The Adelante Congressional District 2 Caucus is a group of Democratic Party activists who are involved with their communities within Congressional District 2. According to its web site, the values of the Progressive Adelante Progressive Caucus is to promote Democratic Party core values including social, racial, economic, gender, and environmental justice. To advance these values, the Adelante Progressive Caucus works in part to create transparency and accountability in all functions of our state and national party and to reach out to historically underrepresented communities across the state to include their voices in the democratic process.

https://adelantecaucus.org/

https://adelantecaucus.org/invitation-to-join-2/

JUNE 24 DINELLI PRESENTATION

Pete Dinelli was invited to speak before the Adelante Congressional District 2 Caucus in Socorro, New Mexico on Jun 24.  The topic of the presentation was “NEW MEXICO’S GUN VIOLENCE CRISIS AND SOLUTIONS”. Following is the prepared presentation with research links added for publication on www.PeteDinelli.com.  The presentation has also been updated to include additional research with links.

INTRODUCTION

On May 15, nine people were injured or killed by an 18-year-old male armed with an AR-17 style rifle in a mass shooting in Farmington, New Mexico. Three woman over the age of 70 were killed. The 3 fatal shooting victims were identified as 79-year-old Shirley Voita, 73-year-old Melody Ivie, and 97-year-old Gwendolyn Schofield. Schofield and Ivie were mother and daughter. Two police officers were also injured.

The Suspect was identified as 18-year-old Beau Wilson who was shot and killed by police. Wilson was a student at Farmington High School.  Wilson  used  an AR-style rifle and used a 9mm handgun and a .22 caliber firearm belonging  to a family member.

When 18-year-old Wilson stepped out of his father’s house police say he was wearing a bulletproof vest and he had a note in his pocket. The note in Wilson’s pocket was scrawled in green ink and said “If you’re reading this I’m the end of the chapter. … lay eyes or dear put a finger on my little sister.  I promise there will be regrets.”

Police say Wilson fired 141 rounds from his house on North Dustin with the assault-style rifle  before dropping the weapon in nearby bushes, taking off the vest and walking down the street continuing to fire one handgun and then a second.   Wilson fired on at least 6 houses and 3 cars in a “rampage” in a   quiet middle-class neighborhood lined with houses and churches in the heart of Farmington involving up to a quarter of a mile length of the neighborhood street.

IF IT CAN HAPPENED IN FAMINGTON, IT WILL  HAPPEN ANYWHERE IN NEW MEXICO

One thing for certain is what happened in Farmington on a quiet, middle-class neighborhood lined with houses and churches, can happen in any community, large or small, in New Mexico. Farmington is clear proof it’s a tragedy that no one can presume will only happen in the larger cities of the state such as Albuquerque, Las Cruces and Sant Fe.  It’s a tragedy that could easily happen in Clovis, Portales, Hobbs, Espanola, Taos or Raton.

GOVERNOR RENEWS CALLS FOR ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN

On May 17, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, in response to the Farmington mass shooting, said she would again pursue an assault weapon ban and age restrictions for purchasing firearms.   Both proposals were introduced during the 2023 NM legislative session but failed to reach her desk in this year’s 60-day legislative session.  The Governor said this:

 A ban on assault weapons … doesn’t have universal support in many states, including this one. I am putting it on the table. … I want to be able to go to Farmington and say this will never happen again. I don’t know of a tool that prevents all tragedies. … If there was one thing that would cure it, it would already be done. …  I would call a special session … if we could pass something that could be implemented in a timely manner.”

GUNS IN THE UNITED STATES

Discussion of gun violence must begin with the astonishing proliferation of guns in the United States. In 2023, it is estimated we now exceed 400 million guns.  There are 53,267-gun shops and only 15,876 Macdonald’s in the U.S.

https://robarguns.com/gun-sales-in-the-us-by-state

About 81 million Americans, or 31% of all adults, own an average of 5 guns each.

https://americangunfacts.com/gun-ownership-statistics/

Americans own nearly half (46%) of all civilian-owned guns worldwide, and we own more per capita  than any other country on earth.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html

MASS SHOOTINGS

The Gun Violence Archive is an online archive of gun violence incidents collected from over 7,500 law enforcement, media, government and commercial sources daily in an effort to provide near-real time data about the results of gun violence. GVA is an independent data collection and research group with no affiliation with any advocacy organization. Gun Violence Archive (GVA) is a not-for-profit corporation formed in 2013 to provide free online public access to accurate information about gun-related violence in the United State.

The Gun Violence Archive defines a MASS SHOOTING as four or more people, excluding the shooter, being shot.

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/about

Over a 35-year period, during the five administrations between Presidents Ronald Regan and Barack Obama (1981-2016), there was an average of 44 mass shooting victims per year with 22 deaths and 22 injuries. During the first three years of Donald Trump’s administration (2017-2019) the United States witnessed a nearly 900% increase in total deaths and injuries in mass shootings, per year, to 377 annually (108 deaths and 269 injuries).

The Gun Violence Archive (GVA) reported that there were over 5,000 more fatal shootings during Joe Biden’s first year in office compared to Donald Trump’s first year as president.  According to the Gun Violence Archive, the United States saw 44,868-gun deaths in Biden’s first year as president. The total number of murders, justifiable self-defense homicides, and accidental homicides involving firearms were 20,783 in 2021, compared to 15,727 in 2017 when Trump took office.  This means that in the past few years alone, gun violence has increased by 32%.

https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-vs-biden-gun-violence-in-joe-bidens-us-sees-a-sharp-escalation-447054

As of May 21, 2023, the year has seen more mass killings to date than any other year since data collection started in 2006.

https://apnews.com/article/mass-shooting-anniversary-uvalde-buffalo-325b8649c7d34577051ed4118b8dbac4

https://apnews.com/article/mass-killings-record-pace-2023-d685a6cd67e0f449f3f9d1d8713d451c

According to data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive, 2023 is on pace to become the deadliest year for mass shootings in recent history.  As of July 4, the U.S. has reported 346  mass shootings. This is the earliest in any year the  gruesome milestone has been reached since the Gun Violence Archive  began tracking them in 2014.  The statistics works out to nearly 1  mass murder per week in the first half of 2023.

GUN VIOLENCE DEATHS

After reviewing the proliferation of guns in the United States, the number of  HOMICIDES, the number of SUICIDES the number of GUN VIOLENCE DEATHS, and the number of MASS SHOOTINGS involving guns is in order to fully understand the crisis:

According to the “Gun Violence Archive” the number of HOMICIDES over the last 4 years were as follows:

• 2019: 15,516
• 2020: 19,580
• 2021: 21,020
• 2022: 20,272

The number of SUICIDES over the last 4 years were as follows:

• 2019: 24,090
• 2020: 24,156
• 2021: 24,090
• 2022: 24,090

The number of GUN VIOLENCE DEATHS over the last 9 years were as follows:

• 2014: 12,354 deaths
• 2015: 13,577 deaths
• 2016: 15,148 deaths
• 2017: 15,750 deaths
• 2018: 14,941 deaths
• 2019: 39,606 deaths
• 2020: 43,736 deaths
• 2021: 45,110 deaths
• 2022: 44,362 deaths

The number of MASS SHOOTINGS over the last 9 years were as follows:

• 2014: 272 mass shootings
• 2015: 336 mass shootings
• 2016: 383 mass shootings
• 2017: 348 mass shootings
• 2018: 336 mass shootings
• 2019: 415 mass shootings
• 2020: 610 mass shootings
• 2021: 690 mass shooting
• 2022: 646 mass shootings
• 2023: 346  Mass Shootings (January 9, to July 4, 2023)

As of  June 23, 2023 the total number of gun violence deaths stood at 20,416, homicides stood at  8,932, suicides stood at 11,484.  As of July 4, 2023, the total number of  MASS SHOOTING stood at 346. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/2020-more-gun-deaths-than-any-year-over-two-decades-2021-3

https://theconversation.com/mass-shootings-in-the-us-have-risen-sharply-in-2020-why-150981

CORONA VIRUS 19 CONTRIBUTING CAUSE

What cannot be ignored as a likely  contributing cause in the increase in gun violence is the CORONA VIRUS 19 pandemic and its cumulative effect on the country’s mental health.  The CORONA VIRUS 19 pandemic lead to extensive confinement or quarantine, loss of employment and stress leading to substance abuse or increased alcohol consumption.

It was on January 19, 2019, that the United States Secretary Alex Salazar of the Department of Health and Human Services declared the corona virus outbreak a national emergency. It was on March 11, 2020 that Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham ordered the state into lockdown.  Note that it was in 2019 that homicides began to spike dramatically over 4 years, gun violence deaths more than doubled over 4 years and mass shooting began to spike over 3 years.

BIGGEST PREDICTORS OF GUN VIOLENCE

Clinical factors that have an increased risk of violence and that  are also predictors of violence are younger age, male sex, lower income and substance abuse.  Contextual factors include major life changes such as divorce, unemployment, or victimization. Expressions of hate, rage and threatening behavior are not mental illnesses but are predictors of violence.

https://www.mhanational.org/gun-deaths-violence-and-mental-health#:~:text=Clinical%20factors%20that%20have%20an,divorce%2C%20unemployment%2C%20or%20victimization.

The predicators of violence ostensibly are indeed at play in Albuquerque.  On June 26,  a shooting at a busy movie theater left a man dead happened during an argument over seats. On June 16,  a man shot two people randomly in the parking lot of a popular restaurant, on July 10,  a woman shot another woman whose car she was trying to steal in a busy mall parking lot.

Dr. Kristina Sowar, the Attending Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist at the University of New Mexico Children’s Psychiatric Center, said understanding the psychology behind actions like those is an important topic.  She said many people have been feeling more stressed in the last few years  since the COVID pandemic  and that can be one cause of this behavior. Sowar this:

“We do see many people who are struggling more with irritability, impulse regulation, and sometimes the aggressive behavior that comes about with that. …  As can things like having another mental health condition, so having depression, having anxiety, having had a head injury, having a substance use history. ”

Dr. Sowar said short fuses can show that people need improvement in conflict resolution:

“Especially if people aren’t raised in environments where that’s encouraged, it can be an area of deficit for them that they just don’t learn and it continues to persist as a challenge when they get older.” 

She said experiencing trauma as a kid can lead to more of these problems as an adult. She noted that trauma is more common in New Mexico. Dr. Sowar said there can be a lack of value in human life and people feel like they don’t have a connection to others.

Dr. Sowar said teenagers are seeing an increase in mental health issues across the country in the last few years. The covid pandemic was particularly tough. Some of the recent violence in Albuquerque has been among teenagers. On July 13, two teens got into a struggle over a gun. A 15-year-old boy was shot and a 13-year-old boy was stabbed.

“The rates of depression and PTSD and anxiety in a lot of teenagers, the kind of things they’ve been exposed to, things that maybe have been normalized for them that weren’t normalized before.  …  Some of the cumulative stress, trauma loads on the population, and the mix of teenagers plus weapons, unfortunately, being a tough combo.”

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/perspective-on-what-could-be-causing-recent-violence-in-albuquerque/

PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR GUN CONTROL

American voters have already said “enough is enough” when it comes to gun violence and they are demanding responsible gun control by congress and state legislatures but both fail to act. The Second Amendment is always cited by gun advocates.

A Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll was conducted in August 2019 after the mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio. The poll found that an overwhelming majority of Americans favor Congress banning assault weapons, expanding background checks for firearm sales, passing “red flag” laws and instituting a voluntary buyback program.

