Gail Alexan­der

At­tor­neys for in­de­pen­dent can­di­date Chin­ua Al­leyne in the PNM’s in­ter­nal elec­tion have warned PNM’s elec­tion com­mit­tee about al­low­ing sym­bols for the Team Row­ley slate in Sun­day’s poll.

Al­leyne is con­test­ing the post of gen­er­al sec­re­tary against Team Row­ley can­di­date Fos­ter Cum­mings. His at­tor­ney Christo­pher Ro­driguez (Al­lum Cham­bers at­tor­neys) made the point in a let­ter sent Mon­day to PNM’s elec­tions com­mit­tee head Murchi­son Browne.

Ro­driguez claimed an­oth­er at­tor­ney (Michael Quam­i­na), rep­re­sent­ing Team Row­ley - Prime Min­is­ter Kei­th Row­ley’s slate for the elec­tion - asked the elec­tion com­mit­tee to al­low Team Row­ley can­di­dates to use a sym­bol on the bal­lot pa­pers next to their names in Sun­day’s in­ter­nal ex­ec­u­tive poll. At a Team Row­ley meet­ing last week, can­di­date Colm Im­bert an­nounced their team had re­ceived ap­proval for a sym­bol.

Ro­driguez claimed af­ter Quam­i­na’s re­quest, the elec­tion com­mit­tee met on the mat­ter for sev­er­al hours and while four peo­ple vot­ed to al­low sym­bols, six vot­ed against sym­bols.

Ro­driguez said, “As such, the com­mit­tee’s de­ci­sion was that no sym­bol would be per­mit­ted on the bal­lot.”

He added that a Sep­tem­ber 19 let­ter from the elec­tions com­mit­tee to Al­leyne in­formed Al­leyne of the de­ci­sion to dis­al­low sym­bols on the bal­lot.

How­ev­er, Ro­driguez said an­oth­er let­ter was re­ceived from Quam­i­na on Sep­tem­ber 20 where an ef­fort was al­leged­ly sought to “per­suade/co­erce ‘ the elec­tions com­mit­tee to al­low sym­bols.

Ro­driguez added, “Strange­ly,” af­ter Quam­i­na’s sec­ond let­ter, Al­leyne re­ceived an­oth­er let­ter from Browne say­ing the com­mit­tee would al­low can­di­dates the op­por­tu­ni­ty to pro­vide a sym­bol on the bal­lot pa­pers and dead­line to sub­mit sym­bols was Tues­day gone— Sep­tem­ber 25.

Ro­driguez al­so not­ed the elec­tion’s spe­cial vot­ing process last Sun­day didn’t in­clude use of sym­bols on the bal­lot pa­pers.

Ro­driguez said he ad­vised Al­leyne that any uni­lat­er­al ac­tion by Browne to “un­der­mine/con­tro­vert” the com­mit­tee’s du­ly made de­ci­sion is ul­tra vires and null and void, and if Browne was be­ing al­leged­ly “co­erced”, it was im­prop­er.

Ro­driguez added that last Sun­day’s spe­cial vot­ing pro­ceed­ed with­out bal­lots be­ing en­dorsed by sym­bols. To al­ter the con­tent of the bal­lot at this stage would be whol­ly un­rea­son­able and prej­u­di­cial to peo­ple who’d al­ready vot­ed, he added.