On Wednesday, July 5, in a unanimous decision, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled and remanded back to a State District Court Judge the case of Republican claims of illegal partisan gerrymandering by Democrats  involving the 3^rd Congressional District. At issue is the new congressional map that splits Albuquerque in two and creates 3 Democrat leaning congressional districts.

The plaintiffs in the case include the New Mexico Republican Party, Republican State Senator David Gallegos and Roswell Democrat Mayor Tim Jennings. It was filed against Governor Michell Lujan Grisham, Lt. Gov. Howie Morales and all Democrat State Senate and House legislative leaders.

For decades, New Mexico has had 3 congressional districts.  The First Congressional District (CD1) was based almost entirely in Albuquerque. The 2^nd Southern Congressional District (CD2) was the entire southern portion of New Mexico.  The 3^rd Northern Congressional District (CD3) covered Santa Fe and entire northern New Mexico.  The Albuquerque and Northern New Mexico Districts have been decidedly Democrat leaning while the Southern-most district has been decidedly Republican. The new congressional map for District 3  moves southern  parts of Albuquerque into the Southern Congressional District, creating a Democratic leaning district. Following its adoption, Republican Yvette Herrell lost her reelection bid in 2021.

The lawsuit controversy centers primarily around the new Congressional District 2 approved by state officials and signed into law by Lujan Grisham in 2021 during a special session of the Democrat-controlled Legislature.  The map divides Lea County in half.  Lea County now straddles the border between the Second and Third congressional districts and adds parts of Albuquerque to the southern Second Congressional District (CD2).

Republicans argued this change to Congressional District 2 was the cause of former U.S. Representative Yvette Harrell losing the seat to U.S. Rep Gabe Vasquez in 2022.  Herrell had previously won the seat in 2020 against former-U.S. Rep. Xochitl Torres Small, who defeated Herrell in 2018 after Republican Party of New Mexico Chairman Steve Pearce vacated the seat in a losing bid for the governorship.

The Republican Party argued that the map was developed to intentionally curb Republican influence.  The map once approved drew immediate backlash from the state Republican Party and Republican local officials in southeast New Mexico who argued that its conservative stronghold was being diluted.

MOTION TO DISMISS FILED

In February, 2022 a Motion to Dismiss the case was filed by attorneys for Defendants Governor Lujan Grisham and Lt. Governor Howie Morales.  They argued the new district map was intended to combine rural and urban voters in each district. According to the motion, this was intended to ensure congressional members represented both urban and rural constituencies. The defendants also argued there was “no substantial way to determine if illegal gerrymandering had occurred in drawing the maps.”  The Motion to Dismiss reads in part:

“In sum, New Mexico law does not provide any standards necessary for the Court to determine the question plaintiffs essentially raise: ‘how much partisan dominance is too much? … Without such standards, the courts should refrain from diving into the political thicket.”

 NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT RULES

The New Mexico’s Supreme Court denied the Motion To Dismiss and the case was remanded back to the lower court to decide. The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled the equal protection clause of the New Mexico Constitution allows the state courts to take up claims of illegal partisan gerrymandering.  The New Mexico Supreme Court rejected the arguments made by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and other high-ranking Democrats who said the courts had no way to determine what constitutes illegal “partisan” gerrymandering.

The justices acknowledged the “inherently political nature of redistricting” and said some partisan gerrymandering is permissible.  The New Mexico Supreme Court said the three-part test outlined by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan in her dissenting opinon in the US Supreme Court case of RUCHO V. COMMON CAUSE could be used in the case to determine whether the map goes too far and violates the law. This means the Republican  plaintiffs will  have to prove Democrats redrew the map to keep them in power, and that they achieved what they wanted to degree that was “egregious in intent and effect.” 

EDITOR’S NOTE: The postscript to this blog article provides a report on the Supreme Court ruling in the case of RUCHO V. COMMON CAUSE and provides an explanation of the Kagan 3 part test.

The New Mexico Supreme court ruling sends  the redistricting lawsuit back to District Judge Fred Van Soelen in Clovis.  Last year, Judge Van Soelen he refused to toss out the map just before ballots went in the mail ahead of the primary election.  However, he also said in a ruling that the state Republican Party  and other plaintiffs had made a “strong, well-developed case that [the new congressional map for District 2] is a partisan gerrymander created in an attempt to dilute Republican votes in Congressional races in New Mexico.”

DEMOCRATS DEFEND CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING

Democrats told the Supreme Court that their redistricting motives were not  partisan. Democrats argued the new maps ensured each district has a mix of urban and rural areas creating more competitive districts across the board. Democrats also argued that there were times Democrats have won the 2nd Congressional District under the former District 2 mapping.  In particular Democrats Harry Teageu and Xochitle Torrez Small both prevailed over Republicans, served one term and both were defeated for reelection to a second term.

Las Cruces area State Senator Joseph Cervantes, co-sponsor of the new map, said the legislative process creating the new districts met every legal and constitutional requirement. Cervantes said this:

“Any partisan considerations were secondary to creating truly competitive and diverse districts. …My goal was to get away from past decades, and the national norm, where the districts were divided between the major political parties and drawn to preserve incumbents above all else.”

REACTION TO REMAND

Ash Soular, a spokeswoman for Republican Party of New Mexico, said the Republican Party was encouraged by the Supreme Court ruling and looks forward to the case proceeding in District Court. Soular called the new congressional map “one of the nation’s most egregious cases of partisan gerrymandering.”

Eunice area Republican State Senator David Gallegos is a named plaintiff in the case.  He said the  Republican goal is to  get the congressional  map redrawn for the 2024 noting the differences in populations. He pointed to  the redrawn CD3 that placed some of the voters in Hobbs in a district shared by Las Vegas, almost 300 miles north.  Gallegos said the districts should be consistent in representing the different regions and needs throughout New Mexico. Gallegos explained it this way:

“Before, we had more cohesive areas. … When you have population growth, you have to expand. But not like this. They’re breaking up Eddy and Lea counties to dilute Republican votes. …  If we can get this done relatively soon, then we might be able to have this in place before the next election cycle. … They’re just totally different populations. … It would be hard for me to believe that they would agree on any point.”

Senator Gallegos said he was surprised the State Supreme Court agreed to proceed with the case.  Gallegos contended the court tends to side with Democrats in Santa Fe over the rural communities of southern New Mexico and he said this:

“I think we have a really good game plan. I look forward to that day in court, and seeing what we can do with these maps. … I think we need to put them back to what they were. When they separated Hobbs, they took it to a whole ‘nother level.”

Governor Lujan Grisham for her part said through her spokeswoman Caroline Sweeney the decision simply “provided guidance on what should happen next at the district court level. [The Governor]  believes the court will find that the maps at-issue meet appropriate legal scrutiny.”

Links to the quoted news sources are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/nm-supreme-court-rejects-democrats-argument-in-redistricting-case/article_2bbc213a-1b70-11ee-83b5-8b2181a9d140.html

https://www.currentargus.com/story/news/2023/07/06/new-mexico-supreme-court-calls-for-gerrymandering-case-to-proceed/70387218007/

CALLS FOR INDEPENDENT REDISTRCTIG COMMISSION

In the wake of the New Mexico Supreme Courts decision, calls for an independent redistricting commission have been renewed with advocates proclaiming the need for such a commission is underscored by the Supreme Court ruling.

On July 7, Albquerquerqu Democrat State Representative Natalie Figueroa said  she will continue to seek support for a constitutional amendment that would establish an outside commission to draw political boundaries believing it is necessary to draw legally sound districts.  According to Figueroa, such a commission would help protect against having a map overturned in court.  Figueroa said this:

“There’s not a process that’s nonpolitical. … We need to remove as much partisanship as we can. … [The court decision] will draw attention to the issue and it highlights the importance of why we need an independent process.”

Common Cause New Mexico praised the NM Supreme Court ruling but said it doesn’t end the need for an independent commission. Common Cause pointed out the  redistricting litigation is likely to continue into next year as another election cycle plays out with one party or the other appealing whatever the district judge decides. Mason Graham of Common Cause New Mexico said this:

“While this [Supreme  Court]  decision allows an important new legal tool, only the legislature can permanently end the conflict of interest allowing politicians to draw our voting maps by passing a constitutional amendment.”

In 2021 New Mexico did take a step toward independent redistricting when under a bipartisan new law the state established a citizen commission.  The commission was led by retired state Supreme Court Justice Edward Chávez with hearings held and proposed new  boundaries were formulated.  The commission did not have the final say. Lawmakers ultimately had to approve the new legislative and congressional maps.  The legislature was free to adopt amendments to the redistricting maps which it did.

During a special session, Democratic lawmakers opted to substantially reshape the proposals for congressional districts, approving a new map that established three Democratic-leaning districts.  Democrats  defended it as a way to make all three districts competitive and give each one a mix of urban and rural voters. Republicans called it a blatant attempt to dilute their voting strength and damage the reelection prospects of the state’s only Republican congresswoman at the time, Yvette Herrell.

The link to news source quotes is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/government/supreme-court-decision-renews-debate-over-independent-redistricting-in-new-mexico/article_9587bade-1ce7-11ee-b190-237598f86e30.html

FAST PACED TRIAL CALENDAR 

On July 17, a presentation was made to a key legislative committee from the attorneys who are representing legislators in the case. Legislators were told to expect a breakneck pace of hearings in the case given the Supreme Court’s order that the District Court should rule on the case by October 1.  The deadline of October 1  means a fast-paced schedule ahead of the 2024 election cycle when New Mexico’s three congressional districts are on the ballot.

