The upcoming November 5, 2019 election will be the first consolidated elections for the City of Albuquerque. The ballot is very lengthy and will include 4 City Council races, $127 million in city general obligation (GO) improvement bonds, continuation of a city road tax, the Albuquerque Public School Board election, a ballot measure for a continuation of a tax levy for APS school maintenance, and the CNM governing board.

The ballot also includes a “Proposition 2” which sets up a city funded voucher system to use city general funds to give out $25 vouchers to voters who in turn will give the vouchers to candidates they support.

This blog article is an examination and analysis “Democracy Dollars”.

DEMOCRACY DOLLARS BALLOT QUESTION

The ballot question is as follows:

Shall the City of Albuquerque adopt the following amendments to update the language of the Open and Ethical Elections Code, which provides for public financing of City candidates: provide eligible city residents with Democracy Dollars, to contribute to their choice of qualified candidates, which the candidates could redeem with the City Clerk, up to a limit, for funds to spend in support of their campaigns, as directed by the City Council, and increase the funds for publicly financed mayoral candidates?

A yes vote is a vote in favor of creating a program called Democracy Dollars that would provide eligible city residents with $25 vouchers that they can give to a participating candidate.

A no vote is a vote against creating a program called Democracy Dollars.

BACKGROUND ON DEMOCRACY DOLLARS

The Democracy Dollars is a voucher program modeled after the Seattle, Washington voucher program that offers Seattle residents to participate in local government by supporting campaigns or supporting those running for office themselves. In Seattle, all registered voters and eligible Seattle residents who apply receive four $25 Democracy Vouchers by mail. You can read more on the Seattle program at this link:

https://www.seattle.gov/democracyvoucher/about-the-program

Albuquerque’s “Democracy Dollars” proposition is the result of a 2018 successful petition drive to put it on the ballot for a vote. Signatures from registered city voters were secured to get the measure on the ballot. In August 2018, proponents of the measure attempted to have the Bernalillo County Commission place Democracy Dollars on the November 6, 2018 general election ballot. It was totally discretionary and the responsibility of the Bernalillo County Commission to put the measure on the November 6, 2018. However, the County Commission voted not to place it on the November 6, 2018 ballot thereby requiring the city to place the measure on the November 5, 2019 municipal election ballot. For more see:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2018/08/15/democracy-dollars-voted-down-3-2-by-bernalillo-county-commission/

Approval of Proposition 2 would set up Democracy Dollars, a program to provide eligible Albuquerque residents with a $25 taxpayer-funded coupon to give to an eligible candidate of their choosing in a city election. The funds would be added to those provided by the city’s current public finance system should a candidate qualify.

Proponents of Dollars for Democracy argue that it will encourage more people to register to vote and more varied and diverse candidates will run for office who normally do not run or who cannot raise the necessary funding for a campaign. Proponents also argue Democracy Dollars will have the benefit of candidates directly contacting and discuss issues that affect them. Democracy Dollars does not require recipients be registered voters, just city residents.

NEW MEXICO “ANTI DONATION CLAUSE” : DEMOCRACY DOLLARS VERSUS CITY PUBLIC FINANCE

The New Mexico Constitution strictly prohibits donations to individuals by governmental entities. The provision provides in pertinent part:

“Neither the state nor any county, school district or municipality, except as otherwise provided in this constitution, shall directly or indirectly lend or pledge its credit or make any donation to or in aid of any person, association or public or private corporation … .” (N.M. Const. art. IX, § 14.)

Advocates for “Democracy for Dollars” cite the success of such programs in other states and municipalities such as Seattle, Washington. This is a bogus argument in that it does not take into account New Mexico’s anti-donation clause.

The city’s existing public financing law does not violate the anti-donation clause for the reason that the public finance is not just a donation for nothing in return as is “Democracy Dollars”. A candidate must collect 3,000 qualifying $5.00 from registered Albuquerque voters, not just residents, and once qualified, the candidate has to agree in writing not to solicit, collect or spend any more money from other source and agree that the city money given is a cap. In other words, there is a contract and a bargain for exchange, not a donation of public money.

It is highly likely that in the event that the “Dollars for Democracy” passes, it will be challenged in court as a violation of the New Mexico Anti Donation clause in the New Mexico constitution. The language of art. IX, Section 14, is very clear when it states “neither the state nor any county, … or municipality … shall directly or indirectly … make any donation to or in aid of any person, association or public or private corporation ” The “Democracy Dollars” $25 vouchers are clearly a donation and aide to people given to them to give to another. This is the very type of activity the anti-donation clause was designed to prohibit. Yet if Democracy for Dollars is enacted, the city will have to defend the program in court.

FINANCIAL HIT TO CITY TAXPAYERS

With Democracy Dollars, all qualified residents, not just registered voters, would be given the vouchers. There is no clarification as to the age requirement of a resident to qualify for the $25 voucher. The estimated 2019 population of Albuquerque is 558,000. With no age qualification, the cost of the “Dollars for Democracy” would be approximately $13,950,000 (558,000 X $25 = $13,950,000.)

http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/albuquerque-population/

The issuance of $25 vouchers to all city “registered voters” will result in a financial liability far above and beyond what is already in the city budget for publicly financed candidates. To print and implement a voucher system for registered voters will result in a minimum financial exposure to the city of $9 million dollars. (360,000 registered voters X $25 voucher = $9 million).

It is not that difficult to calculate the minimum fiscal impact of Democracy Dollars would have on the City’s General Fund by looking at the 2017 Mayoral election.

In 2017, there were where 8 candidates on the ballot before there was a run off. Combined, all 8 candidates received 52,491 total votes. Assuming that each of the 8 candidates were able to secure $25 in Democracy Dollars from those who voted for them, the taxpayer cost to the city to finance their candidacies would have been $1,312,275. The only candidate to qualify for public finance in 2017 was Tim Keller. When you add $506,254 in public finance Keller was given, the amount of out of pocket public financing distributed would have been $1,818,529. The average cost to the city to run the election is also $1.3 million. Therefore, the total cost of the 2017 election would have been $3,118,529.

https://www.bernco.gov/uploads/FileLinks/79348cd740e345bea002a370926b6cc0/City_Election_2017__Unofficial_Regular_Municipal_Election_Results.pdf

FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LAWS

Under the proposed “Democracy Dollars” system proposed, $25 vouchers will be given or mailed to all eligible residents, which will include those who are not registered voters and who get the $25 vouchers by applying to the City Clerk.

It is not clear if foreign nationals will also be given the $25 vouchers to donate to candidates. If so, it would violate federal campaign finance laws.

Section 52 U.S. Code § 30121 of the federal statutes governs contributions and donations by foreign nationals to candidates for office or political campaigns and states:

“PROHIBITION: It shall be unlawful for—

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to contribute or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) [It shall be unlawful for] a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b)“FOREIGN NATIONAL” DEFINED: As used in this section, the term “foreign national” means: a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States … [as defined by federal statute] and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by [federal statute] … ”

Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules and regulations defines individuals who are considered “foreign nationals” and are subject to the prohibition to include foreign citizens, not including dual citizens of the United States, and immigrants who are not lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/types-contributions/

COMMENTARY

To be blunt, in the political world, the $25 Democracy Dollars voucher system sets up a public finance system that can be very easily abused and undermined by any nefarious candidate or measured finance committees to solicit the vouchers. Enforcement to prevent violations of campaign finance laws will also be a major hurdle and costly to the city. The $25 voucher system being proposed can be very easily abused and undermined by anyone who decides to go around and just buy the voucher’s outright from voter at a lesser cost of say $5 to $10 for an example and then turn the purchased voucher into the city to collect the full $25.

WARPED VIEW OF DEMOCRACY

The “Democracy Dollars” system is touted as a “voucher” system to allow the city to donate $25-dollar redeemable vouchers to all “qualified” city residents who are less fortunate to make money donations on their own to a candidate of their choosing like those who can afford to make donations on their own. This is a somewhat warped interpretation of democracy. It equates political donations as the only meaningful way to participate in the election political process. It also does not take into account those circumstances where a person wants to donate to 2 or more candidates which is often the case with people who want to “hedge” their bets on a winner. Those who cannot afford to make political donations can and usually do get very involved with campaigns and volunteer time and “sweat equity” to campaigns on a grass root level. The hallmark of city elections is “door to door” campaigns to ask for a vote and support, not just money.

