Gov. MLG And Secretary Of State Toulouse Oliver Announce Election Law Changes; Some Good, Some Bad, Some Questionable Like Giving 16 And 17 Year Olds Right To Vote

On January 18, the 2022 New Mexico legislature will convene for its 30 legislative sessions known as the “short session.” The 30 day sessions are dedicated to budget legislation and the agenda is set by the “Governor’s Call”, meaning the Governor dictates what legislation will be considered.

ELECTION LAW CHANGES

On January 6, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver announced their support for enactment of major changes in the state’s election laws by the 2022 New Mexico legislature. The link to the joint press release “Governor, Secretary of State announce plan to protect right to vote, expand ballot access” is here:

https://www.governor.state.nm.us/2022/01/06/governor-secretary-of-state-announce-plan-to-protect-right-to-vote-expand-ballot-access/

The January 6 announcement was very symbolic and significant in that it was the anniversary of the attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters and temporarily interrupting certification of President Joe Biden’s victory. An interesting side not is that on January 13, it was reported that the founder of the far-right militia group the Oath Keepers, was indicted and arrested over his organization’s alleged involvement in planning the January 6 attack. An additional 10 people, including nine others who already face separate charges in connection to the riot, were also indicted.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/oath-keeper-leader-10-others-charged-seditious-conspiracy-jan-6-n1287434

The proposed changes to the states voting laws comes in an election year. Both Lujan Grisham and Toulouse Oliver are up for reelection, and also on the 2022 ballot will be the races for attorney general, state auditor, state treasurer, land commissioner and 70 seats in the state House.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Senator Cliff Pirtle, a Roswell Republican and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that considers voting legislation, always make the tired and discredited argument that proposals to change election laws should include requiring voters to show their identification. Pirtle believes voter identification requirement ensure people qualified to vote are the only ones who actually cast a ballot, yet there is little proof that is indeed the case.

The major changes to New Mex law are sweeping and will no doubt cause heated discussion. This blog article is a discussion of the 8 proposals with commentary and analysis.

GIVING 16 AND 17 YEARS RIGHT TO VOTE

Allowing residents as young as 16 to vote in local elections, such as for city councils and school boards. This makes very little sense. Simply put, the U.S. Constitution does not allow 16 or 17-year-olds to vote in federal elections. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.” The drive to lower the voting age from 21 to 18 grew across the country during the 1960s, driven in part by the military draft held during the Vietnam War. A common slogan of proponents of lowering the voting age at the time was “old enough to fight and die, old enough to vote”.

It is very difficult to understand the rational why the Governor and the Secretary of State believe now is the time to create a whole new class of voters by giving 16 and 17-years old’s the right to vote, even though it would be only for local elections, such as for city council and school boards. It is dubious to think that 16 and 17 year old’s have the maturity let alone the understanding of local municipal and school board issues.

STRAIGHT-PARTY BALLOT VOTING OPTION

The Straight-party ballot option allowing voters to choose the candidate in one party for every single race is something Republicans have always vigorously opposed. The “straight party ticket voting option” was available at one time for many decades but was eliminated by the previous Republican Administration. Republicans argue that allowing straight party voting promotes party loyalty over an informed electorate and because of the Democratic advantage in numbers, no Republican would ever get elected.

The Republican argument is absolutely bogus given the party loyalty Republicans themselves are known for, especially in the age of Der Führer Trump. Many Republicans over many years, with some saying way too many, have been elected in New Mexico to local, State and Federal office when straight party voting was allowed. Examples: Republicans Senator Pete Domenici, Congressmen Manuel Lujan, Jr. and Steve Schiff and Congresswoman Heather Wilson, Republican Governors David Cargo, Gary Caruthers, Gary Johnson, and Susana Martinez, Republican Attorney General Hal Stratton, Republican Land Commissioner Pat Lyons, Republican PRC member Herb Hughes and David King and Republicans Court of Appeal Judge Rod Kennedy and Supreme Court Justice Judith Nakamura, Republican County Commissioners Les Houston, Pat Cassidy, Loni Talbert, Michael Brasher, Republican Albuquerque City Councilors Tom Hoover, Nadine Bicknell, Fred Burns, Brad Winter, Trudy Jones, Don Harris, Dan Lewis and Republican Mayors Harry Kinney and Richard Berry. Currently, the Albuquerque City Council has a 5 to 4 Democratic majority but just 8 years ago it was a 6 to 3 Republican Majority.

Voters do and can make informed decisions and saying otherwise is nothing more than hollow political rhetoric. Voters are more than capable of deciding not to vote straight party in that they decide how to vote on bond questions, judicial retentions, proposed constitutional amendments and nonpartisan races such as Mayor and City Council.

RESTORING VOTING RIGHTS TO FELONS

Under the law, once a convicted felon has done their time or completed their court-imposed sentence including probation, they have paid their debt to society that should allow them to return and be productive citizen. Automatically restoring voting rights to felons who aren’t incarcerated and make it easier to register online to vote should be a no brainer. Notwithstanding, even if their voting rights are restored, the question is are convicted felons more likely have any interest in voting as is the lack of interest of many non felons.

SUNDAY EARLY VOTING AND ELECTION DAY HOLIDAY

On proposal is to expand early voting by one day to the Sunday before Election Day and to designate election day as a state holiday. These two proposals are long overdue and should be adopted. Across the country, because of the big lie Trump has promoted that he lost the election and the lie of widespread fraud , red state legislatures are enacting laws to reduce access to the polls. New Mexico already requires employers to grant employees paid time off to vote and making election day a holiday is the logical next step.

CREATING A PERMANENT ABSENTEE VOTER LIST

Creating a permanent absentee voter list allowing people to receive ballots by mail without having to file new requests makes common sense and should be implemented in some form. Being able to cast a ballot should be made as simple as possible. Repeatedly requiring a person to make a request for an absentee ballot is an obstacle that should be eliminated.

REGISTERING ON LINE WITH SOCIAL SECUTITY NUMBER

This proposal does not make sense. Allowing people to register to vote online using their full Social Security number could create an environment of identity theft. Years ago, people’s social security numbers were placed on driver’s licenses and that practice had to be abandoned. A much better system to register to vote on line needs to be proposed.

EARLIER MAILING OF ABSENTEE BALLOTS AND EXTENDING BALLOT ACCEPTANCE

It is being proposed that absentee ballots be mailed to voters one week earlier or 35 days before Election Day. The Governor and the Secretary of State have yet to provide any real rational for the additional time. Further, extending the deadline for accepting ballots to the Friday after the election, rather than when polls close, is a double edge sword that could lead to chaos in very close elections. The point is all elections outcomes must come to a conclusion and voters must bear some responsibility to get their ballots to the clerks office in a timely manner.

In a statement making the announcement of changes to the state’s voting laws, Lujan Grisham had this to say:

“Protecting voting rights is essential to upholding our democracy and ensuring New Mexicans’ voices are heard.”

Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver for her part said:

“[This legislation] gives us the chance to pass one of the most powerful voting rights bills in our state’s history.”

FINAL COMMENTARY

A very strong argument can be made that at least 7 of the proposed changes in the state’s election laws will go a long way in protecting a person right to vote and even encourage voting. A major problem is that the 2022 legislative session, which is only a 30 day session, begins on Tuesday, January 18 and the bills ostensibly have not been drafted in that they have not been pre filed as is always the case with major legislation.

Changes to New Mexico’s election laws always generate partisan heated debate and accusations of potential voter fraud. Among recent changes that were controversial occurred with the enactment of the 2019 law that allows New Mexicans to register to vote and cast a ballot on the same day.

Too much is at stake with the 2022 midterm elections with primary voting scheduled in less than 6 months and with new congressional and legislative districts carved out. Given the complexity of some of the election code proposals, the Governor and the Secretary of State would be wise to hold off on the proposed changes until the 2023 sixty day legislative session where there will be more time to debate and consider the proposals.

On July 7, three term Republican State Representative Rebecca Dow of Truth or Consequences announced that she is running for the Republican nomination for Governor. In her announcement, she vowed to address “hard truths” related to the state’s high unemployment rate, low education rankings and chronic child welfare issues. She is a former early child care professional. Dow in her announcement immediately attacked Governor Lujan Grisham and described the governor as a “power hungry” career politician whose policies have hurt New Mexico and said:

“As a state, we have never experienced more dire conditions than we are currently struggling through right now.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/2415471/sanche-zjoins-gop-field-for-governor.html

DOW HIT WITH ETHICS COMPLAINT

Before the 2020 general election, an ethics complaint was filed against Rebecca Dow by her Democratic opponent Karen Whitlock. Dow won reelection by a 16% margin.

Parts of the ethics complaint were dismissed with the remaining allegations including accusations that Dow violated the state Financial Disclosure Act by failing to report over $5,000 in gross income from AppleTree Educational Center in 2019 and by not disclosing the nature of her work for the center. Dow is the founder and a former CEO of AppleTree, a nonprofit that serves children and families in Sierra County. Much of its revenue comes from state grants and contracts.

According to a January 13, 2022 front page story in the Albuquerque Journal:

“[Dow] vigorously fought subpoenas issued as part of the investigation into whether she properly disclosed income from a nonprofit group she founded … For almost two months … she refused to sit for a court-ordered deposition a conflict that resulted in sanctions of $50 a day.”

On Friday, January 6, hundreds of pages of documents became public automatically after Ethics Commission General Counsel Walker Boyd found “probable cause” to support allegations that Dow had violated state laws on financial disclosure and governmental conduct. More documents were released to the Albuquerque Journal pursuant to a request for public records.

Dow flatly disputes the allegations and contends that she is not only in compliance with the law, but also that she voluntarily amended financial disclosure documents to address concerns raised by the ethics commission. Dow had this to say:

“I have publicly disclosed – over disclosed – all the details of my work and very modest payment for an important nonprofit in my district. … [The Ethics Commission staff] is way out of bounds, and continues to invent new claims of violations as old ones are abandoned. … For years, the radical Democrats have tried to scare me out of running with bogus complaints. … They haven’t scared me yet. And they won’t.”

The link to full Albuquerque Journal article is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2460915/documents-dow-failed-to-obey-court-order-in-ethics-case-ex-im-not.html

DOW VIOLATES COURT ORDER

According to District Court pleadings filed, the New Mexico Ethics Commission last year subpoenaed Dow’s financial records and scheduled her deposition which is allowed under the law. Dow and her attorneys contested the agency’s demand for her sworn testimony, arguing the subpoenas were flawed and violated the rules of civil procedure or court rules. The Ethics Commission went to court to enforce the subpoena. The ethics commission secured a court order from State District Court Judge James T. Martin of the 3rd Judicial District compelling Dow to produce the financial documents and appear for her deposition. Dow refused to comply with the court order, did not produce the financial documents and failed to appear for her scheduled deposition. The Ethics Commission went back to court to get a court order.

