.

The last time that the CNMI voters addressed the question whether there should be a Constitutional Convention was on Nov. 6, 1993, which the CEC declared as anomalous. “As per applicable laws, the question of whether to hold a Constitutional Convention is to be put to the CNMI’s voters not less often than every 10 years.”