A real unintended consequence of “Democracy Dollars” will be to add yet another difficult layer of campaign solicitation effort by candidates on top of an already very cumbersome process to collect $5.00 qualifying donations that sets up most candidates for failure. Candidates will be soliciting not only the $5.00 donations but the $25 city issued coupons that are in reality a city subsidized contribution being called a “block grant” from taxpayers.

It is very misleading to call citizens who are not able to make monetary contribution under the present system to be referred to as “small donors” when giving their $25 voucher to a candidate when the funding source for the voucher is the city general fund.

“DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR” MATCH NEEDED

Albuquerque’s public finance laws are way too difficult to qualify for public financing in that in the very last 2 Mayor elections, only 2 candidates out of 19 candidates actually qualified for public financing. The “Democracy for Dollars” plan has absolutely no impact on the effects of measured finance committees and the unlimited amount of money they can raise and spend on behalf or even against a candidate.

It is going to take a hell of a lot more than a voucher system and significantly more changes to put public financing directly in the hands of voters, especially with the existence of Citizens United in order to level the political donation playing field.

The “Democracy Dollars” are really “free vouchers” provided by the city to voters in an apparent attempt to supplement the $5.00 qualifying donations to the city that are now required to secure public financing. Free vouchers defeat the intent and purpose of public finance campaigns.

Every effort should be made to make Albuquerque’s public financing laws for municipal elections to legally provide for a “dollar for dollar” match to privately raised funds by candidates, thereby providing a real level playing field.

The influence of big money in elections allowed by the US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United is destroying our democracy. Many highly qualified candidates for office all too often do not bother to run because of the inability or difficulty raising the necessary money to run.

Political campaign fundraising and big money influence are warping our election process. Money spent becomes equated with the final vote. Money drives the message, affects voter turnout and ultimately the outcome of an election.

CONCLUSION

“Democracy for Dollars” is a pathetic attempt to supplement the $5.00 qualifying donations to secure public finance from the city. The voucher system will be funded by financing from the general fund, so there is nothing free about it. To say that Democracy Dollars will encourage more people to register and vote is a real stretch of the political imagination.

Albuquerque municipal elections need campaign finance reform and enforcement and not just another pool or trough of money candidates can drink from.

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 2 “DEMOCRACY DOLLARS”

*************************************************************************************

POST SCRIPT:

On January 2, 2018, I posted my blog article with recommendations for changes to the City’s public finance and election code laws.
Following is a listing of the recommendations:

1. Allow four (4) months and two (2) weeks, from January 1 to May 15, to collected both the qualifying donations and petition signatures, and private campaign donation collection.
2. Allow the collection of the qualifying donations from anyone who wants, and not just residents or registered voters of Albuquerque. Privately finance candidates now can collect donations from anyone they want and anywhere in the State and Country.
3. Once the allowed number of qualifying donations is collected, the public financing would be made immediately available, but not allowed to be spent until starting May 15.
4. Permit campaign spending for both publicly financed and privately financed candidates only from May 15 to the October election day.
5. Return to candidates for their use in their campaign any qualifying donations the candidate has collected when the candidate fails to secure the required number of qualifying donations to get the public financing.
6. Mandate the City Clerk to issue debit card or credit card collection devices to collect the qualifying donations and to issue receipts and eliminate the mandatory use of “paper receipts”.
7. Increase from $1.00 to $2.50 per registered voter the amount of public financing, which will be approximately $900,000, and allow for incremental increases of 10% every election cycle keeping up with inflation.
8. Allow for additional matching public financing available for run offs at the rate of $1.25 per registered voter, or $450,000.
9. Albuquerque should make every effort to make municipal elections partisan elections to be held along with State and Federal elections by seeking a constitutional amendment from the legislature to be voted upon by the public.
10. Any money raised and spent by measured finance committees on behalf a candidate should be required to first be applied to reimburse the City for any taxpayer money advanced to a public finance candidate or deducted from a publicly financed candidates account and returned to the city.
11. City of Albuquerque campaign reporting and finance ordinances and regulations need to define with absolute clarity that strictly prohibit the coordination of expenditures and campaign activities with measured finance committees and individual candidate’s campaigns in municipal elections.
12. A mandatory schedule of fines and penalties for violations of the code of ethics and campaign practices act should be enacted by the City Council.
You can read the complete blog article here:

2018 YEAR TO REFORM CITY PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS

The upcoming November 5, 2019 election will be the first consolidated elections for the City of Albuquerque. The ballot is lengthy and will have $127 million in city general obligation (GO) improvement bonds for voter approval. Bond Question 2 is for $21.7 million for “senior, family, community center, homeless and community enhancement bonds.” Bond Question 2 does not specifically state it, but $14 million of the $21.7 million in bonds are designated for a centralized, 24 hour a day, 7 days a week homeless shelter. The city run centralized homeless shelter would provide job training and behavioral health and treatment services for 300 people. Mayor Keller has made the shelter a major priority and he views it as critical step toward tackling the city’s homelessness crisis. No site within the city has been selected and will occur only if the bonds are approved.

COLLEEN AYCOCK

Below is a guest opinion article submitted for publication on this blog by Colleen Aycock. Colleen Aycock is a resident of Four Hills in SE ABQ and organizer of “Women Taking Back Our Neighborhoods”. She received her Ph.D. in Rhetoric from the Univ. of Southern California and spent her professional life writing and teaching writing at the college level, editing business magazines, and writing for the U. S. Capitol. She is a member and co-editor of IBRO (the International Boxing Research Organization), an author of 5 boxing books, and a recipient of the New Mexico Boxing Hall of Fame. She has spent her entire adult life in active civic volunteerism. Ms. Aycock was District Community Service Director for Rotary when she successfully integrated the Bosnian refugees allocated to Texas into Austin during the Clinton administration. She can be reached at cka13705@aol.com.

The group Women Taking Back Our Neighborhoods is actively seeking signatures to convene a Citizen’s Grand Jury to investigate the city’s alleged financial misappropriations of bond and other public money for projects that have inadvertently blighted the neighborhoods.

(NOTE: The opinions expressed in this article are those of Colleen Aycock and do not necessarily reflect those of the political blog www.petedinelli.com blog).

GUEST EDITORIAL BY COLLEEN AYCOCK

Many non-profit organizations are doing “welfare” checks, dropping off clothes, food, and sleeping bags and sending medical service providers to the streets. But the cry is for more shelters or welfare housing. My question is: If You Build It (A Homeless Shelter proposed in the current ballot question for $21+ million) . . . . Will They Come?

If we can’t get the one Tiny Home Village for 30 up and running effectively, what makes us think we will be successful building something new for 300. We already have 700 beds (400 available any day of the week) in the Westside Shelter the city owns and operates. Until the city gets its financial act in order, and the police are allowed to do their jobs, citizens and taxpayers don’t need to keep voting for more bond money when no one at the city can prove They Will Come.

__________________________________

POSTSCRIPT

First-Time Ever Services at West Side Homeless Shelter
Posted on October 23, 2019 Radio KKOB.com

ALBUQUERQUE’S WEST SIDE EMERGENCY HOUSING CENTER IS NOW, FOR THE FIRST TIME, EXPANDED TO PROVIDE A COORDINATED APPROACH TO HOMELESSNESS. HOMELESS PEOPLE CAN NOW USE THAT FACILITY TO GET MEDICAL CARE, TREATMENT FOR ADDICTION AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, JOB PLACEMENT AND CASE MANAGEMENT SERVICES.
ALBUQUERQUE MAYOR TIM KELLER SAYS INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS ARE NEEDED IF WE’RE TO ADDRESS HOMELESSNESS IN THE CITY, WHICH IS INCREASING HERE AND IN OTHER CITIES ACROSS THE U-S.