According to court documents filed in August, State District Court Judge James T. Martin issued another order finding Dow in Contempt of Court and making findings that Dow violated the earlier court order by failing to appear at a scheduled deposition and not producing financial documents that had been subpoenaed by the Ethics Commission. Judge Martin found that the failure to produce the documents and to appear for the deposition “lacks a justification.” Judge Martin ordered fines of $50 a day until she complied with the court order for a deposition. According to the court filings, Dow paid $4,115. The amount paid included reimbursing the State Ethics Commission for costs incurred when she did not appear at the scheduled deposition. Dow has yet to give a reason for failing to appear for her deposition.

DOW’S OBJECTIONS OUTLINED

According to the Journal report, Ethics Commission documents released describe Dow’s legal objections as follows:

“[Dow’s] attorney, Lucas Williams, said the commission had improperly refused to identify what it was investigating and that its written questions to Dow exceeded its legal authority to subpoena information. He responded to a host of written questions, anyway.

“I stepped down from every board that receives any state or federal funding because I wouldn’t want to put anybody through this.”

The link to quoted news source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2460915/documents-dow-failed-to-obey-court-order-in-ethics-case-ex-im-not.html

CREATION, POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION

On November 5, 2018, New Mexico voters, with a 75% majority, voted for a constitutional amendment to establish an independent statewide ethics commission with subpoena power. The State Ethics Commission is a seven-member, bipartisan group. On March 15, 2019, the New Mexico State legislature enacted legislation creating the new, independent ethics commission. On January 4, 2020, a little more than 10 months after the NM Legislature enacted the creation of the Ethics Commission became fully operational.

Under the New Mexico Ethics Commission Act, the commission:

“[May] initiate, receive, investigate and adjudicate complaints alleging violations of, and issue advisory opinions concerning, standards of ethical conduct and other standards of conduct and reporting requirements, as may be provided by law, for state officers and employees of the executive and legislative branches of government, candidates or other participants in elections, lobbyists or government contractors or seekers of government contracts and have such other jurisdiction as provided by law.”

Additionally, the Ethics Commission:

“[May] require the attendance of witnesses or the production of records and other evidence relevant to an investigation by subpoena as provided by law and shall have such other powers and duties and administer or enforce such other acts as further provided by law.”

The Ethics Commission through its general counsel is empowered to petition a state judge to issue subpoenas for documents and other materials as part of its work and with a judge designated to issue and grant the subpoenas on behalf of the commission itself.

The law establishing the State Ethics Commission keeps all investigations confidential unless there’s a probable cause finding to support the allegations. Someone who files a complaint is free to make the allegations public. Under law enacted, ethics complaints must be made public 30 days after “probable cause” is found to proceed with an investigation.

The case against Dow is the very first to be made public by the Ethics Commission after a finding of probable cause. The definition of “probable cause” is that the evidence gathered makes it more likely than not that an ethics violation has occurred.

Links to New Mexico Ethics Commission related websites are here:

https://www.sec.state.nm.us/faqs/#Section02

https://www.sec.state.nm.us/

DISPUTE SUMMARIZED

Ethics Commission General Counsel Walker Boyd summarized the dispute with Dow in his findings and recommendations to the Ethics Commission as follows:

The Ethics Commission General Counsel offered to settle the case in January, 2021 if Dow paid a $250 civil fine and acknowledged her responsibilities under state law. She did not respond to the settlement offer, but she later filed an amended financial disclosure statement that did not entirely address the potential violations.

The Ethics Commission secured court approval to issue subpoenas for Dow’s testimony and other information. Dow and her attorney contested the subpoenas. The matter was appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court which dismissed Dow’s petition for review.

Dow was eventually ordered by District Judge Martin to sit for a deposition, but she refused and was later held in contempt of court. She paid about $4,115 “in compensatory and coercive sanctions” for failing to comply with the court order, until she sat for a deposition in October, 2021.

Boyd found probable cause to support allegations that Dow had represented AppleTree before state agencies, in violation of the Governmental Conduct Act. State law restricts when legislators may represent a client before a state agency.

Boyd took note of the legal conflict in his report finding probable cause to the New Mexico Ethics Commission. In his report Boyd said it was Dow’s own “refusal to acknowledge apparent violations. … These actions [by Dow] are not consistent with a good faith willingness to provide evidence to the Commission or correct good-faith mistakes …[ that brought about the litigation].

DOW RESPONDS TO ETHICS CHARGES

In her response to the ethics charges, Representative Dow contends she consulted with attorneys for the Legislative Council Service on how to file her disclosure forms. According to Dow, she was told she did not need to list AppleTree. She said she is entitled to represent nonprofit groups and others as constituents in her district.

Dow also argues that she made so little as a consultant to AppleTree that she wasn’t required to report it and said:

“This is a nonprofit … that addresses the needs of families and their young children in crisis. … I used to run a nonprofit that does a great service for my community. … I’m not apologizing for trying to help my community EVER.”

ETHICS COMPLAINT MOVES FORWARD

Boyd’s finding of probable cause is not a final decision on the charges. The ethics complaint has now been assigned to retired U.S. Magistrate Judge Alan C. Torgerson who will serve as a hearing officer to consider the allegations. The final decision of Torgerson appealable to the entire ethics commission. Dow for her part said she looks forward to clearing her name in a public hearing.

STATE ETHICS COMMISSION PROPOSES NEW DISCLOSURE ACT

On January 18, the 2022 New Mexico legislature will convene for its 30 day legislative sessions known as the “short session.” The 30 day sessions are dedicated to budget legislation and the agenda is set by the “Governor’s Call”, meaning the Governor dictates was legislation can be considered.

The State Ethics Commission is a 7 member, independent, bipartisan group created in 2019 by the New Mexico State legislature. It became fully operational on January 4, 2020. Under the law creating the Ethics Commission, it issues a report each year recommending amendments to New Mexico’s ethics laws. The Ethics Commission is asking the 2022 legislature for an expansion of its powers, enactment of a legislature Disclosure Act and for additional funding.

NEW DISCLOSURE ACT REQUIREMENTS OF LEGISLATORS

In its 2021 annual report released in December, the State Ethics Commission, called the state’s existing disclosure law for income received by public officials “vague and undemanding.” As it stands now, state lawmakers face broad requirements for disclosing income sources over $5,000. Many draw income from a law firm, farming and ranching, or similarly general categories. The commission now wants to repeal the old law and replace it with the commission’s proposed Disclosure Act.

Specifically, the Ethics Commission is asking for changes to state law that would require New Mexico’s citizen legislators to release more information about their sources of personal income and business relationships. It is also asking for increased transparency requirements for lobbyists. The Ethics Commission wants disclosure of what bills lobbyist are working on and if they are advocating for or against the legislation.

Under the requested changes, any lawmaker to whom it would apply, would have to disclose before voting if any family member lobbied on any bill. Currently, a number of legislators are married to lobbyists thus creating appearance problem to what extent they are influencing any pending vote.

The new Disclosure Act proposed outlines in great detail requirements for the disclosure of personal assets, personal debts, sources of family income over $600, including any spousal and dependent children. The new act would also require disclosure of real property or land holding ownership and values.

The new disclosure requirements will cover membership in corporations and nonprofit groups, gifts of $50 or more from lobbyists and work done by the official or their spouse involving public agencies. Elected state officials, heads of state agencies, candidates and others would have to file annual disclosure statements.

NEW DISCLOSURE ACT REQUIREMENTS OF LOBBYISTS

The new Disclosure Act requirements are designed to shed light on potential conflicts of interest given the fact lobbyists play a crucial role in shaping legislation.

A report by New Mexico Ethics Watch released in 2020 found that 34 former legislators who either retired or who were defeated worked as lobbyists and that another six lobbyists were spouses or relatives of legislators.

Under the new law, lobbyists would have to file 2 separate reports during legislative sessions outlining what bills they are working on, their position on the bills and specific provisions they supported or opposed within the legislation.

The Ethics Commission is proposing a two-year ban on ex-legislators and other state officials from becoming paid lobbyists after they leave public service. “Revolving door” bans have failed to get legislative approval for many years.

STRONG SUPPORT EXPRESSED

Ethics commission spokesman Sonny Haquani said the agency worked with the offices of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General and State Auditor, on the proposed Disclosure Act and had this to say:

“[The new disclosure act] … would enable the public to identify conflicts of interest and deter violations of the public trust.”

Heather Ferguson, the executive director of the nonpartisan Common Cause New Mexico, says her organization strongly supports the new law, especially with the gifts to legislator provisions in the new act. Ferguson noted lawmakers are barred from accepting gifts exceeding $250 in value from donors, but the rules are sometimes skirted by deliberately undervaluing some gifts. Ferguson put it this way:

“Over the years, several ethics violation cases have tarnished New Mexico’s reputation and most of them could have been prevented with heightened disclosure laws. … The $250 gift threshold has been flouted openly over the years, especially with the gift passes given to legislators for activities such as multi-area skiing or golf courses throughout the state that are reported to value at just under… the individual threshold. … These questionably valued gifts raise the public’s concerns every year. A lower threshold with increased penalties will help to curb this activity.”

Secretary of State Maggie Talouse Oliver, Attorney General Hector Balderas and State Auditor Brian Colon have all announced support of the new Disclosure Act.

OTHER EXPANDED POWERS

The Ethics Commission is asking the New Mexico legislature to expand the commissions jurisdiction to include the parts of the state Constitution that prohibits profiting from public office and that bans legislators from having an interest in contracts authorized by legislation passed during their term in office. Specifically, the expanded jurisdiction would give the commission authority in 3 major areas over constitutional provisions prohibiting:

1. Increased compensation for public officials during their term of office.
2. Legislators having an interest in any state or city contract that was authorized by law during their term or for one year afterward.
3. State officials who already draw a salary from drawing outside fees or otherwise profiting for their service in public office.

BUDGET INCREASE SOUGHT

During last year’s 2021 legislative session, the Ethics Commission’s budget was cut by 5%. The legislature also expanded the agency’s duties by directing it to handle enforcement related to notaries public. The commission is seeking an increase of 40% over what it received for the 2021 approved budget. The agency is asking for a $1.28 million budget that would begin on July 1, 2022. The budget increase would be dedicated to increasing the commission staff from 5 to 9 employees. The additional funding will be used to hire an attorney, paralegal and database administrator and to restore a “special projects coordinator” whose funding was part of this year’s 5% budget cut.

