I'm generally not a big fan of ballot initiatives. Direct democracy was something our Founding Fathers felt we should avoid at all costs, and for good reason. The moment the masses figure out they can use the process to do things like enrich themselves or to oppress a disfavored minority, they're going to try to do just that.

A lot of states disagree with me on that, though. They have measures in place that allow people to introduce referendums for the public to vote on.

While I don't agree with the process, it's the law in many places so it just makes sense for people on both sides to use it.

In New Mexico, though, a controversy has arisen because the Secretary of State rejected a referendum challenging the state's new seven-day waiting period out of hand.

New Mexican Republicans tried to file a referendum to let voters decide if they wanted that week-long waiting period, but our Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver said “No.”

Sen. Craig Brandt pushed for the referendum. He says the rejection is a direct hit on New Mexicans’ constitutional rights.

“We hear the Democrats all the time talking about democratic process and democracy and how Trump’s ruining democracy, or how the Republicans are ruining democracy. Well, and the fact of the matter is, in this situation, our Secretary of State is the one that’s keeping people from having a right to vote on this bill,” said Brandt. 

Secretary of State Communications Director Alex Curtas says it was rejected because, under New Mexico law, there are specific criteria for the referendum review process.

“There’s a specific exception within the law that says any law that is particularly about something to do with public peace, health, or safety is exempt from that process. So there are other laws that could go through this process. But a firearm-related law is pretty clearly about public safety and health, so it’s exempted from that process,” said Curtas. 

But Brandt disagrees and argues a waiting period isn’t about public safety.

“She’s just automatically rejected it saying it’s about public safety, peace, welfare. Nothing about this was public safety. There’s not a single shred of evidence, there’s not a single study that shows that a seven-day waiting period will make the community any safer, or has in any other state that it’s already being done. So, you know, she just kind of uses that as her catch-all,” Brandt said. 

Brandt has a point.

Seven-day waiting periods aren't a deterrent to criminals who generally aren't going into gun stores, anyway.

In fact, whether she meant to or not, a gun control advocate in the state sort of agreed with that.

New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence co-president Miranda Viscoli told KOAT the 7-day waiting period is "one of the fairest preventions they've ever passed."

"Good luck with that. The secretary of state did exactly what she was supposed to do. It's unfortunate when our elected officials care more about gun rights than they do about the safety and health of their constituents. It's a fair law to gun owners. They still get to keep the gun. If you have a concealed carry permit, you are exempt from it," Viscoli said.

"It gives us a cooling period. Suicide rates are very high in New Mexico, and the majority with a firearm. We were getting way too many calls from family members, where they have lost a loved one, because they went to a gun shop, bought that firearm, and 12 hours later, they were dead," Viscoli said.

Of course, I'm now curious whether New Mexicans for Gun Violence Prevention will find a way to violate this law, too.

Regardless, Viscoli admits this isn't about crime but suicides. Suicides, while tragic, aren't a public safety issue because they're basically someone doing something to themselves.

Plus, as she noted, people with carry permits are exempt from it, yet most gun suicides aren't people who just popped into the gun store one day and killed themselves a few minutes or hours later. No, it's people who have guns already, such as those who have concealed carry permits.

If this were about public safety, then it would make more sense to stop stigmatizing mental illness with things like red flag laws. While proponents claim it prevents suicides, the truth is that many are hesitant to seek help out of fear their guns will be taken from them, thus putting more people at risk.

Moreover, it's oddly convenient that the Secretary of State can just dismiss a referendum on something like overturning a gun control law out of hand like this. It seems referendums are less than meaningless on anything important like the United States Constitution.

Brandt said there aren't any plans to challenge the waiting period in federal court, which is the next available option, but I'm pretty sure someone is going to challenge it there.

While they're at it, why not challenge this idea that democracy matters, but only when it conforms to the anti-gun narrative?