THE WEST SIDE SHELTER NOW HAS THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL AND ABQ HEALTH CARE FOR THE HOMELESS PROVIDING MEDICAL SERVICES TWO DAYS A WEEK. IT ALSO HAS CASE MANAGEMENT SERVICES BEING PROVIDED BY CENTRO SAVILA, FUNDED BY BERNALILLO COUNTY. JOB PLACEMENT OPPORTUNITIES ARE BEING PROVIDED BY WORKFORCE CONNECTIONS

https://www.abqjournal.com/1381895/westside-shelter-adds-computers-behavioral-health-care-and-career-services-ex-mayor-says-the-move-is-part-of-the-citys-multipronged-approach-to-homelessness.html

On June 28, 2019, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham announced the creation of a “Cannabis Legalization Working Group.” The task force consisted of 19 members including the Democratic and Republican legislators who sponsored unsuccessful legislation this year to authorize and tax recreational marijuana sales at state run stores. The group also included representative of a labor union, sheriff’s department, health care business, Native American tribes, medical cannabis businesses, a county government association, and commercial bank and hospital company. The Working Group held public hearings, listened to the public and compiled recommendations for the governor that will be incorporated into proposed legislation to be introduced in the 2020 legislative session.

After the 2019 Legislative session, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham voiced support for legalizing recreational marijuana but only with safeguards. The Governor made it very clear that any recommended legislation would have to include rigorous protections for the medical program, public safety and workplace concerns and clear labeling before she would consider supporting the legislation.

https://www.krqe.com/top-stories/new-mexico-governor-seeks-ideas-for-recreational-pot-law/

On October 16, the “Cannabis Legalization Working Group” released its long-awaited recommendation report. The report recommends that New Mexico become the nation’s 12th state to legalize recreational marijuana. The report recommends legalization, regulate and tax the sales of recreational marijuana. The final report provides state lawmakers a road map to follow during the 2020 thirty day 30-day legislative session that begins in mid-January.

You can read the working group’s final report here:

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/new-mexico-governors-working-group-releases-marijuana-legalization-proposal/

WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARIZED

Following are the 15 major recommendations gleaned from the 16-page report:

1.The report recommends establishing a state licensing and regulation system maintaining the current license distinctions in medical cannabis program. Licensees would serve both medical and adult-use markets. There would be no “recreational only” type of license. It was recommended that the legislature should limit vertical licensing to just 2 types: Producer/Retailer or Producer/Manufacturer, to prevent monopolization of the industry.

2.The Working Group endorsed a recommendation that the cannabis program should not be dependent on the general fund. The recommendation is that the program generate 100% of the cost of regulation, including management of the medical cannabis program, from licensing and per-plant fees. All new tax revenue would go to programs determined by the governor, legislature and local governing bodies.

3.Mandate and require that cannabis products be clearly labeled to reflect accurate dosing and maintain strong testing standards. For any number of reasons, making THC-containing products easily identifiable is important for public safety, especially involving children. The working group recommended the adoption of consistent highly-visible markers, for example a bright red line on the edge of every package, to make the identification of THC-containing products easy for parents, law enforcement and education professionals.

4.Marijuana advertisements that feature children, cartoons or anything that would entice youth would be prohibited . Advertising on public TV or Radio or to mobile devices or in publications owned or targeting minors would be prohibited. A robust public education program aimed at children and teens would be funded. State agencies would be directed agencies to create youth-oriented education and prevention programs, in addition to responsible use programs for the general public.

5.Allow counties and municipalities to impose local time, manner and place restrictions. No local government would be allowed to prohibit a business based on participation in the legal cannabis industry, but they could reasonably limit density and operating time consistent with neighborhood uses. Counties and municipalities would be allowed to maintain buffer zones between cannabis sales and churches, schools and childcare centers similar to that with liquor licensing.

6.Use tax revenues generated to fund law enforcement training to identify drug-impaired driving.

7.Set aside funds to help provide access to capital for communities and small businesses to launch cannabis companies.

8.Use revenue from recreational marijuana taxation to “support housing, job training and education programs statewide.”

9.Establish low fees for “micro business” licenses so that small family farms and entrepreneurs can enter the market.

10.Study the demographics of the industry to ensure equity.

11. Set aside funds for local jurisdictions to use revenue in the manner they see fit.

12.Impose a tax rate that’s no more than 20%, with the goal being a total 17% tax rate.

13.Impose strict criminal penalties for selling cannabis to minors, consuming in a vehicle and any other unlicensed sales.

14.Enact legislation for the automatic expungements of marijuana possession convictions.

15. Prohibiting home cultivation or requiring licensing for those who wish to grow their own. Medical cannabis patients would still be allowed to cultivate their plants as under current law. The activity by other people would be decriminalized for up to six plants “to remove felony criminal implications for low-level personal production.”

RECOMMENDATIONS TO PROTECT STATE MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROGRAM

According to the Department of Health, enrollment in New Mexico’s medical cannabis program, launched in 2007, has steadily increased in recent years and exceeds 78,000 statewide. It is projected that there will be over 100,000 patients by 2021. In 2019, it’s estimated that New Mexico has a population of 2.10 million.

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham made it clear that New Mexico’s medical marijuana program must be protected. Following are the recommendations:

1. In the event of a supply shortage, licensed cannabis dispensaries would have to supply medical marijuana patients before recreational users. This provision will be difficult to enforce because of the difficulty in determining when there is in fact a shortage and how the shortage will be made up.

2. Exempting medical cannabis sales from taxation.

3. Set product requirements and funding a low-income patient subsidy program to lower the cost of marijuana to patients.

4. Taking revenue generated by recreational legalization to subsidize the state’s medical cannabis program.

The working group’s report and recommendations will be presented to at least two legislative interim committees.

RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW TO USE TAX REVENUES GENERATED

An independent economist cited in the report estimates that the state would gain 11,000 jobs and sales would reach $620 million by the fifth year of legalization’s implementation. The combined estimated tax revenue from medical and recreational cannabis sales would be $100 million annually. Opposition experts argued that revenue collected from cannabis sales is very difficult to predict, due to market forces, the possibility of federal action and the potential for even more states legalizing recreational use of marijuana.

The report makes a number of recommendations on the uses for the tax revenues generated by legalizing recreational cannabis in New Mexico and include:

1.Law enforcement training and equipment
2.State testing and oversight duties
3.Low-income medical cannabis patient subsidies
4.Drunken driving prevention and other health programs
5.Financial aid for small businesses to enter the cannabis industry
6.Creating new community college cannabis industry training programs

GOVERNOR AND KEY LEGISLATOR REACT

Nora Meyers Sackett, spokeswoman for Governor Lujan Grisham said the recommendations appeared to address many of the Governor’s concerns and said:

“The Governor is pleased that the working group incorporated her priorities for any potential legalization bill into their study … . The governor will be reviewing the recommendations, and the next steps will be to incorporate the recommendations of this working group into balanced legislation and working to win the support of legislators and stakeholders ahead of the session. ”

Key Democrat Senator George Muñoz in reaction to the recommendations said that a legalization bill will face numerous hurdles during the 30-day session. According to Muñoz, Native American leaders have expressed concern about the impact of marijuana legalization on tribal lands that have high alcohol abuse rates and he said the state’s current $2.3 billion estimated budget surplus means more revenue is not urgently needed. However, Munoz also said technological improvements in detecting cannabis impairment when it comes to driving under the influence could make him more likely to support a marijuana legalization bill.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1379300/task-force-releases-nm-cannabis-legalization-plan.html

MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENTS REACTION

Now that the Cannabis Legalization Working Group has released its final recommendations, some medical marijuana patients are raising concerns that the proposed framework for legalizing recreational marijuana will have a negative impact on the medical cannabis program. The concern is that intertwining recreational and medical businesses will compromise the medical supply.

Jason Barker, a medical cannabis advocate with Safe Access New Mexico had this to say about the recommendations:

“Fifty-five percent of our producers are having trouble meeting the demand for those products already and if over half of the people in the program can’t produce that quickly enough, if we roll into a recreational law then it would be a great concern for me and a lot of the other patients. … It’s something that will devastate the medical program in doing so. … The state is seeming so desperate to get access to that green rush tax dollars that come with legalization that whatever they can get through and pass, they will and they’ll fix it later.”