Links to quoted source material are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2458308/ethics-agency-calls-for-firmer-disclosure-laws-ex-act-would-require-2.html

https://www.abqjournal.com/2434601/nm-ethics-agency-seeks-expanded-staff-jurisdiction.html

https://pinonpost.com/ethics-commission-asks-for-more-staff-expanded-jurisdiction-to-curb-legislator-corruption/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

To quote Republican State Representative Rebecca Dow in her announcement for Governor, the “hard truths” are that she is faced with some very serious charges of ethics violations that are still pending and her viability as a candidate for Governor has been tainted. The hard truth is that she was found in contempt of court violating a court order and she was fined as provided by law.

Ignoring a court order and Dow’s accusation that “… the radical Democrats have tried to scare me out of running with bogus complaints. … They haven’t scared me yet. And they won’t” is nothing more than an expression that she has distain for ethics laws and our courts and feels she is above the law and felt she could ignore a court order. Her actions are identical to Washington Republicans resisting court orders and subpoenas relating to the January 6 capital riot.

It is highly likely that the Dow ethics complaint is one of the major reasons why the New Mexico Ethics Commission is seeking enactment of the new disclosure act. Another hard truth is that there is absolutely no doubt that the ethics complaint now pending against New Mexico State Representative Rebecca Dow will become a major issue during the 2022 New Mexico Legislative session as the legislature considers the passage of the financial Disclosure Act for legislators and lobbyists.

Simply put, the New Mexico Ethics Commission is doing its job and handling the complaint against Republican State Representative Rebecca as provided for and envisioned under the new law. It would be a damn shame if the New Mexico legislature does not have the stomach nor the backbone to consider the proposed changes and enact the new financial disclosure act. It would also be a damn shame if the legislature even attempted to gut the New Mexico Ethics Commission by not fully funding it.

The proposed new act is long overdue and needed. The Governor and both Democrat and Republican leadership need to make enactment of the Disclosure Act a top priority as well as fully funding the Ethics Commission.

Links to related blog articles are here:

State Ethics Commission Proposes New Disclosure Act; Rogues Gallery Of Corrupt New Mexico Lawmakers

NM Ethics Commission Seeks Expanded Authority And Funding; Slow Start On Cases; Create Agency Formula Funding Source To Insure Independence From Legislature

On January 18, the 2022 New Mexico legislature will convene for its 30 day legislative sessions known as the “short session.” The 30 day sessions are dedicated to budget legislation and the agenda is set by the “Governor’s Call”, meaning the Governor dictates was legislation can be considered.

The State Ethics Commission is a 7 member, independent, bipartisan group created in 2019 by the New Mexico State legislature. It became fully operational on January 4, 2020. Under the law creating the Ethics Commission, it issues a report each year recommending amendments to New Mexico’s ethics laws. The Ethics Commission is asking the 2022 legislature for an expansion of its powers, enactment of a legislature Disclosure Act and for additional funding.

NEW DISCLOSURE ACT REQUIREMENTS OF LEGISLATORS

In its 2021 annual report released in December, the State Ethics Commission, called the state’s existing disclosure law for income received by public officials “vague and undemanding.” As it stands now, state lawmakers face broad requirements for disclosing income sources over $5,000. Many draw income from a law firm, farming and ranching, or similarly general categories. The commission now wants to repeal the old law and replace it with the commission’s proposed Disclosure Act.

Specifically, the Ethics Commission is asking for changes to state law that would require New Mexico’s citizen legislators to release more information about their sources of personal income and business relationships. It is also asking for increased transparency requirements for lobbyists. The Ethics Commission wants disclosure of what bills lobbyist are working on and if they are advocating for or against the legislation.

Under the requested changes, any lawmaker to whom it would apply, would have to disclose before voting if any family member lobbied on any bill. Currently, a number of legislators are married to lobbyists thus creating appearance problem to what extent they are influencing any pending vote.

The new Disclosure Act proposed outlines in great detail requirements for the disclosure of personal assets, personal debts, sources of family income over $600, including any spousal and dependent children. The new act would also require disclosure of real property or land holding ownership and values.

The new disclosure requirements will cover membership in corporations and nonprofit groups, gifts of $50 or more from lobbyists and work done by the official or their spouse involving public agencies. Elected state officials, heads of state agencies, candidates and others would have to file annual disclosure statements.

NEW DISCLOSURE ACT REQUIREMENTS OF LOBBYISTS

The new Disclosure Act requirements are designed to shed light on potential conflicts of interest given the fact lobbyists play a crucial role in shaping legislation.

A report by New Mexico Ethics Watch released in 2020 found that 34 former legislators who either retired or who were defeated worked as lobbyists and that another six lobbyists were spouses or relatives of legislators.

Under the new law, lobbyists would have to file 2 separate reports during legislative sessions outlining what bills they are working on, their position on the bills and specific provisions they supported or opposed within the legislation.

The Ethics Commission is proposing a two-year ban on ex-legislators and other state officials from becoming paid lobbyists after they leave public service. “Revolving door” bans have failed to get legislative approval for many years.

STRONG SUPPORT EXPRESSED

Ethics commission spokesman Sonny Haquani said the agency worked with the offices of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General and State Auditor, on the proposed Disclosure Act and had this to say:

“[The new disclosure act] … would enable the public to identify conflicts of interest and deter violations of the public trust.”

Heather Ferguson, the executive director of the nonpartisan Common Cause New Mexico, says her organization strongly supports the new law, especially with the gifts to legislator provisions in the new act. Ferguson noted lawmakers are barred from accepting gifts exceeding $250 in value from donors, but the rules are sometimes skirted by deliberately undervaluing some gifts. Ferguson put it this way:

“Over the years, several ethics violation cases have tarnished New Mexico’s reputation and most of them could have been prevented with heightened disclosure laws. … The $250 gift threshold has been flouted openly over the years, especially with the gift passes given to legislators for activities such as multi-area skiing or golf courses throughout the state that are reported to value at just under… the individual threshold. … These questionably valued gifts raise the public’s concerns every year. A lower threshold with increased penalties will help to curb this activity.”

Secretary of State Maggie Talouse Oliver, Attorney General Hector Balderas and State Auditor Brian Colon have all announced support of the new Disclosure Act.

OTHER EXPANDED POWERS

The Ethics Commission is asking the New Mexico legislature to expand the commissions jurisdiction to include the parts of the state Constitution that prohibits profiting from public office and that bans legislators from having an interest in contracts authorized by legislation passed during their term in office. Specifically, the expanded jurisdiction would give the commission authority in 3 major areas over constitutional provisions prohibiting:

1. Increased compensation for public officials during their term of office.

3. State officials who already draw a salary from drawing outside fees or otherwise profiting for their service in public office.

BUDGET INCREASE SOUGHT

During last year’s 2021 legislative session, the Ethics Commission’s budget was cut by 5%. The legislature also expanded the agency’s duties by directing it to handle enforcement related to notaries public. The commission is seeking an increase of 40% over what it received for the 2021 approved budget. The agency is asking for a $1.28 million budget that would begin on July 1, 2022. The budget increase would be dedicated to increasing the commission staff from 5 to 9 employees. The additional funding will be used to hire an attorney, paralegal and database administrator and to restore a “special projects coordinator” whose funding was part of this year’s 5% budget cut.

Links to quoted source material are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2458308/ethics-agency-calls-for-firmer-disclosure-laws-ex-act-would-require-2.html

https://www.abqjournal.com/2434601/nm-ethics-agency-seeks-expanded-staff-jurisdiction.html

https://pinonpost.com/ethics-commission-asks-for-more-staff-expanded-jurisdiction-to-curb-legislator-corruption/

NEFARIOUS HISTORY OF CORRUPT NEW MEXICO LEGISLATORS

New Mexico has had more than its fair share of public corruption scandals over the years involving State Legislators. The rogue’s gallery of unethical conduct, fraud, theft and abuse of power and influence by New Mexico legislators includes both State Representatives and State Senators. Following are the most notable:

SENATOR ANTHONY LUCERO

Anthony Lucero was an Albuquerque area state senator. In 1974, Lucero, D-Albuquerque, was convicted by a Santa Fe County jury of taking bribes to help people obtain contractor licenses from the state Construction Industries Division.

SENATOR EDDIE BARBOA

Eddie Barboa was an Albuquerque area state senator. In 1975, Barboa, D-Albuquerque, was charged in federal court with possession of heroin with intent to distribute it. The government said that Barboa tried to set up a large sale of heroin with a man he thought was a New York underworld figure, but who was actually an undercover agent. Barboa said that he was trying to stop drug traffic in Albuquerque’s South Valley when he met the agent. But in two trials, Barboa got hung juries. After the second trial, federal prosecutors decided not to retry Barboa.

REPRESENTATIVE RON OLGUIN

Ron Olguin was an Albuquerque area State Representative. In 1992, Olguin was sentenced to 18 months in prison after he was convicted in state District Court of soliciting a $15,000 bribe in exchange for obtaining $100,000 from the Legislature for an Albuquerque crime counseling program. Refusing to resign, he faced censure by the State House of Representatives.

SENATOR MANNY ARAGON

State Senator Manny Aragon was president pro temp of the New Mexico Senate and for decades was considered one of the most powerful and influential state senators in the state history. Aragon pleaded guilty in federal court in 2008 to three felony counts of conspiracy and mail fraud and was sentenced to five and half years. All counts were related to a scheme to defraud the state of nearly $4.4 million in the construction of the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Courthouse in Albuquerque. The crimes took place while Aragon was serving as state Senate president pro-tem. In addition to his prison sentence, Aragon was fined $750,000, most of which he’d already forfeited to the government before he was sentenced, and ordered to pay at least $649,000 in restitution. He was released from federal prison in 2013.