Lucas Williams, a Roswell-based lawyer who is defending the Legislature, told lawmakers this:

” [The decision creates] a somewhat blank slate. It will be litigated vigorously. … There will be lots of sleepless nights for a lot of attorneys across New Mexico.”

During Monday’s meeting, Alamogordo Republican State Rep. John Block  said Democrats should have just accepted one of the maps recommended by the state’s nonpartisan citizen redistricting committee, which meet in 2021 after the census.  He said Democratic lawmakers instead amended one of the recommendations to dilute Republican votes. Block noted under the map, Lovington in conservative southeastern New Mexico now shares a district with Democratic-leaning Española north of Santa Fe.  Block said this:

“There is no way anyone can make a case this wasn’t partisan. .. It was absolutely partisan.”

Las Cruces Democrat Sen. Joseph Cervantes, who co-sponsored the redistricting plan, said his motive was actually the opposite. He said the goal was  to create competitive districts that neither party could take for granted. Cervantes said each congressional district has a mix of community and political interests  intended as a contrast to the safe seats enjoyed by many in Congress across the county. Cervantes said

“Our democracy is terribly ill … and we can set an example of how you fix that.”

The link to news source is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/fast-paced-litigation-expected-as-new-mexico-courts-take-up-allegations-of-gerrymandering/article_da02efea-24d4-11ee-907d-0fb348bb92ec.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

With the Supreme Court remanding the case back to Judge Van Soelen, he will apply the three-part Kagan test and other criteria when he evaluates the map and makes a decision.  Republican opponents of New Mexico’s new congressional map can succeed if they demonstrate the predominant purpose of the map was to entrench Democrats in power.

Republicans must also show the lines had the desired effect by substantially diluting the votes of Republicans. If the Republican plaintiffs succeed on those two points, Democrats can still save their redistricting plans by pointing to a legitimate, nonpartisan justification for the districts. No matter what District Judge Fred Van Soelen decides, it is likely the losing side will again appeal to the New Mexico Supreme Court.

During the upcoming 2024 New Mexico Legislative session, a constitutional amendment that would establish an outside commission to draw political boundaries with real authority is in order. Otherwise, every 10 years with a  new US census, the state can look forward to court actions to settle boundary disputes.

___________________________________

POSTSCRIPT

RUCHO V. COMMON CAUSE

In 2019, the United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote in the case of  Rucho v. Common Cause ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims  cannot be brought under the U.S. Constitution. The Ruch decision was a major set back for voting right advocates but in her dissent Justice Elena Kagan’s outlined and provided a blueprint on  how state judges can set aside and kill the practice of gerrymandering by legislatures under their own constitutions. Every state constitution protects the right to vote or participate equally in elections, and the Kagan dissent shows how state courts can enforce those protections under state law.

In her dissent, Justice  Kagan annunciates the precise harms inflicted by partisan gerrymandering and explains how they can be measured and remedied. Kagan identified two distinct but intertwined constitutional violations. First, gerymandered maps “reduce the weight of certain citizens’ votes,” depriving them of the ability to participate equally in elections. Second, they also punish voters for their political expression and association. Kagan concluded that these dual injuries, implicate fundamental principles of both equal protection and freedom of speech. Kagan illustrated the ease with which courts can address them.

In his Rucho majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts insisted that federal courts were unable to determine when a partisan gerrymander goes “too far.” Kagan pointed out that, in fact, plenty of lower courts have already done exactly that. These courts deployed a three-part test. First, they ask whether mapmakers intended to entrench their party’s power by diluting votes for their opponents. Second, they ask whether the scheme succeeded. Third, they ask if mapmakers have any legitimate, nonpartisan explanation for their machinations. If they do not, the gerrymander must be set aside and declared void.

Justice Kagan wrote:

“If you are a lawyer … you know that this test looks utterly ordinary. It is the sort of thing courts work with every day.”

In practice, the most important part of the test is its evaluation of a gerrymander’s severity and that boils down to an analysis and hard look at the data.  The North Carolina’s congressional map contained 10 Republican seats and 3 Democratic ones. Experts ran 24,518 simulations of the map that used traditional, nonpartisan redistricting criteria. More than 99% of them produced at least one more Democratic seat. The exercise verified that North Carolina’s map isn’t just an outlier but “an out-out-out-outlier.”

Chief Justice Roberts rejected Kagan’s reasoning and asserted  that her test was “indeterminate and arbitrary.” But the North Carolina Superior Court rested its decision precisely on the three-part test that Kagan proposed. The North Carolina court adopted Kagan’s methods to demonstrate that North Carolina’s legislative gerrymander was indeed an “out-out-out-outlier.” Experts ran thousands of simulations to gauge the severity of the map’s partisanship and found that the current gerrymander is more favorable to Republicans than about 99.99 percent of maps drawn using nonpartisan redistricting factors.

This fact would not matter if North Carolina courts were powerless to stop partisan gerrymandering. But state courts are free to interpret their constitutions differently from the United States Supreme Court  and are not bound by the Rucho decision. The North Carolina Superior Court therefore refused to adopt Roberts’ rejection toward the judiciary’s competence to defend voting rights.

The North Carolina Court agreed that  Kagan’s view of gerrymandering is  an assault on equal protection and free speech. The North Carolina Court wrote the state constitution safeguards “the fundamental right of each North Carolinian to substantially equal voting power.”  The Northe Carolina court also found that the state constitution  protects citizens’ ability to engage in “core means of political expression,” including “voting for the candidate of one’s choice and associating with the political party” without retaliation. Partisan gerrymandering infringes upon these freedoms, diluting citizens’ vote on the basis of their political expression. In short, the court ruled  the North Carolina constitution contains the same protections that Kagan sought under the First and 14^th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The North Carolina court took a step further than Kagan, because unlike the U.S. Constitution, the North Carolina constitution declares that “all elections shall be free.” This clause, the court held, means “that elections must be conducted freely and honestly to ascertain, fairly and truthfully, the will of the people.” Partisan gerrymandering violates that guarantee by “specifically and systematically designing the contours of the election districts for partisan purposes and a desire to preserve power.”

The link to quoted new source material is here:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/partisan-gerrymander-kagan-state-courts.html

The regular 2023 municipal election to elect City Councilors for City Council Districts 2, 4, 6, and 8 will be held on November 7, 2023 along with $200 Million in bonds to be approved by city voters.  From June 5 to July 10, all city council candidates were required to collect 500 nominating petition signatures and $5.00 qualifying donations from voters within their districts to secure public financing. July 10 was the deadline for the candidates to turn in to the City Clerk all collected nominating petition signatures and qualifying donations for review and verification.

EDITORS NOTE: The postscript to this blog article provides an explanation on qualifying petition signatures, number of qualifying donations required and amount of public financing for each council district and private financing donation limits.

PROCESSED PETITION SIGNATURES AND $5 QUALFYING DONATIONS

On Friday, July 14, the City Clerk published on the City Clerk web site the tabulations of processed candidate petitions signatures and qualifying donations.  Following are the tabulations and those who will be on the November 7 ballot and those candidates who will be given public financing:

DISTRICT 2 (DOWNTOWN, OLD TOWN, PARTS OF THE NORTH VALLEY AND WEST SIDE)

All 3 candidates in District 2  have qualified for the ballot with 2 candidates qualifying for public finance. The candidates are:

Joaquin Baca, Democrat, a hydrologist and elected member of the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District and president of the ABQCore neighborhood association. Baca secured 100% of the required 500 nominating petition signatures with 528 petition signatures verified and 54 signatures rejected by the city clerk. Baca secured 100% of the required 381 $5.00 donations with 458 donations verified and 14 donations rejected by the city clerk.  Baca will be given $40,000 in public financing by the city.

Loretta Naranjo Lopez, Democrat, a retired city planner and current member of the New Mexico Public Employees Retirement Association Board. She is the President of the Santa Barbara-Martineztown neighborhood association. Ms. Naranjo Lopez secured 100% of the required 500 petitions signatures with 724 petition signatures verified and 101 signatures rejected by the city clerk.  Naranjo Lopez   secured 100% of the required 381 $5.00 donations with 456 donations verified and 23 donations rejected by the city clerk.  Naranjo Lopez will be given $40,000 in public financing by the city.

Moises A. Gonzalez, community activist. Gonzales  secured 100% of the required 500 petitions signatures with  539 petition  signatures verified and 216 signatures  rejected by the city clerk.  Gonzales did not collect 100% of the required 381  $5.00 donations with  252 donations verified  and 23  rejected by the city clerk and fell  short by  129 donations.  Mr. Gonzalez will not  be given $40,000 in public financing by the city but his name will be on the ballot and he can  continue his candidacy as a privately financed candidate.

DISTRICT 4 (NORTHEAST HEIGHTS)

Both candidates in District 2 have qualified for the ballot and one for public finance.  The candidates  are:

Brook Bassan, Republican, a stay-at-home mom and incumbent councilor who sought public financing.  Bassan secured 100% of the required 500 petitions signatures with 570 petition signatures verified and 48 signatures  rejected by the city clerk.  Bassan secured 100% of the required 403  $5.00 donations with 411 donations verified and 21 donations rejected by the city clerk.  Bassan will be given $40,262 in public financing by the city.