The Cannabis Legalization Working Group wrote in a letter to legislators who will have to approve any recreational cannabis proposals that they are recommending a new model to protect patient access and affordability with a “patient first’ supply model. ”

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/medical-marijuana-advocates-concerned-over-recreational-cannabis-proposals/5530502/?cat=500

NEW MEXICO CAPS LICENSED MEDICAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATORS TO 1,750 PLANTS

There are 78,000 patients enrolled in New Mexico’s Medical Marijuana program. On June 11, the state Department of Health announced New Mexico’s plant limit for licensed medical marijuana providers would be set at 1,750 plants, a 30% drop from the 2,500 plants allowed under an expiring emergency state rule. Some cultivators such as Ultra Health, the largest medical marijuana operator in the state, said the plant limit would exacerbate a medical marijuana shortage and constrain market growth.

The changes also included an increase to the annual licensing fee for producers and the elimination of a $50 fee for replacing lost patient identification cards. The Department of Health said the proposal was an attempt to strike a balance between ensuring adequate supply for those enrolled in the state’s medical cannabis program, while avoiding an excessive surge in pot production.

https://mjbizdaily.com/new-mexico-limits-medical-cannabis-growers-to-1750-plants/

Three New Mexico medical cannabis cultivation companies, G&G Genetics, Sacred Garden and Ultra Health joined together in filing a lawsuit against the New Mexico Department of Health in response to the new rule limiting the number of plants one company can grow to 1,750 saying the cap puts constraints on the supply of medical marijuana to patients. The growers argue that the more than 78,000 patients registered for the medical marijuana program in New Mexico require more product, which means more plants per company.

The producers say the Department of Health has not done the research required to determine how much legally grown cannabis is needed to provide an adequate supply for over 77,000 patients enrolled in the program. The complaint calls the new limit just as “arbitrary and capricious” as the previous one. The civil complaint filed alleges:

“The materials [the Department of Health (DOH)] claims support the 1,750-plant rule are riddled with logical holes, unrepresentative data, inferential leaps, contradictions and poor math”.

According to the complaint filed, the department relied heavily on a report and patient survey based on the amount of cannabis patients had purchased in the past — during times of limited supply, rather than the amount patients would buy if enough were available.

The lawsuit is still pending.

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/health_and_science/medical-cannabis-producers-sue-over-plant-limit/article_bf67ff02-7437-5eb3-9836-d1027b5c2118.html

https://mjbizdaily.com/new-mexico-medical-marijuana-growers-sue-over-plant-limits/

FAILED HOUSE BILL 356

On March 7, 2019 the state House passed House Bill 356 (HB 356) with a two-vote majority of 36 to 34. HB 356 was the first recreational marijuana proposal ever passed by one of New Mexico’s legislative chambers. HB 356 was legislation that was the result of bipartisan efforts and talks involving House Democrats and Senate Republicans. Every Republican Representative in the House voted against HB 356 joining 10 Democrats in opposition to it. All previous efforts of marijuana legalization have failed in the Senate because of skepticism from conservative Democrats in the Senate.

HB 356 bill included a provision for state run and regulated stores. The compromise bill required people to keep receipts showing they purchased their marijuana legally, and they could carry only 1 ounce of cannabis and couldn’t grow it on their own. House Bill 356 was a broad marijuana legalization proposal and dedicated some of the tax revenue from cannabis sales to research into cannabis impairment, purchasing roadside testing equipment for law enforcement and to train police officers as drug recognition experts when drivers are stopped. The bill made it clear that employers could still maintain drug-free workplace policies. The bipartisan HB 356 stalled in the Senate and never made it to the full Senate for passage. The legislation failed when the session was adjourned on March 21, 2019.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

When you review the recommendation of the “Cannabis Legalization Working Group” they are a very significant departure from House Bill 356 with the exception of a state licensing system. Absent is any mention of state run and regulated stores. The recommendations do include the rigorous protections for the medical program, public safety and workplace concerns, and clear labeling Governor Lujan Grisham demanded when she announce the working group.

Absent from the report is any mention or any clear discussion if the group is recommending the legislature to enact a traditional licensing system like it created for full-service alcohol licenses. With present alcohol full-service licenses, the number of licenses are capped and based on population numbers. Liquor licenses are now being sold for upwards of $1 million where only the wealthy or major restaurant chains can only afford them.

The exact same thing will happen with recreational marijuana licenses unless the licenses are not tied to population. There should be no limit on the number of recreational pot licenses that will create a market of licenses that increase value and are considered an investment by the private sector as opposed to regulation by the state to protect the public health safety and welfare.

One major obstacle that will need to be address by the legislature is the existing cap of 1,750 plants imposed on medical marijuana suppliers and if a similar cap on recreational marijuana producers should be imposed. The response should be is to allow the market to decide what the caps should be and there should be no caps on the number of plants as long as the producers are regulated.

One option that should be considered is placing the issue of recreational marijuana on the ballot for voters to decide, which has been done in other states like Arizona and Colorado. However, if a strong consensus can be achieved and if a recreational legalization program can be supported by large majorities in both the House and Senate, they should proceed and vote to legalize the recreational use of marijuana.

Legalize,regulate, tax recreational marijuana like alcohol and cigarettes.

For a related blog article see:

Legalizing Recreational Pot Will Be Economic Boost To New Mexico; Legalize, Regulate, Tax Like Alcohol And Cigarettes.

The Local Election Act (LEA) was passed by the New Mexico Legislature in 2018. The Local Election Act provides for consolidated local elections to be conducted in New Mexico. November 5, 2019 will be the first consolidated elections for the City of Albuquerque, which will include 4 City Council elections and capital improvement bonds the Albuquerque Public School Board, CNM, the Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control District and the Ciudad Soil and Water Conservation Board. Voters will get one ballot for the races that pertain to them when they go to vote based on their voter registration. The Bernalillo County Clerk’s office is administering the consolidated election and the election is not expected to cost the individual entities anything.

NOVEMBER 5, 2019 APS ELECTION BALLOT

On the November 5 ballot, APS is seeking voter approval to continue the tax mill levy which will generate $190 million over six years. APS is also wanting to issue $100 million of bonds over four years. The money being requested is “capital money”, meaning it can only be used for building maintenance and improvements.

APS has identified 23 capital projects for voter approval. The projects include 7 school construction projects, turf fields, school equipment expenses and primarily maintenance work at the schools. In the February election, 34 construction projects had been identified.

$92.3 million in maintenance is the biggest sole cost that the election dollars will go to for aging schools. The maintenance includes heating, ventilation and air conditioning, roof, infrastructure and pipe repairs. Money will also go toward removing lead from aging pipes to ensure safe drinking water. APS has stressed that elevated levels of lead in schools’ water systems has largely been resolved for elementary schools, but the plumbing is still being flagged as a funding priority. APS has moved onto testing water at middle schools and high schools.

The mill levy and bond package also is slated to go towards school equipment and charter schools.

MONEY FOR NEW CLASSROOMS

According to APS Officials, the list of construction projects is based on the level of importance. The repair and classroom construction projects that will be financed are as follows:
$9.4 million for classrooms at Jackson Middle School (APS has started work at Jackson Middle School and its Career Enrichment Center and Early College Academy.
$7.6 million will go toward new classrooms at the Career Enrichment Center and Early College Academy.
$5.4 million for Monte Vista Elementary School.
$25.8 million to Janet Kahn School of Integrated Arts.
$8.5 million to Lavaland Elementary School.
$3.9 million to Navajo Elementary School.
$5.7 million for Rio Grande High School for its gym to become Title 9 compliant.

OTHER PROJECTS

Other projects included are:

$3 million will be allocates for turf fields at 2 high schools, 2 middle schools and up to five elementary schools.
$10 million allocated to bring schools into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
$12.3 million will go to these School Improvement Funds.
$4.5 million for security projects.
$30 million of the mill levy is required to go to state-authorized and APS-authorized charter schools.
$18 million for bus depots is being proposed. APS is operating buses out of the center of the metro to get buses all over the district and APS is using contractor-owned depots. The goal is to put one bus depots on the West Side, one in the southwest and one in the East Mountain area to cut down on travel time.

ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Albuquerque Public Schools System (APS) is New Mexico’s largest school district, serving more than a fourth of the state’s students and nearly 84,000 students. APS operates 142 schools consisting of 4 K-8 schools, 88 elementary schools (K through 8th grade), 27 middle schools (6-8 th grades), 21 high schools (9th to 12th grade) and 2 alternative schools. APS students live in the city of Albuquerque and the towns of Corrales, Los Ranchos and the counties of Bernalillo and Sandoval, and the pueblos of Isleta and Laguna.