SENATOR PHIL GRIEGO

Phil A. Griego was a New Mexico State from 1996 to 2015. The 69 year old was accused of using his elected position and acumen as a real estate broker to guide the sale of a state-owned building in downtown Santa Fe through various approvals without properly disclosing his financial interest. Griego maintained he did nothing wrong in earning a $50,000 commission from buyers of the property. He resigned from the Legislature in 2015. He was convicted of fraud, bribery and felony ethical violations stemming from allegations that he used his position for personal gain has been sentenced to 18 months in prison. Griego was sentenced to a 12-year-prison sentence, but all was waived except 18 months, and he was ordered to pay $47,225 in fines and was sentenced to serve five years of supervised probation upon his release from prison.

https://abc7amarillo.com/news/local/former-new-mexico-sen-phil-griego-sentenced-to-18-months-in-prison

REPRESENTATIVE SHERYL WILLIAMS STAPLETON

On September 21, 2021, former state Rep. Sheryl Williams Stapleton was indicted on 28 criminal charges including racketeering, money laundering and fraud charges in connection with what prosecutors have called an elaborate scheme to financially gain from a deal she helped broker with a Washington, D.C.-based company through her position as the head of the Career and Technical Education department at Albuquerque Public Schools, her employer. According to an affidavit filed in the case, the money amounted embezzled is $954,386.04. The Former House Majority Leader could face 79 years in prison if convicted on all 28 criminal counts. She was fired from the school district. All but two of the charges are felonies, and four charges carry a sentence of nine years of imprisonment and fines up to $10,000. Many of the others carry a basic sentence of 18 months and fines not to exceed $5,000.

Links to quoted source material is here:

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/former-state-lawmaker-williams-stapleton-indicted-on-28-counts/article_ffba17c4-1a2f-11ec-8c45-d3b644960660.html

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/former-nm-rep-sheryl-williams-stapleton-indicted-on-criminal-charges-/6243614/

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/officials-behaving-badly-a-look-back-at-the-misdeeds-of-new-mexico-public-officials/article_5236e7bf-293f-51dd-8f93-f7e739511697.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

New Mexico has had more than its fair share of public corruption scandals over the years. A rogue’s gallery of unethical conduct, fraud, theft and abuse of power and influence in New Mexico politics includes more than just state lawmakers. It includes two former Democrat State Treasurers, Michael Montoya and Robert Vigil, former Republican Secretary of State Dianna Duran, former Republican New Mexico Taxation, and Revenue Secretary Demesia Padilla.

Unproven allegations of “pay to play” plagued the 8-year tenure of Democrat Governor Bill Richardson with a federal grand jury investigation resulting in no indictments and no finding of “pay to play”. Former Republican United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico Gregg Forate, with an obvious strong Republican partisan bias, released a scathing letter of condemnation that accused the Richardson administration of “corrupting” the government contract award process.

During the 8-year tenure of former Republican Governor Susana Martinez, allegations of unethical conduct and undue influence with the award of the billion-dollar, 20-year Downs Race Track Lease, dubbed the “Dirty Downs Deal”, occurred. What also occurred was a federal grand jury investigation of the Republican Governor’s number one political consultant and campaign manager relating to misuse of her inauguration funding.

The fact that the 2022 New Mexico Legislative session is a 30 short session dictates that the New Mexico legislature may not have the stomach to consider the proposed changes. The short session makes it difficult to believe that the legislature will make enactment of the proposed Disclosure Act a priority.

Notwithstanding, the proposed new act is long overdue and needed. The Governor should place it on her call list and the Legislature should make it a top priority. If it fails to make it through, he 2022 session, it should be introduced in the 2023 session to be enacted and signed into law.

The link to a related blog article is here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2021/11/05/nm-ethics-commission-seeks-expanded-authority-and-funding-slow-start-on-cases-create-agency-formula-funding-source-to-insure-independence-from-legislature/
_____________________________________

POSTSCRIPT

ETHICS COMMISSION EXPLAINED

The New Mexico Ethics Commission is empowered to oversee state public officials, including state lawmakers, state employees and constitutionally elected officials, including the governor. The seven-member commission is empowered to fine public officials if they are found by the commission to have violated civil provisions of state laws. There is no authority to suspend or remove from office elected officials.

POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION

Under the New Mexico Ethics Commission Act, the commission:

“may initiate, receive, investigate and adjudicate complaints alleging violations of, and issue advisory opinions concerning, standards of ethical conduct and other standards of conduct and reporting requirements, as may be provided by law, for state officers and employees of the executive and legislative branches of government, candidates or other participants in elections, lobbyists or government contractors or seekers of government contracts and have such other jurisdiction as provided by law.”

Additionally, the Ethics Commission:

“may require the attendance of witnesses or the production of records and other evidence relevant to an investigation by subpoena as provided by law and shall have such other powers and duties and administer or enforce such other acts as further provided by law.”

Powers and duties of the commission also include the power to develop, adopt and promulgate the rules necessary to implement and administer the provisions of the State Ethics Commission Act.

Absent from the enabling legislation creating the ethics commission is any authority to suspend or remove elected or appointed officials for nefarious or unethical conduct.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/ethics/50-state-chart-state-ethics-commissions-powers-a.aspx

COMPLAINT PROCESS

An Ethics Case before the Commission can begin in one of three ways:

1. A complainant may file a complaint with the Commission.
2. Another agency may refer a complaint filed originally with that agency to the Commission.
3. The Commission may initiate a complaint with the approval of at least five Commissioners.

Anyone who files a complaint must secure a notary public and attest to the truth of the allegations in the complaint under penalty of perjury. Although the Ethics Commission accepts only signed complaints, it can also initiate its own complaints with approval from 5 of the 7 commissioners. It can also accept referrals from other agencies.

The attorney appointed as “general counsel” by the seven-member commission serves as an investigator and prosecutor. The commission’s general counsel determines whether a complaint warrants investigation and if so, the general counsel will investigate the allegations made.

The Ethics Commission “hearing officers” are appointed to adjudicate the cases where evidence suggests there is an ethical violation. The hearing officers are required to use the legal standard of “preponderance of evidence” to make the determination if there was an ethical violation and must make specific findings.

The legal term “preponderance of the evidence” means the greater weight of the evidence required for the trier of fact, the hearing officer, to decide in favor of one side or the other. “Preponderance of the evidence” is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence.

The Ethics Commission through its general counsel is empowered to petition a state judge to issue subpoenas for documents and other materials as part of its work and with a judge designated to issue and grant the subpoenas on behalf of the commission itself. A public official who disputes a hearing judge’s finding are given the right to appeal the ruling to the seven-member ethics commission.

Ethics complaints are be made public 30 days after probable cause is found to proceed with an investigation. The ethics commission is prohibited from revealing ethics complaints that have been deemed frivolous or unsubstantiated, but the accuser or accused can publicly disclose the complaints.

The ethics commission is not empowered to investigate violations of legislative policies by legislators, such as sexual harassment policies, unless the Legislature works out an agreement for the ethics commission to investigate such complaints. Even then, if the ethics commission determines that a legislator has violated legislative policy, the ethics commission is required to turn over its findings to the Legislature, which would then in turn determine the legislator’s punishment.

A very significant provision included in the commission powers is authority over include statewide public officials such as the governor, the lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, public land commissioner and state auditor, or candidates for those offices, to those prohibited from soliciting campaign contributions from January 1 through the end of each year’s legislative session. However, the ethics commission has no authority over school board members and local officials such elected Mayors or City Councilors.

The enforcement of the state’s Open Meetings Act and Inspection of Public Records Act is left to the New Mexico Attorney General, and such enforcement is not made part of the duties of the Ethics Commission. State legislators are already prohibited from soliciting campaign contributions from January 1 through the end of each year’s legislative session.

JURISDICTION OF COMMISSION

According to its website, the Commission has “jurisdiction to enforce the civil compliance provisions of eight statutes and one constitutional provision for public officials, public employees, candidates, persons subject to the Campaign Reporting Act, government contractors, lobbyists and lobbyists’ employers”.

Allegations of criminal conduct are referred to law enforcement agencies. The 8 statutes the Ethics Commission is authorized to enforce are strictly civil in nature and provides for civil penalties and fines. The one power or penalty the Ethics Commission is not granted is the power to suspend or remove an elected or public official.

OFFICIALS NOT SUBJECT TO THE COMMISSION’S JURISDICTION

According to its website, the Ethics Commission has limited jurisdiction and only over certain individuals. The Commission’s jurisdiction is limited. It cannot hear complaints alleging violations by local elected officials or local public employees such as county commissioners or municipal employees.

NO JURISDICTION OVER CRIMINAL CONDUCT

The Commission does not hear complaints alleging violations of state or federal criminal laws. The Commission will refer any complaint alleging criminal conduct to the Attorney General, the appropriate District Attorney, or the federal prosecutors. Such a referral does not prevent the Commission from pursuing civil enforcement, either through an administrative hearing or a civil action in state court.

LAWS OUTSIDE THE COMMISSION’S JURISDICTION

The Commission lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate complaints alleging violations of any law that is not expressly provided for in the State Ethics Commission Act including … the Human Rights Act, the Open Meetings Act, the Inspection of Public Records Act, the Extra Compensation Clause of Article IV, Section 27, or the Emoluments Clause of Article XX, Section 9.

LIMITATIONS BASED ON TIME

Three time-based constraints limit the Commission’s jurisdiction:

First, the Commission cannot adjudicate a complaint alleging conduct that occurred more than two years in the past or more than two years after the alleged conduct could reasonably have been discovered.

Second, the Commission lacks jurisdiction over a complaint that is filed against a candidate 60 days before a primary or general election for the pre-election period, unless the complaint alleges a violation of the Campaign Reporting Act or the Voter Action Act.

Third, the Commission lacks jurisdiction over conduct occurring on or before July 1, 2019.”

https://www.sec.state.nm.us/faqs/#Section02

WEBSITE LINK WITH INSTRUCTIONS

The link to the website can be found here:

https://www.sec.state.nm.us/

The website contains a section where the public can sign up for updates from the commission including pending cases and advisory opinions. The website also gives a detail explanation on how a complaint can be filed, gives instructions on how to file an ethics complaint, provides forms and outlines what the complaint needs to allege, including laws believed to have been violated, witnesses and evidence relied upon. The website also provides a guide to respondents and what they must do to respond.

After the December 7 City Council runoff election, the city council was split 5 Democrats to 4 Republicans as follows:

District 1 Conservative Democrat Louis Sanchez
District 2 Progressive Democrat Isaac Benton
District 3 Moderate Democrat Klarissa Peña
District 6 Progressive Democrat Pat Davis
District 7 Progressive Democrat Tammy Fiebelkorn

District 5 Conservative Republican Dan Lewis
District 4 Moderate Republican Brook Bassan
District 8 Conservative Republican Trudy Jones
District 9 Conservative Republican Renee Grout

Four years ago, and after serving two terms on the city council, Republican District 5 City Councilor Dan Lewis left the city council to run for Mayor. Lewis ran unsuccessfully for Mayor against Tim Keller in 2017. Keller won the 2017 runoff by a decisive landslide by securing 60,219 votes or 62.20% against Dan Lewis who secured 36,594 or 37.8% of the vote. Four years ago, Lewis was replaced by Democrat Cynthia Borrego who Lewis defeated on November 2, 2021 to return to the city council for a third term.

