news

Election law changes for 2009

by Eric Jackson

As the end of the second 2006 legislative session approached the National Assembly passed and the president promptly signed two laws to set the election rules for 2009 and beyond, and even by an outside chance earlier. The new legislation came in two acts, Law 59 to redraw legislative circuits in light of a constitutional mandate to reduce the National Assembly’s membership from 78 to 71, and Law 60 to change various election rules. There were only a few scattered objections in the legislature because the new laws, though ensured of passage by the absolute PRD control over the assembly, are more broadly protective of the existing multi-partisan political class and of the wealthy interests that finance and benefit from its existence than they are narrowly partisan.

Law 59 reduces the number of electoral circuits from 41 to 39, combining two circuits in Los Santos and juggling the boundaries around in Panama City with the net effect of eliminating one urban circuit. Within the circuits the number of seats are parceled out roughly according to population.

There was a lot of horse trading that delayed the legislative redistricting, but if the present trends in public opinion continue mostly that will be moot --- Panamanians have little confidence in the legislature and although much can change in a couple of years it appears that in 2009, as in 1994 and 2004, the great majority of incumbents who try to win another term will be defeated. The one vociferous opponent of the plan was Los Santos deputy Carlos Afú, a Panameñista who was elected on the PRD ticket in 1999 but broke with that party, switched and was re-elected in 2004. Afú’s circuit was one of those merged and the move dilutes the strength of the local popularity that got him back in the legislature.

Law 60 was much more extensive and varied, and much less reported by the mainstream media than Law 59. It was the product of recommendations by a citizens’ commission on election laws and changes urged by the Electoral Tribunal, followed by a legislative makeover. The things that got the most attention were the recommendations that the assembly rejected: public disclosure of campaign contributions and limits on campaign spending.

Such campaign finance rules as were passed have substantial loopholes. For example, there was theoretically an attempt to limit foreign interference in Panama’s elections. However, any foreign corporation that does any business at all in Panama is entitled to make unlimited political contributions. Foreign governments, persons or entities can’t make campaign contributions as such --- but if they are made through a foreign political party, international association of political parties or foundation linked to foreign political parties unlimited foreign contributions to Panamanian political parties are legal.

Votes from abroad will now come into play. A Panamanian living abroad can maintain his or her old voting residence here and return to vote for all offices, or can sign up on a register of Panamanians living abroad and vote for president and vice president only. However, people who have acquired another country’s citizenship other than by birth will not be eligible to vote from abroad. (Born in the USA to Panamanian parents, or in Panama to American parents? You can vote from abroad. Born to Panamanian parents in Panama and emigrated to the USA, where you obtained citizenship? You can’t vote from abroad.)

Also, people confined to hospitals and incarcerated while awaiting trial will be allowed to cast absentee ballots. Those who are serving time behind bars after having been tried and convicted for a crime won’t be allowed to vote. Nor can fugitives or those “in service to an enemy state.”

Not voting in three consecutive elections will get you stricken from the voter rolls. However, you can register again and be able to vote.

All parties will have to choose their presidential candidates by primaries now. Although theoretically a party might adopt an open primary bylaw, the practice here is that only party members may vote in the primaries of their respective parties. Anyone who runs for office in a partisan primary and loses will be prohibited from running for that or any other office on as an independent or on another party’s ticket for that election cycle, unless nominated for another post by the same party in which she or he was an unsuccessful primary hopeful.

New rules were adopted for independent candidates for the National Assembly and municipal offices. Independents will have to gather some 6,000-odd signatures according to a confusing set of rules that limits signers to those who are not members of political parties and also requires a certain minimum number of “adherents.” Slates of independents will be allowed in multi-member legislative circuits, but only three independent candidates in single-member circuits or three slates in multi-member districts would be allowed. In case of more independent challengers, the ones with the most signatures would get on the ballot.

On their faces the constitution and laws say that a political party can recall one of its members from the legislature. However, as a practical matter the courts have turned this into a dead letter. The new law allows for recalls of independent legislators but not those elected on party tickets, requiring the signatures of 30 percent of the voters in the circuit to force a recall election. Municipal officials, who can’t have their mandates revoked by their parties, will now face at least the theoretical possibility of a recall election, again with the petition signatures of 30 percent of the voters in their districts, regardless of whether elected on a party ticket or as an independent.

A power play directed most of all at Panama City Mayor Juan Carlos Navarro but opposed by virtually all mayors didn’t pass in the end. It had been proposed that no person could run for office who served as mayor during the six months prior to the election. That would have forced Navarro to resign as mayor if he intends to run for president as many people expect, or for re-election as mayor if that’s what he decides to do. The rule was not adopted in the end, but people serving as ministers in the national government, provincial governors, corregidores or in many other appointed offices would have to quit six months before Election Day to run for an elective post. That rule also applies to police officers.

The regulations also purport to control the procedures for the election of a constituent assembly that would draft a proposed new constitution. In general they make it harder to do and easier for the parties to control if it is done. However, the constituent assembly rules in Law 60 could in a changed political paradigm be superseded by a new law calling for a constituent assembly or by constitutional referendum on a constitutional revision scheme that totally overrides the existing constitutional and statutory provisions.

Also in this section:
Correction about Lord Ashcroft
Power struggle over courts and PTJ fought on several fronts
Legislative session ends in controversy, special session coming
Electoral Tribunal, election laws changed for 2009
Gringo community's right wing wages Christmas mudslinging offensive
Panama News Briefs