Abby Foster, Progressive Democrat, and private attorney.  Foster secured 100% of the required 500 petitions signatures with 595 signatures verified and 64 petition signatures rejected by the city clerk. Foster did not seek public financing and will be a privately financed candidate and allowed to self-finance and spend whatever amount she can raise.

DISTRICT 6 (NOB HILL, INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT)

Five of 6 candidates have qualified for the ballot in District 6, with 3 candidates qualifying for public financing, 2 candidates privately financing and 1 candidate not qualifying for the ballot nor public financing. The candidates are:

Abel Otero, a Democrat, a barber and community activist.   Otero secured 100% of the required 500 petitions signatures with 564 nominating petition signatures verified and 40 signatures rejected by the city clerk.  Otero secured 100% of the 333 required $5.00 donations with 373 donations verified and 6 donations rejected by the city clerk.  Otero will be given $40,000.00 in public financing by the city.

Kristin Green, progressive Democrat and community activist.  Green secured 100% of the required 500 petitions signatures with 611 nominating petition signatures verified and 102 signatures rejected by the city clerk. Green secured 100% of the 333 required $5.00 donations with 356  donations verified and 10  donations rejected by the city clerk.  Green will be given $40,000.00 in public financing by the city.

Joseph Pitluck Aguirre, an Independent, a dentist and software development company owner.   Pitluck  Aguirre secured 100% of the required 500 petitions signatures with 613  nominating petition signatures verified and 119  signatures  rejected by the city clerk.  Mr.  Pitluck  Aguirre did not seek public finance and is a privately finance candidate who has already raised well over $10,000 and will likely raise at least $40,000 or more.

Jeff Hoehn, Democrat, a nonprofit executive director.  Hoehn secured 100% of the required 500 petitions signatures with 681 nominating petition signatures verified and 168 signatures rejected by the city clerk.  Sources have confirmed that Hoehn initially sought public financing but elected to go private financing when his efforts to collect qualifying donations failed and he is now a privately financed candidate.

Nichole Rogers, Democrat, business consultant with background in health care, education and government and influencer in the Black community. Ms. Rogers secured 100% of the required 500 nominating petitions signatures with 575  nominating petition signatures verified and 107 signatures  rejected by the city clerk.   Rogers secured 100% of the 333 required $5.00 donations with 373 donations verified and 6 donations rejected by the city clerk.  Rogers will be given $40,000.00 in public financing by the city.

Jonathan Ryker Juarez, party affiliation and background unknown. Juarez did not secure the 500 required petition signatures and collected 194 verified  petition signatures with 51 signatures rejected by the city clerk. Mr. Juarez did not collect the 333 required $5.00 donations and collected 71verified  qualifying donations with 2 rejected by the city clerk and falling short by 262 donations. Mr. Juarez did not qualify to be on the November 7 ballot nor qualify for public financing.

COMMENTARY:  In order to be elected city council, the winner must secure 50% + 1 of the vote or there is a runoff between the two top vote getters. The fact that there are 5 candidates in District 6 that have qualified for the ballot makes it  more likely than not that there will be a run off between the two top vote getters.

DISTRICT 8 (NORTHEAST HEIGHTS AND FOOTHILLS)

Both candidates in District 8  have qualified for the ballot and for public finance. The candidates are:

Dan Champine, Republican, a retired police officer and current mortgage lender. Champine secured 100% of the required 500 petitions signatures with 756 petition signatures verified and 48 signatures  rejected by the city clerk.  Champine secured 100% of the required 446  $5.00 donations with  541 donations  verified  and  23  donations rejected by the city clerk.  Sources have confirmed that Champine was given significant last minute help from the Republican party and Republican City Councilor Trudy Jones when his own efforts were failing to collect both qualifying petition signatures and qualifying donations.  Sources have also confirmed that Champine, a retire Albuquerque Police Officer, was also given discrete help from West Side Democrat City Councilor Louis Sanchez, who is also a retired police officer.   Champine will be given $44,577.00 in public financing.

Idalia Lechuga-Tena, Democrat, a consultant and former state representative. Lechuga-Tena  secured 100% of the required 500 petitions signatures with 795   signatures verified and 78  signatures rejected by the city clerk.  Lechuga-Tena secured 100% of the required 446  $5.00 donations with 552 donations  verified  and 12  donations rejected by the city clerk. Sources have confirmed that  Lechuga-Tena secured the petition signatures and qualifying donations almost single handedly by going door to door daily for 6 weeks.  Lechuga-Tena will be given $44,577.00 in public financing.

The link to the City clerk’s website listing the qualifying candidates is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/vote/candidate-information/2023-candidates-and-committees-1/2023-petition-qualifying-contribution-tally

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The municipal election is on November 7, almost a full 4 months from now, with a very hot summer in between and anything can and likely will happen with all 4 races being hotly contested, especially in District 6 where 5 candidates are running to replace the Progressive Democrat Pat Davis who is not seeking another term.

The November 7 municipal election could remake the council and perhaps there will be a shift in numbers from the current 5 Democrats control to a Republican control city council or at least a conservative shift to challenge Mayor Keller’s progressive agenda. After the 2021 municipal election, the city council went from a 6 – 3 Democrat Majority with the loss of one Democrat to a Republican and it became a 5-4 Democrat majority, but the ideology split is 5 conservatives to 3 progressives and 1 moderate.

THE KELLER FACTOR

Like it or not, the 2023 municipal election will be a referendum on the job performance of Mayor Tim Keller only because he himself and his supporters are inserting themselves into the races for city council when they should keep their noses out of the races. Mayor Keller is not on the 2023 ballot, but City Hall sources say he has already told key staff and financial supporters he is running for a third term in 2025.

Informed sources have also confirmed Mayor Tim Keller has met or spoken to at least 3 progressive democrats running and pledging his support to them. This is a clear indication that Keller is fully aware the stakes are high in the upcoming 2023 municipal election. Keller intends to take an active roll in electing city councilors who will support his progressive agenda during the final 2 years of his second term thereby setting himself up to run for a third term in 2025.

Sources have confirmed that Progressive Political consultant Neri Holguin, who was Mayor Tim Keller’s 2021 campaign manager, is managing the campaigns of District 2 Progressive Democrat candidate Joaquin Baca and District 4 Progressive Democrat candidate Abby Foster leading to wide speculation that they are Mayor Keller’s selected candidates.  Holguin was  the campaign manager in 2019 for former Progressive Democrat State Senator Richard Romero who split the Democratic vote with Democrat Mayor Martin Chaves resulting in the election of conservative Republican Richard Berry.   Mayor Tim Keller has yet to publicly endorse candidates and it is unknown to what extent Keller supporters and his city hall staff will go to help those candidates he is helping or will be endorsing.

Complicating Keller supporting and endorsing candidates for city council is  Keller’s low approval ratings.  On November 3, the Albuquerque Journal released a poll on the job performance of Mayor Tim Keller. The results of the poll showed Keller has a 40% disapproval rating, a 33% approval rating an with 21% mixed feelings. The low approval rating was attributed to Keller’s continuing failure to bring down the city’s high crime rates despite all of his promises and programs, his failure to deal with the homeless crisis and his failure to fully staff APD after promising to have 1,200 sworn police during his first term.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2545820/mayor-kellers-job-approval-rating-sinks.html

KELLER UNIVERASLLY DISLIKED AT THE DOOR

At least five candidates for city council have confirmed that as they went door to door  collecting  qualifying nominating signatures and qualifying $5 donations they discovered there was no shortage of voters who expressed a strong dislike for Mayor Tim Keller.  Not at all surprising is the dislike for Mayor Keller in District 4 and District 8.  Both city council Districts are  Republican leaning Districts now represented by Republicans Brook Bassan and Trudy Jones respectively. Voters in both Districts 4 and 8 are hostile and very vocal over Mayor Keller and the City Council advocating and allowing city sanctioned Safe Outdoor Space homeless encampments.  What came as a surprise to candidates going door to door is the dislike for Mayor Keller in District 2, the downtown, old town, parts of the north valley and west side district and District 6, the Nob Hill area and International District area and the most progressive district leaning Democrat.

City Council Candidates campaigning door to door in all 4 City Council Districts reported that they found that Keller is perceived as mishandling the homeless crisis with homelessness increasing, residents believing they are not safe in their own homes and that Keller has done a poor job dealing the city’s spiking crime rates with murders reaching all-time records under Keller. Voters asked city council candidates what they intended to do about the homeless crisis and crime that would be different.

It turns out that Mayor Keller did himself no favors with advocating for city sanctioned homeless encampments and casita and duplex developments in all areas of the city to favor developers over property owners and historic neighborhoods. The city council deliberations and votes approving Mayor Keller’s Housing Forward  ABQ Plan occurred during the 6 week nominating petition and qualifying donation period resulting in voters being fully aware of what Keller was doing to change the city’s zoning laws to favor developers and investors.

In District 2, the downtown, old town, parts of the north valley and west side district, voters told city council candidates that they were very upset about Coronado Park that was a de facto  Keller city sanctioned homeless encampment that destroyed the park and was riddled with violent crime and illicit drug trafficking.  Wells Park area residents and businesses are particularly hostile to Keller because of his handling of Coronado Park over 5 years and him allowing it to become a homeless encampment.  When Keller closed Coronado Park, the homeless merely infiltrated the neighborhoods adjacent to the park and negatively affected businesses.