APS serves many students in need with nearly two-thirds qualifying for the federal school meals program. APS employs 14,000 total employees consisting of 12,000 full time employees, 6,063 teachers and librarians and 1,800 teacher aides. The school district serves 29,000 breakfast per school day and 41,000 lunches per school day.

Of the 84,000 APS students 16.6% are classified as “English Learners”, 17.2% are classified as “Students with Disabilities”, and 5.9% are in gifted programs. There are 29 APS authorized charter schools with 7,100 students attending the charter schools. APS is among the top 40 largest school districts in the nation and the largest in New Mexico.

The ethnicity of the APS 84,000 students is:

65.8% Hispanic
22.9% Caucasian/White
5.5% American Indian
3.2% African American
2.3% Asian American
0.2% are “other”

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The number of projects to be funded is 23 capital projects. All the projects are capital improvement projects meaning that they are not a part of the APS operating budget which is funded by the state’s funding formula per child. All the 23 projects are investments in tangible assets, brick and mortar projects, not management and personnel.

Because of the extent of the number of schools that have depreciated and deteriorated and exceeded their useful “shelf life”, the APS school system and the citizens of Albuquerque are confronted with a financial dilemma, refurbish or tear down and rebuild many of our public schools. As is the case with any building, private and publicly owned, APS schools and facilities age and eventually have to be torn down and rebuilt, as was the case with Del Norte High School in the last few years. Many of the elementary schools are so old they are falling apart for lack of maintenance, upkeep and age. There is little doubt that the passage and the continuation of the mill levy for school maintenance and repairs is critical.

Property taxes will not increase if voters approve extension of the mill levy but would decrease if the mill levy is not approved by voters. The mill levy is the main revenue source for maintenance of the school facilities. The financing cannot be spent on operational expenses such as salaries.

Voters of Albuquerque are urged to vote ‘YES” on November 5 for continuation of mill levy dedicated to school maintenance and security.

The upcoming November 5, 2019 election will be the first consolidated elections for the City of Albuquerque. The ballot is lengthy and will include 4 City Council races, $127 million in city general obligation (GO) improvement bonds, continuation of a city road tax, the Albuquerque Public School Board, a continuation of a tax levy for APS school maintenance, and the CNM governing board.

General obligation bonds provide funding for essential services such as police and fire protection but also funding for projects that contribute to a city’s quality of life, such as museums and libraries.

There are complicated requirements associated with general obligation bonds and general obligation bonds (GO Bonds) must be voted on by the public. General obligation bonds have major safeguards to protect the public with restrictions in place on how the bond funding must be dedicated and used.

“General obligation” bonds are subject to voter approval every 2 years to fund various city capital projects. On February 8, 2019, the Keller Administration submitted to the Albuquerque City Council the “2019 Decade Plan and General Obligation Bond Program”. The released “2019 Decade Plan” lists taxpayer funded bond projects for the next 10 years.

You can read the entire 147 page “2019 Decade Plan and General Obligation Bond Program” here:

https://media.krqe.com/nxs-krqetv-media-us-east-1/document_dev/2019/02/08/keller%20bond%20proposals%202019_1549687683603_71860307_ver1.0.pdf

Not all the general bond funding is voted upon at once but voted upon in incremental amounts every two years. The City Council held hearings and in March determined what bonds would be placed on the November 5, ballot. The City Council approved $127 million in projects to be place on the ballot for final voter approval.

GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS ON NOVEMBER 5 BALLOT

The November 5, 2019 general obligation bonds submitted contains upwards of $50 million in community facilities that includes $14 million for the proposed emergency shelter for homeless facility, $5 million going to affordable housing projects and $2.8 million for Community, Health, Social Services Centers.

Following is a further break down summary of the major General Obligation bonds the city is requesting be approved by voters:

$21.7 million for “senior, family, community center, homeless and community enhancement bonds.” $14 million in bonds are designated for the centralized, 24 hour a day, 7 days a week homeless shelter. (Bond Question 2)

$8.6 million for “public safety” to improve and acquire property, including land, vehicles and equipment, for the police and fire departments.

$16.8 million in parks and recreation funding. These bonds include $1.5 million for a Westside Indoor Sports Complex

$32.9 million for important street improvement projects, including widening Westside Boulevard between Golf Course and N.M. 528.

$8.8 million for public libraries. These bonds include $5.5 million for the International District Library which will be build on the old “Caravan East” property on Central the city acquired.

$13 million toward the historic Rail Yards property through 2029.

$11 million for various projects at the Albuquerque Museum over the next decade.

$7.8 million for two storm drainage and pump station projects.

$7 million for a new APD southeast substation at Kathryn and San Mateo.

$5 million in funding for Family & Community Services Section 8 Affordable Housing.

$2.8 million for Community, Health, Social Services Centers.

$1.7 million for a North Domingo Baca swimming pool.

$1 million Cibola Loop library.

$1 million a West Central Visitor Center.

TRANSPORTATION TAX RENEWAL ON THE BALLOT

On the November 5 ballot is the transportation tax renewal measure which will keep a gross receipts tax of ¼ of a penny in place to continue providing critical funding for road infrastructure, the city transit or bus system, trails and bike-ways. It guarantees funding to keep the city’s roads repaired and drivable.

MAYOR KELLER PROMOTES HOMELESS SHELTER FUNDING

Mayor Tim Keller is actively seeking voter approval of $14 million centralized homeless shelter that would provide job training and behavioral health and treatment services for 300 people. The funding for the shelter is contained in Bond Question 2, tied in with more than $21 million in general obligation bonds to improve senior and community centers.

The single most controversial question concerns the homeless shelter’s future location. The city has announced it does not plan to work on identifying a location until after voters approve the funding. According to Mayor Keller, experts will scout out different locations that will go through public comment and the city council. Keller promises the site selection will be an open and public process. When asked whether or not it’s fair to ask people to fund the project when they don’t know where it’s going to be built, the mayor responded by saying:

“It is. It’s kind of the chicken and the egg. You either have to fund it first or tell people where it’s going to be located first. … No one wants anything uncomfortable in their neighborhood and I’m no different. Everyone feels that way, but our city has to step up and deal with these challenges.”

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/elections/mayor-tim-keller-appeals-to-voters-to-approve-14-million-for-new-homeless-shelter/

Mayor Keller said “No decision has been made [as to location of the homeless shelter]. In fact, there hasn’t been any formal research done on locations. … We decided that, fundamentally, the voters need to say are we going to invest in homelessness and, if the answer is yes, we’ll go through a public process and of course go through city council and have multiple locations that people can evaluate in a public way.”

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/albuquerque-mayor-asks-voters-to-approve-bond-projects/5531551/?cat=500

The Greater Albuquerque Business Alliance, a coalition of 57 downtown business owners upset with the number of homeless in the down town area they feel are ruining their businesses, was formed to advocate and raise funding for a remote homeless campus. According to Connie Vigil, the spokesperson for the group and a District 2 city council candidate, there are too many unknowns about the city’s current proposal, notably where it will go, and feels a stronger analysis is necessary by saying:

“Just like [Albuquerque Rapid Transit] , they said they worked on it for six years and here’s what we have to show for it [a long-delayed bus line down Central Avenue.]

https://www.abqjournal.com/1377766/mayor-boosts-plan-for-centralized-homeless-shelter.html

CIRCUMVENTING THE VOTERS

Over the past 4 years, both Mayors Berry and Keller and the City Council have taken unilateral action to circumvent voter input, not placed projects or tax increases on the ballot for voter approval, and have allocated funding or raised taxes for various reasons and pet projects.

Since 2015 , the Albuquerque City Council voted repeatedly to allocate funding for the $120 million disastrous ART Bus project that has destroyed the character of Route 66. The City Council refused to put the ART Bus project on the ballot for public approval proclaiming it was the Mayor’s project. The City Council voted to spend federal grant money that had yet to be appropriated by congress. ART has a negative impact on Central resulting in several businesses going out of business. Many central businesses and Nob Hill businesses, no longer exist because of the ART Bus Project.