According to the poll, overall, the public remains divided over the government’s role in gun control, despite widespread support for those specific measures. 50% of Americans say they’re more concerned that the government won’t go far enough to regulate access to firearms, while 45% are more concerned gun control laws will be too restrictive. Only 46% of the 834 registered voters surveyed have a gun in their household.

Highlights of the poll are:

62% favor banning the sale of selected semi-automatic firearms referred to as assault weapons.
89% say they favor Congress expanding background checks to all firearm sales and transfers.
76% back “red flag” laws that help law enforcement temporarily remove guns from those deemed to pose a danger to themselves or others.
75% support a voluntary program where the government would buy back firearms that people no longer want.
25% support banning the sale of handguns.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-08-19/poll-majority-favor-gun-control

NEW MEXICO CRIME STATISTICS

New Mexico’s firearm ownership and fatality rate is also among the nation’s highest. In 2016 over 37% of adults in the state lived in a household with a firearm which is 5% higher than the national average according to the think tank Rand Corp.

In 2020, New Mexico had the nation’s second-highest violent crime rate.

2021 NEW MEXICO CRIME STATISTICS

New Mexico’s firearm fatality rate is among the nation’s highest. According to the New Mexico Department of Health, there were a total of 562 state residents who died in 2021 due to firearm-related injuries.

This figure is up significantly from the 481 firearm-related deaths in 2020. Of the 562 state residents who died in 2021 due to firearms, 319 cases, were classified as suicides and 243 were classified as homicides.

In 2021 New Mexico law enforcement reported over 28,000 crimes against persons. That includes crimes such as murder, rape, assault, and kidnapping. In 2021,  FBI data showed for every 100,000 people in New Mexico, law enforcement reported 2,189 crimes against persons. The only state with a higher rate was Arkansas, which reported 2,276 crimes per 100,000 people.

In 2021 New Mexico law enforcement agencies reported nearly 25,500 instances of assault . That’s 1,872 more than the state reported in 2020. New Mexico law enforcement also reported more homicides in 2021 than the year before.

In 2021 across New Mexico, police reported 193 homicides to the FBI.  That’s 67 more than in 2020.  Not at all surprising is that the majority of the state’s reported homicides were in Albuquerque.

In 2021, New Mexico law enforcement reported to the FBI 822 kidnappings and abductions to the FBI. That put New Mexico at the top of the list regarding kidnappings and abductions per 100,000 people. Kansas, Colorado, and Utah also rank high on the list of kidnappings and abductions per population.

2022 NEW MEXICO CRIME STATISTICS

“Safe Wise”  is a national  private company that reviews, rates  and promotes private home security systems and  products. It conducts national surveys on crime statistics and trends and publishes a newsletter on it findings.

https://www.safewise.com/about/#:~:text=SafeWise%20streamlines%20it%20for%20you,they’re%20worth%20your%20time.

On March 13, 2023, Safe Wise published a “State of Safety Report” for New Mexico.  Following are edited noteable excerpts from the report:

“New Mexico continues to have higher-than-average crime rates across the board.  … [T]he good news is that both property and violent crime rates are declining year over year. Violent crime fell from 8.2 incidents per 1,000 people to 7.8  but that still gives New Mexico the second-highest violent crime rate in the US, behind Alaska with 8.4 incidents per 1,000.

Property crime fell from 31.8 incidents per 1,000 people to 28.4. New Mexico is one of just a dozen states to see declines in both violent and property crime, but fewer cities reporting crime data to the FBI may also be a factor.”

VIOLENT CRIME IN NEW MEXICO: FEAR VS. REALITY

“New Mexicans have the 8^th highest level of concern about violent crime in the nation with 58% of our State of Survey respondents indicating they worry about it on a daily basis. Concern about gun violence is just a tad lower with 57% of the population reporting daily concern.

• 31% of people in New Mexico reported feeling safe in their state compared to 50% of Americans. Only the residents of Illinois and New York feel less safe in their states.
• 15% of New Mexicans reported having a personal experience with violent crime in the 12 months prior to our survey, which matches the national average but represents an increase of 200% year over year for New Mexico.
• 42% of survey participants report using some form of personal protection— above the US average of 39%. Pepper spray was the most popular personal safety device carried.
• 48% of New Mexicans say their personal safety has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic compared to 44% of Americans.”

ATTITUDES ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE IN NEW MEXICO

• “57% of New Mexico respondents named gun violence as a top safety concern—well above the US average of 47%.
• 16% of residents reported experiencing gun violence in the 12 months prior to the survey, up from 5% in our previous report.
• Mass shooting incidents increased 300% in New Mexico during the 2023 reporting year, rising from 1 to 4.
• Firearms are the third-most common method used for both personal safety and property protection in New Mexico.”

PROPERTY CRIME IN NEW MEXICO: FEAR VS. REALITY

“New Mexicans’ personal experiences with property crime increased year over year to 39%, which is the second-highest percentage in the nation. With that said, 41% of New Mexicans said they increased their security or safety measures in the 12 months prior to the survey, and people in New Mexico were more likely to use all types of property protection compared to the average American.

• Property crime experiences increased by 105% year-over-year in New Mexico.
• 39% of New Mexicans experienced package theft in the 12 months prior to our survey, which is the eighth-highest rate in the nation and represents an increase of 70% year over year.
• 46% of survey respondents said they use security cameras. Guard dogs were the second-most popular option for protecting property in New Mexico (38%). 
• Doorbell cameras are the most popular form of package theft protection among New Mexico residents.”

 The link to review the full unedited Safe Wise report is here:

https://www.safewise.com/blog/safest-cities-new-mexico/

ALBUQUERQUE CRIME RATES

Albuquerque is at the forefront of New Mexico’s high violent crime rate.  According to legislative data released, the city had about half of the state’s violent crime in 2022 but has just 25% or so of its total population.

The Albuquerque Police Department reported that in November, 2022 gun law violations spiked 85%. The last two years have also been two very violent years for Albuquerque.  The number of homicides in the city have broken all-time records.   In 2021, there were 117 homicides, with 3 declared self-defense reducing homicide number to 114.  In 2022, there were 120 homicides, a historical high.

On Thursday, March 16, 2023 the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) released the 2022 crime statistics along with crime statistics for 2022 for a comparison. During his March 16 press conference announcing the City’s 2022 crime statistics, APD Chief Harold Medina embellished that a  3% drop in  overall total of crime and a 4% decrease in Crimes Against Persons and the 2% decrease in Crimes Against Property was positive movement.  The slight 3% decrease in overall crime was over shadowed by the 24% spike in CRIMES AGAINST SOCIETY which are largely made up of drug and gun offenses and a 71% increase in murders over the last 6 years.

Chief Medina revealed that over the last 6 years, Albuquerque has had a dramatic 71% spike in homicides.  The number of homicides reported over the last 6 years is as follows:

• 2017: 70 homicides
• 2018: 69 homicides
• 2019: 80 homicides
• 2020: 78 homicides
• 2021: 110 homicides
• 2022: 120 homicides

On March 16, in addition to reporting that there has been a 71% spike in homicides, APD officials reported that over the past 6 years there has been a 28% increase in Aggravated Assaults which by definition includes the use of a firearms. Following are the Aggravated Assaults numbers:

• 2017: 4,213
• 2018: 5,156
• 2019: 5,337
• 2020: 5,592
• 2021: 5,669
• 2022: 5,399

Crime rates in Albuquerque are high across the board. According to the Albuquerque Police’s annual report on crime, there were 46,391 property crimes and 15,765 violent crimes recorded in 2021.  These numbers place Albuquerque among America’s most dangerous cities.

ALBUQUERQUE IS RANKED 17TH AMONG 70 OF THE LARGEST CITIES

On April 26, the Major Cities Chiefs Association released its Violent Crime Survey and national totals for the crimes of homicides, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults. According to the report, Albuquerque is ranked 17th among 70 of the largest cities in the nation looking at trends in the 4 categories. The single most troubling statistic is Albuquerque’s increase in homicides.

The Major Cities Chiefs Association report shows in 2022, there was a 5% drop in homicides nationwide. According to the Major Cities Chiefs Association, Albuquerque had one of the worst homicide rates in the nation and is one of 27 cities across the nation that saw an increase in homicides.

Click to access MCCA-Violent-Crime-Report-2022-and-2021-Midyear.pdf

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-homicide-rate-increase/43702586

FOUR MAJOR SOLUTIONS TO REDUCE GUN DEATHS AND MASS SHOOTINGS

Consistently there are 5 major solutions that are offered to reduce gun violence.  Those 5 solutions are:

   1.  ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN

Simply put and based on history, assault weapon bans can work. Federal restrictions enacted in 1934 on the ownership of fully automatic weapons (machine guns) were successful based on the rarity with which such guns were used in crime after enactment.  Washington, D.C.’s restrictive handgun licensing system, which went into effect in 1976, produced a drop in gun fatalities that lasted for several years after its enactment.

It was on September 13, 1994, Title XI of the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, known as the Crime Control Act of 1994, took effect.  The act banned the manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semiautomatic firearms designated as assault weapons and “large capacity” ammunition magazines.

“Gun massacres of six or more killed decreased by 37% for the decade the ban [on assault weapons] was active [1994-2004], then shot up 183 percent during the decade following its expiration.” 

Click to access 173405.pdf

 https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/studies-gun-massacre-deaths-dropped-during-assault-weapons-ban-increased-after-expiration

    2.  WAITING PERIODS

Studies have found that if a certain number of days are required between the purchase of a gun and when the buyer can take possession of that gun, referred to as a “cooling off period”, can lead to fewer firearm suicides. “In a study of statewide suicide rate changes between 2013 and 2014, states with waiting periods saw a decrease in suicide rates, while those without waiting period laws had an increase.”

https://everytownresearch.org/solution/waiting-periods/

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in a 2017 study, found  “Waiting period laws that delay the purchase of firearms by a few days reduce gun homicides by roughly 17%. Our results imply that the 17 states (including the District of Columbia) with waiting periods avoid roughly 750 gun homicides per year as a result of this policy. Expanding the waiting period policy to all other US states would prevent an additional 910 gun homicides per year without imposing any restrictions on who can own a gun.”

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1619896114.

   3.  BACKGROUND CHECK LAWS

More than 5 in 6 Americans (84%), including over three-fourths of Republicans, support a law requiring a background check on all firearm purchases.

https://www.bradyunited.org/press-releases/new-polling-overwhelming-support-for-universal-background-checks

Legislation  for background checks varies from state to state. In a 25-year study (1991-2016), the following was reported:

“State gun laws requiring universal background checks for all gun sales resulted in homicide rates 15% lower than states without such laws. Laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by people who have been convicted of a violent crime were associated with an 18 percent reduction in homicide rates….None of the state gun laws studied were found to be related to overall suicide rates.” The study concluded, “controlling who has access to guns has much more impact on reducing gun-related homicides than controlling what guns people have.”