MAJOR TEST FOR DEMOCRAT MAJORITY

The election for a new Albuquerque City Council President and Vice President occurred on Monday, January 10. It was the very first meeting of the new year for the new City Council. The council president appoints all committee chairs. When the votes were taken, and to the surprise of many, progressive Democrat City Councilor Isaac Benton emerged as the new City Council President. Conservative Republican Dan Lewis, nemesis to Mayor Tim Keller, was elected Vice President. It was also announced that moderate conservative Republican Brook Bassan was appointed Chair of the “Committee of the Whole” which is considered the most powerful city council committee in that it presides over the city’s budget process.

The final vote to elect Isaac Benton as the new city council President was 6 to 3 with Democrats Isaac Benton, Pat Davis, Klarissa Pena, Tammy Fiebelkorn and Republicans Brook Bassan and Trudy Jones voting for Benson. Those voting for Dan Lewis for city council President were Republicans Dan Lewis, Renee Grout and Conservative Democrat Louis Sanchez.

The votes for City Council President and Vice President were considered by many city hall observers as the first major test of whether or not the Progressive Democrats could hold onto a governing majority on a city council that has increasingly become more and more partisan and is now far more conservative after the November 2 elections. After his win on November 2, Republican Dan Lewis made it known that he intended to be the next City Council President. Lewis also made it known he intended to aggressively question Democrat Tim Keller’s department directors, including APD management and Mayor Keller’s representatives in person to hold them “accountable”. Lewis has already made it known to his supporters he intends to run for Mayor again in 2025 and use his city council seat as a springboard to the Mayor’s Office like he tried to do 4 years ago.

Confidential sources have confirmed that Lewis repeatedly talked with Isaac Benton to cut a deal where Lewis would be elected city council president and that Lewis would then appoint Benton Chairman of the Committee of the Whole and Finance Chairman. Lewis needed Benton’s vote in that he has a less than friendly relationship with his fellow Republican Brook Basaan.

LEWIS BEGINS HIS 4 YEAR OBSTRUCTIONIST AGENDA

After losing the vote to become City Council President, Dan Lew introduced 4 separate resolutions outlining what he intends to pursue in the coming few months. Those resolutions are:

1. Repeal the 3/8 of 1% gross receipts tax enacted 4 years ago. The city council enacted a 3/8 of 1% gross receipts tax four years ago on an 8-1 bipartisan city council vote. Lewis is proclaiming it’s a financial crutch the city does not need and reversal would put money “back into the pockets of hard-working Albuquerque citizens.” The enacted 2021 – 2022 city budget projects that the tax will generate $53.6 million this fiscal year. When originally enacted, the city was facing a $40 million dollar deficit and large cuts in essential services. Keller signed the tax increase despite his promise not to raise taxes without a public vote, even for public safety. The legislation initially required 60% of the proceeds to fund public safety and that requirement expired two years ago. Keller’s office, however, said money still goes to those efforts.

2. Bar the city from mandating COVID-19 vaccines for the municipal government workforce. Lewis says the bill answers concerns he has heard from police officers and firefighters about a potential vaccine requirement. Lewis claims he has been vaccinated himself but said he has a “big issue” with mandating them for city workers. According to Lewis “Many of them I know said they would quit[with mandated vaccines].” Lewis did not disclose if the oil distribution company he works for mandates vaccinations, if he threatened to quite if forced to get vaccinated or if he decided to get vaccinated to avoid termination.

It is well settled law that employers can mandate vaccinations as a condition of employment. The city is no different and could order all city hall employees to get vaccinated as a condition of continued employment. The city is preparing for a January 21, 2022 deadline that will mandate all city employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or face weekly testing for the virus under federal OSHA requirements. The city has over 6,000 employees that would be affected by the federal mandate. The OSHA mandate is being challenge in the United States Supreme Court with arguments heard by the US Supreme Court. Preliminary news reports are saying the conservative Supreme Court majority will strike the mandate down. As the US Supreme Court has yet to decide on an outcome, the city is continuing to move forward with the vaccination or testing mandates.

https://www.krqe.com/health/coronavirus-new-mexico/albuquerque-mayor-to-provide-update-on-citys-response-to-covid-19/

3. Repeal or limit mayoral authority during a public health emergency. The resolution would revoke most of the mayoral public health emergency authority the City Council added at the onset of the pandemic. In March 2020, the city council created a new “public health” category in the emergency powers ordinance, allowing the mayor to take actions like closing places of mass assembly and ordering retailers to limit the sale of certain items on a per-person-per-day basis. Under Lewis’ rewrite, the mayor can still proclaim a public health emergency but is limited to issuing public health “advisories or recommendations” thereby essentially gutting the Mayor’s authority during a health crises such and the pandemic.

4. Direct the city administration to consider and “to the extent advisable,” push to renegotiate the terms of the federal Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA). The settlement mandates 271 reforms of the Albuquerque Police Department (APD). The settlement was entered into on November 14, 2014 after a Department of Justice investigation found that APD engaged in a pattern of excessive use of force and deadly force and had a “culture of aggression.”

The Lewis DOJ city council resolution cites U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland’s 2021 guidelines for federal court appointed monitors that local and state governments pay to oversee federally-mandated police reforms. Garland recommends that agreements limit monitor fees and that a termination process occur after 5 years. While new rules do not apply to existing agreements like Albuquerque’s, the Lewis resolution directs the city to review the new guidelines anyway. Ostensibly, Lewis does not know that the City and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have already announced they were reviewing the guidelines. The Lewis resolution also calls for petitioning to reopen the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA) to address Garland’s recommendations “regarding capping independent monitor fees and assessing termination of monitors after no more than five years.” Federal Court Appointed Monitor James Ginger has overseen the Albuquerque Police Department since 2015. APD continues to struggle with implementing the reforms.

According to Lewis, the 4 bills address important community concerns and he had this to say:

“I want them to go through the process. … I fully expect the councilors and the administration to take a good, hard look at these bills to understand them and to consider the outcomes and certainly to listen to the public.”

The link to news source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2460283/lewis-proposing-tax-repeal-limiting-mayors-powers.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Like it or not, the tone of the new city council is more conservative with DINO City Councilor Louis Sanchez and conservative Republicans Dan Lewis and Rene Grout showing their willingness to take on and get in the face of Mayor Tim Keller to obstruct where they can under the guise of holding him accountable as Dan Lewis begins a 4 year quest to become mayor.

DISTRICT 1 “DINO” LOUIS SANCHEZ

Newly elected Democrat City Councilor Louis Sanchez became a “Democrat In Name Only” when he cast his vote Dan Lewis for city council president. The one vote for city council president clearly revealed exactly what kind of a Democrat Louis Sanchez really is, including thinking he is the swing vote on the city council. Least anyone forget Councilor Louis Sanchez made a big stink that he should not have to wait until January 1, 2021 to join the city council. He went so far as to threaten to file a civil lawsuit, did news interviews and was interviewed on the Bob Clark morning radio program. Clark is decisively right wing Republican. Sanchez was no doubt emboldened when the Albuquerque Journal editorialized that he should file a lawsuit and get a definitive court ruling on the issue.

The link to the editorial is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2452128/take-council-seat-to-court.html

Louis Sanchez was not satisfied with just winning his election over Lan Sena. What Louis Sanchez wanted to do is humiliate Lan Sean and force her off the council over his imaginary right of entitlement that he should be sworn into office before his term begins. Confidential City Hall sources confirmed that City Councilor elect Louis Sanchez met with Mayor Tim Keller in the Mayor’s Office and a verbal confrontation occurred wherein Sanchez demanded that City Attorney Esteban Aguilar and City Clerk Ethan Watson both be fired over their refusal to swear him in as the new City Council for District 1. According to confidential sources, Keller declined to terminate them. Sanchez told Mayor Keller that he intended not to vote to confirm either of them if they were not fired.

DINO Sanchez appears to have had a rude awakening finding out the Republican Brook Bassan is emerging as the swing vote. She has shown herself more than capable of working with the Keller Administration, as was the case when she agreed with Keller on the passage of a gross receipts tax bond that failed to secure the required 6 votes. Should Sanchez decide to throw his support to Republican causes, and should he have higher ambitions, including running for Mayor or County Commission, he might as well change his party affiliation to Republican now and not pretend he is a Democrat. Sheriff Manny Gonzales landslide loss to Mayor Tim Keller is proof that pretending to be a Democrat in a Democrat City gets you no where fast.

DISTRICT 9 REPUBLICAN RENEE GROUT

District 9 Conservative Republican City Council Renee Grout, who replaced Conservative Republican Don Harris, had this to say about the new city council before she was sworn in:

“There’s going to be more checks and balances [with the new council members. Mayor Keller’s] unchecked power is going to be different.”

Grout said she would use her early days in office to research, ask questions and listen. This coming from a liar and the lies she told her constituents along with a promise made to get elected.

On December 1, Republican Renee Grout mailed out a false “hit piece” campaign mailer against her opponent Democrat Rob Grilley. The political hit piece proclaimed:

“Grilley supports Sanctuary City that protects violent criminals . … Rob Grilley supports Sanctuary City policy that forces police to hide illegal immigrants from federal authorities, even if they commit crimes like rape or murder! In bold, bright red letters appear the words: “Protecting Violent Criminals.”

Below these words appears the following text:

“Jaqueline Vigil, a mother of two New Mexico Police Officers, was murdered by Luis Talamantes-Romero, an illegal immigrant with a lengthy criminal history. Vigil’s killer should have been deported before, but the city’s sanctuary city policy forced police to hide him from immigration officials.”

The political hit piece attacking Democrat Rob Grilley was simply a pack of lies told by Republican Renee Grout who resorted to fear tactics and misinformation to distract voters. Simply put, Albuquerque has never been a “sanctuary city” and it’s not likely it is ever going to be one. The truth is that in 2001, the Albuquerque City Council enacted a resolution that declared Albuquerque an “immigrant-friendly” city. The resolution was sponsored by then-Republican City Councilor Hess Yntema, whose wife is a naturalized United States citizen from Columbia.

An “immigrant-friendly” city implements “welcoming city” policies and does not provide for city enforcement of federal immigration laws, and addresses only city services, including licensing and housing. The focus is to create inclusive, immigrant-friendly, and welcoming policies. Albuquerque’s “immigrant-friendly” designation welcomes immigrants to the city and is mainly symbolic.

