On Tuesday, August 6, the Albuquerque City Council will consider and vote to select one of 8 city council redistricting maps.  Seven of the maps do not make dramatic changes to the city council district.  One redistricting map is a major departure and will essentially divide and split up two city council disticts with this map drawn up and sponsored by Democrats Pat Davis and Tammy Fiebelkorn.

This blog article is an in depth analysis of the 8 city council maps urging citizens to voice their opinions on the maps.

CITY COUNCIL REDISTRICTING COMMITEE

Every 10 years, the City Charter requires that the Council appoint an 18-member committee composed of an equal number of representatives from each of the 9 Council District to review and make recommendations regarding redistricting the 9 Council Districts based on information from the Federal Census. The Committee was tasked with using the population data from the official 2020 U.S. Census along with any other pertinent information to make a report recommending changes in the Council District boundaries that the Committee decided were necessary based on constitutional principles governing voting rights, population, compactness and other related factors.  Research & Polling, the most reliable and accurate polling company in New Mexico was hired as consultants and provided the committee with 5 initial Concept Maps, titled Map A through E.

PRINCIPLES OF REDISTRICTING OUTLINED

The City Council Resolution creating the 2022 Redistricting Committee gave specific guideline rules the committee was to follow when considering district boundaries. According to the Council Resolution, City council Districts are to be “contiguous, relatively compact with as few geographic extremes as possible, attempt to preserve communities of interest, adhere to existing precinct lines, except where divided by municipal boundaries, and follow Constitutional principles governing voting rights.” Further, the City Council redistricting committee were allowed to preserve the core of existing districts and consider the residence of incumbents.  The committee was not to use partisan election data or registration data in designing redistricting maps.

The City Council Redistricting Committee was required to follow 5 major principles for redistricting. Those principles were as follows:

1. Population Equality

Districts shall be substantially equal in population accordance with the principle of “one person – one vote” as defined by law and case law. For the City of Albuquerque, districts shall not deviate from the ideal population by more than 5 percent. The ideal population of each city council district is defined by dividing the total population of the City by nine city council districts.

2. Minority Voting Rights

Districts will be designed to provide appropriate participation in the electoral process for protected racial and ethnic groups in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, federal voting rights legislation and case law. It is important to avoid diluting minority voting strength, however, pursuant to United States Supreme Court decisions, race shall not be the predominant consideration in the creation of election districts.

3. Compactness

Districts will be created which are not bizarre in shape. Compactness of a district is sometimes affected by irregular outer boundaries of a jurisdiction. While there are many measures of compactness, no single measure has been accepted as the most appropriate to use.

4. Contiguity:

Each district will be contiguous, that is, each district will be made up of one district part, not two or more separated from the rest of the district by another.

5. Communities of Interest

Districts will be designed, if possible, to respect communities of interest. Communities of interest which may be considered include but are not limited to maintaining the core of existing districts; location of incumbents (i.e. keeping current elected officials unpaired in the new districts); physical features; neighborhoods; cultural/historical traditions; and precincts. However, accounting for communities of interest is subordinate to maintaining population equality, contiguity, and preserving minority voting rights.

EIGHT MAPS RATED AND RECOMMENDED

On June 29, the Redistricting Committee held its very last meeting and voted to select 8 maps they would rate and recommend to the City Council. The committee voted on a 5 – 4 vote to send all 8 maps to the city council with their recommendation. A final written report was released on July 1. Ultimately, the city council will decide maps it will adopt or reject and for that matter come up with their own map ignoring the recommendations of the committee. The 8 maps are labelled as follows:

Research & Polling Concept Map A,
Research & Polling Concept Map D,
Research & Polling Concept Map E,
Citizen Map 1,
Citizen Map 2,
Citizen Map 3,
Citizen Map 4, and
Citizen Map 5.

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND RATINGS

On June 29th the Redistricting Committee met for the final time. The committee decided not to settle on a single map but rated and ranked each of the 8 maps. After rating each map, the committee voted to send all 8 maps to the City Council for their consideration and final selection. the Committee rated each of the 8 maps on a 5-point scale, ranging from 0 to 4. The rating scale was:

4 – Strongly recommend
3 – Recommend
2 – Neutral/ mixed feelings
1 – Do not recommend
0 – Strongly do not recommend 3

The link to review all 8 redistricting maps is here:

https://documents.cabq.gov/council/2022%20Redistricting%20Report.pdf

On June 29 the Redistricting Committee voted to rate and ranked the maps as follows:

1.Concept Map A scored the highest with a total rating of 24 and an average rating of 2.7.

2. Citizen Map 2 scored the second highest with a total rating of 19 and an average rating of 2.1.

3. Concept Map D scored the third highest with a total rating of 16 and an average rating of 1.8.

4. Citizen Map 1 scored fourth highest with a total rating of 13 and an average rating of 1.4

5. Citizen Map 5 scored fifth highest with a total rating of 12 and an average rating of 1.3

6. Citizen Map 3 scored sixth highest with a total rating of 9 and an average rating of 1.0

7. Concept E map and Citizens Map 4 tied for seventh highest place each with a total rating of 7 and an average rating of 0.8

THE REDISTRICTING MAPS ANALIZED

Following is a detailed description of the 8 redistricting maps, identifying current city councilors, that have been forwarded to the City Council for their review and final selection.

EDITOR’S NOTE: In the interest of clarity, each one of the city council district numbers are followed by the last name of the incumbent city councilor, i.e. District 2 (Benton)

1. Concept Map A

Concept Map A scored the highest with a total rating of 24 and an average rating of 2.7. The objective of this map was a minimal change map to account for population changes and minimize voter confusion. No incumbents are displaced nor paired against each other. The city council districts are identical to current districts with respect to Districts 3 (Peña), 4 (Bassan) and District 9 (Grout). However, District 5 (Lewis) lost population. Its boundary with District 1 (Sanchez) moves north to the bluff south of the Petroglyph Estates. District 2 (Benton) crosses the river between Central and I-40 to Coors taking the West Mesa and Pat Hurley neighborhoods from District 1 (Louie Sanchez). District 6 (Davis) moves west into District 2, (Benton) from Buena Vista to I-25 between Gibson and Lomas. District 6 (Davis) also takes the University West area (including Carrie Tingley Hospital) from District 2 (Benton). District 7 (Fiebelkorn) moves south into District 2 (Benton) from I-40 to Lomas between I-25 and Carlisle not including the University West area. District 8 (Trudy Jones) moves into District 7 (Tammy Fiebelkorn) from Montgomery to Comanche between Wyoming and Eubank.

2. Citizen Map 2

Citizen Map 2 scored the second highest with a total rating of 19 and an average rating of 2.1. Citizen Map 2 stated objective was to decrease the population deviation in District 8. No incumbents are displaced nor paired against each other. Citizen Map 2 is identical to Concept Map A with respect to Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 9. However, District 8 (Jones) moves further south into District 7 (Fiebelkorn) than in Concept A to Candelaria between Wyoming and Eubank.