“Researchers found that a 1995 Connecticut law requiring gun buyers to get permits (which themselves required background checks) was associated with a 40% decline in gun homicides and a 15%  drop in suicides. Similarly, when researchers studied Missouri’s 2007 repeal of its permit-to-purchase law, they found an associated increase in gun homicides by 23 percent, as well as a 16-percent increase in suicides.”

http://www.npr.org/2016/01/09/462252799/research-suggests-gun-background-checks-work-but-theyre-not-everything

4.  RED FLAG LAWS

 Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO), also known as “Red Flag” laws, were first adopted in Connecticut in 2005. They are now in 19 states and Washington D.C. They allow loved ones and law enforcement to intervene when a family member is in crisis and considering harm to themselves or others. They can petition the court for an order to temporarily prevent someone from accessing guns.

https://everytownresearch.org/solution/extreme-risk-laws/

In 2021 New Mexico adopted a red flag law, but it has been implemented only 9 times by  resistant law enforcement officers during the first two years after the law’s passage. Any law without law enforcement can never prove its effectiveness. New Mexico Sherriff’s were universally opposed to New Mexico’s Red Flag  arguing it violates the second amendment right to bear arms so much so that they condemned Governor Lujan Grisham and opposed her  re election in 2022. Simply put, elected County Sherriff’s, because of personal beliefs,  who are not willing nor capable of enforcing New Mexico laws  designed to intervene and prevent violence of a person in crisis deemed a threat to the public or themselves, they need to resign.  Red flag laws can play a role in preventing mass shootings, as a 2019 study revealed “the subjects in 21 of the 159 court orders that were analyzed showed clear signs that they intended to commit a mass shooting.”

https://rockinst.org/blog/what-does-the-research-say-about-extreme-risk-protection-orders-erpo/

5. SAFE GUN STORAGE LAWS

Safe gun storage legislation does help reduce gun violence. Presently, there are only 14 states that have laws concerning either gun storage or firearm locking devices with New Mexico  becoming  the 14^th state in 2023.

 https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/qa-on-bidens-gun-proposals/

“A 2015 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that states requiring gun locks experienced a 68% lower suicide rate compared with states that had no similar requirement….A 2020 meta-analysis of 18 different gun policies by the RAND Corporation found that CAP [Child Access Prevention] laws have reduced both firearm suicides and accidental shootings among young people. The RAND team concluded that CAP laws were the most effective out of 18 categories of laws it examined.”  In a survey interviewing over a thousand adults, nearly 8 in Americans 10 (nearly 70% of Republicans, nearly 80% of Democrats and Independents) support mandating that guns are stored with a lock in place.

https://gunsandamerica.org/story/20/07/13/do-safe-storage-gun-laws-prevent-violence/

When the 2023 New Mexico 60 day legislative session began on January 17, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham in her “State of the State” address announced her support of the following 4 gun control measures:

• Banning the sale of AR-15-style rifles.
• Allowing crime victims to sue gun manufacturers.
• Making it a crime to fail to properly secure a firearm that’s accessible to an unsupervised minor.
• Closing a loophole in state law to allow prosecution when a person buys a gun for a someone who isn’t legally able to make the purchase themselves, a transaction known as a straw purchase.

Only 2 of the 4 measure’s the Governor endorsed were enacted by the legislature. The 2 measures enacted and signed into law were:

House Bill 9.   This bill is referred to as the Bennie Hargrove Gun Safety Act also known as “Bennies Bill” and makes it a misdemeanor to negligently allow a child access to a firearm and would make it a felony if that negligence resulted in someone dying or suffering great bodily harm.

House Bill 306. This bill is directed at “straw purchases” of firearms and making it illegal to buy a firearm on behalf of someone who’s not allowed to have it or intends to use in a crime.

GUN CONTROL MEASURES THAT FAILED 

During the 2023 legislative session, there were 10 major gun-control measure bills introduced and seriously considered in the New Mexico House or Senate.  Eight of those bills were:

House Bill 50 would have prohibited magazines with more than 10 rounds.

House Bill 72 would have prohibited the possession of semiautomatic firearm converter that allows the weapon to fire more rapidly.

House Bill 100 would have established a 14-day waiting period for the purchase of any firearm and requires a prospective seller who doesn’t already hold a valid federal firearms license to arrange for someone who does to conduct a federal background check prior to selling a firearm.

House Bill 101  would have made it a fourth-degree felony to purchase, possess, manufacture, import, sell or transfer assault weapons in the state.  It would restrict the sale, manufacture and possession of AR-15-style rifles along with semiautomatic firearms.

Senate Bill 44 would have made it a misdemeanor to carry a firearm within 100 feet of a polling location on election day or during early voting. On-duty law enforcement officers and security personnel would be exempt.

Senate Bill 116 would have established a minimum age of 21 for anyone seeking to purchase or possess an automatic firearm, semiautomatic firearm or firearm capable of accepting a large-capacity magazine. The bill would have effectively raised the minimum age for buying an AR-15-style rifle from 18 to 21.

Senate Bill 171 sought to ban the manufacture, sale, trade, gift, transfer or acquisition of semiautomatic pistols that have two or more defined characteristics.

Senate Bill 428 would have revised the state’s Unfair Practices Act to target the sale of illegal firearms and parts, allowing the filing of lawsuits to enforce the act.

Bills that did not pass include bail reform and changes to pretrial detention, both priorities of Democrat Governor Lujan Grisham and the Republican Party, and both opposed by Democrats in both chambers.

NO SPECIAL SESSION

On Saturday March 18 during a news conference immediately after the  2023 session ended, Governor Lujan Grisham told reports that a special session was not needed this year on gun control. The Governor said this:

“I think the public is going to ask me and these Legislatures know, so they’re not surprised by that.  I’ll be asked to look into a public safety special session, and we usually find ourselves it’s an imperfect world where we didn’t anticipate. So the special sessions we have called have been unforeseen and dramatic circumstances.”

TWO DIVIDING ISSUES BETWEEN DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS

There are two major issues that are sure to divide Democrats and Republicans in New Mexico. The first issue where there is never a meeting of the minds is on “crime and punishment”.  The second issue is gun control.

Republicans always advocate for increased sentencings as a solution to all types of  crimes with the attitude of “lock em up and throw away the key”. It is nothing more than the warehousing of defendants for all sorts of crime  that is very costly and a drain on resources that could be better used elsewhere.   Democrats oppose increased and enhanced sentencings believing that the only way to reduce crime and gun violence  is to solve the underlying causes of crime and gun violence such as  lack of  education, poverty, drug addiction and mental illness and that rehabilitation of any defendant  is possible.

The second issue is “gun control measure’s” that Democrats advocate  for and Republicans universally oppose always citing Second Amendment embodiment of right to bear arms. Republicans essentially adopt the the position of the National Rifle Association that any and all gun control measures and the outlawing the manufacturing and sale of any type of firearm violates the Second Amendment. Republicans always  proclaim that gun control measures translate into only criminals will have guns. Democrats essentially argue that  there is a need for reasonable and responsible gun control to bring down the proliferation of guns and to reduce gun violence.

Democrats and Republicans fail to recognize that both issues overlap with each other and  can be combined as a solution to address gun violence. There must be a zero tolerance of violent crimes committed with firearms, especially involving drug trafficking.  There must be a reduction in the proliferation and the availability of guns used to commit crime and mass shootings that can be addressed with gun control.

ENACT “OMNIBUS GUN CONTROL AND VIOLENT CRIME SENTENCING ACT”

The current makeup of the New Mexico legislature is 45 Democrats and 25 Republicans in the House with 27 Democrats and 15 Republicans in the Senate.  What is very discouraging is the fact that the New Mexico legislature is decidedly in control by Democrats, yet very little to no progress is every made when it comes to gun control measures as Republicans out maneuver Democrats by relying on Democrats who also oppose gun control.

If Governor Lujan Grisham and the New Mexico legislature are indeed sincere about the State’s crime crisis both should seek the enactment of an “Omnibus Gun Control And Violent Crime Sentencing Act.”

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT  

The message that must be sent  out  loud and clear to violent criminals by our elected officials is that New Mexico has a zero tolerance of violent crimes committed with firearms and the only way to do that is with with enhanced sentencings.

The following crime and sentencing provisions should be included in the “Omnibus Gun Control And Violent Crime Sentencing  Act”:

Allow firearm offenses used in a drug crime to be charged separately with enhance sentences.

Making possession of a handgun by someone who commits a crime of drug trafficking an aggravated third-degree felony mandating a 10-year minimum sentence.

Increase the firearm enhancement penalties provided for the brandishing a firearm in the commission of a felony from 3 years to 10 years for a first offense and for a second or subsequent felony in which a firearm is brandished 12 years.

Create a new category of enhanced sentencing for use of a lethal weapon or deadly weapon other than a firearm where there is blandishment of a deadly weapon in the commission of a felony with enhanced sentences of 5 years for a first offense and for second or subsequent felony in which a lethal weapon other than a firearm is brandished 8 years

Increase the penalty of shooting randomly into a crowded area a second-degree felony mandating a 9-year sentence.

Change bail bond to statutorily empower judges with far more discretionary authority to hold and jail those pending trial who have prior violent crime reported incidents without shifting the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense.

GUN CONTROL MEASURES

Gun control measures that should be included the “Omnibus Gun Control And  Violent Crime Sentencing  Act” would include all 8 bills that failed in the 2023 legislative session and other measures and  would include the following:

Call for the repeal the New Mexico Constitutional provision that allows the “open carry” of firearms. This would require a public vote and no doubt generate heated discussion given New Mexico’s high percentage of gun ownership for hunting, sport or hobby, but what is the real rational for allowing side arms and rifles to be carried down the street other than to intimidate others.

Restrict the sale, manufacture and possession of AR-15-style rifles along with semiautomatic firearms and make it a fourth-degree felony to purchase, possess, manufacture, import, sell or transfer assault weapons in the state.

Prohibited magazines with more than 10 rounds.

Prohibited the possession of semiautomatic firearm converter that allows the weapon to fire more rapidly.

Established a 14-day waiting period for the purchase of any firearm and requires a prospective seller who doesn’t already hold a valid federal firearms license to arrange for someone who does to conduct a federal background check prior to selling a firearm.

Established a minimum age of 21 for anyone seeking to purchase or possess an automatic firearm, semiautomatic firearm or firearm capable of accepting a large-capacity magazine.

Ban the manufacture, sale, trade, gift, transfer or acquisition of semiautomatic pistols that have two or more defined characteristics.

Revised the state’s Unfair Practices Act to target the sale of illegal firearms and parts, allowing the filing of lawsuits to enforce the act.

Prohibit in New Mexico the sale of “ghost guns” parts. Ghost guns are guns that are manufactured and sold in parts without any serial numbers to be assembled by the purchaser and that can be sold to anyone.

Require in New Mexico the mandatory purchase of “liability insurance” with each gun sold as is required for all operable vehicles bought and driven in New Mexico.

Mandate the school systems and higher education institutions “harden” their facilities with more security doors, security windows, and security measures and alarm systems and security cameras tied directly to law enforcement 911 emergency operations centers.

The Omnibus Gun Control And Violent Crime Sentencing  Act Omnibus Gun Violence And Sentencing  Act  must include funding for the criminal justice system. This would include funding District Attorney’s Offices, the Public Defender’s Office, the Courts and the Corrections Department and law enforcement departments across New Mexico.

CONCLUSION

Until the Governor and the New Mexico legislature gets serious about New Mexico’s gun violence crisis and enacts reasonable gun control measures in conjunction with crime and punishment measures, we can expect our violent crime rates to continue to increase, and God forbid, yet another mass shooting.

On June 16 a total of 117 new laws passed during 2023 legislative session enacted by the Democratic-controlled 2023 legislature during this year’s 60-day session and signed by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham took effect.  Under the New Mexico Constitution, legislature enacted bills take effect 90 days after the end of a legislative session. Bills can also take effect on other dates, if specified in the legislation itself.

Some of the  most notable of the laws that took effect on June 16 are as follows:

PUBLIC SAFETY 

House Bill 306 (Purchase of Firearms for Another):  This bill  is directed at “straw purchases” of firearms and  makes it a felony to purchase a firearm for someone who is legally prohibited from possessing one or who intends to use the firearm to commit a crime.