District 2 voters have also expressed anger over Keller promoting Safe Outdoor Space city sanctioned homeless encampments with the Santa Barbara-Martitnezown Neighborhood Association successfully appealing a Safe Outdoor Space for 50 victims of sex trafficking on Menaul west of the freeway. It was City Council District 2 candidate Loretta Naranjo Lopez  who is President of the Santa Barbara-Martineztown neighborhood Association who spear headed the opposition and filed the appeal to the Menaul Safe Outdoor Space Homeless encampment. She also opposed the city waste transfers station in the same area.  Her main opponent is Democrat Joaquin Baca whose campaign manager is Nerie Holguin, Tim Keller’s 2021 campaign manager, raising speculation that Baca is Keller’s handpicked candidate to replace City Councilor Isaac Benton a strong Keller supporter and his policies.

District 6  has within its borders the Gateway Homeless Shelter which is the massive  Loveless Hospital and Medical complex on Gibson. Mayor Keller infuriated more than a few neighborhood associations, area residents and businesses by  ignoring their concerns as the city purchased the complex without first reaching a consensus with neighborhoods on how it was going to be developed and how it was going to be used as a 24/7 homeless shelter.

April 6, 2021 Mayor Tim Keller held a press conference in front of the Gibson Medical Center to officially announce the city has bought the massive complex and the city would  transform it into a Gateway Center for the homeless. After his press conference, Mayor Keller came under severe criticism for his failure to reach a consensus and take community input before the Gibson Medical Center was purchased. On April 9, neighbors who felt  they had  been ignored and overlooked in the planning process and being asked to shoulder too big of a burden  staged  protests all for not.  Keller said this in response to the protests:

“We know that our administration believes in experimenting … We’re going to experiment and find out what works best over time. … And so really what we’re looking at here is to move past this question of where … No matter how you feel about it, we’ve answered that question.”

After close to 3 years, the Gateway Center is still being remodeled and has yet to open.

Voters in Districts 2, 4, 6 and 8 also told candidates campaigning door to door for city council that they were upset with Mayor Keller’s support and advocacy of city sanctioned Safe Outdoor Space encampments for the homeless as well as his Housing Forward ABQ plan. In particular, voters, home  owners and property owners object to the zoning changes allowing casitas to be built in neighborhoods taking away adjoining property owners rights to oppose and object to them and giving the city’s Planning Department exclusive authority to allow them.   Mayor Tim Keller is now perceived by more than a few, especially by many in his progressive base, as placing “profits over people” and favoring the business and development community with his “Housing Forward ABQ Plan”  that overwhelming favors developers and investors over historical neighborhoods and which encourages gentrification.

Another issue that came up as candidates for city council went door to door was that the Keller Administration spent $236,622 to purchase artificial turf for the Rio Rancho Events Center. The purchase was for the benefit of the privately owned New Mexico Gladiators to play their home football games. The City Inspector General noted in no uncertain terms that the New Mexico Department of Finance (DFA) found the purchase was in violation of “anti donation clause” which strictly bars public government entities from donating to private corporations. Mayor Keller tried to proclaim the artificial turf purchase  was not a violation of the states anti donation clause, which it was as found by the DFA.

There is little doubt as the races for city council heat up, the candidates will be asked if they support Mayor Tim Keller’s progressive agenda and if they are Keller’s handpicked candidate who will do his bidding and follow his policies if elected to the city council.

FINAL COMMENTARY

The city is facing any number of problems that are bringing it to its knees. Those problems include exceptionally high violent crime and murder rates, the city’s increasing homeless numbers, lack of affordable housing, lack of mental health care programs and very little next to nothing in economic development. The city cannot afford city councilors who makes promises and offers only eternal hope for better times that result in broken campaign promises.

What is needed are city elected officials who actually know what they are doing, who will make the hard decisions without an eye on their next election, not make decisions only to placate their base and please only those who voted for them. What’s needed is a healthy debate on solutions and new ideas to solve our mutual problems, a debate that can happen only with a contested election. A highly contested races reveal solutions to our problems.

Voters are entitled to and should expect more from candidates than fake smiles, slick commercials, and no solutions and no ideas. Our city needs more than promises of better economic times and lower crime rates for Albuquerque and voters need to demand answers and hold elected officials accountable.

Best wishes and good luck to all the candidates.

___________________

POSTSCRIPT

REQUIRED PETITION SIGNATURES

Candidates for City Council were required to collect 500 signatures from registered voters within the district the candidate wishes to represent. The City Clerk’s Office encourages candidates to collect more petitions signatures than required for the reason that signatures collected on paper forms must be verified as registered voters in the candidate’s district by the City Clerk’s Office once submitted to the city clerk. Signatures collected from voters not registered in the district are disqualified.

REQUIRED $5 QUALIFYING DONATIONS

Candidates for City Council who were seeking public financing were required to collect qualifying contributions from 1% of the registered voters in the district they wish to represent for public financing. The number of qualifying $5 donations is different for each district and changes based on the actual number of registered voters.  The City Clerk’s Office encouraged candidates to collect more $5 qualifying donation than required in that donations collected from voters not registered in the district are disqualified.

The number of $5 Qualifying Contributions representing 1%  of the registered voters in each City Council Disitrict were as follows:

• District 2: 381
• District 4: 403
• District 6: 333
• District 8: 446

PUBLIC FINANCING AND SPENDING LIMIT

Once a candidate submitted the required and verified $5 donations, the following public finance was given the candidates and they agreed to the following spending cap for their campaigns:

• District 2: $40,000.00
• District 4: $40,262.00
• District 6: $40,000.00
• District 8: $44,577.00

PRIVATELY FINANCED CANDIDATES

Candidates who did not choose public financing can collect and spend as much as they can in private financing from any source and there is no campaign spending cap. There are some limitations to privately financed candidates. A privately financed candidate may give him or herself an unlimited amount of money. However, another individual may only donate up to a certain amount. For a City Council candidate, an individual may only donate up to $1,683.00. A privately financed candidate may not accept money from a city contractor, any anonymous donor, or any foreign national. Privately financed candidates may accept contributions from individuals who live outside of New Mexico.

On Wednesday, July 12, Democrat Mathias Swonger announced at a meeting of Democratic Party ward and precinct chairs that he is running for Bernalillo County District Attorney in 2025. After his announcement, he emailed links to his campaign web site and FACEBOOK page.

Mathias Swonger published his official announcement on his campaign web site as follows:

 “I’m a Democrat running for District Attorney in 2024 with a clear vision and commitment to change. In my decade on the front lines of the criminal justice system, I’ve learned that a strong community is one where everyone feels safe and is treated fairly, regardless of who they are, what they look like, or where they come from.

Right now, that doesn’t describe Bernalillo County.

For years, we’ve recycled the same old, status quo, tough-on-crime policies that divide us and make us weaker. When we throw law enforcement at every problem, treat people unfairly just to move things along, and overcrowd our jails and prisons at taxpayers’ expense without any practical long-term plan, we don’t make our community safer, fairer, and stronger.

But there is a way forward. A District Attorney’s office with a clear vision and a commitment to change. A vision that prioritizes the most violent crimes, partners with community providers to help address substance use, mental illness, and poverty, treats everyone with dignity and respect, and supports investments in long-term solutions to help returning citizens from jail or prison reintegrate without reoffending.

That’s why I’m running.

To bring new leadership to the DA’s office, and to fight every day for a more sensible, thoughtful approach to public safety in Bernalillo County. For a strong community, where everyone feels safe and is treated fairly, regardless of who they are, what they look like, or where they come from.

I look forward to working for you, and thank you for your support.”

Links to quoted sources are here:

www.swongerfornm.com

https://swongerfornm.com/

MATHIAS SWONGER IN HIS OWN WORDS

The following information was gleaned and then edited from campaign materials published on SWONGER’s internet campaign web page:

PERSONAL BACKGROUND

 “Originally from Rhode Island, Matthias made New Mexico his home after moving here over a decade ago. He fell in love with his community, the Sandias, and most importantly, the love of his life, his wife Rosa, who was born and raised here.

Ten years later, Matthias and Rosa are the proud parents of two wonderful and spirited daughters, ages 5 and 6. On the weekends, he and the girls can be found at their local park, hiking in the foothills, or hanging out at home with nieces, nephews, and cousins.

Family is incredibly important to Matthias, and is one of the central reasons he is running: to make sure every family in Bernalillo County feels safe.

 His wife Rosa is the principal of a local elementary school.”

EDUCATION AND PUBLIC SERVICE.

 “Matthias Swonger graduated from NYU Law School, in New York City, where he interned with the Legal Services of New York City Housing Unit, the Unemployment Action Center, and the Brooklyn Defender Services. In those roles, he worked with families facing evictions from public housing, people grappling with job loss, and children involved in the delinquency system.

 Mr. Swonger has served as a local public defender, in various capacities, for the past 11 years. He was drawn to public defense because of his passion for public service and working alongside people without means who need legal assistance. He has represented hundreds of clients in a wide range of cases, and his experiences with the system have convinced him that the status quo approach to public safety is not working for anybody in our community.”

As a public defender, Mr. Swonger  has worked alongside many community partners to help individuals and families get access to necessary care, treatment, and other resources, like housing. As District Attorney, he hopes to build on those relationships to create stronger partnerships between the DA’s office and community providers as another tool to improve public safety.”

 [I am a]… proud democrat.  [I have] … long supported local democratic leaders and causes, like criminal justice reform, disability awareness, and educational opportunities for all. He previously served on the board of the Autism Society of New Mexico.”