3. Concept Map D

Concept Map D scored the third highest with a total rating of 16 and an average rating of 1.8. The objective of this map is to provide a different orientation of the eastside districts by creating a foothills district and a far NE Heights district. Two incumbents are paired against each other with incumbents from District 4 (Bassan) and District 8 (Jones) paired in District 8 (Jones). The Concept D map is identical to Concept A with respect to Districts 1, 3, and 5. District 9 (Grout) becomes a Four Hills/foothills district, it follows Juan Tabo to Montgomery and basically goes from Four Hills to El Dorado High School. District 8 (Jones) becomes a far NE Heights district. From the east side of the city, the southern boundary follows Montgomery to Juan Tabo, then follows Spain to Wyoming, up to San Antonio, then follows San Antonio to I-25 then crosses I-25 along Paseo del Norte. District 4 (Bassan) takes everything south of District 8 (Jones) and north of Candelaria between Juan Tabo and I-25 except for the neighborhoods between Comanche and Candelaria and Carlisle and I-25 which go into District 7 (Fiebelkorn). District 7 (Fiebelkorn) mostly takes everything between I-25 and Juan Tabo south of District 4 (Bassan) and north of Lomas. District 7 (Fiebelkorn) does not include University West, which is in District 6 (Davis) and does go south of Lomas to Central between Wyoming and Juan Tabo. District 6 stays mostly south of Lomas except for University West and runs from I-25 in the west to Wyoming in the east. South of Central, District 6 goes to Eubank. District 2 (Benton) crosses the river to Coors between Central and I-40 and stays west of I25. Moves north into District 4 (Bassan) to Paseo del Norte.

4. Citizen Map 1

Citizen Map 1 scored 4th highest with a total rating of 13 and an average rating of 1.4. This map was originally submitted by Scotti Romberg. The stated objective of the map was to achieve city council districts that were more equal in population. No incumbents are displaced nor paired against each other. Citizen map 1 is identical to Concept A map with respect to Districts 3 (Peña), 4 (Bassan), 5 (Lewis), and 6 (Davis). In contrast to Concept A, the West Bluff area north of I-40 and east of Coors moves from District 1 (Sanchez) into District 2 (Benton). Compared to Concept A, District 9 (Grout) moves west into District 7 (Fiebelkorn) moving from Eubank to Easterday Dr between Constitution and I-40. District 8 (Jones) takes two precincts additional from District 7 (Fiebelkorn) between Eubank and Moon and Comanche and Candelaria compared to Concept A

5. CITIZEN MAP 5

Citizen Map 5 scored 5th highest with a total rating of 12 and an average rating of 1.3. Citizen Map 5 was originally “the Fairness for Our Future” map plan. The stated objective of the map is to increase representation for the west side and create an additional majority Hispanic district. Incumbent from District 6 (Davis) and District 7 (Fiebelkorn) are paired against each other in District 7. The incumbent from District 2 is moved to District 6 (Davis). Both City Council Districts 2 (Benton) and 6 (Davis) cross the river to Unser between Central and I-40. District 6 (Davis) takes in Barelas. The other districts are similar to the current alignments.

District 5 (Lewis) is very similar to Concept A. District 1 (Sanchez) moves a little further north into District 5 (Lewis), keeping District 5 (Lewis) on the negative side of the allowable population deviations. District 2 (Benton) crosses the river to Unser between Los Volcanes and I-40 and takes the two West Bluff precincts north of I-40 and east of Coors. District 2 (Benton) stays north of Bell between 2nd and Buena Vista and keeps the Huning Castle neighborhood, but loses the Albuquerque Country Club to District 6 (Davis). District 2 (Benton) crosses I-25 to Carlisle into District 7 (Fiebelcorn) between I-40 and Montgomery. District 6 (Davis) crosses the river to Unser between Central and Los Volcanes. District 6 (Davis) also crosses the river south of Central to the Arenal Main Canal. District 6 (Davis) stays south of Central between Buena Vista and San Mateo and then moves to Lomas between San Mateo and Wyoming. District 9 (Grout) moves west from Eubank to Wyoming south of Menaul. District 9 (Grout) also stays south of Indian School as District 8 moves south. District 8 moves south from Menaul to south of Indian School and east from Eubank to Morris. The boundary between Districts 4 and 8 changes slightly with District 8 moving north into District 4 from San Antonio to San Franciso east of Ventura and District 4 moving east into District 8 from Wyoming to Moon between Academy and Spain. District 4 (Bassan) moves south into District 7 (Fiebelkorn) from Montgomery to Comanche between Carlisle and San Mateo. District 7 (Fiebelkorn) takes UNM and the north campus area from District 6 (Davis). District 7 (Fiebelkorn) moves south of Lomas to Central between UNM and San Mateo. District 7 (Fiebelkorn) curves around District 9 (Grout) to Indian School between Eubank and Morris.

6. CITIZEN MAP 3

Citizen Map 3 scored sixth highest with a total rating of 9 and an average rating of 1.0. This map was originally the Historic COI Revised map. The stated objective of Citizens Map 3 Citizen’s is to place the historic core of Albuquerque into a single district, District 2 (Benton). No incumbents are displaced nor paired against each other. Citizen Map 3 is identical to Concept A with respect to City Council Districts 1 (Sanchez) and 5 (Lewis). Citizen Map 3 is also identical to Citizen Map 1 with respect to Districts 8 (Jones) and 9 (Grout).

Two districts crossing the river – one north of Central to Coors and one south of Central to Atrisco ditch. District 2 (Benton) crosses the river to Coors between Central and I-40 and retains the core of Downtown. District 2 (Benton) crosses I-25 to Girard between Avenida Cesar Chavez and Lomas. Crosses Lomas to take in University West. District 3 (Peña) stays west of the Atrisco ditch south of Central. District 6 (Davis) takes the Huning Castle neighborhood and the part of Barelas south of Anderson. The northern and eastern boundaries of District 6 (Davis) are the same as current boundaries. District 4 (Bassan) moves south into District 2 (Benton) from Montaño to Comanche west of I-25.

Citizen Map 3 is identical to Concept A with respect to Districts 1 (Sanchez) and 5 (Lewis). Citizen Map 3 is also identical to Citizen Map 1 with respect to Districts 8 (Jones) and 9 Grout). Two districts cross the river one north of Central to Coors and one south of Central to Atrisco ditch. District 2 (Benton) crosses the river to Coors between Central and I-40 and retains the core of Downtown. District 2 (Benton) crosses I-25 to Girard between Avenida Cesar Chavez and Lomas. Crosses Lomas to take in University West. District 3 (Peña) stays west of the Atrisco ditch south of Central. District 6 (Davis) takes the Huning Castle neighborhood and the part of Barelas south of Anderson. The northern and eastern boundaries of District 6 (Davis) are the same as current boundaries. District 4 (Bassan) moves south into District 2 (Benton) from Montaño to Comanche west of I-25.

7. CONCEPT E MAP AND CITIZENS MAP 4 TIED FOR SEVENTH

Research and Polling Concept E map and Citizens Map 4 tied for seventh highest place each with a total rating of 7 and an average rating of 0.8. Both these maps have a dramatic effect on splitting up two districts. The Concept E map splits up the downtown area between Districts 2 (Benton) and 6 (Davis). The citizens Map 4 concept map splits up the two mid-heights Districts 6 (Davis) and 7 (Fiebelkorn).