House Bill 9: This bill is referred to as the Bennie Hargrove Gun Safety Act also known as “Bennies Bill” and makes it a misdemeanor to negligently allow a child access to a firearm and would make it a felony if that negligence resulted in someone dying or suffering great bodily harm. The bill establishes a new crime for adults who fail to safely store a firearm out of a child’s reach.

House Bill 234 (Robbery and Organized Retail Crime):  This bill creates the crime of organized retail crime, allowing for the aggregation of multiple retail theft crimes over a period of time to target repeat offenders.

Senate Bill 64:  Ensures juveniles sent to prison are entitled to a parole hearing 15 to 25 years into their sentence.

Senate Bill 133 (Catalytic Converter Sales Records): This bill  requires secondhand metal dealers who purchase or receive catalytic converters to keep records of the transaction that include the seller’s information, a copy of their identification, and legal documentation that demonstrates their ownership of the catalytic converter.

REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS:

Senate Bill 13 (Reproductive Health Provider Protections):  This bill codifies the protections outlined in Governor Lujan Grisham’s August 2022 executive order, including prohibiting entities within the state from sharing patient information related to reproductive health care for New Mexico patients and providers. SB 13 also goes further by prohibiting public bodies from restricting access to abortion and gender-affirming health care.

House Bill 7 (The Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Act): This law Prohibits public bodies, including local municipalities, from denying, restricting, or discriminating against an individual’s right to use or refuse reproductive health care or health care related to gender.

HEALTHCARE ACCESS AND AFFORDABILITY

Senate Bill 7 (Rural Health Care Delivery): This bill  provides $80 million to support rural health care delivery in areas of New Mexico often underserved by available health care options.

Senate Bill 13:  This bill shields nurses and doctors who perform abortion services from out-of-state warrants.

Senate Bill 16 (Creating Health Care Authority Department):  This bill establishes a single unified department responsible for health care purchasing, regulation and policy that provides a foundation for effective management and oversight of heath care. It aligns licensing and oversight with the purchasing of health care services and improves transparency.

Senate Bill 51 (Cost Sharing Contributions for Prescriptions): This is a consumer protection bill that is the result of the Prescription Drug Taskforce who studied the increasing cost of prescription drugs.

Senate Bill 245 (Rural Emergency Hospital Licensure):  This bill amends the Public Health Act to allow for certain rural health facilities to apply for rural emergency hospital licensure to meet federal health care reimbursement.

Senate Bill 397: This bill enshrines school-based health centers in state law.

Senate Bill 521 (Medical Malpractice Act Changes): This bill amends the Medical Malpractice Act to cap claims for independent healthcare facilities, such as urgent care, ambulatory surgical centers, and free-standing emergency rooms that are not hospital-controlled.

House Bill 134:  This bill requires the free distribution of menstrual products in public school bathrooms.

VOTING RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

House Bill 4 (Voting Rights Protections)  This bill enacts the first-in-the-nation Native American Voting Rights Act allowing Indian nations, tribes, and pueblos to amend their request for voting locations and to apply for secured ballot drop boxes and allows electors to use government buildings as their mailing address. The legislation automatically registers voters at the MVD or other local public offices designated by the Secretary of State.  The bill restores the right of previously incarcerated individuals to vote upon their release from custody.  The bill creates a voluntary permanent absentee voter list and prohibits the transfer or publication of voter data online. The bill  mandates same-day voter registration at all polling places and mandates at least two monitored secure ballot drop boxes per county.

Senate Bill 180: Update state’s election laws by establishing mandatory training for poll watchers and clarifying process for updating voter rolls

 House Bill 207: Expands scope of state’s Human Rights Act to cover gender identity.

 MISCELLANOUS LEGISLATION ENACTED

Senate Bill 9:  create permanent funding for conservation projects across the state.

Senate Bill 188:  Makes the smell of roasting green chile New Mexico’s official state aroma.

Senate Bill 442:  Provides salary increases for statewide elected officials, though pay raise for the governor won’ take effect until 2027.

OTHER LAWS

Additional new laws that went into effect in June include:

• A new law to help cover the cost of breast exams
• A law to help people keep their driver’s licenses even if they fail to appear in court.
• A law aimed at preventing public bodies from discriminating against people for accessing reproductive healthcare.
• A new law will allow small communities to join together in order to supply water to residents.
• A new law to set aside funds to build wildlife corridors

Additional new laws going into effect in July 2023 include:

• A new law to let all children in public schools access free lunch programs
• A new law to reorganize the state’s probate courts.
• Several new laws will let the state issue special license plates, such as plates supporting driver safety.
• A law to expand outdoor youth programs offered through the Department of Game and Fish.
• A law requiring the Environment Department and the Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department to plan a cleanup of the land around the San Juan Generating Station.

Other laws enacted by the 2022 legislative session that will go into effect in 2024  include a law to create a “Marketing Excellence Bureau” at the state’s Tourism Department and a law to move some transportation-related responsibilities from the Public Regulation Commission to the Department of Transportation.

Links to news sources are here:

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/when-do-new-laws-go-into-effect-in-new-mexico/

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/100-new-laws-go-into-effect-in-new-mexico-today/

REPUBLICAN OPPOSTION

While some of the new laws that took effect passed with bipartisan support, others continue to be  staunchly opposed by Republicans. The firearm storage measure that makes it a crime for adult gun owners to fail to keep their firearms out of a child’s reach, did not win a single “YES” vote from Republican lawmakers. State Republican Spokeswoman Ash Soular said this:

“We continue to see Democrats push for more gun laws that target law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights, but at the same time, Democrats continue to reject laws that target criminals and crime in New Mexico.”

She also said the new abortion law would strip parents’ right to be notified if a minor child seeks to have an abortion or gender change surgery, pointing out Democrats rejected a proposed amendment on the issue. State law already allows for minors to have abortions without notifying their parents and Republican sponsored bills on the issue failed in the Democratic controlled legislature.

The new abortion and gender-affirming care law is also at the center of  a legal battle between Attorney General Raúl Torrez and several eastern New Mexico cities and counties that enacted anti-abortion ordinances.  The state Supreme Court has temporarily blocked the ordinances from being implemented but has not yet issued a final ruling in the case.

REACTION TO IMPLEMENATION

Albuquerque Senate President Pro Tem Mimi Stewart, D-Albuquerque, said she did not foresee implementation as a problem with the new laws enacted. She noted most of new laws were already implemented by executive orders  during the COVID-19 pandemic. She also argued that the high-profile laws dealing with health care and firearms were thoroughly debated during this year’s session. Stewart said this:

“I think people might not really realize how hard it is to pass legislation like this. … The ideas in these bills have been fully vetted over numerous years, and they passed on strong votes.”

TARGETS FOR REPEAL BY REFERENDUM

The New Mexico Family Action Movement is targeting for repeal 6 laws in New Mexico passed during the 2023 sixty-day legislative session by the Democratic-controlled Legislature on abortion, elections and gender-affirming care. The 6  laws targeted for repeal  are set to take effect on June 16, including the bill barring discrimination against individuals seeking abortion services and a separate bill shielding nurses and doctors who provide abortions from criminal investigation.

The New Mexico Family Action Movement has said it is prepared to go to court to get the measures on the ballot.  The repeal effort is receiving significant support from the New Mexico Republican Party which strenuously opposed the legislation and other right-wing organizations such as Better Together New Mexico and the New Mexico Business Coalition that consistently opposes democrat initiatives.

The 6 bills targeted for repeal are:

House Bill 7: Prohibit public bodies from blocking access to abortion services and gender-affirming care.

Senate Bill 13: Shield doctors and nurses who provide abortion services and gender-affirming care from civil or criminal legal liability.

Senate Bill 397: Enshrine school-based health centers in state law.

House Bill 207: Expand scope of state’s Human Rights Act to cover gender identity.

House Bill 4: Change voting laws by expanding automatic voter registration and establishing permanent absentee voter list.

Senate Bill 180: Update state’s election laws by establishing mandatory training for poll watchers and clarifying process for updating voter rolls.

Jodi Hendricks, the executive director of the New Mexico Family Action Movement said the coalition has thousands of volunteers around the state gathering the necessary signatures to allow for a statewide vote on the targeted laws in 2024 and to block them from taking effect. Hendricks said this:

“We really believe that three of these bills … are major attacks on parent rights.”

REPUBLICAN PARTY, CONSERVATIVE ORGANIZATIONS ARGUE OVERREACH BY DEMOCRATS

Governor  Michelle Lujan Grisham signed the six bills in question into law and her  also defended the six bills, saying they were passed by duly elected lawmakers to benefit state residents.  The Governor’s spokeswoman Caroline Sweeney said this:

“Gov. Lujan Grisham signed these six bills because she knows, unequivocally, they will do good for thousands of New Mexicans so they can have healthy, productive lives, and participate fully in their communities as their true selves.”

Not at all surprising, the New Mexico Republican Party is supportive of the attempt to repeal the legislation by petition referendum.  The Republican Party proclaims that citizen have the  right to pursue the referendum process so much so that the party’s executive director Leticia Muñoz has been helping individuals who want to sign referendum petitions. The Republican Party also criticized Toulouse Oliver for blocking the petitions from moving forward and state GOP spokeswoman Ash Soular said this:

“The secretary of state should refrain from putting up obstacles to this citizen effort and respond to this effort following state law.”

The conservative organizations “Better Together New Mexico”  and the “New Mexico Business Coaltion” are also behind the petition drive and referendum process to repeal the legislation.  Carla Sonntag, the founder of the nonprofit group “Better Together New Mexico” and the Executive Director of the “New Mexico Business Coaltion” said  supporters felt ignored by Democratic lawmakers, who hold strong majorities in both the state Senate and House of Representatives. Sonntag said this:

“They think it’s tremendous overreach and they’re exercising they’re right to have a say.”

UPHILL BATTLE

The New Mexico Family Action Movement is fighting an uphill battle with the petition-referendum process.  Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver has denied 23 referendum petitions since a 60-day legislative session ended in March due to technical problems with the paperwork and legal objections. The Secretary of State’s office has directed county clerks not to provide voter lists to those pushing the repeal effort, and warned voters that current petitions circulating are not valid since they have not been approved.

Secretary of State  Toulouse Oliver has also ruled the bill blocking local anti-abortion ordinances from being enforced is exempt from repeal. Toulouse Oliver said the law meets the constitutional exemption for laws that provide for the “preservation of the public peace, health or safety” of the state. The Secretary of State said the bill ensures New Mexico women and transgender individuals will not be discriminated against based on their health care choices.

On May 26, Toulouse Oliver wrote in her ruling:

“Such health and safety purposes are clearly within the state’s inherent police powers exempt from referendum”.

REFERENDUM PROCESS

New Mexico’s Constitution gives voters the ability to annul laws passed by the Legislature, but there are major exceptions. Those exceptions are bills dealing with public peace, health and safety. Other exceptions are budget bills and legislation dealing with public school maintenance.

If successful, this year’s referendum efforts could put targeted laws on the November 2024 statewide ballot for possible repeal. Before that happens, however, the referendum petitions must met legal requirement and  be approved by the Secretary of State’s office.

Even if a repeal referendum measure is  approved by the Secretary of State, the State Constitution requires that  valid signatures must be obtained from  more than 71,470 registered  state voters or at least 10% of the number who voted in last year’s general election.  The State constitution also has  a geographic requirement that a certain amount of the signatures must come from at least 25 counties.