SWONGER’S PLATFORM

Mr. Swonger’s platform was gleaned from review of his published campaign web site and FACEBOOK page and is edited and quoted as follows:

 PROPOSALS A SAFER COMMUNITY:

USE DATA. Place data and facts about crime front-and-center when making big and small decisions, communicating with the public, and pursuing reform. The shape of a public safety system should be informed by reliable information, not assumptions or exaggerations.

FOLLOW SCIENCE. Studies show that addressing incidents associated with poverty, substance use, and mental illness with solutions that redirect people to resources, as opposed to involvement in the criminal justice system, is the most effective strategy for improving public safety and reducing crime in the long-term. The DA’s office should incorporate the research into its decision-making and case resolution process.

 STOP VIOLENCE. Reorder priorities and resources so the DA’s office can successfully prosecute individuals who actually pose a great danger to society. Right now, much time, energy, and manpower at the DA’s office is devoted to addressing lower-level offenses with ineffective resolutions. With a different approach, the office can be more strategic about how resources are used to more effectively stop violence.

SUPPORT FAMILIES. Our community includes victims of crime, people returning from jail or prison, and all of their loved ones. Sometimes the same family includes all of the above. A DA’s office focused on reducing crime should partner with all families and community organizations to direct resources and services that promote restoring families and community ties and reduce recidivism. This includes access to treatment, financial assistance, and meaningful opportunities for personal and professional development.

ADVOCATE FOR CHANGE. The DA’s office has a critical voice in helping determine what our public safety system looks like. In applying a fact-focused, informed approach to increasing safety in the community, the DA should advocate for meaningful reforms to the entire structure of the criminal justice system that promotes public health and safety, regardless of political pressure or the influence of special interests.

 A safer community is one in which we follow the facts and are laser-focused in our pursuit of evidence-based solutions that reduce the risk of harm to people and property. Our current one-size-fits-all approach to crime makes us less safe by separating families, overcrowding our jails and prisons, and engaging in short-term thinking.

The link to the quoted source material is here:

 https://swongerfornm.com/safer

PROPOSALS FOR A STRONDER AND  FAIRER COMMUNITY

A STRONGER COMMUNITY is one in which every community member is treated fairly and respectfully regardless of who they are, what they look like, or where they come from. It is a community where individuals and families in every neighborhood feel safe and secure, with hope for the future.

A FAIRER COMMUNITY is one in which people who undermine safety are held accountable in a manner that is proportionate and restorative. It’s an environment where folks struggling with substance use, poverty, and mental health issues are not stigmatized, and are given the opportunity to get the help they need and move their lives forward in positive ways.

EQUAL JUSTICE. Recognize and take measures to address the troubling reality that the criminal justice system often treats people differently based on their race, class, gender, and ability. Ignoring the realities of systemic racism, cyclical poverty, and ableism and the role these forces play in our system sows widespread distrust, is inconsistent with the concept of “equal justice”, and diminishes public faith in our institutions.

REHABILITATE AND RESTORE. Advocate and pursue resolutions early on that center truly rehabilitating individuals and restoring relationships, when possible, between parties. Seek resolutions that are thoughtful, deliberative, and proportional to the offense, taking into account a host of factors and long-term public safety goals.

RESPECT EVERYONE. Resist dehumanizing and stigmatizing people involved in criminal cases, and treat everyone involved with basic dignity and respect. Understand that behind every case, regardless of how it appears on its face, is a complex set of factors that shouldn’t be reduced into a black-and-white narrative, and that doing so undermines fairness in the system, which does not advance long-term public safety goals.

UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION. Respect and hold sacred the legal and Constitutional rights of everyone, like due process, fair and transparent investigations, humane treatment, timely trials, and proportionate resolutions. When we sidestep peoples’ rights in order to just move things along, we undermine the overall integrity and fairness of the system, which makes our community less safe.

REDUCE COSTS. Advocate for reforms and changes that in the long-term, reduce the staggering cost of the criminal justice system. These costs come with little accountability and fall at the feet of taxpayers and those without means, who are often indebted to fines and fees programs that help prop up the system. The lack of basic economic fairness in the system undermines public safety in the long run.

The link to the quoted source materials is here:

https://swongerfornm.com/fairer

DISTRICT ATTORNEY SAM BREGMAN

On January 4, Sam Bregman was appointed Bernalillo County District Attorney by Governor Mitchell Lujan Grisham to serve out the remaining two years of the 4-year term of Raul Torrez who was elected Attorney General in 2022. Bregman was among 14 applicants. When appointed, Bregman said he would serve only 2 years and not run for reelection.

On Thursday, June 29, a full 6 months after his appointment as District Attorney, Sam Bregman held a press conference to “update” the public on the District Attorney’s Office. The press conference was called to highlight the success of his office over his 6 months as District attorney.  Not withstanding the purpose and intent of the press conference, DA Sam Bregman was asked by the press if he intended to run for District Attorney in 2024.  Bregman responded:

“Yes, I will be running for district attorney. When I got into this office, I was sincere in the sense that I didn’t think I would. But we have put things in place … that I believe are starting to make a difference. …  I believe things are starting to get better when it comes to crime.”

On Friday, June 30, Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman made it official and announced to the public he was indeed running for a full 4 year term as District Attorney.

The link to read the full, unedited Sam Bregman campaign announcement is here:

https://www.scribd.com/document/656685248/Bregman-Announce

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The 2024 Democratic primary is on June 4, 2024. Normally, official announcements for elections occur the January  of  the election year. It is very difficult to recall anyone announcing for Bernalillo County District Attorney so soon, yet there are now 2 candidates and both are Democrat.

Thus far, no Republicans have announced and that may not happen which would mean whoever is the Democrat nominee will be the next District Attorney.  The last Republican elected District Attorney was over 36 years ago. Republican Steve Schiff served as District Attorney from 1981 to 1989 and was then elected to Congress where he served from January 3, 1989 to March 25, 1998  before passing away from cancer at the very young age of 51.

Bregman’s June 29 early announcement no doubt was an attempt  to “clear the field”  and to set himself up without opposition in next year’s June Democratic Party primary and perhaps run unoppose assuring an easy election. That has now changed.

From all accounts, Matthias Swonger is indeed a serious candidate that offers a fresh face to Bernalillo County politics. The biggest question will be if he can raise enough money to take on Bregman and spend enough to run respectable campaign.

It is more likely than not that there will be other candidates for Bernalillo County District Attorney. One name in particular that continues to circulate amongst politicos is that of former New Mexico United States Attorney Damon Martinez. He was one of the  14 who applied for Bernalillo District Attorney but who was passed over by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham in favor of appointing Sam Bregman.

On June 11, the on line news outlet the New Mexico Sun published the below Pete Dinelli guest column:

 Headline: “A republic or ‘political judicial monarchy’?”

 By Pete Dinelli

Jul 11, 2023

“The United States Supreme Court at one time was viewed with a unique “sense of awe” and respect because it consistently interpreted the United States Constitution as a “living and evolving document”.  A document that evolved and ensured and protected civil rights and remedies to conform with changing times, changing norms, changing viewpoints.

Without such a constitutional evolution, slavery would still exist in the United States, woman would not be allowed to vote, discrimination based on a person’s gender, race, color, religion or sexual orientation would be allowed, interracial marriage would be illegal, and the doctrine of “sperate but equal” and Jim Crow laws would still be the law of the land.

In the span of a mere 370 days, the United States Supreme Court with the appointment of 3 right wing supreme court justices by President Donald Trump, has set aside 50 years of legal precedent. Major Supreme Court decisions that have had a direct impact on New Mexico include the court overturning Roe v. Wade guaranteeing a woman’s right to abortion. The reversal was anticipated by the New Mexico legislature so it repealed the 1969 criminal law outlawing abortions and enacted legislation protecting a woman’s right to choose.

This year’s decision to eliminate affirmative action in higher education will have major impacts on all New Mexico Universities in that all have affirmative action programs, including the fields of law and medicine. The court’s ruling that a Christian business owner can discriminate and deny services to LGBTQ+ community based on religious grounds essentially negates provisions of the New Mexico civil rights and public accommodation laws.  

The United States Supreme Court’s legitimacy has always depended upon the public perceiving the court and its decisions as being “fair and impartial” based on the rule of law and precedent known as “stare decisis” and absent all partisan politics. So much so that labels such as “liberal”, “progressive”, “moderate” and “conservative” are used in referring to Supreme Court Justices’ philosophies without party affiliations used. It’s a charade that Supreme Court Justice’s and federal judge’s party affiliations are never identified nor reported by the media. 

It’s a realty that the process of selecting Supreme Court Justices is as partisan as it gets. The overlap between “judicial ideology”, “political ideology” and the “party affiliation” of those selected supreme court justices are now one and the same. The President nominating and the Senate having the power to confirm Supreme Court Justices results in selection of Justices who will interpret the law identical to the views held by the political party in power in the White House and the US Senate.

The Supreme Court’s eclectic mix of decisions over the past two years by the right-wing Republican court calls into question its legitimacy. The Supreme Court’s legitimacy is undermined by the ethical missteps of court members and the Court not having a Code of Ethics as required by all other federal courts. There have been repeated reports of years of undisclosed vacations and large gift payments to family members of Justice Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito from billionaire Republican donors. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has resisted instituting a Code of Judicial Ethics requiring financial disclosures by Supreme Court members saying Congress has no authority to impose a Code of Judicial ethics on the court. Roberts merely promises the Court will do more to adhere to high ethical standards, but fails to condemn the ethical indiscretions of Thomas and Alito.