THE CONCEPT E MAP

The Concept E map objective was to redistribute the downtown area between Districts 2 (Benton) and 6 (Davis) . This map has the incumbents from District 2 (Benton) and District 6 (Davis) paired off in District 2 (Benton). The Concept E map is identical to Concept A with respect to Districts 1 (Sanchez) and 5 (Lewis). On the east side of the city, the districts all move a little clockwise so that District 6 (Davis) can come into Barelas and the southern part of downtown. District 2 (Benton) crosses the river to Coors between I-40 and Central and to the ditch south of Central. The southern boundary of District 2 (Benton) stays mostly along Central east of the river. District 2 (Benton) stays west of I-25 north of I-40 and west of Carlisle between I-40 and Central. District 2 (Benton) moves north into District 4 (Bassan) from Montaño to Osuna west of I-25. District 6 (Davis) stays south of Central west of Carlisle and south of Lomas between Carlisle and Wyoming. District 9 (Grout) moves west from Eubank to Wyoming, staying south of Indian School. District 8 (Jones) moves south from Menaul to Indian School and west from Eubank to Wyoming. District 4 (Bassan) moves into District 8 (Jones) taking everything north of Montgomery west of Eubank and Juan Tabo. District 7 (Fiebelkorn) stays west of Wyoming and moves north into District 4 from Montgomery to Academy. District 3 (Peña) stays west of the ditch south of Central.

CITIZEN MAP 4

Citizen Map 4 was originally the citizens map prepared and submitted by Democrats City Councilors Pat Davis and Tammy Fiebelkorn. The stated objective of Citizens Map 4 was to “rethink the orientation of the two mid-heights districts 6 (Davis) and 7 (Fieblekorn) without adjusting the other districts. The incumbents from District 6 (Davis) and District 7 (Fiebelkorn) are paired in District 7 (Fiebelcorn). Citizen Map 4 is identical to Citizen Map 2 with respect to Districts 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9. City Counsil District 2 (Benton) takes the two precincts north of the Kirtland Addition. Districts 6 (Davis) and 7 (Fiebelkorn) take on a vertical rather than horizontal orientation. District 6 (Davis) takes everything south of Menaul between San Mateo and Eubank as well as the neighborhoods between Candelaria and Menaul between Louisiana and Eubank. District 7 (Feibelcorn) stays south of Montgomery, east of I-25 and mostly west of San Mateo.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Now that the redistricting committee has done its work, it is up to the City Council to decide what to do and what concept map to adopt or for that matter draw their own concept map if they want.  The City Council is under no legal obligation to adopt any one of the 8 maps and conceivably reject all 8 maps and start from scratch and ignore the rankings.

It is easy to see how the redistricting of all 9 City Council Districts could affect the partisan balance of power on the City Council with one or more District becoming a swing District.  The city council is split 5 Democrats to 4 Republicans, but the ideology split is 5 conservatives to 3 progressives and one moderate. The breakdown by name is as follows:

DEMOCRATS

District 1 Conservative Democrat Louie 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

REPUBLICANS

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

With the ideological breakdown in mind, Concept Map A is the one concept map that will maintain the status quo while Concept Map 4 created and sponsored by Progressives Pat Davis and Tammy Fiebelkorn are clearly the most partisan and the most radical.

Two other proposed maps have the potential of creating more than one swing district, with one on the west side or one in the southeast area of the city. Concept Map 3 has two districts crossing the river, one North of Central to Coors and one South of Central to Atrisco ditch. Citizen Map 5 also makes a great effort to create a Hispanic majority district.

Citizen Map 4 was originally the citizens map prepared and submitted by city Councilors Pat Davis and Tammy Fiebelkorn. There is little doubt that Davis/Fiebelkorn concept map is the most radical map of all the 7 maps under consideration. All 7 other maps make adjustments that are very minor in comparison and essentially “tweaks” the existing Districts, respecting the existing borders and neighborhoods and communities.

The one map that should be rejected without question is the Davis/Fiebelkorn Citizen redistricting Map 4.   It can only be considered an abomination. It is a prime example of gerrymandering at its very worse designed to protect newly elected incumbent Tammy Fiebelkorn while the departing city councilor Pat Davis thumbs his nose at his own City Council District 6.

City Councilor Pat Davis is nothing but the hypocrite he is when he says:

“I think we should have some different voices on the City Council. … If you look at it now, the entire east side of the city is represented by white folks, and I think that shows the current districting is leaving some people out of the process.”

Tammy Fiebelkorn is also being a hypocrite and opportunistic to say after a mere 5 months in office:

“One of the baselines of redistricting is that we find ways to make marginalized communities have a voice. … [and give] large, culturally significant populations [a more united voice on the council].”

Pat Davis may want to look into a mirror at himself and while he is at it tell Tammy Fiebelkorn that she is not a woman of color. They are both one of those “white folks” that Davis complains about. Both pretend to know what “marginalized communities” are  as they stick their noses into minority issues when they both can be considered “white privilege”.

Fiebelkorn is not talking about her own district when she says she wants to help the marginalized, ostensibly meaning minorities. She is referring to the International District, an area of the city she thinks she knows what is needed as far as representation on the city council is concerned, but an area she does not want to be included in her new, realigned district.

City Councilor Fiebelkorn does not currently represent the Nob Hill area, yet she is now advocating just that by cutting out a large portion of her existing district while ignoring those she currently is supposed to be representing. Fiebelkorn wants to “raid” District 6 and absorb the highly progressive Nob Hill area, knowing full well it will increase her own reelection chances.

It is not at all difficult to figure out what progressive Democrats Pat Davis and Tammy Fiebelkorn are up to. It is more likely than not that Pat Davis has already decided not to run for another term and he now sees the opportunity to help his progressive ally on the city council Tammy Fiebelkorn. Given her performance on the City Council thus far, it is hoped she will be a one term city councilor.

On June 3, Tammy Fiebelkorn said in an email:

“I have active dialogue with D7 constituents all the time and work with them on a variety of projects.”

Fiebelkorn has been in office a mere 5 months. Confidential sources have said what she has actually done since taking office 5 months ago is meet with her progressive supporters, especially those who are animal rights activists, has attended one Neighborhood Association meeting and meets with and listens to and takes direction from progressive Democrat City Councilor Pat Davis.

The dynamic duo of Fiebelkorn and Davis have come up with a City Council redistricting map that amounts to nothing more than a “political movida” to increase Fiebelkorn’s progressive base. The dramatic border revisions proposed by Councilors Pat Davis and Tammy Fiebelkorn will have a direct and negative impact on the International District and Nob Hill and the entire District 7 she represents.

The City Council is currently on summer break and will not reconvene until the August 1 or August 8. Registered voters are encouraged to go to the city web page and review all 8 City

CONTACT YOUR CITY COUNCILOR

The voting public needs review all the redistricting maps make their opinions known about the proposed redistricting maps. Otherwise, the council will vote, and it will be 10 years before the public can make their opinions known.

The email address to each City Councilor and the Director of Counsel services are as follows:

lesanchez@cabq.gov
louiesanchez@allstate.com
ibenton@cabq.gov
kpena@cabq.gov
bbassan@cabq.gov
danlewis@cabq.gov
LEWISABQ@GMAIL.COM
patdavis@cabq.gov
tfiebelkorn@cabq.gov
trudyjones@cabq.gov
rgrout@cabq.gov
cmelendrez@cabq.gov

 

 

 

On August 8 the Department of Justice executed a Search Warrant and a Return of Service and Inventory at former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida. A link to review the search warrant is here:

https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/r4ifDtO2XZZ8/v

The judge authorized federal agents to gather any documents with classification markings as well as information about how “national defense information or classified material” had been stored and handled. The judge also gave agents leeway to collect any other government records created between the day Trump took office on Jan. 20, 2017 and when he left four years later that might be evidence of violations of the Espionage Act or other document-related crimes under investigation.

Attachment B of the search warrant shows what was to be seized and says federal agents were to gather evidence that include physical documents with classification markings, and the containers or boxes those documents were located in, as well as other containers that were stored or found together with those documents. They also were to seize “information, including communications in any form, regarding the retrieval, storage, or transmission of national defense information or classified material.” The document also called for seizure of any presidential or government records and any evidence of alteration or destruction of those records or other classified documents.