Links to quoted news sources are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2604823/legal-fight-brewing-over-latest-nm-referendum-push.html

https://www.koat.com/article/petition-to-repeal-several-new-bills-in-new-mexico/44123219

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/when-do-new-laws-go-into-effect-in-new-mexico/

COURTS  UPHOLD  SECRETARY OF STATE’S AUTHORITY TO BLOCK REFERENDUM PETITIONS

Backers have questioned Secretary of States Toulouse Oliver’s legal authority to decide whether the targeted laws are exempt from repeal, arguing it’s up to the court system, not the secretary of state, to make such a determination. Toulouse Oliver has denied 23 referendum petitions since a 60-day legislative session ended in March due to technical problems with the paperwork and legal objections.

Carla Sontag, the founder of the nonprofit group “Better Together New Mexico” said this:

“We don’t feel like we need her blessing to move forward.  … We will see this through to the end [going to court if necessary].”

In April of this year, within weeks after the 60-day New Mexico  legislative session ended, a  court challenge against the Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver  was filed by Ramona Goolsby of Rio Rancho.  Goolsby is involved the coalition of groups seeking to get the targeted laws on the November 2024 ballot for a repeal vote. In her petition, she argued Toulouse Oliver overstepped her authority by ruling the abortion law is exempt from referendum, saying only the Legislature can determine whether laws or necessary for the public peace and welfare.

On June 8, 13th District Court Judge James Noel rejected a challenge by the New Mexico Family Action Movement to Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver’s authority to determine whether New Mexico laws targeted for repeal are exempt from referendum under the state Constitution. The specific challenge was to Toulouse Oliver’s ruling denying the referendum petition targeting House Bill 7 which prohibits public bodies from limiting access to abortion services and gender-affirming care.

Judge Noel granted the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Secretary of State’s Office.  The court upheld Toulouse Oliver’s determination that the bill meet the exemption for “public peace, health or safety” of the state.

Toulouse Oliver said this about the court ruling:

“This is a win for the rule of law and for all New Mexicans. … I’m pleased to see the court clarify this matter today with their ruling in favor of our  position that the laws currently being targeted for referendum are, in fact, exempted from the referendum process. Bottom of Form … It is very disappointing that New Mexicans are being misled about the referendum petition process by certain groups and individuals.”

Goolsby who filed the law suit and who is representing herself, responded to the case dismissal by Noel  by  citing his  appointment  to the judiciary by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham in 2020 by saying this: .

“Partisan politics are alive and well in our courts.”

Links to quoted news sources are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2605077/state-judge-upholds-nm-secretary-of-states-authority-to-block-referendum-petitions.html

https://www.koat.com/article/petition-to-repeal-several-new-bills-in-new-mexico/44123219

A state judge in Roswell also dismissed a request from Republican state Senate candidate Larry Marker to block one of the abortion laws from taking effect pending the outcome of a legal dispute over the referendum process.

Lindsey Bachman, the director of legislative and executive affairs at the Secretary of State’s office, said the  court rulings have clearly established the secretary of state’s authority to determine whether new laws are exempt from referendum, with help from the Attorney General’s office.  Bachman said this:

“Again, it is unfortunate that a group has not seen fit to educate themselves on the laws and requirements relating to the referendum process in New Mexico and instead continue to spread misinformation and encourage New Mexicans to sign invalid petitions.”

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

By all accounts, the 2023 legislative session was very productive in addressing public safety, health care, protecting a woman’s reproductive rights and voting rights. Many initiatives that failed in the 2022 legislative session were enacted in the 2023 session.

The petition drive by New Mexico Family Action Movement to use the referendum process to repeal the 6 laws enacted by the New Mexico legislature is totally within their rights and the rights of the Republican party. The lawsuit filed by against Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver’s challenging her authority is also a legitimate exercise of rights.

Notwithstanding, both are a reflection of the extreme length’s ultra-right conservative organizations opposed to woman’s right to chooses and the Republican party will go to interfere with the legislative process and to interfere with a woman’s right to choose, access to abortion services and gender-affirming care, and to stop protections and expanding voters rights.  No politician, no voter, no government, and no one else has any right to tell a woman what she can do with her body and decide reproductive rights for her.

It is painfully obvious that when Republicans are not successful at the ballot box, not successful in the legislative process, they revert to the courts. When they are not successful in the courts, Republicans then call into question the motivations of the judiciary.

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/a-total-of-117-new-nm-laws-are-set-to-take-effect-friday-heres-whats/article_68a407fa-0ba0-11ee-9a5e-4bbcef123ec4.html

 

At the end of June, the United State Supreme Court issued 4 major decisions that were highly anticipated and with great concern confirming it has become a far right activist court.   The first was the court’s rejecting an attempt to empower legislatures with exclusive authority to redraw congressional districts without court intervention.  The second struct down decades of affirmative action in college admissions.  The third ruled that a Christian business owners can discriminate and withhold services to the LGBTQ+ community based on religious grounds.  The fourth  invalidated President Joe Biden’s student loan debt relief plan.  This blog article reports on all 4 decisions and the continuing partisanship and erosion of confidence in the country’s highest court.

SUPREME COURT REJECTS “THE INDEPENDENT STATE LEGISLATURE DOCTRINE” 

The case of Moore v. Harper involved “the independent state legislature doctrine”.  The fact that it was even considered by the court was astonishing in and of itself given how extreme it was and how it would have undermined the election process. It involved an appeal where the North Carolina Supreme Court undid a  partisan gerrymandering of the state’s congressional map that would have given Republicans a large advantage in races for House seats. Republican efforts to draw congressional districts heavily in their favor were blocked by a Democratic majority on the North Carolina State Supreme Court on grounds that the GOP map violated the state Constitution. A state court-drawn map produced seven seats for each party in last year’s midterm elections in the highly competitive state. The question for the justices was whether the U.S. Constitution’s provision giving state legislatures the power to make the rules about the “times, places and manner” of congressional elections completely cuts state courts out of the process.

Several Republican state legislators asked the Supreme Court to restore the biased map for primary elections. Their emergency filings with the US Supreme Court claimed that the North Carolina state supreme court did not have the power to even review the legislatively drawn congressional map, despite the fact that the map violated several guarantees in the state’s constitution.  Republican lawmakers argued that neither state courts nor state constitutions should have a say in how federal elections are run. Republicans also challenged whether the North Carolina court got its decision right but also argued state courts do not have  any role to play in reviewing laws passed by legislatures that deal with federal elections.

Links to quoted and related sources

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1271.html

https://portside.org/2022-07-14/case-could-blow-american-election-law?utm_medium=email&utm_source=portside-snapshot

Republicans control a majority of state legislatures and there is a national coordinated effort to disenfranchise voters by not allowing for “mail in” balloting and requiring in person voting on election day. Americans are losing faith in elections after years of hearing false claims of widespread fraud from former President Donald Trump and his allies. After the 2020 presidential elections and Trump’s unfounded allegations of voter fraud, Republican control legislatures rushed to change their election laws asserting election law reforms were needed to protect the vote from widespread fraud when there is no fraud found at all in at least 51 federal lawsuits filed by Trump.

At the center of the dispute is a clause in the Constitution that delegates responsibility for federal election rules to the “legislature” of each state subject to oversight by Congress and not the Courts. Republicans argued  the plain meaning of the constitution  that state legislatures, and only state legislatures, have the power to set those rules. Such a reading of the clause would cut governors, election officials and state courts out of the rulemaking process giving all power over federal elections to the legislatures who could simply invalidate an election saying it was fraudulent with no proof.

At least 4 of the Supreme Court conservative justices signaled varying levels of interest in the idea of giving legislatures more power, embracing “the independent state legislature doctrine”. Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that the North Carolina lawsuit presented an “important” question and that “both sides” had “advanced serious arguments.” Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts are viewed as near the ideological center of the court but given how they voted to overturn “Roe v. Wade”, they could easily change their minds. Kavanaugh has also shown he is not above lying to congress saying he is “impartial” and respected prior court precedent as he did with the case Roe v. Wade just to turn around and vote to throw out 50 years of s Supreme Court precedents.

MOORE V. HARPER  RULING

On Tuesday, June 27, the United States Supreme Court ruled that state courts can curtail the actions of their legislatures when it comes to federal redistricting and federal elections gerrymandering.  The Supreme Court  rejected arguments by North Carolina Republicans that could have dramatically altered races for Congress and President in the state and beyond.  The justices voted 6 to 3 to  uphold  the North Carolina Supreme Court decision that struck down the state legislature’s  congressional districting plan as excessively partisan under state law. However, the Supreme Court did indicate there could be limits on state court efforts to police elections for Congress and president, suggesting that more election-related court cases over the issue are likely.

Republican Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the 6 vote majority  that “state courts retain the authority to apply state constitutional restraints when legislatures act under the power conferred upon them by the Elections Clause. But federal courts must not abandon their own duty to exercise judicial review.”  The Moore v. Harper decision was the fourth case of the term in which conservative and liberal justices joined to reject the most aggressive legal arguments put forth by conservative state elected officials and advocacy groups. Earlier decisions on voting rights, a Native American child welfare law and a Biden administration immigration policy also unexpectedly cut across ideological lines on the court.

The practical effect of the  Moore v. Harper decision is minimal in North Carolina.   The North Carolina state Supreme Court, under a new Republican majority, has already undone its redistricting plan ruling.   Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said they would have dismissed the North Carolina case because of the intervening state court action.

Vice President Kamala Harris said in a statement that the decision “preserves state courts’ critical role in safeguarding elections and protecting the voice and the will of the American people.”

Former President Barack Obama applauded the outcome as “a resounding rejection of the far-right theory that has been peddled by election deniers and extremists seeking to undermine our democracy.”

Notwithstanding the courts ruling, the leader of a Republican redistricting group said he was pleased the court made clear there are limits on state courts.  Adam Kincaid, president and executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, said this in a statement”

“[This decision] should serve as a warning to state courts inclined to reach beyond the constitutional bounds of judicial review. This is a first, positive step toward reining in recent overreaches of state courts.”

Derek Muller, a University of Iowa law professor and elections expert, said the decision leaves some room to challenge state court rulings on federal election issues.  Muller said this:

 “[Future challenges] are likely to be rare cases. … The vast majority of state court decisions that could affect federal elections will likely continue without any change.”

You can read the entire Moore v. Harper ruling here:

Click to access 21-1271_3f14.pdf

STAKES WERE HIGH

The Moore v. Harper case attracted major attention of Supreme Court watchers because 4 Republican  conservative justices had suggested before that the Supreme Court should curb state courts’ power in elections for president and Congress.  Opponents of the Independent Legislature Theory had argued that the effects of a robust ruling for North Carolina Republicans could be reach much further than just that one state’s redistricting.

The Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law said what was potentially at stake were more than 170 state constitutional provisions, over 650 state laws delegating authority to make election policies to state and local officials, and thousands of regulations down to the location of polling places.  Republican lawmakers in North Carolina told the Supreme Court that the Constitution’s “carefully drawn lines place the regulation of federal elections in the hands of state legislatures, Congress and no one else.”

Former federal appeals court judge Michael Luttig, a prominent conservative who joined the legal team defending the North Carolina court decision said  the outcome could have transformative effects on American elections. Lutog said this:

“This is the single most important case on American democracy, and for American democracy, in the nation’s history.”

The link to the quoted news source is here:

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-elections-state-legislatures-a620db8c1ad30fc34b3ab0c81b29b87c

Had this ruling gone the other way, the New Mexico legislatures re alignment of the state’s Southern  3rd Congressional District in 2021 would likely have been affected to some degree.

 

SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

On June 29, the Republican Supreme Court issued its decisions in the case of Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College that colleges and universities can no longer take race into consideration as a specific basis for granting admission. The decision overturns decades of standing precedent that has benefited Black and Latino students in higher education. A plaintiff had challenged race-conscious programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The vote broke strikly along ideological grounds, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. writing for the conservative members in the majority, and the liberals dissenting.