An ABC News/Ipsos poll revealed that 53% of the American people believe the Supreme Court makes decisions based on their partisan political view, 33% believes the court rules on the basis of the law while 14% said they don’t know.  The poll found 76% of Democrats and 51% of independents believe the Court rules on the basis of their partisan political view and 36% of Republicans believe the court makes rulings based on their partisan political view. 

A story has been told and retold about founding father Benjamin Franklin. Franklin was walking out of Independence Hall after the Constitutional Convention in 1787, when someone shouted out, “Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?” To which Franklin supposedly responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

What we have now is a “political judicial monarchy” complete with 9 people all dressed up in black ropes with gavels replacing scepters and a courtroom replacing a royal thrown room as they render their decrees of justice to carry out the will of the Trump Republican Party.

Pete Dinelli is a native of Albuquerque. He is a licensed New Mexico attorney with 27 years of municipal and state government service including as an assistant attorney general, assistant district attorney prosecuting violent crimes, city of Albuquerque deputy city attorney and chief public safety officer, Albuquerque city councilor, and several years in private practice. Dinelli publishes a blog covering politics in New Mexico: www.PeteDinelli.com

__________________________________

POSTSCRIPT

ABOUT THE NEW MEXICO SUN

The New Mexico Sun is part of the Sun Publishing group which is a nonprofit. The New Mexico Sun “mission statement” states in part:

“The New Mexico Sun was established to bring fresh light to issues that matter most to New Mexicans. It will cover the people, events, and wonders of our state. … The New Mexico Sun is non-partisan and fact-based, and we don’t maintain paywalls that lead to uneven information sharing. We don’t publish quotes from anonymous sources that lead to skepticism about our intentions, and we don’t bother our readers with annoying ads about products and services from non-locals that they will never buy. … Many New Mexico media outlets minimize or justify problematic issues based on the individuals involved or the power of their positions. Often reporters fail to ask hard questions, avoid making public officials uncomfortable, and then include only one side of a story. This approach doesn’t provide everything readers need to fully understand what is happening, why it matters, and how it will impact them or their families.”

The home page link to the New Mexico Sun is here:

https://newmexicosun.com/

On  October 18, 2022,  Mayor Tim Keller announced his “Housing Forward ABQ Plan”. It is a “multifaceted initiative” where Keller set the goal of adding 5,000 new housing units across the city by 2025 above and beyond what the private sector normally creates each year.  According to Keller, the city is in a major “housing crisis” and the city needs between 13,000 and 28,000 new housing units.

Keller’s “Housing Forward ABQ Plan” was embodied in amendments to the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) which is the city’s zoning laws. To add the 5,000 new housing units, Keller proposed that the City of Albuquerque fund and be involved with the construction of new low-income housing.  The strategy includes “motel conversions” where the city buys existing motels or commercial office space and converts them into low-income housing.  It includes “casitas” on existing residential properties as permissive uses and not as conditional uses.

The most controversial provision of Keller’s “Housing Forward ABQ” plan  was to allow the construction of 750 square foot casitas and 750 square foot duplex additions on every single existing R-1 residential lot that already has single family house built on it  in order to increase density.  The zoning code amendments would have made both casitas and duplex additions “permissive uses” and not “conditional uses” as they have always been historically. A “conditional use” requires an application process with the city Planning Department, notice to surrounding property owners and affected neighborhood associations and provides for appeal rights.   A “permissive use” would give the Planning Department exclusive authority to issue permits for construction without notices and hearings and with no appeal process. Objecting adjoining property owners and neighborhood associations would be relegated to filing lawsuits to enforce covenants and restrictions.

CASITAS IN, DUPLEXES OUT 

On June 21, the Albuquerque City council voted 5-4 to approve the  zoning code changes to the Integrated Development Ordinance.    The version of the bill that ultimately passed on a 5-4 vote was amended extensively. The city council voted to allow casita construction a “permissive use” in all single-family R–1 zone and reduce parking requirements for some multifamily properties and changing building height limitations.  The city council voted to strike the amendment and not allow duplexes to be permissively zoned in R–1 zone areas.

Other amendments adopted included additional setbacks for backyard casitas of 5 feet on either the back or side of a property’s lot lines and a limit on the height of accessory dwelling units, but not other accessory buildings,  to the same height as the main building on the lot.  The enactment of the amendment   also paves the way for converting motel properties into housing and includes provisions to ease parking challenges at developments.

The biggest point of contention dealt with by the city council was whether casitas would be allowed as a “conditional use” mandating and application process  or  a “permissive use” giving the planning department unilateral authority to grant construction  in R–1 zones. The amendment making casitas a  conditional use passed 5-4.  Because casitas known as Accessory Dwelling Units  are now zoned permissively in R–1 zones, any home or property owner living in the area will automatically be qualified for a permit to build, so long as they meet the zoning and building standards, which include lot size, accessory structure size as well as setback and height requirements. Casitas will require water and sewer lines and electric hook ups which will be above and over mere construction costs.

KELLER SIGNS INTO LAW “HOUSING FORWARD ABQ” PLAN

On July 6, Mayor Tim Keller, surrounded by low income housing and homeless advocates, signed into law all the zoning code amendments passed by the city council that embody his “Housing Forward ABQ Plan” including those that will allow casita construction on 68% of all built out  residential lots in the city.  Keller said his administration does not have an “all-encompassing solution“, but they do have a step in the right direction which is  changing the zoning code. The annual update amendments to the Integrated Development Ordinance will take effect on July 27.

Before signing the legislation, Keller said this:

“I remember asking, I was like, ‘Well, what would actually make a difference?’ because when you have a shortage of, you know, 19,000  to 30,000 [housing] units, it’s not about one more building or 100 more units. …  I had no idea what the answer was to that question. … This is a big, big deal for Albuquerque.  …  We decided to put something forth.  It was very bold, very visionary … And it came from the team saying that, ‘Look, right now our current zoning code,  not on purpose, but by default,  discourages things like casitas, things like converting hotels to apartments. … This notion that your adult child or your grandparents can live with you on your property is fundamentally New Mexican. …  That is the promise of Albuquerque and this bill delivers and reflects on that promise.  ….”

Not a single city councilor, including the amendment sponsors Democrat City Councilor Issac Benton or Republican Councilor Trudy Jones attended the signing ceremony. Several low income housing advocates who spoke referred to the legislation as a “compromise bill.” The bill survived City Council with several amendments, which Keller called reasonable.

Keller announced that what is next on the Housing Forward agenda is the actual implementation of the zoning code changes and in particular making headway on hotel conversion projects around the city.  The city has already purchased the Sure Stay Motel located in motel circle for upwards of $8 million and is in the process of converting it into 100 efficiency apartments for low-income housing. City sources have confirmed the city has enough funding to perhaps purchase one more motel for conversion into low income housing.

One of the provisions of the zoning code change was allowing a microwave and additional heating element, such as an induction cooktop, to qualify as a kitchen.  This is a change intended to make it easier for developers to convert out-of-use hotels and motels into housing.

KELLER ANNOUNCES GOAL OF 1,000 CASITAS

During the July 6 bill signing ceremony, Mayor Keller announced to the public for the first time that it was his administration’s goal to have 1,000 new casitas in the city by 2025.  The casitas  will be part of  the overall goal of 5,000 new housing units.  To carry out Keller’s goal, Planning Manager Mikaela Renz-Whitmore announced the Planning Department is currently discussing how to “lower the bar” of entry for property owners to build casitas. Renz-Whitmore said that within 120 days, the Planning Department is expected to release some “preapproved casita designs” which should reduce the time and cost for a homeowner to build an accessory dwelling unit.

The department is also looking at how other cities have incentivized casita construction. In Los Angeles, Renz-Whitmore said, there’s a program where the city will loan building costs to homeowners that agree to rent their casita to a Section 8 housing voucher holders for a certain number of years. Renz-Whitmore said the department is discussing a similar program.

“That really helps make sure that this isn’t just for the people who can already afford to build an extra unit. … It actually helps those folks who are middle income.  They’re already homeowners and they’re just looking for either a little bit of rental income, or even to provide housing for their own family members.”

Links to quoted news sources materials are here:

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/albuquerque-mayor-signs-off-on-zoning-changes/

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/albuquerque-mayor-signs-zoning-change-allowing-for-more-casitas/

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/this-is-a-big-big-deal-mayor-signs-zoning-change/article_a62a2450-1c40-11ee-a951-e781218ba7f5.html

 COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Mayor Keller’s major announcement that his administration has set the goal of constructing 1,000 casitas by 2025 took more than a few people by surprise, especially property and home owners and neighborhood associations who so strenuously opposed casita’s during the 6  month process that included public hearings and city council committee meetings and council hearings.

“COMPROMISE BILL” A LIE

Low incoming housing advocates and Keller calling the zoning code amendments a “compromise bill” is simply a lie. Throughout the process, the Keller Administration showed no signs of wanting any kind of compromise and opposed any and all efforts by the public to stop casitas and duplexes from being allowed.

From December of 202 to March 20, 2023, the Keller Administration held 6 public meetings at various quadrants of the city to promote and educate the general public on the “Housing Forward ABQ Plan”.  The proposals for casita and duplex development were met with hostility and mistrust by an overwhelming majority of property and homeowners.  