The warrant allows for the seizure of “all physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of” various aspects of the Espionage Act.

The search warrant says federal agents are investigating potential violations of three different federal laws. The three specific federal criminal laws are:

18 USC 793, which is part of the Espionage Act and makes it a crime to remove or misuse information related to national defense;

18 USC 2071, which makes it a crime to hide, damage, or destroy government records; and

18 USC 1519, which makes it a crime to falsify, destroy, or cover up records to obstruct or interfere with a federal investigation or “proper administration of any matter” under the jurisdiction of an agency.

All 3 potential offenses cited in the warrant are felony crimes. The obstruction charge carries a maximum sentence of up to 20 years in prison. The Espionage Act crime has a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, and the catch-all offense for destroying government records carries up to three years behind bars.

“The records destruction statute also states that a person found guilty “shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States,” but legal scholars have largely agreed that it’s unlikely that punishment could apply to the presidency, since the Constitution directly spells out what qualifies, or disqualifies, a person for that office.”

A total of 27 boxes were seized. Included in the documents and items seized were 11 sets of documents labeled classified, confidential, secret and top secret. The list of boxes of information seized during the search includes documents that were the US government’s highest top-secret ratings.

“The FBI seized “TS/SCI documents,” which stands for top-secret and sensitive compartmented information, a government label for material gathered through sensitive intelligence sources or methods. The seized records marked “sensitive compartmented information” is a special category meant to protect the nation’s most important secrets that if revealed publicly could cause “exceptionally grave” damage to U.S. interests. In other words, documents were seized that potentially compromise the country’s national security. Federal prosecutors are indicating that they are exploring possible violations of the federal Espionage Act.”

The property receipt also shows the FBI collected other potential presidential records, including the order pardoning Trump ally Roger Stone, a“leatherbound box of documents,” and information about the “President of France.” A binder of photos, a handwritten note, “miscellaneous secret documents” and “miscellaneous confidential documents” were also seized in the search.

Trump’s attorney, Christina Bobb, who was present at Mar-a-Lago when the agents conducted the search, signed two property receipts. One receipt was two pages long and another that is a single page.

The links to quoted news source material are here:

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/12/1117151056/fbi-collected-multiple-sets-of-classified-documents-from-trumps-mar-a-lago-home

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-12/fbi-seized-top-secret-documents-from-trump-s-home-reports-say

https://www.wbrz.com/news/fbi-seized-top-secret-documents-in-trump-estate-search/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/trump-denies-report-fbi-sought-nuclear-documents-mar-lago-search-rcna42766

https://nypost.com/2022/08/12/fbi-seized-11-sets-of-classified-documents-in-trump-mar-a-lago-raid/

ANALYSIS OF AFFIDAVIT FOR SEARCH WARRANT

The execution of the search warrant was immediately attacked by Trump and his Republican allies as a political move by President Joe Biden. Trump himself suggested the search warrant was politically motivated and went so far to advance the baseless conspiracy theory that the FBI agents might have planted evidence. The White House has said that Biden was not even told in advance about the search.

Multiple national news outlets as well as Trump and his Republican allies demanded that the Affidavit for Search Warrant be released in full with the Department of Justice opposing such release claiming release would jeopardize an ongoing investigation and compromise and endanger witnesses

On Friday, August 26, a  redacted version of the affidavit that the Justice Department used to obtain a search warrant of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago  was released.  The affidavit was revealing and shed new light on the federal investigation into the handling of documents from his White House. The release of the redacted affidavit provides a timeline about how the investigation unfolded.

AFFIDAVIT CONTENTS

Given the controversy surrounding the search of a former Presidents home, an review  of the affidavit language is in order. The Affidavit for Search Warrant is 38 pages long and is sworn to under oath by a sworn FBI agent.  The first 6 introductory paragraphs provide a succinct rational for the warrant alleged by the FBI agent.  Following are edited first paragraphs of the Affidavit:

“1. The government is conducting a criminal investigation concerning the improper removal and storage of classified information in unauthorized spaces, as well as the unlawful concealment or removal of government records. The investigation began as a result of a referral the United States National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) sent to the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) on February 9, 2022, … .

The NARA Referral stated that on January 18, 2022, in accordance with the Presidential Records Act (PRA), NARA received from the office of former President DONALD J. TRUMP, hereinafter “FPOTUS,” via representatives, fifteen (15) boxes of records, hereinafter, the “FIFTEEN BOXES.”

The FIFTEEN BOXES, which had been transported from the FPOTUS property at 1100 S Ocean Blvd, Palm Beach, FL 33480, hereinafter, the “PREMISES,” a residence and club known as “Mar-a-Lago” … were reported by NARA to contain, among other things, highly classified documents intermingled with other records.

2.  After an initial review of the NARA Referral, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) opened a criminal investigation to, among other things, determine how the documents with classification markings and records were removed from the White House … and came to be stored at the PREMISES [and to]

 [A.] determine whether the storage location(s) at the PREMISES were authorized locations for the storage of classified information;

[B.] determine whether any additional classified documents or records may have been stored in an unauthorized location at the PREMISES or another unknown location,  and whether they remain at any such location;

[C.]  identify any person(s) who may have removed or retained classified information without authorization and/or in an unauthorized space.

 3.  The FBI’s investigation has established that documents bearing classification markings, which appear to contain National Defense Information (NDI), were among the materials contained in the FIFTEEN BOXES and were stored at the PREMISES in an unauthorized location.

Further, there is probable cause to believe that additional documents that contain classified NDI or that are Presidential records subject to record retention requirements currently remain at the PREMISES.

There is also probable cause to believe that evidence of obstruction will be found at the PREMISES.

4. …
5. …
6. Based upon the … facts [enumerated herein]  there is probable cause to believe that the locations to be searched at the PREMISES contain evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation 18 U.S.C. §§ 793(e), 1519, or 2071.”

STATUTORY AUTHORITY

Paragraphs 8 through 27 of the affidavit outlines specific statutory authority and the specific federal criminal laws and penalties dealing with the possession and handling of classified documents and presidential documents and penalties. The 4 federal laws  cited with particularity are 18 U.S.C. § 1519,  18 U.S.C. § 2071, PRA, 44 U.S.C. § 2201 and 44 U.S.C. § 3301(a).

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1519: Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 2071: (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. § 2201: (2) The term “Presidential records” means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President’s immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term

(A) includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the President or members of the President’s staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; but

(B) does not include any documentary materials that are (i) official records ofan agency (as defined in section 552(e) of title 5, United States Code; (ii) personal records; (iii) stocks of publications and stationery; or (iv) extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference, when such copies are clearly so identified.

Under 44 U.S.C. § 3301(a), government “records” are defined as: all recorded information, regardless of form or characteristics, made or received by a Federal agency under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency or its legitimate successor as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the United States Government or because of the informational value of data in them.

… .

32 C.F .R. Parts 2001 and 2003 regulate the handling of classified information. Specifically, 32 C.F.R. § 2001.43, titled “Storage,” regulates the physical protection of classified information. This section prescribes that Secret and Top-Secret information “shall be stored in a [General Services Administration]-approved security container, a vault built to Federal Standard (FHD STD) 832, or an open storage area constructed in accordance with§ 2001.53.”