Republican Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the Republican conservative majority, saying the Harvard and University of North Carolina admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause because they failed to offer “measurable” objectives to justify the use of race. He wrote for the majority  the programs involve racial stereotyping and had no specific endpoint.

The opinion claims the court was not expressly overturning prior cases authorizing race-based affirmative action, and suggested that how race has affected an applicant’s life can still be part of how their application is considered. The majority effectively overruled its 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s consideration of race “as one factor among many, in an effort to assemble a student body that is diverse in ways broader than race.” Republican conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined the Roberts opinion.

The decision was the latest in a series of challenges to the role of race in university admissions. In both the North Carolina and Harvard cases, the plaintiffs had asked the justices to overrule Grutter v. Bollinger.  In her opinion for the majority in that case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor reaffirmed that “student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions,” but she warned that race-conscious admissions policies should not last forever. In 25 years, she suggested, “the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest” in diversity.

Democrat Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a graduate of Princeton and Yale Law School,  who once called herself “the perfect affirmative action baby”, dissented, in an opinion that was joined by Democrat  Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor emphasized that the majority’s decision had rolled “back decades of precedent and momentous progress” and “cement[ed] a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society.” In a demonstration of the controversial nature of the case, justices read their dissents from the bench for the first time since 2019.

Republican Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion.  He pushed back against the idea, advanced by Democrat Sotomayor in her dissent, that the 14th Amendment “does not impose a blanket ban on race-conscious policies.” Thomas  in his memoir discussed the “stigmatizing effects of racial preference” that he felt after he was admitted to Yale Law School in the 1970s under a race-conscious admissions program, was also sharply critical of the UNC and Harvard programs from a practical perspective.

Thomas argued the admission programs “do nothing to increase the overall number of blacks and Hispanics able to access a college education” but instead “simply redistribute individuals” among colleges and universities, “placing some into more competitive institutions than they otherwise would have attended”  and where they may be less likely to succeed academically. Thomas wrote that even if they do succeed, they may still be harmed by the stigma that race-conscious admissions programs create.  Rather than solving existing issues of inequality, Thomas argued, these policies themselves divide students and “lead  to increasing racial polarization and friction.”

Republican  officials celebrated the decision as Democrats decried the courts decsion. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said the justices “just ruled that no American should be denied educational opportunities because of race.” Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement, “This is a great day for all Americans.” Former President Donald Trump also called the decision a “great day for America.”

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/supreme-court-decisions/index.html

Democrat Vice President Pamela Harris, who is the first African American Vice President and who is an attorney and former prosecutor, suggested the Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action undermines the importance of equal opportunity. She said the court did not “fully understand the importance of equal opportunity for the people of our country. … “And it is, in so very many ways, a denial of opportunity.”  Harris also rejected as a “complete misnomer” a narrative suggesting the ruling was about so-called colorblindness in admissions.  Harris said “In fact, it is about being blind to history, being blind to data, being blind to empirical evidence about disparities, being blind to the strength that diversity brings to classrooms to boardrooms.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/live-blog/supreme-court-decisions-live-updates-rcna91671

Democrat President Joe Biden said in a short speech at the White House scheduled specifically for him to react to the decision slammed the US Supreme Court as “not a normal court” after it ruled to end  race-conscious admissions at universities across the country.  He announced he will ask the Department of Education to look into ways to maintain student diversity in higher education. Biden said “The court has effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions and I strongly, strongly disagree with the court’s decision Biden noted that “the court once again walked away from decades of precedent” after its six-strong supermajority of conservative justices prevailed over the opposition of the bench’s three liberal-leaning justices.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/29/joe-biden-affirmative-action-supreme-court-reaction

FREE SPEECH RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE

On June 30, the Republican Supreme Court ruled in favor of an evangelical Christian web designer from Colorado who refused to work on same-sex weddings in the case of  303 Creative LLC.,  ET AL vs Elenis, ET. AL.  The glaring problem is that it was based on a “hypothecal” scenario where no one was force to provide a service.   Lorie Smith, who opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds and who wanted to run a  business designing websites, sued the state in 2016 because she wanted  to accept customers planning opposite-sex weddings but reject requests made by same-sex couples wanting the same service. Smith has strongly held beliefs that “marriage is between one man and one woman — and that union is significant.” The problem is she offered no evidence that any gay couple sought her services nor took action to force her to provide services.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23865226-supreme-court-303-creative-opinion

Smith sued the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and other state officials concerned that she could be sanctioned under its antidiscrimination law that bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in public accommodations. Lower courts ruled against Smith, prompting her to appeal to the Supreme Court. Smith was never penalized for rejecting a same-sex couple but sued on hypothetical grounds.  Smith argued that as a creative professional she has a free speech right to refuse to undertake work that conflicts with her religious views of marriage.

The justices voted  6-3 on ideological lines  ruling that Lorie Smith, as a creative professional, has a free speech right under the Constitution’s First Amendment to refuse to endorse messages she disagrees with. The Supreme Court ruled she cannot be punished under Colorado’s antidiscrimination law for refusing to design websites for gay couples. The ruling could allow other similar business owners to evade punishment under laws in 29 states that protect LGBTQ+ rights in public accommodations in some form. The remaining 21 states do not have laws explicitly protecting LGBTQ rights in public accommodations, although some local municipalities do.

Republican Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court majority:

“The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place, where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.”

It was Gorsuch who wrote a 2020 ruling that expanded LGBTQ rights in the employment context.  However, he said that public accommodation laws play a vital role in protecting individual civil rights and wrote:

“At the same time, this court has also recognized that no public accommodation law is immune from the demands of the Constitution. In particular, this court has held, public accommodations statutes can sweep too broadly when deployed to compel speech.”

Civil rights groups argued that  Smith was asking the Republican conservative-majority court for a “license to discriminate” that would destroy  public accommodation laws that require businesses to serve all customers. David Cole, the national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the court had for the first time found that some people have a “green light”  to violate antidiscrimination laws. Smith said this:

“The court’s decision opens the door to any business that claims to provide customized services to discriminate against historically-marginalized groups.”

Democrat Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing the dissent, said the court’s ruling was part of “a backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities” and a type of “reactionary exclusion,” calling it “heartbreaking.” Sotomayor read a summary of her dissent from the bench, saying in court that the decision allowing Smith to sell her product only to opposite-sex couples “makes a mockery of the law.”

She compared Smith’s situation to historic cases of racial discrimination in which restaurants would refuse to serve Black people inside but would allow them to collect pick-up orders from a side counter, effectively treating them like second-class citizens.  Sotomayor noted that Smith will still sell her services to LGBTQ+ people only if it is for an opposite-sex wedding. For LGBTQ+ customers, Sotomayor said, “she will sell at a side counter.”  Democrat liberal justices, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, both joined Sotomayor’s dissent.

Smith’s lawyer, Kristen Waggoner, said the court had simply reaffirmed that Americans cannot be forced to say things they do not believe. Waggoner said this:

“This is a win for all Americans. The government should no more censor Lorie for speaking consistent with her beliefs about marriage than it should punish an LGBT graphic designer for declining to criticize same-sex marriage.”

This was the second case that gave the Supreme Court the opportunity to rule on the question of whether goods and services can be denied by a business owner based on religious grounds. The Supreme Court ruled in a similar case in 2018 in favor of a Christian baker, also from Colorado, who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. The court ruled then that the baker, Jack Phillips, did not receive a fair hearing before the state Civil Rights Commission because there was evidence of anti-religious bias.

The Supreme Court ruled on the Colorado  baker case before the retirement of Republican Justice Anthony Kennedy, who voted in favor of LGBTQ rights in key cases.  Following 3 appointments made by then-President Donald Trump, the court has now has six  Republican conservative and three Democrat liberal justices. Kennedy was in the majority when the court legalized gay marriage on a 5-4 vote. In another major victory for LGBTQ rights, the Supreme Court in 2020 ­— to the surprise of many court-watchers ­­— ruled in the decision written by Gorsuch that a federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in employment protects LGBTQ employees.

A year later the court ruled in favor of an agency affiliated with the Catholic Church that the city of Philadelphia had barred from its foster care program because of the church’s opposition to same-sex marriage. In other cases in recent years the conservative majority has consistently backed religious right

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-web-designer-refused-work-sex-weddings-rcna68629

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-gay-rights-website-designer-aa529361bc939c837ec2ece216b296d5

COURT INVALIDATES BIDEN’S STUDEN LOAN DEBT RELIEF PLAN 

On June 30, the  Supreme Court invalidated President Joe Biden’s student loan debt relief plan.  The Republican Supreme Court was once again  divided 6-3 on ideological and politcal party lines.  It ruled in one of two cases that the program was an unlawful exercise of presidential power because it had not been explicitly approved by Congress. One case was brought by 6 states, including Missouri, and the other was  brought by 2 people who hold student loan debt. The Supreme Court  ruled that the program was unlawful in the case brought by states and  found in the second case that the challengers did not have legal standing.

The Supreme Court rejected the Biden administration’s arguments that the plan was lawful under a 2003 law called the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, or HEROES Act. The law says the government can provide relief to recipients of student loans when there is a “national emergency,” allowing it to act to ensure people are not in “a worse position financially” as a result of the emergency.

Republican Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority said the HEROES Act language was not specific enough and  the court’s precedent “requires that Congress speak clearly before a department secretary can unilaterally alter large sections of the American economy.”

The Biden plan would have allowed eligible borrowers to cancel up to $20,000 in debt and would have cost more than $400 billion and it  has been blocked since the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary hold in October.  Upwards of 43 million Americans would have been eligible to participate.  The student loan proposal is considered politically critical to Biden because  tackling student loan debt was a  pledge he made on the campaign trail in 2020 to energize younger voters.

The ruling immediately puts pressure on the Biden administration to find an alternative avenue to forgive student debt that could potentially withstand legal challenge.  Biden is likely to announce new actions to protect student loan borrowers, according to a White House official.

Advocates, as well as some Democrats in Congress, say the Education Department has broad power to forgive student loan debt under the 1965 Higher Education Act, a different law than the one at issue in the Supreme Court cases.  Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer  said the ruling was “disappointing and cruel” and noted that the Biden administration has “remaining legal routes to provide broad-based student debt cancellation.”

Not at all surprising  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was delighted at the ruling saying Biden’s “student loan socialism plan would be a raw deal for hardworking taxpayers.”

The three Democrat  liberal justices dissented, with Justice Elena Kagan saying that by ruling against the plan, the court had “exceeded its proper limited role in our nation’s governance.” Kagan wrote  the states bringing the challenge did not have legal standing to even bring the case, and in analyzing HEROES Act, the conservative Republican  justices ignored the clear language of the law. Kagan wrote:

“The result here is that the court substitutes itself for Congress and the executive branch in making national policy about student-loan forgiveness.”

The court decided the case in part based on a legal argument made by the challengers that the conservative majority has  embraced called the “major questions doctrine.”  Under the theory, federal agencies cannot initiate sweeping new policies that have significant economic impacts without having express authorization from Congress.

The conservative majority cited the major questions doctrine last year in blocking Biden’s Covid vaccination-or-test requirement for larger businesses and curbing the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to limit carbon emissions from power plants.

The challengers argued that the Biden administration’s proposal violated the Constitution and federal law, partly because it circumvented Congress, which they said has the sole power to create laws related to student loan forgiveness. The  Biden administration  proposed forgiving up to $10,000 in debt for borrowers earning less than $125,000 a year (or couples who file taxes jointly and earn less than $250,000 annually). Pell Grant recipients, who are the majority of borrowers, would be eligible for $10,000 more in debt relief.