In January, 2017, it was reported that the former Republican Mayor Berry and the Albuquerque City Council borrowed over $63 million dollars over two years to build pickle ball courts, baseball fields and the ART bus project down central by bypassing the voters. The $65 million dollars was borrowed with the Albuquerque City Councilors voting to use revenue bonds as the financing mechanism to pay for big capital projects. Revenue bonds are repaid with gross receipts tax revenues. The City Council authorized $18 million dollars in revenue bonds for financing a variety of projects and the city will be making annual payments for 22 years until 2038, which is beyond the useful life of many of the projects funded. For full story see “BYPASSING the Voters” at this link:

https://www.abqjournal.com/919263/revenue-bonds-find-favor-in-abq.html

In 2017 while running for Mayor, candidate Tim Keller promised he would never raise taxes unless there was a public vote. A few months later after being elected, Mayor Keller a signed a city council-initiated $55 million dollar a year tax increase and broke his campaign promise not to raise gross receipts taxes without a public vote. The increased tax revenues raised was supposed to go towards a projected $40 million deficit which never materialized. The city’s gross receipts tax revenues from the state have increased, with critics asserting that there was no need for the tax increase in the first place.

October 7, 2019, the City Council approved Mayor Tim Keller’s $30.5 million “Sports -Tourism” lodger tax package on a unanimous vote to upgrade and build sports facilities throughout the city. Lodgers tax revenues will be used to pay off the $30.5 million bond debt. The Lodgers Tax Advisory Board (LTBA) said they knew absolutely nothing about the lodger’s tax plan until Mayor Tim Keller announced it on Sept. 7 in a press release. The problem is, revenue generated by the city’s lodger tax is supposed to be used for “advertising, advertising, publicizing and promoting tourist-related attractions, facilities and events.” Seven of the 10 projects are not tourism related and are used overwhelming by the general public and not the tourist industry, nor by the hotel or lodger industry.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

In New Mexico, a “political movida” is where elected officials and politicians say one thing, even lie, mislead, misinform or break political promises to get what they want. Past conduct of Mayor Keller and City council are brought up because of their conduct relating to the proposed funding for the homeless shelter.

The single most controversial bonds are the $14 million designated for a centralized, 24 hour, 7 day a week homeless shelter. The problem is that the $14 million in funding is buried in Bond Question 2, the $21.7 million bonds for “senior, family, community center, homeless and community enhancement bonds”. This was an intentional “political movida” by city hall to increase the chances of funding and passage by the voters.

The bond issue should have been a stand alone funding proposal and identifying an exact location. Mayor Keller has acknowledged that a location has not been identified but promises, like the tax increase he signed breaking his promise not to raise taxes without a vote, that public input will be taken into consideration.

NIMBY

The city’s West Side Emergency Housing Center is the old west side jail that was closed for decades and then later converted for winter shelter for the homeless. One of the community jail pods has wooden cubicles constructed in order to give the homeless a little privacy. The west side facility is deteriorating needing major repairs and remodeling for use. The West Side Facility is not sustainable, it is 20 miles from downtown where the city transports by shuttle the homeless. It costs the city $4 million dollars a year to operate the West Side Emergency Shelter and upwards of $1 million of that is spent to transport people back and forth to the facility.

The Homeless Shelter is controversial not because it’s actually needed but because neighborhoods and many charitable homeless providers object to location or the need for a centralized facility somewhere within the city. It is a classic case of “Not In My Back Yard” Syndrome. A coalition of 57 downtown business owners was formed to deal with the number of homeless and providers in the downtown area that they feel are ruining their businesses. When Keller says “No one wants anything uncomfortable in their neighborhood and I’m no different” reflects why he did not want location on the ballot along with the funding. In other words, Keller recognizes the problem yet wants voters to trust the city and vote for funding first and worry about location later.

At a recent District 2 City Council debate held in the Saw Mill Area, the topic of locating the homeless shelter in the Saw Mill area drew sharp and strong opposition. City hall insiders are reporting that land south of Lomas and east of downtown the possible shelter location. There are large swaths of vacant land owned by University of New Mexico which could partner with the city and University Hospital. The biggest problem is will neighbor hoods and other property owners oppose the use of the land being used as a homeless shelter..

Mayor Keller has made the shelter a major priority and he views it as critical step toward tackling the city’s homelessness crisis, and this is absolutely correct. See related blog article: https://www.petedinelli.com/2018/08/30/we-have-moral-obligation-to-help-our-homeless/ Once built, it will be a centralized, 24 hour a day facility to “temporarily shelter” 300 people with the plan to connect them to other services intended to help secure permanent housing. It would replace an existing city shelter on the far West Side. The new facility would serve all populations of men, women, and their families.

The building of a new and permanent emergency shelter has been planned now for a few years. The city hopes to break ground on a centralized 300-bed facility shelter in Albuquerque as early as 2021. The shelter would be opened 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to help families with children and single adults. Building a permanent shelter is a major goal to move people from the streets into permanent housing.

During the 2019 New Mexico Legislature, the city secured $1 million in capital outlay money to start the architectural design for the facility. Another $14 million for construction is needed. It is very disappointing that the city has not been upfront on the locations being considered so that a more informed decision could be made by the public.

CONCLUSION

From police and fire department equipment needs, street maintenance and improvements, public parks and recreation projects, bus and public transit priorities, libraries and museums, social services to the homeless and poor and community facilities will all be funded by the general obligation bonds being proposed. This is how it is meant and should be done!

It is clear that all the projects and the funding that is being requested for voter approval are needed, even for the 24 hour, 7 day a week homeless shelter. All the general obligation bonds should be enacted. By law the monies raised must be applied towards the specific projects and cannot be diverted elsewhere. The transportation tax is also clearly needed to continue to maintain our city streets.

If the general obligation bond package for the homeless shelter does not pass on November 5, Mayor Keller and the Albuquerque City Council need to be held responsible for not placing it on the ballot as a standalone project with a location identified. More importantly, the Mayor and City Council need to be prevented from reverting to the old and very bad financing scheme of revenue bonds to get what they want and ignore the public to get built the projects they want.

Of all the initiatives on the ballot, the road tax enactment is probably the most critical. Street construction, continued maintenance and repair are some of the most critical essential service for a growing and thriving city. The transportation tax renewal measure which will keep a gross receipts tax of ¼ of a penny in place to continue providing critical funding for road infrastructure, the city transit or bus system, trails and bikeways. It guarantees funding to keep the city’s roads repaired and drivable.

On November 5, Please vote YES to approve the $127 million in city general obligation (GO) improvement bonds and transportation tax renewal.

For related blog articles see:

City Council Priorities Versus Mayor Priorities Are Clearly Different

Campus Model Suggested As Solution to Homeless

City’s Plan to Address Homeless Crisis Revealed

We Have Moral Obligation To Help Our Homeless

The upcoming November 5, 2019 election will be the first consolidated elections for the City of Albuquerque. The ballot is very lengthy and will include 4 City Council races, $127 million in city general obligation (GO) improvement bonds, continuation of a city road tax, the Albuquerque Public School Board election, a ballot measure for a continuation of a tax levy for APS school maintenance, and the CNM governing board. The ballot will also include two City Propositions: Proposition 1 deals with updating the city’s public finance ordinance. Proposition 2 sets up a city funded voucher system to use city general funds to give out $25 vouchers to voters who in turn will give the vouchere to candidates they support. This blog article is an examination and analysis of both city propositions.

PROPOSITION ONE: PUBLIC FINANCE UPDATE

This ballot question is worded as follows:

“Shall the City of Albuquerque adopt the following amendments to update the language of the Open and Ethical Elections Code, which provides for public financing of City candidates: clarify the use of in-kind contributions, increase how much seed money a candidate can collect, provide definitions for “election cycle” and “candidate,” require candidates to follow public financing contribution limits for one year before asking for public funds, increase funds for publicly financed mayoral candidates and set a minimum distribution for council candidates in districts with fewer than 40,000 registered voters, enforce City Clerk’s administrative rules, and allow the City Council to amend the Open and Ethical Elections Code by ordinance with a vote of a majority plus two of the entire membership of the Council?”