The Keller Administration officials made no changes  to the “Housing Forward ABQ Plan” base on the public comments made at the meetings. The Keller Administration went so far as to oppose any and all amendments offered by City Councilor Renee Grout to make casita and duplex construction conditional uses.

CASITA COST PROHIBITIONS

It is more likely than not that the Keller Administrations goal for 1,000 casitas by 2025 is more fantasy than reality simply because of construction costs and market forces.  The Keller Administration has never discussed the actual cost of construction of 750 square foot casitas. They simply presume property owners will be able to afford to do it themselves which is not likely given the high cost of construction and materials.

Home builders serving the Albuquerque area estimate the cost to build residents in Albuquerque is between $175 to $275 per square foot. It’s a cost that equally applies to casitas.  To build and construct a 750 foot casita or duplex at the $175 foot construction cost would be $131,425 (750 sq ft X 175 = $131,421).  The addition of plumbing, sewer, electrical and gas hook ups and permits will likely add an additional $30,000 to $50,000 to the final construction costs.  Very few people have the financial ability to invest another $130,000 to $200,000 in homes they already own.

Mayor Tim Keller and supporters of casita development argue it is needed to increase density, create affordable housing and to get away from “urban sprawl”.  They repeatedly made the misleading representation that many within the community want additional housing for extended families making reference to “mother-in-law quarters”.  Keller himself is now calling “casitas” uniquely New Mexico.  The only thing unique about “casitas” is the use of the spanish word in that the most common term in zoning is “accessory dwelling” and accessory dwelling are found through out thee country. Calling casitas “mother-in-law quarters”  or “casitas'” is nothing more than a publicity ploy to make the proposal palatable to the general public given the fact very few individuals will actually be able to afford the construction. The only ones likely to afford to construct casitas are investors and developers.

PRE-APPROVED CASITA DESIGNS

The Planning Department attempting to “lower the bar” of entry for property owners to build casitas and to provide  “preapproved casita designs”  is so very wrong on a number of levels.  The private sector investors, developers and contractors are required to go through a very lengthy and costly process to secure approval of planned developments and architectural plans, including the application for construction permits they pay for themselves.  Architectural plans for construction and remodeling are paid for in full by the developer who then submits them for the Planning Department for review and approval and to  insure compliance with zoning codes  and construction codes.  Final approval of development plans and issuance of construction permits can take anywhere from between 4 months and at times as much as a full year.

It is common knowledge that the Planning Department is currently extremely short staffed when it comes to certified and trained  code inspectors and personnel dedicated to approval and review development plans. The Planning Department does not have sufficient staff who have the  training and certifications in permit and final construction inspection process. There has been a mass exodus of planning department personnel and code inspectors resulting in a serious backlog in approving projects.

The city’s efforts to reduce the time and cost for a homeowner to build an accessory dwelling units amounts to nothing more than giving preferential treatment over those in the private sector  that have diligently followed the process and who have incurred substantial expenses. The city providing “preapproved casita designs” means the Planning Department is stepping over the line of being a code enforcement and approval agency to one of providing architectural plans or designs where the city taxpayer is absorbing the costs for the developer.  The “preapproved casita designs” plan likely violates the state’s “anti-donation clause”  which strictly bars public government entities from donating to private corporations and individuals.

CITY LOW INTEREST LOANS FOR CASITA DEVELOPMENT LIKELY VIOLATION OF STATE ANTI DONATION CLAUSE

Mayor Keller announced that his administration is looking at how other cities in other sates have incentivized casita construction. Planning Manager Mikaela Renz-Whitmore in particular said the city is looking  at Los Angeles California’s program where the city loans building costs to homeowners that agree to rent their casita to those who use  Section 8 housing vouchers.

Albuquerque, New Mexico is no way comparable to Los Angeles, California when it comes to assets and resources.  Also in New Mexico there is the anti donation clause  which strictly bars public government entities from donating to private corporations and individuals that does not exist in California or other states.

Ostensibly Mayor Tim Keller and his administration are totally ignorant of just how the “anti donation clause” works or they just choose to ignore it.  Least anyone forget, the Keller Administration spent $236,622 to purchase artificial turf for the Rio Rancho Events Center. The turf  purchase was for the benefit of the privately owned New Mexico Gladiators to play their home football games. The City Inspector General  found the turf  purchase and installation in another city  was in violation  of “anti donation clause” which strictly bars public government entities from donating to private corporations.

The city’s proposal to offer low interest loans dedicated for  construction of casitas in exchange for the property owners committing  that the casita be rented to low income Section 8 housing voucher holders is very problematic on a number of levels:

First,  its likely the loan program for casita development to private property owners to construct casitas is a violation of New Mexico’s anti donation clause.  This would be  especially true if no collateral is required to secure the loan for casita construction and the city is forced to  write off of loan for nonpayment or if the city  converts the loans to none refundable grants for home improvements.

Second,  it presumes the city has the financial resources to offer low interest loans to private citizens when the city’s responsibility is funding  essential services such as police protection, fire protection and other essential services.

Third, it amounts to  the city going into home improvement loan business assuming a financial risk when the city is supposed to responsible for construction code enforcement and permits.

Fourth, the City is not equipped to be a loan institution for collections and recovery on high risk loan defaults for casita development.

CASITAS NO SOLUTION TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING SHORTAGE

The housing shortage is related to economics, the development community’s inability to keep up with supply and demand and the public’s inability to purchase housing or qualify for housing mortgage loans.  The shortage of rental properties has resulted in dramatic increases in rents.

The City Council’s reclassification zoning of all R-1 single-family lots to allow for casita development will encourage large private investors and real estate developers, including out-of-state corporate entities, to buy up distressed properties to lease and convert whole blocks into casita rental areas.  This has already happened in the South area of the University of New Mexico dramatically degrading the character of neighborhoods and the city as a whole. It will now happen, or is already happening, in the South East Heights International District and historic areas of downtown.

To put the argument in perspective, individual investors will now be able to purchase single-family homes to rent, and add a 750-square-foot free-standing casita.  More outside investors are also  buying multifamily properties around the city. According to New Mexico Apartment Advisors CEO Todd Clarke, there are currently 1,999 investors looking in the Albuquerque multifamily market, a number that has increased sixfold since before the pandemic. Casitas will be used predominantly by outside investors and developers as rental units and it is in all likely they will not be low income units and the rent charged will be what the market will bear.

The result is a one-home rental being converted into 2 separate rental units. Such development will increase an area’s property values and property taxes. It will also decrease the availability of affordable homes and raise rental prices even higher. It will increase gentrification in the more historical areas of the city as generational residents will be squeezed out by the developers and increases in property taxes.

People buy single detached homes wanting to live in low density neighborhoods not high-density areas that will reduce their quality of life and the peaceful use and enjoyment of their homes and families.  The city allowing  casita development, which in all likelihood will be rentals on single family properties, will seriously damage the character of any neighborhood.

People buy their most important asset, their home, with the expectation they can trust the city not to change substantially the density, quality and appearance of their neighborhood. What happened with the enactment of Keller’s Housing Forward ABQ Plan and amendments to the Integrated Development Ordinance was a breach of trust between home owners, property owners  and the city and its elected officials who put “profits over people” to benefit the development and investment industry.

Mayor Tim Keller calls himself a Progressive Democrat as he gives a wink and a nod to the business and development community with his “Housing Forward ABQ Plan” that overwhelming favors developers over neighborhoods. The City Council did its constituents a real disservice to the city by allowing development that will have a dramatic negative impact on historic areas of the city.  Keller  used  the short-term housing “crunch” to declare a “housing crisis” to shove his Housing Forward ABQ Plan down the throats of city property owners.

The regular 2023 municipal election to elect city councilors for City Council Districts 2, 4, 6, and 8 will be held on November 7, 2023 along with $200 Million in bonds to be approved by city voters. Three of the four incumbents whose seats are on the ballot are not running for reelection. Those incumbents  are District 2’s Democrat Isaac Benton, District 6’s Democrat  Pat Davis and District 8’s Republican Trudy Jones. The only sitting councilor running this year is District 4’s first term Republican Brook Bassan.

The 2023 Regular Local Election Calendar for candidates began on April 30 with an “exploratory period” to allow candidates to organize and collect “seed money” donations and that period ended on June 4.  From June 5 to July 10, city council candidates were required to collect nominating petition signatures and $5.00 qualifying donations  from voters within their districts.    All City Council Candidate were required to collect  petition  signatures and  qualifying donations for public finance from June 5 through July 10.

QUALIFYING CANDIDATES

All candidates were required to submit their nominating signatures and qualifying  donations collected on or before July 10 to be verified by the City Clerk as legally submitted. On Friday, July 14, the City Clerk will officially certify who has qualified for the Nov 7  ballot and public financing.  Candidates who have collected the requisite number of petitions signatures  and qualifying donations as of June 11 and who are listed on the City Clerks web page are as follows:

DISTRICT 2 (DOWNTOWN, OLD TOWN, PARTS OF THE NORTH VALLEY AND WEST SIDE)

• Joaquin Baca, Democrat, a hydrologist and elected member of the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District and president of the ABQCore neighborhood association. Baca secured both the mandatory number of nominating petition signatures and $5.00 qualifying donations and he will be given $40,000 in public finance by the city to run his campaign and will be capped at $40,000 on what he can spend.
• Loretta Naranjo Lopez, Democrat, a retired city planner and current member of the New Mexico Public Employees Retirement Association Board and she is the President of the Santa Barbara-Martineztown neighborhood association. Ms. Lopez secured the mandatory number of nominating petition signatures as well the mandatory number of qualifying $5.00 donations and will also be given $40,000 in public finance.
• Moises A. Gonzalez, community activist. As of July 7, Gonzalez had failed to secure both the required number of nominating petition signatures as well as $5.00 donations.  His numbers do not include the last paper nominating  petitions nor donations turned in on July 10 nor the electronic petitions and donations turned in after July 7 so he may still make the ballot.