The administration closed the application process after the plan was blocked by a federal court. Holders of student loan debt currently do not have to make payments as part of Covid relief measures that will remain in effect until after the Supreme Court issues its ruling. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated in September that Biden’s plan would cost $400 billion.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rule-bidens-student-loan-forgiveness-plan-friday-rcna76874

ABC NEWS POLL

On July 2, ABC news released a ABC News/Ipsos poll.   A majority of Americans,  53%, believe that the nation’s highest court rules mainly on the basis of 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 that 76% of Democrats  and  51% of independents believe that the Supreme Court rules mainly on the basis of their partisan political view.  36% of Republicans who believe that the court makes rulings based on their political views. These margins have shifted from a January 2022 ABC News/Ipsos poll, where 38% of Americans believed that the justices rule mainly on the basis of law, versus 43% who believed that the court rules on the basis of their political views.

The link to read the full ABC poll story is here:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/americans-approve-supreme-court-decision-restricting-race-college/story?id=100580375

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

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

Thomas Jefferson said it best:

“Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.”

Without such 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 or religion 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.

The United States Supreme Court’s legitimacy has always depended upon the public perceiving the court and its decisions as being based on the rule of law, prior precedent known as “stare decisis” and not partisan politics. So much so that labels such as “liberal”, “progressive”, “moderate” and “conservative” are used in referring to Supreme Court Justices’ philosophies instead of party affiliations. Supreme Court Justice’s and federal judge’s party affiliations are never identified or reported by the media and it’s a charade.

The Supreme Court’s decision last year overturning Roe v. Wade striking down 50 years of a woman’s right to choose an abortion and this year’s decision to eliminate affirmative action in higher education has been major goals of the Republican conservative legal movement for decades. In the span of a mere 370 days, the current United States Supreme Court with the appointment of 3 supreme court justices by President Donald Trump has made both a reality. Fifty years of Supreme Court precedents have now been overturned to the delight and celebration of the far hard right.

THE  REPUBLICAN TRUMP COURT

The very nature of the process of selecting a Supreme Court Justices is as partisan as it gets. The overlap between “judicial ideology” and the “political ideology” and party affiliation of those who select supreme court justices is undeniable to the point that they have come to be one and the same. The President nominating and the Senate having a confirmation process leads to the selection of Supreme Court Justices whose political and ideological approach to interpreting the law is identical with the views shared by the political party in power in the White House and the US Senate.

Ryan C. Williams, assistant professor of law at Boston College Law School, put it in perspective in a column written for MSNBC when he wrote:

“The polarized nature of our politics has contributed to a court that is closely divided on numerous hot-button political issues — such as abortion, gun rights, campaign finance regulation and affirmative action. In the 1980s and 1990s, the partisan nature of these divisions was mitigated to some extent by justices whose views did not match the ideology associated with the political party of the president who appointed them, such as David Souter and Byron White. But since the 2010 retirement of [the very liberal] John Paul Stevens, appointed by President Gerald Ford, all of the Justices appointed by Republican presidents have been recognizably more conservative than the justices appointed by Democrats.

The court’s perceived partisan orientation has been further exacerbated by the gamesmanship and spectacle surrounding confirmations. The court’s three most recent appointees — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Barrett — have each taken office amidst controversy. Gorsuch’s appointment was made possible by the Republican-controlled Senate’s decision to deny a hearing or vote to Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, resulting in a 14-month vacancy on the court.

 Kavanaugh’s confirmation was placed in jeopardy by accusations of sexual assault that he denied, leading to a highly contentious and much-publicized confirmation hearing. Barrett’s confirmation was rapidly pushed through the Senate shortly before the 2020 election by the same Republican Senate leaders who had earlier used the pending presidential election as an excuse not to vote on Garland.

The willingness of Republican politicians to play hardball with the confirmation process and the resulting shift in the balance of power on the court has left raw feelings on the left and led to increasing calls for retaliatory measures — including court-packing. The nominees were not themselves the architects of these strategies. But nor were they mere passive bystanders. Their willingness to accept and press forward with their nominations involved at least a degree of cooperation with the sharply partisan methods through which their appointments were secured.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/supreme-court-justices-say-institution-must-be-nonpartisan-they-make-ncna1279280

NO LONGER VIEWED AS ETHICAL

The Supreme Court’s eclectic mix of decisions over the past two years by the super majority conservative Republican court has raised concerns about its legitimacy. Attacks on the court’s legitimacy have been aided by the ethical missteps and challenges of court members  and the supreme court not having any code of ethics as is the case with all other federal courts. There have been repeated reports of undisclosed vacations, jet travels and gift payments to family members of Justice Clarence Thomas and Samiel Alito from billionaire Republican donors. The appearance of impropriety is unmistakable to the public  despite their defense that they have done nothing wrong nor unethical.

United States Supreme Court Chief Justice has done the Supreme Court’s reputation and challenges to its legitimacy no favors as he has resisted instituting a Code of Ethics for the Supreme Court. Roberts goes as far as to say that Congress has no authority to impose a code of ethics on the court. Roberts merely promises that the Court will do more to show it will adhere to high ethical standards, but has yet to condemn the actions Thomas and Alito.

NO LONGER FAIR AND IMPARTIAL

Part of the greatness of the Supreme Court has always been that the public has had a tremendous respect for the Supreme Court because it has been viewed by and large as “fair and impartial” and “a political” not subservient to any political party nor religious philosophy. With the reversal of Roe v. Wade and the reversal of a well settled constitutional rights for women, voting rights and civil rights, the United State Supreme Court has lost its legitimacy and credibility with the American people.

As the saying goes, elections have consequences. The 2024 elections are once again shaping up to be one of the most consequential elections in our history where recent Supreme Court decisions will be on the ballot as well as the control of congress, not to mention our basic right to vote in an election.

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 “politcal 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.

 

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.  When appointed, Bregman said he would serve only 2 years and not run for reelection.

BREGMAN DISCLOSES TO PRESS RUNNING FOR FULL TERM

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 complete with a slide presentation on the city’s crime statistics as provided by the Albuquerque Police Department. 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.”

BREGMAN ANNOUNCES FOR DISTRICT ATTTORNEY

On Friday, June 30, Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman made it official and announced he was indeed running for a full 4 year term as District Attorney. In his announcement Bregman said this:

“Six months ago, I received the greatest honor of my professional career when Governor Lujan Grisham appointed me as District Attorney. … New Mexico, especially Albuquerque, has given me so much since I moved here many years ago. I received a great education here. I married my loving wife and raised an amazing family here. I have been able to serve our community through my work as an attorney and my time in public office here. And now, it is a true privilege to have the opportunity to serve our community once again in this role. When I was appointed to serve as District Attorney in January, I understand that I did so with the belief that I would not run for a full term. However, the past 6 months have created more opportunities for this office than I could have ever imagined. Whether it is being able to hire so many new attorneys to the office; or developing new procedures that make our office more efficient and effective; or being asked to serve as the chair of the Governor’s organized crime task force – I realized that we were just getting started with creating true reform in the office. I felt that leaving the District Attorney’s office, just as these reforms were getting started, would be tantamount to quitting. And I will never quit on the people of Bernalillo County.” 

In his announcement, Bregman proclaims in the 6 months he has been District Attorney he has implemented reforms and procedures that have led to significant improvements, within the office including:

“Hiring of 35 new attorneys – more than double the number of attorneys hired in all of 2022

 Nearly 60% of pre-trial detention motions being granted – the highest percentage since 2017

 408 criminal indictments – there were a total of 601 in all of 2022

 A criminal conviction rate of 66.7% – nearly 10% higher than in 2022”

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

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

“BLACK HAT” CAMPAIGN COMMERCIAL MINUS THE “WHITE HORSE”

In addition to making a formal written announcement, Bregman released a campaign launch video on social media announcing he is running for a full 4-year term.  The video is a slick 90 second campaign commercial outlining his accomplishments as District Attorney. In his campaign launch video, Bregman touts all the successes of the office since he was appointed and proclaims he has made a difference. Bregman says this:

“I took this job to fight crime. … I’m running for district attorney to protect my family and yours. …” 

The Bregman commercial is more than little hoaky at times with Bregman wearing a large rimmed, black cowboy hat with a very serious look on his face as he is shown talking and giving directions to police officers and as he walks the streets of Albuquerque talking with his fans and supporters.  At the end, Bregman stands with his arms crossed in front of police officers with a serious look on his face conveying the image that he means business.  It is as if he was announcing he is the new sheriff  in town.  All that is missing from the commercial is Bregman riding a white horse wearing a six shooter on his hip and going to the rescue, but then again there is still time to work one into any future commercial. Not bad for someone who was born in Washington, DC.

On June 30, KOAT TV Channel 7 reported that using the Go Daddy search tool Who Is,  it found  that Bregman’s campaign website was registered on May 25. Bregman’s website shows he is already asking and taking donations of $25, $50, $100, $250, $500 or more.  A search of the New Mexico Secretary of State’s website also shows he registered his campaign on June 1.

The link to Bregman’s web page is here:

https://www.bregmanforda.com/

The FACEBOOK link to Bregman For DA is here:

https://www.facebook.com/BregmanforDA

PROMISE NOT TO RUN RECALLED

On January 4 of this year  when he was appointed by the Governor,  Bregman said during  a press conference,  with law enforcement officials, United States Attorney Alexander M.M. Uballez,  Attorney General Raul Torrez  and Mayor Tim Keller,  standing by his side he would not run in 2024 for DA. Bregman said this:

“It’s very liberating not to have to worry about politics, not to have to run a campaign starting next March … .  I don’t have any problems [with that]. I can just focus on getting things done.”

At the time Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham appointed Bregman District Attorney she also said Bregman would not run for re-election. The Governor’s press release at the time said in part:

“Bregman will serve the remaining two years of the existing term. He will not run for re-election to the office, focusing on the office’s work to combat crime and build stronger, safer communities.”

https://www.governor.state.nm.us/2023/01/03/governor-appoints-second-judicial-district-attorney/

On June 30, KOAT TV contacted the Governor Mitchell Lujan Grisham’s Office office and asked if she expected Bregman to run.  The Governor’s office did not answer the question but said this in a statement:

“Gov. Lujan Grisham wanted to make sure that whomever she appointed as Bernalillo County DA would be squarely focused on the work of the office, and not a re-election bid. In his first six months in office, DA Bregman has illustrated his commitment to fighting crime, resulting in a safer New Mexico. Our expectation is that he will continue that focus moving forward.”

Links to quoted news sources are here:

https://www.koat.com/article/sam-bregman-announces-run-da-said-he-wouldnt/44404182#

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/bernalillo-county-district-attorney-announces-election-bid/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Absolutely no one who knows and who has watched Sam Bregman over the years was shocked to hear that he has decided to run for a full term as District Attorney.  The Governor’s press release in reaction to Bregman running and changing his mind was by all measures  a cold shoulder reaction to his candidacy  and it had  no endorsement. The Governor did not wish him well in her press release which begs the question if Governor Lujan Grisham appointed Bregman in exchange for his commitment not to run for a full 4 year term in 2 years.  Such a concession and agreement has happened before when Governor Lujan Grisham appointed Jim Collie Bernalillo County Commission for 2 years in exchange for his commitment not to seek a full 4 year term.