The accusation in the flyer “Vigil’s killer should have been deported before, but the city’s sanctuary city policy forced police to hide him from immigration officials” is the most glaring lie. When the murder occurred, it was first believed to have been a retaliation killing against Vigils’ two state police officer sons. APD did NOT “hide her killer from immigration officials” because APD had no idea who her killer was, and a search had begun while APD was investigating the murder.

What the investigation found is that the killer was “casing” homes at 5:30 am in the area, he came upon Jaqueline Vigil pulling out of her driveway to go to the gym and he shot her. The truth is Jaqueline Vigil’s killer had already been deported by the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) a few months before the killing.

The reason why the political hit piece is so important now that Renee Grout has been sworn in as the new District 9 City Councilor is the political promise to her supporters she made at events. Grout promised that she would introduce a resolution calling for the repeal of the “sanctuary city”. Demands are already being made by her constituents to see the legislation she intends to introduce but she has yet to produce even a rough draft of the legislation. Renee Grout is keeping her constituents waiting while she proclaims there will be more “checks and balances” on Mayor Keller. Then there is the matter of Renee Grout faced with the very embarrassing fact that she wants to repeal a nonexistent “sanctuary city” resolution.

OBSTRUCTIONIST AGENDA WAS PREDICTED

On December 31,2021, the blog article entitled “Red Flags” Of Confrontation Emerge Against Mayor Tim Keller With 4 New Council Members To Be Sworn In On Jan. 1st; Election Of Democrat Or Republican City Council President, Vice President Will Set Tone Of Cooperation Or Confrontation”. The article predicted major issues that Dan Lewis and Renee Grout are no doubt champing at the bit to oppose Mayor Keller in an attempt to be disruptive. All 4 of the new Lewis resolutions were predicted by the blog article. Those issues listed in the blog article, with the issues rearranged by the editor for this article, are as follows:

1. Oppose any and all increases in the gross receipts taxes or property taxes to fund city essential services even when deficits occur. One Lewis Resolution introduced calls for the repeal the 3/8 of 1% gross receipts tax the city council implemented four years ago on an 8-1 bipartisan city council vote.

2. Oppose enforcement by Mayor Keller of emergency health care orders for the Corona Virus Pandemic, including opposing any and all-mask mandates and opposing mandatory covid vaccinations of city employees. One Lewis Resolutions introduced calls for the repeal or limit mayoral authority during a public health emergency. A second Lewis resolution introduced bars the city from mandating COVID-19 vaccines for the municipal government workforce.

3. Opposition to the Department of Justice mandated police reforms. One Lewis Resolution introduced directs the city administration to consider and “to the extent advisable” push to renegotiate the terms of the federal Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA).

4. Opposition to any mandatory sick leave ordinances for the private sector.

5. Repeal of the city’s immigration friendly policy that Lewis and Grout falsely label as sanctuary city.

6. Advocacy of late term abortion prohibitions as was placed on the 2013 municipal ballot and which failed. Should Roe v. Wade in fact be overturned by the United States Supreme Court, which is expected in June, it is more likely than not right wing Republicans Dan Lewis and Renee Grout will seek to have abortions outlawed within the city by declaring no licenses to do business within the city shall be issued to any health care provider corporation such as Planned Parenthood that offers late term abortions. Without a license to do business, the city planning department could order the closure of the business.

7. Opposition to or perhaps repeal of the city’s minimum wage ordinance.

8. Reduction in social service programs to help the homeless and the poor, including a scaling back of the Gateway Homeless shelter operations.

9. Advocate the reduction in the size of city government and eliminate new departments and programs created by Mayor Keller by denying funding for such Departments as the “Office of Equity and Inclusion” that deals with immigrant relations.

10. Advocacy of increased criminal penalties as part of the city’s legislative package and bail bond reform measures.

FINAL COMMENTARY

With the introduction of his fist 4 resolutions at the very first meeting of the newly elected city council, Dan Lewis has made it clear he intends to be as disruptive as possible on the city council. Only time will tell if the city council conservative 3 stooges of Lewis, Grout and Sanchez will call for the other predicted obstructionist’s resolutions. Dan Lewis is nothing more than a pathetic Republican Party political schill and operative with an axe to grins in an election year hell bent on being divisive on the city council as possible so he can run for Mayor again in 4 years.

Lewis with his words and conduct make it very clear he has no desire to work with Tim Keller, so why should Keller even bother to try. Keller should make it known that he will veto the four resolutions introduced to send a clear and unambiguous message to Lewis.

On January 18, the 2022 New Mexico legislature convenes for its 30 day legislative sessions known as the “short session.” Thirty-day sessions are dedicated to enactment of the annual budget and financial issues with the fiscal yeas beginning on July 1 and ending June 30. The agenda is set by the Governor, it is referred to as the “Governor’s Call”, meaning the Governor dictates was legislation can be considered other than fiscal matters.

PROJECTED WINDFALL

Prior to the beginning of any legislative session, the Governor prepares and releases a proposed budget for the new fiscal year. The New Mexico “Legislative Finance Committee” (LFC) has its own staff and economists, conducts hearing during the year and also prepares a proposed budget before any session begins. Taken together, the Governor’s Budget and the LFC budget provide a road map for compromise and consensus during the legislative’s sessions.

On Friday, August 28, during a Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) meeting it was revealed that the State is experiencing an all-time high windfall of more than nearly $1 billion higher than what was projected in February of 2021. The August estimates released to the legislative committee by executive and legislative economists projected that New Mexico would have nearly $1.4 billion in additional money in the coming year. The $1.4 Billion is the difference between expected revenue and the state’s current $7.4 billion budget. The cause of the windfall is surging oil and natural gas production and a rise in consumer spending.

The new state government income forecast has been revised upward by more than $200 million since August. On December 6, 2021, New Mexico government economists projected a new surge in state income predicting a $1.6 billion surplus in state general fund income in excess of current spending obligations for the fiscal year starting on July 1, 2022.

State Secretary of Taxation and Revenue Clarke said economist have reported New Mexico’s economy has recovered about two-thirds of the jobs that were lost at the outset of the pandemic in 2020 but cautioned:

“We still have a big percentage of our population that is in a difficult financial situation. … We see the stock market doing so well. … I just want us not to forget that there is a whole sector of the economy that has not experienced those gains.”

COMPETTING BUDGETS RELEASED

On Thursday, January 6, 2022, Governor Michell Lujan Grisham and the Legislative Finance Committee released their separate competing state budgets for the 2022-2223 fiscal year. With the projected $1.6 Billion projected windfall, both of the proposed budgets increase total budgetary spending to $8.4 billion and provides 7% salary increases for teachers and state employees. In the Governor’s proposed budget of $8.4 billion, education accounts for more than half of it at $4.8 billion.

In addition to funding the states essential services, both the Governor’s and the LFC proposed budgets call for upwards of $2.6 billion, which is 30% of state spending, to remain in cash reserves in case projected revenue levels don’t materialize. The reason for setting aside so much in cash reserves is due to a 2017 law that has bolstered New Mexico’s “rainy day” fund by taking a certain percentage of oil and gas tax revenue in cash-flush years and setting it aside for future use, which has now paid off significantly.

Both budget proposals call for significant overall spending hikes. The governor’s proposed budget increase spending levels by $998 million or by 13.4% over current spending. The Legislative Finance Committee’s plan increases spending by more than $1 billion, or by 14%.

The $8.5 Billion budget is the largest budget ever proposed in state history. Both budgets increase government spending levels by upwards of $1 billion over the fiscal year that ends June 30. Both plans represent nearly a 50% state spending growth over the last 10 years.

Both budget plans provide more money to hire additional law enforcement officers, reduce a waiting list for a state program for individuals with developmental disabilities and expand early literacy initiatives. Other increases in funding will target replacing one-time funding for Medicaid spending that will expire in April 1, 2022.

COMPARING THE BUDGETS

Budget plans by the Legislative Finance Committee and the Governor’s Office are similar in many ways but do contain some major differences. Those similarities and differences are as follows:

HIGHER PAY FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS

Under Governor MLG’s proposed budget, upwards of $277 million will go toward raising starting teacher pay in New Mexico to $50,000 annually. Education personnel would see a 7% increase in salaries. The minimum pay levels for more experienced educators would be raised and the Governor’s budget also provides salary increases for teachers and school administrators Teachers in the three-tier system would see a 20% bump, earning $50,000, $60,000, and $70,000 in base salaries

The LFC proposed budget sets starting teacher pay at $1,000 more at $51,000 per year but the $1,000 in additional teacher pay would be for a longer school year.
The Governor’s spokesperson Nora Meyers Sackett said the new salaried will be the highest teacher salaries of any neighboring states and said:

“… [I’ts] really important to both focus on attracting new excited New Mexico students to the profession, attracting teachers to New Mexico and retaining the wonderful hardworking qualified teachers we have in our schools right now.”

Meyers Sackett said teachers have told the Lujan Grisham Administration the new funding will help teachers make new decisions in their life and she said:

“… they love teaching! They want to do it! They love the impact they make but they just want to be able to get by a little better.”

Ellen Bernstein, Albuquerque Teachers’ Federation president, had this to say about the efforts to keep more teachers by increasing pay:

“I think it’s a great start and I think we need to pay attention to that because we have massive shortages … We are down over 1,000 teachers statewide and it’s getting worse every day. … We need to have respect and respect is shown in many ways and a decent salary is one. … We need to recruit people into the profession which means it needs to be a respected profession and we need to retain the people we have.”

Bernstein also said she would like to see a higher raise for school staff, like bus drivers, counselors, and cafeteria workers.

In addition to the $200 million for raises, Governor MLG proposed budget includes $195 million to expand Pre-K capacity, $86 million to make tuition free college available to more New Mexicans, $11 million for early literacy programs for k-12 students, and upwards of $10 million to help teachers pay for college.

TEACHER SHORTAGE CRISIS NOTED

On October 9, 2021, according to a report by New Mexico State University’s Southwest Outreach Academic Research Evaluation and Policy Center, the number of teacher vacancies throughout the state has nearly doubled in the last year. The report found that the number of teacher vacancies rose from 571 in 2020, to 1,048 in 2021. According to data latest year, there was an 84% increase in total teachers needed in 2021. The report also noted that the areas with the highest number of teacher vacancies are special education and elementary education, which were also the top areas in the prior two reports.

https://www.koat.com/article/new-mexico-teacher-vacancies-nearly-double-for-2021-according-to-new-report-by-nmsu/37913953#

It was been reported in September that the Albuquerque Public Schools is having difficulty filling hundreds of jobs. APS has over 300 open positions including:

• 83 elementary school teacher positions
• 48 middle school teacher positions
• 27 high school teacher positions
• 158 special education teacher positions.