DEFINITIONS OF DOCUMENT CLASSIFICATIONS

The Affidavit for Search Warrant goes to great lengths to define the various levels of classified documents that are the subject of the search warrant. The definitions of classified documents enumerated in the affidavit includes the following:

“Confidential” [is where]  unauthorized disclosure could reasonably result in damage to the national security, the information may be classified as and must be properly safeguarded.

“Secret” [ is where] …  such unauthorized disclosure could reasonably result in serious damage to the national security, the information may be classified as and must be properly safeguarded.

“Top Secret”  [is where] Where such unauthorized disclosure could reasonably result in exceptionally grave damage to the national security, the information may be classified as “Top Secret” and must be properly safeguarded.

“Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI)” means classified information concerning or derived from intelligence sources, methods, or analytical processes, which is required to be handled within formal access control systems.

Special Intelligence, or “SI,” is an SCI control system designed to protect technical and intelligence information derived from the monitoring of foreign communications signals by other than the intended recipients. The SI control system protects SI-derived information and information relating to SI activities, capabilities, techniques, processes, and procedures

HUMINT Control System, or “HCS,” is an SCI control system designed to protect intelligence information derived from clandestine human sources, commonly referred to as “Human intelligence.” The HCS control system protects human intelligence-derived information and information relating to human intelligence activities, capabilities, techniques, processes, and procedures.

The Affidavit states:

“Classified information of any designation may be shared only with persons determined by an appropriate United States Government official to be eligible for access, and who possess a “need to know.” Among other requirements, in order for a person to obtain a security clearance allowing that person access to classified United States Government information, that person is required to and must agree to properly protect classified information by not disclosing such information to persons not entitled to receive it, by not unlawfully removing classified information from authorized storage facilities, and by not storing classified information in unauthorized locations. If a person is not eligible to receive classified information, classified information may not be disclosed to that person. In order for a foreign government to receive access to classified information, the originating United States agency must determine that such release is appropriate.”

 DOCUMENTS TURNED OVER IN MAY

It is paragraph 47 that the FBI agent outlines the classified documents that were contained in the 15 boxes turned over in May:“From May 16-18, 2022, FBI agents conducted a preliminary review of the FIFTEEN BOXES provided to NARA and identified documents with classification markings in fourteen of the FIFTEEN BOXES. A preliminary triage of the documents with classification markings revealed the following approximate numbers: 184 unique documents bearing classification markings, including:

67 documents marked as CONFIDENTIAL

92 documents marked as SECRET, and

25 documents marked as TOP SECRET.”

The FBI agents observed markings reflecting the following compartments/dissemination controls: HCS, FISA, ORCON, NOFORN, and SI.

HEAVILY REDACTED AFFIDAVIT

Pages 9 to 29 of the 36-page affidavit are 100% redacted or are partially redacted. Ostensibly, these paragraphs contain the detailed allegations of fact to establish probable cause of a crime, identifies confidential witnesses and evidence sought that provides a “road map” of the investigation.

Links to review the unedited entire search warrant is here:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-unseals-affidavit-trump-search-warrant/

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/26/politics/mar-a-lago-search-warrant-affidavit-memo/index.html

CNN REPORT

On August 26, the national news outlet CNN published a news account entitled “Takeaways from the Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit” written by staff reporters  Tierney Sneed and Marshall Cohen, with Jeremy Herb, Katelyn Polantz and Josh Campbell contributing to the report.  Following is the edited CNN report giving a summation of the major take aways gleaned from the affidavit:

FBI SAID THERE WAS LIKELY “EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION” AND CLASSIFIED DEFENSE DOCUMENTS

 “The FBI told US Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart the search would likely find “evidence of obstruction” in addition to its explanation to the court that there was “probable cause to believe” that classified national security materials were improperly taken to “unauthorized” locations at Trump’s resort.  [The affidavit states]:

“There is probable cause to believe that additional documents that contain classified (National Defense Information) or that are Presidential records subject to record retention requirements currently remain at (Mar-a-Lago).  There is also probable cause to believe that evidence of obstruction will be found at (Mar-a-Lago.)”

FBI FOUND 184 CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS FROM 15 BOXES EARLIER THIS YEAR

“When the FBI reviewed in May the 15 boxes the National Archives retrieved from the Florida resort in January, it found “184 unique documents bearing classification marking.” …  Among the materials were “67 documents marked as CONFIDENTIAL, 92 documents marked as SECRET, and 25 documents marked as TOP SECRET,” according to the filing.

 The agent who submitted the affidavit noted that there were markings on the documents with multiple classified compartmentalized controls, as he told the court that “[b]ased on my training and experience, I know that documents classified at these levels typically contain” national defense information.

… .”

NEW DETAILS ABOUT HOW THE DOJ GOT INVOLVED

“The FBI affidavit reveals new insights into how the investigation began. It started after a criminal referral from the National Archives, which was sent to the Justice Department on February 9.

The Archives told the Justice Department that the boxes recovered in January contained “newspapers, magazines, printed news articles, photos, miscellaneous print-outs, notes, presidential correspondence, personal and post-presidential records, and a lot of classified records.”

 The Archives official said there was “significant concern” over the fact that “highly classified records were … intermixed with other records” and weren’t properly identified.

After receiving this information, the DOJ and FBI launched a criminal investigation into the matter, leading to the subpoena in June for classified material, and the search of Mar-a-Lago … .”

REDACTIONS KEEP OBSTRUCTION EVIDENCE SECRET

“One unredacted subhead in the affidavit cues up the probable cause the FBI had to believe that there were documents containing classified defense information and presidential records at Mar-a-Lago.

Most of the section …  is redacted, and the unredacted subhead aligns with two of the criminal statutes the affidavit cited at the beginning.

But the third potential crime — obstruction — that was cited by the warrant materials does not have a corresponding unredacted subhead in the affidavit. The FBI would have had to provide the court its explanation of why it believed that there was likely evidence of that crime at Mar-a-Lago, so the absence of any unredacted details about that evidence signals that that part of department is particularly sensitive about that aspect of its investigation being made public.”

NEWS UPDATE:   On September 1 a federal judge ordered the release of a detailed list of the property seized during the FBI’s search while reserving judgment on whether to appoint an outside party to review the documents.  Federal prosecutors initially submitted a property receipt to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida though it was filed under seal. The Justice Department told the court in a separate filing it was prepared to release the receipt to the public given the “extraordinary circumstances” of the case and provide it “immediately” to Trump.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-documents-search-special-master-hearing-federal-judge/

Justice Department records unsealed on Friday August 2, offered new details about the volume of documents former President Trump stored in his personal office at Mar-a-Lago, as well as other items seized during the search of his Florida home. The filing revealed  Trump was storing at his home more than 100 classified documents the Department of Justice (DOJ) says it recovered from Mar-a-Lago.

FBI agents found 43 empty folders with classified banners in Trump’s personal office as well as another 28 empty folders that were labeled “return to staff secretary/military aide,” according to the inventory.   The inventory details  others that were found within Trumps office:  3 documents marked confidential, 17 documents marked secret and 7 documents marked top-secret. Their location in Trump’s office could be significant to the Justice Department’s investigation, particularly after it alleged earlier this week that items were “likely concealed and removed.”

https://www.krqe.com/news/national/unsealed-mar-a-lago-inventory-details-items-recovered-from-trumps-office/

SENSITIVITY OF DOCS TRUMP TOOK FROM WHITE HOUSE REVEALED

“The affidavit used a handful of acronyms when describing the sensitivity of the documents that were recovered from Mar-a-Lago earlier in the year. This “alphabet soup” is probably confusing to most Americans, but national security experts have said it reveals the horrifying scope of this security breach.