A yes vote is a vote in favor of making changes to the city’s public financing program for candidates, including:

Increasing the amount of seed money that a candidate can get from one person from $100 to $250;

Increasing the amount of seed money that a candidate can give himself or herself from $500 to $2,500;

Increasing the public funds for participating mayoral candidates from $1.00 to $1.75 per registered city voter; and

Increasing the public funds for participating mayoral candidates in run-off elections from $0.33 to $0.60 per registered city voter.

A no vote is a vote against this measure, thereby keeping the existing public financing laws.

https://www.cabq.gov/vote/documents/r-165enacted.pdf

Proposition 1 clarifies and tightens up the definitions around what constitutes an in-kind donation. In the 2017 mayoral election, many irregularities occurred with “in kind” donations that resulted in ethics complaints against Mayor candidate Tim Keller where cash donations were called “in kind” donations. It was Keller’s longtime political consultant Alan Packman that argued that “cash donations” to the 2017 Keller campaign were “in kind donations”, something the Ethics Board rejected outright and admonished the Keller Campaign with no penalty. After the election, Keller hired Packman to work for the city at the 311-call center and Packman is paid upwards of $85,000 a year and reports directly to Keller.

The biggest change to the public finance law under Proposition 1 is to dramatically increase the amount of city general fund and taxpayer money will be given to mayoral candidates. The current public finance system in place today requires candidates to collect $5 qualifying donation from register voters after which qualified mayoral candidates are given $1 per registered city voter. In the 2017 Mayors race, the amount of public finance was $380,000. Under Proposition 1, the amount would increase from $1.00 to $1.75 per voter, which will be $665,000 in public finance.

TIM KELLER’S $1.35 MILLION 2017 CAMPAIGN FOR MAYOR

In 2017, there were originally 16 candidates for Mayor, with only 8 candidates who secured the number of qualifying nominating signatures to be placed on the ballot. Under the election code ordinance, all candidates for Mayor were given three months to collect nominating petition signatures from registered voters, and only six (6) weeks to secure the 3,000 required number of $5.00 qualifying donations for public finance.

Tim Keller was the only candidate in 2017 election that qualified for public finance. The Keller campaign collected over 3,000 qualifying cash donations of $5 to the City of Albuquerque from registered voters over a six-week period. Once qualified, the Keller for Mayor campaign was given a total of $506,254 in public financing, which included the first election and then the runoff. As a condition to receiving public financing from the City, Tim Keller agreed to a spending cap not to exceed the amount given and agree not to raise and spend any more cash to finance his campaign.

Notwithstanding being a public finance candidate, Keller supporters realized that more would be needed to elect Keller and formed three (3) measured finance committees that either raised money directly to spend on his behalf or indirectly spent money and supported Keller’s candidacy for Mayor financially.

ABQ Forward Together was a measured finance committee that was formed specifically to raise money to promote Tim Keller for Mayor. The measured finance committee raised over $663,000 for Keller. ABQ Forward Together was chaired by a former campaign consultant for Mr. Keller when he ran successfully for New Mexico State Senate. $67,000 was raised and spent by the Firefighters political action committee known as ABQFIREPAC for Keller. $122,000 was raised and spent by ABQ Working Families on Keller’s behalf.

$1,358,254 was spent on Tim Keller’s successful campaign for Mayor. ($506,254 public finance money + $663,000 ABQ Forward + $67,000 ABQFIREPAC + $122,000 ABQ Working Families = $1,358,254.)

OTHER 2017 CANDIDATES FOR MAYOR

There was no other candidate for Mayor in 2017 that had measured finance committees that raised and spent money on their behalf. Republican City Councilor Dan Lewis, who made it into the runoff with Tim Keller, raised more than $847,000 combined in cash contributions for the October election and the November Mayoral runoff election. Democrat Brian Colón raised and spent nearly $824,000 for his unsuccessful mayoral run. Republican Wayne Johnson privately raised and spent approximately $250,000. Republican Ricardo Chavez finance his own campaign by contributing and loaning his campaign $1 million dollars, but when he dropped out of the race, all of the money was repaid to him after he spent approximately $200,000. The remaining three (3) candidates for Mayor raised and spent less than $50,000 combined after failing to qualify for public financing.

https://www.petedinelli.com/2018/01/02/2018-year-to-reform-city-public-campaign-finance-laws-revised-article/

COMMENTARY ANALYSIS

Proposition 1 is the result of a task force formed to review and make recommendation to the City’s Public Finance Law. The task force failed to recommend real updates to the city’s public finance laws. Democratic Albuquerque City Councilors Pat Davis and Diane Gibson served on the task force to overhaul Albuquerque’s public finance laws. Both Pat Davis and Diane Gibson refused to advocate meaningful changes to our public finance laws making it easier for candidates to qualify for public finance. Gibson said “it’s supposed to be hard to qualify and it keeps out people who are not serious candidates”, as if Gibson should ever be the one to decide who are serious candidates. She has been a disaster as a City Councilor. (For recommendations for changes to the City’s public finance and election laws that are in order see the below postscript to this article and related blog articles).

Proposition 1 does not overhaul Albuquerque’s public finance laws in any meaningful way. It does not make it easier for candidates to qualify for public finance. The only major change is that it increases the amount of money candidates get in public finance and not the process of collecting the donations to qualify and not expanding the time to collect qualifying donations. The lack of changes to the public finance laws favors incumbents. It is not at all clear how increasing the amount of money given to qualifying candidates for mayor actually benefit voters or make elections fairer.

Absent in Proposition 1 are any changes to the rules and regulations governing measured finance committees. Measured finance committees are still allowed to raise unlimited amounts of money and spend it to promote their chosen candidate. In the 2017 Mayoral election, Tim Keller was the only publicly financed candidate and was given $506,254 in public finance by the city to run his campaign. Notwithstanding being a public finance candidate, $1,358,254 was actually spent on Tim Keller’s successful campaign for Mayor which included $506,254 public finance money and another $852,000 raised and spent from three measured finance committees raised to get Keller elected Mayor.

For recommendations for changes to the City’s public finance and election laws that are in order see the below postscript to this article and this related blog articles:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2019/06/12/make-qualifying-for-public-finance-easier-regulate-measured-finance-commitees-or-risk-having-another-1-3-million-race-for-mayor/

PROPOSITION 2: DEMOCRACY DOLLARS

The ballot question is as follows:

Shall the City of Albuquerque adopt the following amendments to update the language of the Open and Ethical Elections Code, which provides for public financing of City candidates: provide eligible city residents with Democracy Dollars, to contribute to their choice of qualified candidates, which the candidates could redeem with the City Clerk, up to a limit, for funds to spend in support of their campaigns, as directed by the City Council, and increase the funds for publicly financed mayoral candidates?

A yes vote is a vote in favor of creating a program called Democracy Dollars that would provide eligible city residents with $25 vouchers that they can give to a participating candidate.

A no vote is a vote against creating a program called Democracy Dollars.

The Democracy Dollars is a voucher program modeled after the Seattle, Washington voucher program that offers Seattle residents to participate in local government by supporting campaigns or supporting those running for office themselves. In Seattle, all registered voters and eligible Seattle residents who apply receive four $25 Democracy Vouchers by mail. You can read more on the Seattle program at this link:

https://www.seattle.gov/democracyvoucher/about-the-program

Albuquerque’s “Democracy Dollars” proposition is the result of a 2018 successful petition drive to put it on the ballot for a vote. Signatures from registered city voters were secured to get the measure on the ballot. In August 2018, proponents of the measure attempted to have the Bernalillo County Commission place Democracy Dollars on the November 6, 2018 general election ballot. It was totally discretionary and the responsibility of the Bernalillo County Commission to put the measure on the November 6, 2018. However, the County Commission voted not to place it on the November 6, 2018 ballot thereby requiring the city to place the measure on the November 5, 2019 municipal election ballot. For more see:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2018/08/15/democracy-dollars-voted-down-3-2-by-bernalillo-county-commission/

Approval of Proposition 2 would set up Democracy Dollars, a program to provide eligible Albuquerque residents with a $25 taxpayer-funded coupon to give to an eligible candidate of their choosing in a city election. The funds would be added to those provided by the city’s current public finance system should a candidate qualify.

