City Council Fails To Override Keller Veto Of Charter Amendment Mandating Plurality Elections; Charter Amendments Not Good Government But Vendettas Against Mayor Keller

On June 17 the Albuquerque City Council voted  on a 6 to 3 vote and  passed a Charter Amendment that would eliminate all runoff elections for Mayor and City Council. It would mandated that whoever gets the most votes wins with no runoff between the two top vote getters.  Whoever secures the most votes of all the candidates running at the same time wins the election out right.

The charter amendment was sponsored Democrat Councilor Klarissa Peña  and Republican Dan Lewis.  Republican City Councilors Dan Lewis, Brook Bassan, Renee Grout and Dan Champine and Democrat City Councilors Louie Sanchez and Klarissa Peña voted “YES”. Democrat City Councilors Tammy Fiebelkorn, Nichole Rogers and Joaquín Baca voted “NO”.

On June 17, Common Cause was quick to address the city council vote on social media this way:

“[The Albuquerque City Council]  took us backward by amending an already bad proposal. Rather than lowering the threshold to be elected mayor or city councilor from 50% to 40%, they’ve eliminated any threshold altogether. Candidates under this scheme could be elected with 10% for example. The 6-3 passage of this proposal means, voters will be confronted with a question on this November’s ballot to eliminate run-offs and move to a free-for-all voting process where fringe candidates and special interests will dominate our elections.”

 In a follow up post on its web page, Common Cause said this in part:

“The public needs confidence that our municipal leaders have been legitimately elected, and the best way to do that is with a secure, accessible electoral system that demands the winner receives the majority of votes. Our leaders cannot effectively govern without a strong mandate from the voters.”

https://act.commoncause.org/letters/dont-override-the-veto?source=direct_link&

On June 25 New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver wrote Mayor Tim Keller all nine City Councilors voicing her opposition to the proposed charter amendment. She wrote in part:

“Unlike state and federal elections in which there is a Primary Election that whittles down the pool of candidates, municipal runoff elections with winning majority thresholds help create important mandates for local officials in New Mexico.   I also recognize there are some substantive arguments against the city’s existing runoff structure.  These top-two runoff elections come with hefty price tags, and their timing typically means fewer eligible voters make their voices heard at the ballot box.

… . 

However, although not ideal, the current system is still preferable to the [proposed] charter amendment … . Albuquerque voters already approved the current 50% threshold for winning candidates in 2013, and having candidates receive at least 50% of the total votes provides the public with a clear winner who then has a mandate to lead. Changing the city’s election system to one where a candidate can be elected with a minority of votes is a big step in the wrong direction.”

On July 3, Mayor Tim Keller announced he vetoed the proposed charter amendment that if approved by voters would have returned municipal elections of Mayor and City Council to “plurality elections.”   In his July 2 veto message to the City Council, Keller said this in part:

“After careful legal review, I have identified … issues with the legislation R-24-47.   … . 

This resolution would lower the threshold for Mayor and City Council to be elected from the current system—50% plus 1—to a plurality, meaning most votes wins, and it would eliminate runoffs. Runoff elections are the norm in cities that employ nonpartisan ballots to select local officials. Peer cities such as El Paso, Oklahoma City, Denver, Phoenix, Colorado Springs, and Sacramento all use a 50% plus 1 threshold. 

Although we elect members of Congress and state legislators via plurality vote, these are partisan elections, where parties first select their nominees before they compete in general election. Because the plurality vote rule combined with single member districts tends to produce two strong political parties, general elections almost always have only two candidates, and thus a majority vote winner.  Cities by and large have nonpartisan elections, not party primaries, thus runoffs are often required to produce a majority winner.

I firmly believe a plurality system would give a significant advantage to incumbent candidates and remove a level of accountability our constituents deserve. With more support from voters, elected leaders have a clear mandate to govern. With a plurality, a Mayor or Councilor could be in office with 10% of the vote or less, making it challenging to represent the whole city or be held accountable to voters.

I want to remind everyone that in 2013, with a vote of 55% to 45%, voters spoke loud and clear on this  issue by changing the then 40% threshold to the current 50%. Current efforts nationwide to reform city elections are focused on promoting democracy and civic engagement, not anti-majoritarian policies like the current amendment, which would allow a minority of voters in the city to select our mayor, and a minority of voters in council districts to select city councilors. This is something I cannot ignore; I respect and support the will of the voters and all the members of our community who have pushed for more  accountability in our elections.