 Some of the classified documents that Trump brought with him from the White House to Mar-a-Lago contained markings for “HCS, FISA, ORCON, NOFORN, and SI,” … .

“HCS” indicates that the material is about human sources, or spies, that often work with the CIA. “FISA” relates to court-ordered surveillance collecting foreign intelligence, including wiretaps. “ORCON” means the document is so sensitive that its originator must approve any request to share it. “NOFORN” means the material can’t be shared with any foreign entities, even allies, without permission. “SI,” short for Special Intelligence, relates to signals intercepts, which are typically handled by the National Security Agency.

These phrases confirm what many feared — that the documents that may have been illegally mishandled at Mar-a-Lago contained some of America’s most sensitive secrets.”

DOJ KEEPING DETAILS ABOUT PERSONNEL INVOLVED CLOSE TO THE CHEST

“The department said in its legal brief justifying the memos that that the FBI personnel who had already been identified as involved in the investigation had received “threats of violence from members of the public.”

 The FBI told the judge that “[m]inor but important” redactions in the affidavit were needed to “protect the safety of law enforcement personnel.”

 Even with the redactions, the affidavit revealed some information about the professional background of the FBI agent who submitted the affidavit. The affiant said that they were trained in “counterintelligence and espionage investigations” at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia.

 In the court proceedings around whether the affidavit should be released, the Justice Department has kept limited the number of its officials known to be involved. The legal filings in that dispute bear the signatures of just two DOJ attorneys: Juan Antonio Gonzalez, the US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and Jay Bratt, the chief of the Counterintelligence for the DOJ’s National Security Division.

 Bratt argued for the DOJ at the court hearing last week on unsealing the document — a notable choice, given that there are numerous other lower-level DOJ attorneys who would have been equipped to argue the criminal procedure questions that were central to the dispute.”

TRUMP CLAIMS THAT HE COULD UNILATERALLY DECLASSIFY DOCUMENTS

“When seeking the warrant, the FBI made the judge aware that Trump’s team had claimed that Trump had “absolute authority to declassify documents.”

The affidavit cited, and included as an attachment, a letter Trump attorney Evan Corcoran sent the Justice Department in May — after the existence of the investigation surfaced publicly — asserting that Trump had such authority. As the affidavit noted, the letter instructed the DOJ to provide the letter to any court considering motions related to the investigation.

The affidavit also referenced a Breitbart article quoting Kash Patel, a former Trump national security aide who was named as one of Trump’s designees to handle issues with his presidential records in June, as stating that Trump had declassified the materials retrieved by the National Archives in January.

The rest of the section in the affidavit, however, is classified, so it’s not clear why federal investigators cited Patel’s comments.

Since the FBI’s search, Trump has pointed to a January 19, 2021, memo in which he declassified documents related to the FBI’s Russia investigation. There’s no evidence, however, that those materials were what the FBI was looking for when it searched Mar-a-Lago earlier this month.”

DOJ HOPED TO KEEP DOCUMENT SECRET

“It’s important to remember the process that led to … unsealing of the affidavit.

Shortly after the Mar-a-Lago search, news outlets, including CNN, urged the judge to unseal the entire court record, to provide unprecedented transparency into an unprecedented investigation.

The Justice Department argued in court … against releasing the affidavit, but its lawyers were unable to convince the court that the entire affidavit should be kept under seal. Instead, the prosecutors were told to prepare a version for the public with limited redactions which contained a surprisingly robust amount of information.

 When DOJ was arguing that the entire affidavit should be kept under seal, the prosecutors claimed that once all the necessary redactions were made to the affidavit, it would be devoid of any meaning that would serve the public interest in transparency.

…  .”

The link to the unedited CNN report is here:

Takeaways from the Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit – CNNPolitics

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It remains unclear whether the Justice Department will move forward with any indictment of Trump for espionage or if the warrant was simply a means to retrieve records Trump took from the White House that were confidential, secret or top-secret documents that were highly classified and without any authorization. It is clear that he and the Republican Party believe he is above the law.

What is also clear is that the revelations from the search and the classified materials seized have open a major frontal attack that will benefit Democrats and increase the Democrats chances of holding onto congress at a time Republicans want to make Joe Biden’s job performance, the economy and inflation the main issues in the mid-terms.

The search and the documents seized show how just dangerous it is if Trump returns to power. Republicans protect Trump no matter the cost, even when he places our national security at risk, or for that matter attempts to overthrow the results of an election, he lost by orchestrating the January 6 capital riot to stop the certification of the election.

Thus far absent from all reporting is any explanation or disclosures as to what former President Trump was doing with top secret classified documents in his home?  One news report revealed that some of the classified documents were found in Trump’s desk at Maro Largo leading to speculation that the documents were being used by him and not merely being stored at the residents.

It’s disgusting that the Republican party defends Trump at all cost. What’s very alarming are the threats on law enforcement that are occurring because of his encouragement.  No one really knows but Trump what he was doing with 20 boxes of classified documents, what he did with top secrets and classified documents and who did he share them with and for what purpose.

 

 

On Tuesday,  August 29, the Albuquerque Journal published the results of poll taken on the issue of abortion rights. The article had the above the fold headline “Voters divided on abortion” and the subhead line “Few support total ban, but opinions on limits diverge along party lines”. The article was written by long time  Journal Capitol Bureau Chief  Reporter Dan Boyd

The poll was conducted by Research and Polling which for decades has done all political polling for the Journal and with polling firm considered the gold standard in New Mexico political polling because of its consistent accuracy.

“The Journal Poll was based on a scientific, statewide sample of 518 voters who cast ballots in the 2018 and/or 2020 general election and who said they are likely to vote in the upcoming election. The poll was conducted from Aug. 19 through Aug. 25. The voter sample has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.3 percentage points.”

The link to read the full unedited Journal column is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2528326/nm-voters-divided-on-abortion-restrictions.html

RESULTS OF ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL POLL

The Journal poll is extremely revealing in that it breaks down the results not only as to party affiliation but also as to regions of the state.

 The poll asked the question “WHICH COMES CLOSEST TO YOUR VIEW ON ABORTION” The results were as follows:

It should always be legal:  35%

It should be legal with some limitations: 22%

It should be illegal except for rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life: 25%

It should always be illegal: 12%

Don’t know: 2%

None of these/won’t say: 4%

POLITCAL PARTY BREAKDOWN

The poll results were broken down according to party affiliation. The responses to the poll question by party affiliation were as follows:

It should always be legal:

Democrats: 55%

Republicans: 8%

Other: 35%

It should be legal with some limitations:

Democrats: 24%

Republicans: 18%

Other: 26%

It should be illegal except for rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life:

Democrats: 11%

Republicans: 41%

Other: 28%

It should always be illegal:

Democrats: 5%

Republicans: 24%

Other: 8%

The poll results were broken down according to geographical regions. The responses to the poll questions were as follows:

ALBUQUERQUE METRO REGION

It should always be legal: 33%

It should be legal with some limitations: 23%

It should be illegal except for rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life:26%

It should always be illegal: 11%

NORTHEAST/NORTH CENTRAL REGION

It should always be legal: 39%

It should be legal with some limitations: 22%

It should be illegal except for rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life: 18%

It should always be illegal: 14%

LAS CRUCES/SOUTHWEST REGION

It should always be legal: 44%

It should be legal with some limitations: 30%

It should be illegal except for rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life: 12%

It should always be illegal: 8%

EASTSIDE REGION

It should always be legal: 27%

It should be legal with some limitations: 15%

It should be illegal except for rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life: 42%

It should always be illegal: 15%

POLL ANALYSIS

New Mexico voters are 3 times more likely to say abortion should always be legal than they were to say it should always be illegal.  According to the poll, 35% of statewide voters surveyed said abortion should always be legal, 22% said the procedure should be legal, for a combined total of 57%.   The poll found that 25% felt there should be some limitations and said it should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest or when a mother’s life is in danger.  Just 12% of voters surveyed said abortion should always be illegal, while 4% would not say and 2% said they did not know.