In September, 2021, APS reported it had 650 substitute teachers they said they could use another 500 more substitute teachers.

In September it was also reported Rio Rancho Public Schools had less than 100 positions from teachers to educational assistants. They typically have around 300 active substitutes right and in September they reported having 210.

https://www.koat.com/article/budget-newmexico-state-education-spending/38689658
The link to quoted news source material is here:

https://www.koat.com/article/budget-newmexico-state-education-spending/38689658

HIGHER PAY FOR STATE WORKERS

Under the LFC’s proposed budget, state workers would be given a 3% salary increases in April followed by an additional 4% pay raise starting in June. The governor’s budget plan earmarks enough funding to boost state worker pay enough to establish a $15 minimum wage for state employees. On January 6, 2022, Governor MLG’s Fiscal Year 2023 Executive Budget summary states that $52.4 million was being set aside for the raises.

https://www.governor.state.nm.us/2022/01/06/gov-lujan-grisham-releases-fy23-executive-budget-recommendation/

PUBLIC SCHOOLS PROPOSED BUDGETS

The LFC is proposing a $3.82 billion total budget reflecting a 12% increase.
Governor MLG is proposing a $3.8 billion total budget reflecting an 11.5% increase.

The LFC proposed budget would require all New Mexico schools to provide an additional 10 instructional days during the coming year, though districts would have some flexibility in how to implement the mandate. The governor’s proposed budget provides additional funding for extended learning in an attempt to address academic losses during the COVID-19 pandemic, but allows districts to decide whether to seek out the funding and participate.

Under the LFC proposed budget, spending increases in education are targeted at restoring public services impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, including training new teachers and trying to keep more educators from leaving amid a recent 40% jump in teacher retirements.

REVISITING LANDMARK EDUCATION CASE YAZZIE V. STATE OF NEW MEXICO AND MARTINEZ

Given the magnitude of the increase public education, a reminder of the reason for it is necessary.

On Friday, July 20, 2018, Santa Fe District Court Judge Sarah Singleton ruled in the case of Yazzie v. State of New Mexico and Republican Governor Suzanna Martinez that the state of New Mexico was violating the constitutional rights of at-risk students by failing to provide them with a sufficient education. In a 75-page decision, the court rejected arguments by Governor Susana Martinez’s administration that the education system is improving and for that reason it does not need more funding.

The Court found that the New Mexico Public Education Department (PED) did not do the best it could with the funding it has given by the legislature to the education system. The Court ruling centered on the guaranteed right under the New Mexico Constitution to a sufficient education for all children. The lawsuit alleged a severe lack of state funding, resources and services to help students, particularly children from low-income families, students of color, including Native Americans, English-language learners and students with disabilities.

In her blistering written opinion, Judge Singleton wrote:

“[The evidence presented at trial] proves that the vast majority of New Mexico’s at-risk children finish each school year without the basic literacy and math skills needed to pursue post-secondary education or a career. … Indeed, overall New Mexico children rank at the very bottom in the country for educational achievement. … The at-risk students are still not attaining proficiency at the rate of non-at-risk students … and the programs being lauded by [the Public Education Department] are not changing this picture.”

According to the judge’s ruling, in New Mexico, at the time, 71.6% of the state’s public school students come from low-income families, and 14.4% are English-language learners. Further, 14.8 percent of students have disabilities, and 10.6 percent are Native American. Judge Singleton addressing proficiency rates for Native American students said that in the previous 3 years, those students’ reading proficiency was at 17.6% and their math proficiency was at 10.4%.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, provided the following statement after the court ruling:

“This ruling confirms what parents and educators know—that New Mexico children are deprived of the essential resources, including qualified teachers and support staff, they need. This deprivation is especially severe for those at risk and in need of additional supports—English language learners, Native American students and those in poverty. The ruling also calls out the governor’s obsession with testing over teaching.”

“In New Mexico, it would take $228 million to get public school funding to what it was before the Great Recession, and average teacher pay in the state is nearly 10 percent lower than what it was in 2009. We call on the state to use this ruling as a long-overdue opportunity to overhaul its broken school funding system to ensure all New Mexico children are afforded the public education they deserve and are entitled to. … “

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/judge-rules-lack-of-sufficient-education-for-all-nm-students-violates-constitutional-rights/4997869/?cat=500

The ultimate result of the court ruling is that the State has been ordered to increase funding to public school educations by millions. The Department of Education is till struggling to implement a plan to improve the education system with the case still pending.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1200069/questions-surround-ruling-on-nm-education-funding.html

HIGHER EDUCATION PROPOSED BUDGETS

The LFC is proposing a $935.5 million budget reflecting a 4.6% increase.
Governor MLG is proposing a $1 billion budget reflecting a 13% increase.

The governor’s proposed budget appropriates $85 million for an “opportunity scholarship program” to cover tuition costs for an additional 22,000 New Mexicans attending higher education institutions. Lawmakers have criticized the program because it is not based on financial need. The LFC’s proposed budget provides only half that much money for the scholarship program.

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY PROPOSED BUDGETS

The LFC is proposing a $143.7 million budget reflecting a 10.8% increase.

Governor MLG is proposing a $139.8 million budget reflecting a 7.8% increase.

The LFC proposed state funding cuts for the Corrections Department by about $1.6 million as a result of the recent drop in New Mexico’s prison inmate population. The governor proposed spending plan slightly increases funding for the agency.

The Governor’s proposed budget provides funding for the Department of Public Safety to add 100 state police officers to its ranks. According to the Governor’s office, the increase of a little over $10 million would be enough to fill every current officer vacancy. According to the LFC, even without the additional funding, the department is projected to add 57 officers.

According to the LFC, the Department of Public Safety requested an additional $29.4 million beyond last year’s funding,. The department intends much of the funds to go to increasing pay and expanding training. The LFC proposed budget has funding for only a $12.8 million increase, $2 million of which would go to expanded training. The LFC predicts that such funding would allow the department to add 79 officers.

Charles Sallee, the Deputy Director for Budget at the LFC, had this to say:

“Rather than fund positions that are unlikely to be filled because the economy is at near full employment. . . the LFC recommendation prioritizes both across-the-board pay increases, as well as targeted increases for hard-to-staff positions, like state police officers.”

The LFC is recommending adding fewer new staff than the Governor recommends.

The link to quoted news source material is here:

https://www.krqe.com/plus/data-reporting/new-mexico-governor-seeks-13-budget-increase/

Under the Governor’s released Fiscal Year 2023 executive budget recommendations, $100 million was earmarked for a new fund to recruit, hire and retain 100 law enforcement officers and staff around the state and $14.6M to provide raises and longevity pay to New Mexico State Police officers. Further, $18.2 million is earmarked for local fire departments to purchase equipment, boost recruitment and upgrade facilities

https://www.governor.state.nm.us/2022/01/06/gov-lujan-grisham-releases-fy23-executive-budget-recommendation/

FUNDING TO REGULATE NEW CANNABIS INDUSTRY

Legalization of recreational cannabis in the state occurred last year. Both the Governor’s and the LFC’s proposed budgets proposals allocate funding for the newly created Cannabis Control Division (CCD) that will oversee and regulate the state’s recreational and medical cannibus industry. Both budgets aim to provide staffing to the CCD.

The CCD has asked for 69 additional employees. The LFC recommends only funding 19. The governor’s proposal provides funding for 35 new staff within the department.

The staffing increases would double the current number of full-time staff at the CCD. Victor Reyes, the deputy superintendent at the New Mexico Regulation & Licensing Department, which oversees the CCD, says that additional funding will help the state regulatory department better serve customers and business owners within the cannabis industry. Reyes had this to say:

“Now that we’ve established our rulemaking process and we’ve begun the infrastructure for licensing, we need to have additional staff members to better serve the public [and] make sure that we are making customer service a priority. … “We know that both the executive and the legislative branches of government are committed to the success of this program. That’s why they passed this law. That’s why they gave us that initial support that we needed to be successful.”

The link to quoted news source material is here:

https://www.krqe.com/plus/data-reporting/new-mexico-governor-seeks-13-budget-increase/

FILM INDUSTRY FUNDING

“With the expansion of Netflix in New Mexico and more than $2 billion spent in the state, New Mexico’s film industry seems to be one that’s continuing to grow. But the COVID-19 pandemic also hit the industry hard.

The governor’s budget proposal aims to create a “Media Academy” that would help local students enter the film industry. The idea is not to make a new school, but to use $50 million in funding to support film-focused higher education in the state. The end goal, according to the budget recommendation, is to enroll 1,000 students each year in film-focused training.

In addition, the governor’s budget recommendation would add over half a million dollars to the New Mexico Film Office’s budget. That organization is in charge of making New Mexico attractive to would-be production companies. The LFC budget recommends not providing additional funding to the film program in the fiscal year 2023.”

The link to quoted news source material is here:

https://www.krqe.com/plus/data-reporting/new-mexico-governor-seeks-13-budget-increase/

REACTION TO RELEASED BUDGETS

Governor MLG had this to say in a statement:

“These are investments that take us beyond the status quo, beyond decades of unnecessary austerity – these are investments that carry our state and its people into a future that lifts up every New Mexican.”

Democratic leadership lawmakers said the spending increase, although high, are still financially prudent. Both the Governor’s and the LFC proposed budgets call for upwards of $2.6 billion, which is 30% of state spending, to remain in cash reserves in case projected revenue levels don’t materialize.

State Rep. Patricia Lundstrom, D-Gallup, the LFC’s chairwoman said:

“At this point, we feel it’s just right [to increase spending]. ”

Senate Finance Committee Chairman George Muñoz, D-Gallup stated:

“New Mexico has the opportunity for generational change with the amount of money we have.”

Conservative Republican House Minority Leader James Townsend, R-Artesia, not at all surprisingly rebuked the governor’s proposed budget. In a prepared statement, Townsend said, in part:

“What usually gets lost in the Governor joyously announcing she is handing out cash to anyone and everyone during an election year, is that this money comes from the oil and gas industry that she, her out-of-state donors, and many progressive legislators want to shut down. … I think every one of us should be concerned about the sustainability of these spending levels.”

https://www.krqe.com/plus/data-reporting/new-mexico-governor-seeks-13-budget-increase/

Townsend added that some of the state’s revenue bonanza should be used to lower tax rates on senior citizens and veterans.