There is little doubt that DA Bregman’s change of heart and his announcement was  an embarrassment to Governor Lujan Grisham. Ostensibly, Bregman did not give the Governor the proper courtesy of her office by telling her in a private meeting he had changed his mind and was running and going back on his promise.  The Governor is known to have a little vindictive streak in her. The tone of her press release was no accident and makes her displeasure known to him.  She is not at all above going out of her way to find a candidate to run against him, especially a Hispanic or a female. Before she appointed him, it was said she was a little uncomfortable with Bregman and  wanted to appoint a female to the job, so much so that the application time period was extended that allowed others to apply.

It’s highly questionable that Bregman really was sincere when he told the Governor he would serve only 2  years and said he would not run for a full 4 year.  Bregman is smart enough to know he became a lame duck or caretaker upon his appointment and would not be able to do much with the office over 24 months.  It is more likely than not it was his intention from the get go from when he was appointed by the Governor.

The blunt truth is that it was ridiculous for the Governor to have asked  Bregman  to give up his private practice to serve only 2 years. The Governor owes Bregman more than he owes her and that was the reason for his appointment in the first place.  Bregman was known to have campaigned heavily to get the Governor elected not once but twice, as he raised money for her and he donated  as much as $10,000 to her campaign.

It is not at all likely voters will hold Bregman’s change of heart against him nor going back on whatever commitment he made to the Governor. Voter’s by and large are very forgiving of politicians going back on their word not to run and are more concerned about results.

The one thing that did come as a surprise to more than a few politicos is that he released a campaign announcement video and had already made up his mind back in May and registered with the Secretary of State’s Office as a candidate on June 1.

Bregman was able to keep his plans and intentions under wraps until it was reported exclusively on June 28 by www.PeteDinelli.com that Bregman had a get together for all of his staff at his home for a pool party around June 16 and that he told his deputies he intended to run for District Attorney next year. Bregman was said to have also told others that he had already begun to put his campaign together and that he had gone so far as to begin preparing TV commercials. It’s no secret that Bregman is financially  well off having made a lucrative living as  a high profile defense attorney and he is willing to spend it on a campaign.

No other person has declared a run for 2nd Judicial District Attorney, but then again, the primary is a full year off. Bregman’s early announcement no doubt was made to “clear the field”  and to set himself up without opposition in next year’s June Democratic Party primary and perhaps run unopposed assuring an easy election.

https://www.koat.com/article/sam-bregman-announces-run-da-said-he-wouldnt/44404182#

JUNE 29 OFFICE UPDATE

Now that DA Sam Bregman has made it official that he is running for a full term, it fully explains why he held his June 29 press conference to give an update on the office and to highlight the successes of the office. The June 29 press conference was nothing more than a percussor to his June 30 announcement.  For that reason, what he reported during his June 29 press conference merits review and analysis of his record over the last 6 months.

Bregman said the biggest challenge of the job thus far has been filing chronic attorney vacancy’s getting more prosecutors hired. Bregman said this:

“We needed more prosecutors when I got in this office. We now have hired 35 prosecutors in 6 months. In the entire last year, before this year in 2022, this office hired 12 total.”

Bregman said the total number of attorneys in the office is now at 97. Bregman says he  hopes to hire up to 20 more lawyers. According to the 2023-2024 approved budget, the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s office is funded for 120 full time attorneys.  The hiring  up to 20 more lawyers  will coincide with what the office is funded for in the current fiscal year which began on July 1, 2023.

He was able to accomplish the hiring with a very aggressive ad campaign, both in the bar bulletin sent to all licensed attorneys and TV commercials, that featured him promoting the office as a place to get trial experience and to serve the community.

With nearly 3 times more attorneys hired, Bregman said attorney  caseloads have now been reduced.  In the DA’s major crimes division, which prosecutes homicides,  Bregman reported there are 365 open cases this year. For prosecutors dealing with cases ranging from car burglary to drug trafficking, Bregman said  the average caseloads are now 30% less compared to 2022.

Bregman reported:

“The average number of open cases per attorney is 32, and the average number of homicide cases per attorney is 27….I can tell you anecdotally when I first got in here and this job, my understanding was homicide attorneys had around 50 cases a piece. … The reason these statistics are so important is because the more we bring in new attorneys, the more we unclog the bottleneck, the more opportunity for each attorney to spend on each case. Therefore, we’re doing better justice by making sure people are, in fact, taking the time necessary to prepare and present that case.”

INDICTMENTS, TRIALS AND CONVICTIONS

According to Bregman, the DA’s office indicted 408 felony criminal defendants from January through June, compared with 601 in the full year 2022. The District Attorney’s Office has tried 137 cases in the last 6 months with 88 of  those trials resulting in convictions which translates into a nearly 65% conviction rate. Bregman noted in all of 2022 the office tried 57 felony cases with a 58% conviction rate.

DA Bregman spoke about his successes with pretrial detention motions, indictments and trials. Bregman said this:

“We’ve indicted, in the six months, 408 people. We’ve launched over 820 cases since we’ve been [in office], 800 and some felonies, let me add. And I’m very happy with that.  Number of trials in this office: Felony trials in the entire year of 2022 was 57. In the six months in 2023, we’ve tried just about the same number in six months as we did all last year.”

Bregman touted funding for a pre-prosecution diversion program in his office which is designed and meant to keep people out of the criminal justice system.  He said this about the program:

“We have literally just received one of the biggest grants they’ve ever given, the $580,000, for the diversion program, and that’s going to make a difference in a lot of people’s lives. …  We had 308 total active participants in this office last year. Today, in six months, we have 357 active participants.”

Bregman spoke about his Zero-Tolerance Policy towards guns on school  campuses and the current caseload involving juveniles with guns. Bregman said this:

“We have juvenile cases involving a firearm just in 2023 of 150. We have 150 different cases in this community where juveniles were found with a firearm or used a firearm.”

Bregman spoke about the District Attorney’s Office focus on organized retail crime. Bregman said this:

“In the past, shoplifting cases that are misdemeanors are officer-prosecuted cases. … They will continue to prosecute misdemeanors; however, this office before and this has changed now. We are going to track, which we didn’t do before, every single person who is charged with shoplifting…We’re going to keep an eye on it. So, if they meet a certain threshold, we’re going to charge them with a felony; but let’s say they don’t meet that threshold, but they’re constantly shoplifting, we’re going to jump in those cases.”

DA Bregman repeated several times that his press conference was not a “victory lap” but he said  the “needle on crime”  is moving in the right direction. Standing in front of a rolling slide of mugshots of those detained, convicted, and sentenced by his office to dramatize his point, Bregman said this:

“I’m telling you, I believe things are starting to get better when it comes to crime in Bernalillo County.”

Bregman closed his news conference  with a nod toward statistics provided by the Albuquerque Police Department and he said this:

“Robbery’s down by 53%, Homicides are down by 20%. Auto theft is down by 16%. Burglaries are down by 18%. Is this a victory lap? No. This is just the beginning.”

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/bernalillo-county-district-attorney-gives-six-month-update-on-office/

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/sam-bregman-plans-to-run-for-district-attorney-next-year/article_24eefa48-16ad-11ee-b9bd-1b6c333d98a4.html?fbclid=IwAR2TDnnJWVFiMYRyOTbGDeV8WHs1aCnQSRJ2gF6IWgYrPjGwJzgD0WnSWnw

MORE PRETRIAL DETENTION MOTIONS FILED

Since 2019, judges had  only been granting around half of all pretrial preventative detention motions. This year, those numbers are drastically up and more people are being held for trial in Bernalillo County.

Bregman said the DA’s office has stepped up filing “Pretrial Detention Motions”. The office is filing about 95 such motions a month, with an average of 60% being granted. Bregman said this:

“We file [pretrial detention motions] on the people that we believe are a threat to the safety of the community. … And we explain to the court why we’re doing things like bringing more witnesses to these hearings.”

On June 27, it was reported by KRQE News 13 that according to a report from the UNM Institute for Social Research, the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s Office is filing about 95 pretrial preventative detention motions a month this year. Research shows around 60% of them are granted.

According to the data, the number of pretrial preventative detention motions, which are used to keep suspected criminals behind bars until trial, is up by nearly 20% since last year and is about 50% higher than five years ago. While the percentage of motions granted is rising, the number of motions filed has remained steady over the past year.

In May, around 60% of these motions were granted. DA Sam Bregman credits this to his prosecutors  doing things a little differently in the courtroom. Bregman explained it this way:

“We’re not filing pretrial detention motions on everybody. We’re not filing them, taking them for granted and just say, ‘Hey, detain him.’ These are people that need to be detained for the safety of the community, and I think this process is beginning to work and show some results.

We are focusing very heavily on the threat to the safety of the community. We are making sure that when we present our case, the court understands what a danger this person is to the community.   …. We’re having actual witnesses attend these and bringing out testimony as opposed to just lawyers arguing. …

We are beginning to move the needle in this town when it comes to crime. I mean, it may not feel like it overnight, but I think if we continue to grind it out, we’ll get done what we need to get done.”

The report also shows last month the prison population at the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) is nearly 15% higher than last year.  However, Bregman said  this isn’t their biggest concern:

“If people need to be incarcerated, and there’s more, so be it. We’re going to keep doing our job.”

Bregman  said the work of his officer  is far from over and he said this:

“I’m pleasantly encouraged, let me say that, but our work is not done. We’re not taking a victory lap. We are continuing to want to see those numbers go up.”

The report also showed about a quarter of offenders will be re-arrested within three months after release from MDC, and 35% within six months. The report said MDC has about 200 more inmates than it did in May of last year, and they’re staying an average of three days longer.

https://www.krqe.com/news/crime/unm-report-shows-more-people-are-behind-bars-before-their-trial-in-bernalillo-county/

APD CRIME STATS

It was on Thursday, March 16, 2023 that Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina  released the 2022  crime statistics along with crime statistics for 2021 for a comparison.  According to Chief Medina there was  3% drop in the overall total of crime and stated it was a fueled by  the 4% decrease in CRIMES AGAINST  PERSONS (murder, rape, and assault) and the 2% drop in CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY (robbery, bribery, and burglary).  

The slight 3% decrease in overall crime was over shadowed by a 24% spike  in CRIMES AGAINST SOCIETY (gambling, prostitution, and drug violations)  and the  dramatic  71% increase in murders over the last 6 years.  In addition to reporting that there has been a 71% spike in homicides,  Chief Medina also reported that over the past 6 years there has been a 28% increase in Aggravated Assaults which by definition includes the use of a firearms.

Links for quoted news sources are here:

https://www.cabq.gov/police/news/apd-releases-2022-crime-stats-violent-crime-down-8-after-increase-in-2021

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-crime-stats-2022/43338599

https://www.abqjournal.com/2582509/albuquerque-police-touts-decrease-in-property-violent-crime-in-2022.html#:~:text=There%20was%20a%200.3%25%20drop,of%20drug%20and%20gun%20offenses.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

District Attorney Sam Bregman can indeed point to and take credit for the changes he has made within his office as he runs for a full 4 year term. He can take legitimate credit for hiring more prosecutors, the office filing more indictments and having more trials, the  successful prosecution of criminals and  an increase in pretrial detentions.  He is following through with promises he made to the general public when the Governor appointed him.

However, the statics DA Bregman reported by  APD regarding the downward trend of homicides, robbery’s, auto theft was  downright  misleading.  By using APD’s statistics, he gave the impression that the DA’s office had something do with the reduction in the city’s overall crime and to an extent he was taking credit for it.

The numbers are in fact reported incidents, offenses and cases investigated by APD before the cases are forwarded to the District Attorney for prosecution. The APD statistics have nothing to do with changes made by Bregman within his office over the last 6 months nor the prosecution of cases.