According to the Journal poll results, Democrats are firmly behind a woman’s right to choose with 55% of Democrats saying abortion should always be legal and 24% of Democrats said it should be legal with some limitations for a whopping 79% combined percentage.

Republicans’ opinion are dramatically opposite with 8% saying abortion should always be legal, while 24% said it should be banned and 41% said it should be illegal with exceptions for cases of rape, incest and to save a mother’s life, with a 65% combined total to make it illegal or illegal with the exceptions of rape, incest or threat to the life of the woman.

The difference by party affiliation shrinks to a 6% difference when it comes to how voters they felt if abortions should be legal with some limitations.  Interestingly, more Democrats, 24%, felt that there should be some limitations while fewer Republicans, 18%, felt there should be some limitations.

The Journal Poll did not find a big difference in attitudes on abortion between New Mexico voters based on their gender, ethnicity and age.  There was little difference in voters’ views on abortion based on their education level with one exception, voters with graduate degrees were far more likely than other groups of voters to say abortion should always be legal.

REGIONAL ANALYSIS

With respect to the regional poll analysis, it’s somewhat of a surprise to note that it is the Las Cruces/Southwest area that had the highest approval of any region in the state that supported abortion without limits with a full 44%, while the Albuquerque Metro Region supported abortion without limits at 33%.

The Southern area of the state is widely considered a conservative part of the state,  excluding the progressive Las Cruces, while the Albuquerque Metro area is considered more progressive.  One explanation for the 11% difference between the regions is that more conservative Valencia and Sandoval were included and skewed the results.

Not at all surprising is that the Progressive Northeast/North Central Region of the state had the highest percent of support saying abortion should always be legal with 39%.  Also not surprising is that in the very conservative Eastside region, 42% said that abortion should   be illegal except for rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life, and 15% said it should always be illegal.

GOVERNOR MLG SIGNS EXECTIVE ORDER FOR ABORTION CLINIC

On August 31, Governor Lujan Grisham signed  an executive order that pledges $10 million to build a state-funded clinic providing abortion and other services in Doña Ana County.  In her  Executive Order, Governor Lujan Grisham declared that “the right to reproductive health care services is essential to a woman’s autonomy, dignity, and equality in our society”.  She also declared that “New Mexicans deserve access to the respect, information, and resources they need to make their own personal healthcare decisions and decide what is best for themselves and their families”  and declared  “abortion is an essential part of reproductive heathcare and must remain legal, safe and accessible”.

The executive order states:

“The Department of Finance and Administration to designate $10 million of the Executives capitol allocation for the upcoming 2023 legislative session for the purpose of developing a new clinic that provides a full spectrum of patient-centered, community informed reproductive healthcare, including abortion in Dona Ana County.

The Department of Health shall … develop a detailed plan to leverage State resources to expand access to reproductive healthcare, including abortion, in the underserved areas of the state …  [and] assess the feasibility of the provision of medication abortion in public health clinics overseen by the Department.”

 The Executive order provides that the Human Services Department shall

“as soon as practical develop policies and take action to improve the efficiency and sustainability of access to reproductive health services.”

The link to the Executive order is here:

Click to access Executive-Order-2022-123.pdf

The new clinic is intended to provide reproductive health, including abortion, to New Mexico women and other women from outlying states, including Texas, who are now denied abortion as medical service.  The clinic will allow women to exercise their rights to all reproductive services including birth control, post-natal care, and “appropriate medical management of miscarriage and pregnancy loss”.

The Governor said in a statement:

“This is a state that will stand against any attempts to remove or eviscerate women’s constitutional rights.  … Abortion is an essential part of reproductive healthcare and must remain legal, safe, and accessible.  New Mexico has recently implemented additional measures to protect reproductive rights and access to reproductive health care services such as repealing an antiquated state statute criminalizing abortion. … [I have previously] issued and executive order to protect access to reproductive health care services in New Mexico.”

It was in June that Lujan Grisham issued a previous executive order aimed at shielding health care professionals targeted by lawsuits from losing their licenses or being disciplined for providing abortion services. The June order asserts the state will not comply with abortion-related arrest warrants or extradition requests from other states.

Republican Governor Mark Ronchetti was quick to react saying the governor’s executive order was extreme and out of step with New Mexicans’ values and he said in a statement:

“New Mexico was already the abortion capital of the United States, and now taxpayers are having to foot the bill for a clinic which will perform abortions up to the moment of birth for non-residents who come from other states around the country.”

Given the results of the Albuquerque Journal poll on abortion, it is Republican Mark Ronchetti who is the one that is totally out of step with New Mexico’s values, especially the value of respecting a woman’s right to choose and to decide what she can do with her own body and reproductive rights.

The links to quoted news source material are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2528671/governor-issues-order-pledging-nm-resources-to-expand-abortion-access.html

https://www.kob.com/news/business-money/new-mexico-governor-pledges-10m-for-new-abortion-clinic/

 https://abq.news/2022/08/mlg-signs-executive-order-amplifying-abortion-access-in-new-mexico/?utm_medium=email

 EMERGENCE OF A DEFINING ISSUE

“On June 22, 2021the United States Supreme Court released its decision in the case of  Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization wherein the Supreme Court  overruled and reversed the cases of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey and ruled that a woman does   not have constructionally protected right to an abortion and ruled the authority to regulate abortion was  returned to the individual states and their elected representatives. It was a reversal of 50 years of constitutional law precedence. The reversal was a 6-3 opinion where 3 Republican Justices appointed by President Trump ensured the reversal. The public reaction was immediate and swift resulting in protests through out the country in all major cities.”

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization/

According to an August 26, 2022 New York Times article, an as a direct result of the US Supreme Court ruling, most abortions are now banned in at least 12 states as laws restricting the procedure take effect following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. An additional two states now ban abortion at about six weeks of pregnancy, before many women know they are pregnant.

In many states the fight over abortion access is still taking place in courtrooms, where advocates have sued to block enforcement of laws that restrict the procedure.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/us/abortion-laws-roe-v-wade.html

This year, a record number of abortion questions will be on state ballots. The decidedly Republican red state of Kansas was the first state to vote on abortion rights since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization. On August 3, Voters in Kansas rejected a proposed state constitutional amendment Tuesday that would have said there was no right to an abortion in the state.

In the lead-up to the Kansas vote, supporters of the amendment argued that it was necessary to correct what they say was the Kansas Supreme Court’s overreach in striking down some of the state’s previous abortion restrictions in 2019. Opponents argued that the amendment would set state lawmakers up to pursue a total abortion ban.

The vote was not even close. 59% voted NO on the amendment that would have repealed abortion rights and 41% voted YES.

https://www.npr.org/sections/2022-live-primary-election-race-results/2022/08/02/1115317596/kansas-voters-abortion-legal-reject-constitutional-amendment

 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/08/02/us/elections/results-kansas-abortion-amendment.html

NEW MEXICO IS NO EXCEPTION

In New Mexico, abortion has become the defining issue in the race for Governor that features incumbent Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and TV Weatherman Republican Mark Ronchetti.