DISTRICT 4 (NORTHEAST HEIGHTS)

• Brook Bassan, Republican, a stay-at-home mom and incumbent councilor who sought public financing. Bassan has qualified for the ballot by  submitting  the needed 500 petition signatures and she also qualified for the $42,600 in public financing for her campaign by submitting 500 qualifying donations.
• Abby Foster, Progressive Democrat, and private attorney.  Foster qualified for the ballot submitting the 500 petition signatures, but did not seek public financing and will be a privately financed candidate and allowed to self-finance and spend whatever amount she can raise.

DISTRICT 6 (NOB HILL, INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT) 

• Abel Otero, Democrat, a barber and community activist. Mr. Otero qualified for the ballot collecting the required number of nominating signatures and qualified for public financing of $40,000.
• Kristin Green, progressive Democrat and community activist.  Green has qualified for the ballot securing the mandatory number of nominating signatures and but no final decision has been announced by the city clerk as to the qualifying number of $5.00 donations.
• Joseph Pitluck Aguirre, Independent, a dentist and software development company owner. Mr.  Pitluck  Aguirre has qualified for the ballot, he did not seek public finance and is a privately finance candidate who has already raised well over $10,000 and will likely raise at least $40,000 or more.
• Jeff Hoehn, Democrat, a nonprofit executive director. Hoehn has qualified for the ballot. Jeff Hoehn initially sought public financing but elected to go private after a poor showing in the first few weeks and he is now a privately financed candidate.
• Nichole Rogers, Democrat, business consultant with background in health care, education and government and influencer in the Black community. Ms. Rogers has qualified for the ballot and has qualified for public financing.

COMMENTARY:  In order to be elected city council, the winner must secure 50% + 1 of the vote or there is a runoff between the two top vote getters. The fact that there are 5 candidates in District 6 makes it far more likely than not that there will be a run off.

DISTRICT 8 (NORTHEAST HEIGHTS AND FOOTHILLS)

• Dan Champine, Republican, a retired police officer and current mortgage lender. Champine qualified for the ballot by submitting the required  500 petition signatures and he also qualified for public financing for his campaign by submitting 500 qualifying $5.00 donations.
• Idalia Lechuga-Tena, Democrat, a consultant and former state representative. Lechuga-Tena qualified for the ballot by  submitting  the needed 500 petition signatures and she  also qualified for  public financing for her campaign by submitting 500 qualifying $5.00 donations.

The link to the City clerk’s website listing the qualifying candidates is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/vote/candidate-information/2023-candidates-and-committees-1

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Now the hard part begins for the candidates.  The municipal election is on  November 7, almost a full 4 months from now, with a very hot summer in between and anything can and likely will  happen with all 4 races being hotly contested, especially in District 6 having 5 candidates who are running to replace the Progressive Democrat incumbent Pat Davis who is not seeking another term.

BALANCE OF POWER AT STAKE

The November 7 municipal election could remake the council and perhaps there will be a shift in numbers  from the current 5 Democrats control to a Republican control city council or at least a conservative shift to challenge Mayor Keller’s progressive agenda. After the 2021 municipal election, the city council went from a 6 – 3 Democrat Majority with the loss of Democrat Cynthia Borrego to Republican Dan Lewis  and it  became a 5-4 Democrat majority, but the ideology split is  5 conservatives to 3 progressives and 1 moderate. The current 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

Although the City Council is currently split with 5 Democrats and 4 Republicans, Conservative Democrat Louie Sanchez has often allied himself with Republicans Dan Lewis, Renee Grout, Trudy Jones and Brook Bassan allowing them to approve or kill measures on a 5-4 vote but being unable to override Mayor Tim Keller’ veto’s with the required 6 votes.

THE KELLER FACTOR

Like it or not, the 2023 municipal election will be a referendum on the job performance of Mayor Tim Keller only because he himself and his supporters are inserting themselves into the races for city council when they should keep their noses out of the races. Mayor Keller is not on the 2023 ballot, but he has already made  it known he is running for third term in 2025.  City Hall sources are  saying he has already told many of key staff and supporters he is running for a third term in 2025.

Informed sources have confirmed Mayor Tim Keller has already met or spoken with at least 2 progressive democrats running and pledging his support to them. This is a clear indication that Keller is fully aware of the stakes in the upcoming 2023 municipal election and that he intends to take an active roll in electing city councilors who will support his progressive agenda over the final 2 years of his second term and to set himself up to run for a third term in 2025.

Sources have confirmed that Progressive Politcal consultant Neri Olguin, who was Mayor Tim Keller’s 2021 campaign manager, is  managing  the campaigns of District 2 Progressive Democrat candidate  Joaquin Baca and  District 4 Progressive Democrat candidate Abby Foster.  Sources have confirmed that Progressive Political consultant Brandon Padilla,  who has worked for Mayor Tim Keller, is managing the campaign of  District 6 candidate Abel Otero.  The real question that remains to be answered is if Tim Keller will actually publicly endorse candidates and to what extent Keller supporters will go to help those candidates he supports at his direction?

Complicating Keller supporting and perhaps even endorsing candidates for city council is his Keller’s low approval ratings.  On November 3, the Albuquerque Journal released a poll on the job performance of Mayor Tim Keller. The results of the poll showed Keller has a 40% disapproval rating, a 33% approval rating an with 21% mixed feelings. The low approval rating was attributed to Keller’s continuing failure to bring down the city’s high crime rates despite all of his promises and programs, his failure to deal with the homeless crisis and his failure to fully staff APD after promising to have 1,200 sworn police during his first term.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2545820/mayor-kellers-job-approval-rating-sinks.html

KELLER DISCOVERED NOT WELL LIKED AT THE DOOR

Candidates for city council have confirmed that as they went door to door to collect qualifying nominating signatures and qualifying $5 donations they discovered that there was no shortage of voters who expressed a strong dislike for Mayor Tim Keller.  Not at all  surprising is the dislike for the Mayor Keller in District 8, a Republican leaning District now represented by Republican Trudy Jones. What is surprising is the dislike for the Mayor Keller is high in District 6, the most progressive district leaning Democrat now represented by Pat Davis.  Davis himself is not  well liked in his own district  which  explains his decision not to run for a third term and the 5 candidates running to replace him.

City Council Candidates campaigning door to door  found that Keller is perceived as mishandling the homeless crisis with homelessness increasing, residents believing they are not safe in their own homes and that Keller has done a poor job dealing the city’s crime rates with murders reaching all time records under Keller.  Voters asked city council candidates what they intended to do about the homeless crisis and crime.  It turns out that Mayor Keller also did himself no favors with advocating casita and duplex developments in all areas of the city to favor developers over property owners and historic neighborhoods.

Another issue that came up as candidates for city council went door to door was  that the Keller Administration spent $236,622 to purchase artificial turf for the Rio Rancho Events Center. The purchase was for the benefit of the privately owned New Mexico Gladiators to play their home football games. The Inspector General noted in no uncertain terms that the New Mexico Department of Finance (DFA) found the purchase was in violation  of “anti donation clause” which strictly bars public government entities from donating to private corporations. Mayor Keller tried to proclaim the artificial turf was not a violation of the states anti donation clause, which it was as found by the DFA.

There is little doubt as the races for city council heat up, the candidates will be asked if they support Mayor Tim Keller’s progressive  agenda and if they are Keller’s hand picked candidate who will do his bidding if  elected to the city council.

FINAL COMMENTARY

What is downright pathetic is that more than a few well known politcal pundits and city hall observers are already attempting to declare who the front runners are  and predicting the final outcomes of all 4 city council races even before the races are fully engaged and campaigning begins in earnest. Predictions of winners now does a real disservice to the candidates and the election process.  What these politcal pundits are really trying to do  is  to act like king makers. They are trying to influence the public opinion, discourage candidates  and to tip public perception in favor of their preferred candidates.  It  is the real slimy side of politics from those who have never run for office themselves and it is  so very discouraging to those who run for office who listen to their political drivel.

The city is facing any number of problems that are bringing it to its knees. Those problems include exceptionally high violent crime and murder rates, the city’s increasing homeless numbers, lack of affordable housing, lack of mental health care programs and very little next to nothing in economic development. The city cannot afford city councilors who makes promises and offers only eternal hope for better times that result in broken campaign promises.

What is needed are city elected officials who actually know what they are doing, who will make the hard decisions without an eye on their next election, not make decisions only to placate their base and please only those who voted for them. What’s needed is a healthy debate on solutions and new ideas to solve our mutual problems, a debate that can happen only with a contested election. A highly contested races reveal solutions to our problems.

Voters are entitled to and should expect more from candidates than fake smiles, slick commercials, and no solutions and no ideas. Our city needs more than promises of better economic times and lower crime rates for Albuquerque and voters need to demand answers and hold elected officials accountable.

Best wishes and good luck to all the candidates.