The windfall in revenues could allow for a cut in tax rates or rebates for taxpayers, though such proposals would have to be approved in separate bills.

In addition to state funds, lawmakers also have roughly $728 million in federal pandemic relief funds that New Mexico received last year but has not yet allocated.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2459383/governor-key-legislative-panel-roll-out-8-4-billion-spending-plans.html

GOVERNOR’S PLAN TO CUT GROSS RECEIPTS TAXES

On Nov 17, 2021, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham announced that she would pursue a statewide cut in gross receipts taxes. It would be the first in decades and was part of her signature legislative agenda items for the upcoming 2022 session. According to the Governor’s office at the time it was announce, it will save New Mexico families and businesses an estimated $145 million annually, or about $1.5 billion over 10 years.

The governor’s initiative will comprise a statewide 0.25% reduction in the gross receipts tax rate, lowering the statewide rate to 4.875% . This would be the first change in the statewide gross receipts tax rate since July of 2010, when the rate increased from 5% to its current 5.125 percent. According to the Taxation and Revenue Department, New Mexico has not decreased its statewide gross receipts tax rate since 1981, making the governor’s proposed cut, when enacted, a first in 40 years.

The tax cut, if successful, would reduce by one-quarter of a percentage point off the statewide rate, or enough to save a family 25 cents on a $100 purchase.

New Mexico’s gross receipts tax is similar to a sales tax but also applied to the sale of services, not just goods. The gross receipts tax has been a focus of debate for decades. The tax is problematic for small businesses, experts say, because they must pay it when hiring outside help for accounting, legal or other services a cost that builds on itself with each transaction, eventually passed on to the consumer.

Republican State Senator William Sharer, R-Farmington and Rep. Jason Harper, R-Rio Rancho, have repeatedly proposed overhauling the gross receipts tax code and reducing the rate. Sharer said the governor’s proposal was too small to make a real difference and said:

“While it may be a step in the right direction … it’s not tax reform. … [It] doesn’t amount to anything but a talking point.”

https://www.governor.state.nm.us/2021/11/17/governor-announces-plan-to-cut-gross-receipts-taxes/

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/gov-lujan-grisham-announces-proposal-to-cut-gross-receipts-taxes/

https://www.abqjournal.com/2446857/lujan-grisham-to-propose-gross-receipts-tax-cut.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The Governors’ proposal of statewide 0.25% reduction in the gross receipts tax rate appears to be more of an election year ploy to garner favor with the anti-tax crowed. The tax cut if successful, would reduce by one-quarter of a percentage point off the statewide rate, or enough to save a family 25 cents on a $100 purchase. What the state really needs is real tax reform and not a talking point. To that end, the tax cut should be abandoned for the 2022 thirty day session.

The emphasis of increasing funding for education should come as absolutely no supervise to anyone. Both the Governor and the Legislature have no choice because of the landmark case of YAZZIE V. STATE OF NEW MEXICO AND MARTINEZ. The state’s education department is still operating under a district court mandate to increase funding after the ruling from 3 years ago found that the state was failing badly to provide and education to students.

Now that both the governor and the LFC have released their individual proposed budgets before the 2022 session, the hard part begins ironing out the differences. Both Senate and House committees will analyze, discuss, debate and modify the bill before both the House and Senate vote on the adjusted version and enact what is the General Appropriations Act. Once it’s approved by a majority vote, it heads to the governor’s desk for a final signature. However, the Governor still has line-item veto power over the bill.

Notwithstanding the debate and compromising that remains, the 2022 legislative session will be far easier than the past few sessions that required dramatic budget cuts and a special session. With the availability of $1.6 Billion in new revenue, there should be very little problem.

Some critics and political pundits are saying that the budgets do not go far enough to fully utilize the the state’s windfall to make transformative changes and investment. Such arguments reflect a certain level of ignorance of the state budget process. Both of the proposed budgets are the operating budgets for government. The appropriate concentration should should be for now to maintain funding for basic government services. Once the operating budget is resolved, there is ample time to address transformative infrastructure projects and programs. More importantly there will be money to to just that.

Transformative programs and projects should include more funding for mental health care services, drug addiction and intervention programs, and funding for programs to help the homeless including funding to complete Albuquerque’s GATEWAY facility for the homeless. Additional funding and changes in the laws to help local law enforcement deal with the states spiking crime rates could be added. There should be enough also for major infrastructure and capital outlay projects such as funding for a new soccer stadium and building a multi purpose venue to replace the aging Tingly Coliseum.

With $3.7 billion In Federal Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act Funding, the allocation of $478 million in federal pandemic aid out of $1.1 Billion in pandemic relief and the $1.6 billion of projected windfall from oil an gas revenues, the state’ s decades long financial woes may finally be coming to an end. The next 4 years of government expenditure of billions may prove to be a once in a lifetime opportunity to diversify the state’s economy.

The link to a related blog article is here:

Governor Lujan Grisham Delivers On $478 Million In Pandemic Relief; $3.7 Billion In Federal Infrastructure Investments And State’s $1.6 Billion Surplus Once In A Lifetime Opportunity For Governor Running For Second Term; Concrete Results Versus Republican Smear Tactics

On January 4, 2021, the national news agency USA Today posted a story written by its reporter McKenzie Sadeghi with contributing reporters Camille Caldera, Devon Link, Ella Lee, Daniel Funke, Chelsey Cox, Rick Rouan, Nayeli Lomeli, Madeleine Ngo entitled “Fact check roundup: Debunking false narratives about the Jan. 6 Capitol riot”.

On January 6, USA TODAY published a second article entitled “Fact check: How we know the 2020 election results were legitimate, not ‘rigged’ as Donald Trump claims” written by reporter Daniel Funke.

Both articles are well researched and well written. When read together with minor edits, the articles provide insightful information on the January 6, 2021 capital riot as well as Trumps false claims relating to the November 4, 2020 presidential election.

USA TODAY JANUARY 4, 2021 ARTICLE

EDITOR’S NOTE: The article has been edited for clarification to the extent of bolding titles, adding “USA TODAY RATING” and deleting “Read More” reference links.

“It has been almost one year since a mob supporting now-former President Donald Trump – fueled by baseless voter fraud claims – stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 in an attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

This was a misunderstanding of how breaking news is reported. National Public Radio did not post a story about rioters taking over the Capitol hours before it happened. The story was originally published on the morning of Jan. 6, and it was updated throughout the day with new developments.”

The link to the unedited USA Story with READ MORE links is here:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/01/04/fact-check-roundup-many-false-narratives-jan-6-insurrection/9052900002/

NO EVIDENCE THAT FRAUD AFFECTED ELECTION OUTCOME

On January 6, USA TODAY published an article entitled “Fact check: How we know the 2020 election results were legitimate, not ‘rigged’ as Donald Trump claims” written by reporter Daniel Funke. The article concluded saying that there is ample evidence fraud did not affect the 2020 presidential election outcome. Following are excerpts from the report:

“Based on our research, [USA TODAY] rate[s] FALSE the claim that the 2020 presidential election was “rigged.” Lawsuits, recounts, forensic audits and partisan reviews have all affirmed the election results. Officials from both parties have repeatedly debunked claims of widespread voter fraud. With 306 electoral votes, Biden beat Trump in the election.
…
In the immediate aftermath of Biden’s win, election officials insisted the results were legitimate.

Claims from conservative pundits that voting machines deleted Trump votes and changed them to Biden are false.
Companies like Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic have filed defamation lawsuits against Trump allies and conservative news outlets for promoting baseless claims about their voting technology.

The link to the unedited USA Report is here:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/01/06/fact-check-donald-trump-2020-election-results/9115875002/

REPUBLICANS BELIEVE ELECTION RIGGED

According to a November poll from the Public Religion Research Institute, 68% of Republicans believe the election was “stolen” from Donald Trump. Only 6% of Democrats and 26 percent of independents say the same. Tens of millions of Americans believe Trump’s “big lie” that the election was stolen even though there’s no evidence of significant voter fraud. According to a Washington Post article, the data points to three related explanations:

1. Tribal partisanship
2. A persistent tendency toward conspiratorial thinking among many Americans, and
3. A sustained misinformation campaign by Trump and his allies.

According to the Washington Post article, there’s a simple political pattern in election denial polls. When Republicans win the White House, Democrats are more likely to say the race was rigged. And when Democrats win the White House, Republicans are more likely to cry fraud.
University of Miami political science professor Joseph Uscinski, a who specializes in conspiracy theories, explained the pattern this way:

“Some people don’t like to lose, and they don’t have a good way of coming to grips with it. … You could think of it in politics as in sports: the winning team rarely complains about the umpires and referees. There’s nothing to complain about when you win — you only have something to complain about if you lose.”

When Trump lost, many Republicans followed this pattern: They alleged fraud rather than admitting that Biden won fairly. And strong Republicans, the people with the greatest attachment to the party, were the most likely to believe Trump’s voter fraud claims.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/10/why-do-some-still-deny-bidens-2020-victory-heres-what-data-says/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

What is disgusting and the act of a traitor is that what unfolded on January 6, 2021 was an attack on our country, our very democracy, by a President of the United States who lost his election for a second term and who still refuses to accept his defeat to this day. Der Führer Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 to Hillary Clinton by 3 million votes only to win the electoral college vote by the identical number that Biden won over Trump. Instead of giving way and cooperating with a peaceful transition of power, Trump attempted a COUP D’É·TAT of his successor who won not only the electoral college vote but the popular vote by 6 million votes.

It is clear that Trump is the first fascist ever elected President of the United States who put himself above the law, his own country and his own party. Trump has no respect for our constitution nor free elections. His view is that the only votes that count are those that are cast form him, a lesson he probably learned from Vladimir Putin or Kim Jung Un. Trump’s strongest and closest allies and supporters need to come to their senses and the realization that Trump is a traitor to our country, to them, to all of us and to our democracy. Attempting to set aside the vote of the American people was an attempt to undermine our very democracy. It was a coup d’é·tat that failed.

The same goes for the “clown car” full of the Republican House and Senate members who initially sought to seek to set aside the 2020 victory of Joe Biden by voting not to certify the electoral college vote. Their conduct likewise is nothing less than in insurrection or rebellion against the United States and are democratic form of government. They too should be removed expelled by the House and Senate and if not voted out of office by their constituents. What is so damn disgusting is that there are way too many Senate and House Republicans that still defend Trump.

The physical damage is to the United State Capitol is easily repaired. The damage to our democracy by Führer Trump and his coup d’é·tat that failed will take years to recover from, if not at all.