On Friday, February 26, 2021, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed a bill repealing the 1969 abortion ban. The 1969 law criminalized abortion to end a woman’s pregnancy except in certain circumstances, such as rape and incest. The 1969 state statute had not been enforced been in the state due to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v Wade in the 1970s, which legalized abortion nationwide.

The repeal of the 1969 law was necessitated by the fact the repeated attempts have been made over the years to have the United States Supreme Court reversed the decision of Roe v Wade. With the appointment of 3 very conservative supreme justices by President Trump the reversal of Roe v. Wade was inevitable.

In a statement in signing the repeal, Governor Lujan Grisham had this to say:

“A woman has the right to make decisions about her own body. Anyone who seeks to violate bodily integrity, or to criminalize womanhood, is in the business of dehumanization. New Mexico is not in that business – not anymore. Our state statutes now reflect this inviolable recognition of humanity and dignity. I am incredibly grateful to the tireless advocates and legislators who fought through relentless misinformation and fear-mongering to make this day a reality. Equality for all, equal justice and equal treatment – that’s the standard. And I’m proud to lead a state that today moved one step closer to that standard.”

https://www.koat.com/article/gov-lujan-grisham-signs-abortion-bill-repealing-decades-old-ban/35651457

After the Supreme Court released it decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Republican Governor candidate Mark Ronchetti praised the court’s decision. He then suggested a “reasonable policy” that proposed banning abortion after 15 weeks of gestation, with exceptions for rape, incest, and to preserve the life of the mother.  Ronchetti labeled Governor Lujan Grisham position on abortion as “extreme” since she opposes abortion restrictions.   The Governor countered by saying Ronchetti is actually the candidate with the extreme stance on the issue and claimed it is Ronchetti’s position on abortion that shifted after the primary election.

It turns out Ronchetti “reasonable policy” was nothing more than a lie to get elected Governor by toning down his true intent.  On Sunday, July 10, the very conservative Republican pastor Reverend Steven Smothermon of Legacy Church during his Sunday church service, exposed Republican Mark Ronchetti’s stance on abortion that would allow abortion for up to 15 weeks of pregnancy and in cases involving rape, incest and when a mother’s life is at risk as nothing more than a lie to get elected Governor.  What Smothermon preached and said from his pulpit was that Rochetti confessed to him in private that “he wants  to start with getting rid of partial birth abortion in the whole state  and said ‘but I can’t just go in and do it 100 percent because we won’t ever get elected.’ Smothern proclaimed Ronchetti wants to start with banning partial birth abortion but his goal is to end abortion entirely  in New Mexico.

While Texas and other neighboring states have enacted abortion bans, New Mexico allows abortion services without any restrictions since state lawmakers in 2021 passed the repeal of the 1969 criminal law banning abortions. The state has also seen an increase of out-of-state residents coming to the state to obtain abortion services.  In response to the increase in out of state residents seeking abortions, Governor Lujan Grisham issued an executive order in June that protects abortion patients and providers from lawsuits and arrest warrants issued in other states.

DEMOCRATS LEAD IN ALL IN STATWIDE RACES

On Sunday, August 28 and Monday August 29, the Albuquerque Journal released its poll in the statewide races for Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, State Treasurer and Commissioner of Public Lands. According to the poll, the New Mexico Governor’s race is the closest of all the top statewide races with a single 7%-digit lead with Governor Lujan Grisham leading with 47% to Republican Mark Ronchetti at 40%.

The Democratic candidates for Secretary of State, Attorney General, State Treasurer and Land Commissioner all lead their Republican opponents by 10% or more.  In the Secretary of State Race, Democrat Maggie Toulouse Oliver lead with 45% to Republican Audrey Trujillo at 33%. In the race for Attorney General, Democrat Raul Torrez leads with  49% to Republican Jeremy Gay with 33%. In the State Treasuer race, Democrat Laura Montoya leads with 44% to Republican Harry Montoya at 33%. In the race for Land Commissioner, Democrat Stephanie Garcia Richard leads with 46% to Republican Jefferson Byrd at 35%.

VOTER REGISTATION

Democrats have a decisive 13.8% advantage over Republicans in the state. As the saying goes, “Republicans win in New Mexico when Democrats stay home on election day.”

According to New Mexico Voter Registration Statistics from the New Mexico Secretary of State, as of January 31, 2022, there are a total of 1,342,690 registered voters in the state.  The breakdown of the registration numbers is as follows:

Registered Democrats: 599,242, or 44.6 %,

Registered Republicans: 414,067 or  30.8 %,

No Party or Independents:  301,598 or 22.5 %

Registered Libertarian:  13,644  or 1.0 %

Other Registrations:  14,139 or 1.1 %

https://api.realfile.rtsclients.com/PublicFiles/ee3072ab0d43456cb15a51f7d82c77a2/f7ecf5cb-2653-4b16-b2a5-6fd42cdcb6f0/Statewide_01-31-2022.pdf

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

To the chagrin of Republicans and extremists like Mark Ronchetti, abortion and woman’s reproductive rights are the defining issue in the states and in the 2022 midterms for US Congress. Republicans had wanted to make President Joe Biden’s job performance with his underwater approval ratings, the economy and inflation as the top issues to retake both the United State Senate and Congress. All that began to change with the reversal of Roe v. Wade and more than a few states coming down hard on a woman’s right to choose.

Over the last 3 months, the national and state political winds have changed dramatically and so has the voter mood benefiting democrats and Governor Lujan Grisham.  During the last 3 months, the following has occurred:

1. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the landmark case of Roe v. Wade abolishing a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion and setting aside woman’s reproductive rights.
2. Democrats have secured major approval of legislation in congress including billions for infrastructure and approval of a federal climate change law with federal monies allocated to the State.
3. The Congressional Investigation of Donald Trump and his orchestrating the January 6 capitol riot to set aside the election has taken its toll as has the recent federal search warrant confirming he is being investigated for mishandling of highly classified documents that may have endangered or compromised the country’s national security or espionage.
4. New Mexico is experiencing historical windfalls in the billions of surplus revenue which is now being invested by the state with the Governor announcing almost daily new infrastructure projects and how the money is being spent.
5. There has been major decline in the state’s unemployment rate to 4.5% that the Governor can and is taking credit for.
6. The effects of the pandemic are finally receding with Governor Lujan Grisham being given high marks for her handling of not only the pandemic crisis but also the handling of natural disasters such as the fires and flooding.
7. Gas prices have gone down dramatically by as much as $1 per gallon.

Based upon the results of the Albuquerque Journal abortion poll, there is no doubt where New Mexico voters stand when it comes abortion and woman’s reproductive rights. There is also no doubt that abortion is the defining issue in the Governor’s race. A total of 59% of voters who said they planned to vote for Lujan Grisham said abortion should always be legal, while 47% of voters surveyed who intend to vote for Ronchetti said abortion should be illegal with some limited exceptions.

If the poll numbers hold true over the next two months as is expected, the 2022 elections for Secretary of State, Attorney General, State Treasurer and Land Commissioner are likely over.  Voter turnout in those races will likely benefit Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s reelection prospects, of course only if Democrats get out to vote.

The forecast for Republican Mark Ronchetti and his fellow Republicans is “very cloudy” and there is a likelihood of a heavy monsoon will rain on their parade come November 8.