Proponents of Dollars for Democracy argue that it will encourage more people to register to vote and more varied and diverse candidates will run for office who normally do not run or who cannot raise the necessary funding for a campaign. Proponents also argue Democracy Dollars will have the benefit of candidates directly contacting and discuss issues that affect them. Democracy Dollars does not require recipients be registered voters, just city residents.

NEW MEXICO “ANTI DONATION CLAUSE”

The New Mexico Constitution strictly prohibits donations to individuals by governmental entities. The provision provides in pertinent part:

“Neither the state nor any county, school district or municipality, except as otherwise provided in this constitution, shall directly or indirectly lend or pledge its credit or make any donation to or in aid of any person, association or public or private corporation … .” (N.M. Const. art. IX, § 14.)

ANALYSIS

Advocates for “Democracy for Dollars” cite the success of such programs in other states and municipalities such as Seattle, Washington. This is a bogus argument in that it does not take into account New Mexico’s anti-donation clause.

NEW MEXICO’S ANTI DONATION CLAUSE

It is highly likely that in the event that the “Dollars for Democracy” passes, it will be challenged in court as a violation of the New Mexico Anti Donation clause in the New Mexico constitution. The language of art. IX, Section 14, is very clear when it states “neither the state nor any county, … or municipality … shall directly or indirectly … make any donation to or in aid of any person, association or public or private corporation ” The “Democracy Dollars” $25 vouchers are clearly a donation and aide to people given to them to give to another. This is the very type of activity the anti-donation clause was designed to prohibit. Yet if Democracy for Dollars is enacted, the city will have to defend the program in court.

WARPED VIEW OF DEMOCRACY

The “Democracy Dollars” system is touted a “voucher” system to allow the city to donate $25-dollar redeemable vouchers to all “qualified” city residents who are less fortunate to make money donations on their own. The argument is that the less financially fortunate will be able to participate and make a political campaign donation to candidates of their choosing like those who can afford to make donations on their own. This is a somewhat warped interpretation of democracy. It equates political donations as the only meaningful way to participate in the election political process. Those who cannot afford to make political donations can and usually do get very involved with campaigns and volunteer time and “sweat equity” to campaigns on a grass root level. The hallmark of city elections is “door to door” campaigns to ask for a vote and support, not just money.

“Democracy for Dollars” is a pathetic attempt to supplement the $5.00 qualifying donations to secure public finance from the city. The voucher system will be funded by financing from the general fund, so there is nothing free about it. To say that Democracy Dollars will encourage more people to register and vote is a real stretch of the political imagination.

FINANCIAL HIT TO CITY TAXPAYERS

The issuance of $25 vouchers to all city residents of the city or for that matter, just registered voters will result in a financial liability far above and beyond what is already in the city budget for publicly financed candidates. It is not that difficult to calculate the minimum fiscal impact of Democracy Dollars would have on the City’s General Fund by looking at the 2017 Mayoral election.

In 2017, there were where 8 candidates on the ballot before there was a run off. Combined, all 8 candidates received 52,491 total votes. Assuming that each of the 8 candidates were able to secure $25 in Democracy Dollars from those who voted for them, the taxpayer cost to the city to finance their candidacies would have been $1,312,275. The only candidate to qualify for public finance in 2017 was Tim Keller. When you add $506,254 in public finance Keller was given, the amount of out of pocket public financing distributed would have been $1,818,529. The average cost to the city to run the election is also $1.3 million. Therefore, the total cost of the 2017 election would have been $3,118,529.

https://www.bernco.gov/uploads/FileLinks/79348cd740e345bea002a370926b6cc0/City_Election_2017__Unofficial_Regular_Municipal_Election_Results.pdf

With Democracy Dollars, all qualified residents, not just registered voters, would be given the vouchers. There is no clarification as to the age requirement of a resident to qualify for the $25 voucher. The estimated 2017 population of Albuquerque is 558,000. With no age qualification, the cost of the “Dollars for Democracy” would be approximately $13,950,000 (558,000 X $25 = $13, 950.)

http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/albuquerque-population/

POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE

To be blunt, in the political world, the $25 Democracy Dollars voucher system sets up a public finance system that can be very easily abused and undermined by any nefarious candidate or measured finance committees to solicit the vouchers. An example would be a candidate could decide to go around and just buy the voucher’s outright from residents at a lesser cost of say $5 to $10 and then turn the purchased voucher into the city to collect the full $25.

COMMENTARY CONCLUSION

When you examine both Proposition One, Public Finance Update, and Proposition 2, Democracy Dollars, both can be considered a very noble and idealist attempt, feeble as it is, to campaign finance reform in one form or another to deal with Citizens United, the Unite States Supreme Court ruling that allows unlimited amount of campaign fund raising and spending. The reality is both propositions represent nothing more than a “money grab” by candidates for office. The amount of general fund money that will be required for both propositions would be better spent on essential services such as social service programs desperately needed or even public safety.

The single biggest threat to the fairness of Albuquerque’s municipal elections is the influence of the measured finance committees that can raise unlimited amounts of money with little or no regulation. Propositions 1 and 2 do not even attempt to deal with measured finance committees.

The influence of big money in elections allowed by the US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United is destroying our democracy. Many highly qualified candidates for office all too often do not bother to run because of the inability or difficulty raising the necessary money to run. Political campaign fundraising and big money influence are warping our election process.

Money spent becomes equated with the final vote. Money drives the message, affects voter turnout and ultimately the outcome of an election. Albuquerque municipal elections need campaign finance reform and enforcement, not a money grab by those running for office which is what Propositions 1 and 2 represent.

Albuquerque municipal elections need campaign finance reform and enforcement, something the City Council and the Mayor’s Office have been reluctant to do for 6 years.

Perhaps after the November 5, 2019 City Council election we will have 4 new City Councilors willing to tackle the issue head on and do what is in the best interest of voters and not themselves.

On November 5, VOTE NO on Propositions 1 and 2.

______________________________

POSTSCRIPT

Proposition One public finance update and Proposition 2 “Democracy Dollars” represent a failure at real reform the City’s public finance laws. Public finance laws should not be set up to make it too difficult to qualify for public financing.

Following are recommendations for changes to the City’s public finance and election laws that are in order:

1. Allow four (4) months and two (2) weeks, from January 1 to May 15, to collected both the qualifying donations and petition signatures, and private campaign donation collection.
2. Allow the collection of the qualifying donations from anyone who wants, and not just residents or registered voters of Albuquerque. Privately finance candidates now can collect donations from anyone they want and anywhere in the State and Country.
3. Once the allowed number of qualifying donations is collected, the public financing would be made immediately available, but not allowed to be spent until starting May 15.
4. Permit campaign spending for both publicly financed and privately financed candidates only from May 15 to the October election day.
5. Return to candidates for their use in their campaign any qualifying donations the candidate has collected when the candidate fails to secure the required number of qualifying donations to get the public financing.
6. Mandate the City Clerk to issue debit card or credit card collection devices to collect the qualifying donations and to issue receipts and eliminate the mandatory use of “paper receipts”.
7. Increase from $1.00 to $2.50 per registered voter the amount of public financing, which will be approximately $900,000, and allow for incremental increases of 10% every election cycle keeping up with inflation.
8. Allow for additional matching public financing available for run offs at the rate of $1.25 per registered voter, or $450,000.
9. Albuquerque should make every effort to make municipal elections partisan elections to be held along with State and Federal elections by seeking a constitutional amendment from the legislature to be voted upon by the public.
10. Any money raised and spent by measured finance committees on behalf a candidate should be required to first be applied to reimburse the City for any taxpayer money advanced to a public finance candidate or deducted from a publicly financed candidates account and returned to the city.
11. City of Albuquerque campaign reporting and finance ordinances and regulations need to define with absolute clarity that strictly prohibit the coordination of expenditures and campaign activities with measured finance committees and individual candidate’s campaigns in municipal elections.
12. A mandatory schedule of fines and penalties for violations of the code of ethics and campaign practices act should be enacted by the City Council.

2018 YEAR TO REFORM CITY PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS

Make Qualifying For Public Finance Easier, Regulate Measured Finance Commitees Or Risk Having Another $1.3 Million Race For Mayor