I want to recognize the overwhelming input from the public in opposition to this particular piece of  legislation. It has been clear in the last three City Council meetings, nearly every single community  member voiced their concern and opposition to this measure.

 

R-24-47 as passed would drastically change the way we conduct elections in the City of Albuquerque. While no election system is perfect, this charter amendment moves Albuquerque in the wrong direction.”

CITY COUNCIL FAILS TO OVERRIDE KELLER VETO

Immediately after Mayor Keller announced he had vetoed the Charter Amendment, Republican Albuquerque City Council President boldly announced that the City Council would override the veto on August 5 after it returned from its summer break.  It was not meant to be.  On August 5, the Albuquerque City Council failed to override Mayor Keller’s veto of the  proposed Charter Amendment mandating a plurality election vote. It had been Republican City Councilors Dan Lewis, Brook Bassan, Renee Grout and Dan Champine and Democrat City Councilors Louie Sanchez and Klarissa Peña who had voted “YES” to ask voters to eliminate runoff elections for city council and mayoral elections.  In order to override the veto, all six would have had to vote “YES” to override the the Keller veto.  However,  only 5 of those 6  councilors voted to override the Keller veto, one vote short, so no proposed changes to city election laws will appear on the November ballot. It was Democrat City Councilor Klarissa Pena who changed her vote and voted “NO” with Democrat City Councilors Tammy Fiebelkorn, Nichole Rogers and Joaquín Baca.

STAGGERED TERMS FAIL

City Councilor Klarissa Peña also sponsored  two charter  amendments abolishing staggered terms for City Council and mandating elections where all nine city councilors and the mayor would be up for election at the same time. The Council also voted NO on the staggered term measures. The purpose for having staggered terms for city councilor is stability and institutional knowledge. With all city councilors and mayor running at the same time, a 100% turnover at City Hall could happen, resulting in the election of officials who have very little or no knowledge of city government that is vitally needed for city policy and to get things done.

ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL GUEST OPINION COLUMN

On Sunday, August 4, the Albuquerque Journal published on its editorial pages the following Pete Dinelli guest opinion column:

HEADLINE: “Charter amendments are vendettas against Mayor, not good government”

BY: PETE DINELLI, Albuquerque Resident

“On June 17, the Albuquerque City Council voted to pass three charter amendments to be placed on the November ballot for voter approval.

The first gives the City Council more authority in the process for removing the chief of police and the fire chief.

The second creates a process to fill vacancies on a committee to resolve separation of powers mandating council representation.
The third eliminates all runoff elections for mayor and City Council and whoever gets the plurality vote wins, with no runoff between the two top vote-getters.

On July 3, Mayor Tim Keller vetoed the plurality vote measure but declined to veto the other two. The council plurality vote charter amendment has been severely criticized by the general public, Common Cause New Mexico and Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver as ill-advised and a big step in the wrong direction.


The Keller veto could be overturned on a 6-to-3 vote. Council President Dan Lewis immediately vowed an override of the veto at the council’s Aug. 5 meeting.

City Councilor Klarissa Peña is also sponsoring two amendments abolishing staggered terms for City Council and mandating elections where all nine city councilors and the mayor would be up for election at the same time.

The purpose for having staggered terms for city councilor is stability and institutional knowledge. With all city councilors and mayor running at the same time, a 100% turnover at City Hall could happen, resulting in the election of officials who have very little or no knowledge of city government that is vitally needed for city policy and to get things done.

The five charter amendments are not the first time the City Council has attempted to mess with our election process and our government structure itself.

In April 2023, first-term city councilors Democrat Louie Sanchez and Republican Renee Grout announced draconian legislation proposing a city charter amendment for a public vote that would have made the mayor of Albuquerque a member of the City Council. They wanted to transfer all the mayor’s executive and city management duties to a city manager chosen by the City Council.

All the proposed changes to the charter by the City Council have absolutely nothing to do with good government, nor improving our election process, but reflect a personal vendetta against Mayor Tim Keller. The more conservative City Council has shown significant resistance to Mayor Keller’s progressive agenda as going too far.

Repeatedly, the current more conservative City Council has attempted to repeal ordinances and resolutions enacted by the previous more progressive City Council, and to limit the authority of Mayor Tim Keller to no avail as he outmaneuvers them and vetoes measures with the council unable to muster the necessary six votes to override the vetoes.

Prime examples include the following:

1. A resolution to repeal or limit mayoral authority during a public health emergency.
2. A resolution barring the city from mandating COVID-19 vaccines for the municipal government workforce.
3. Repeal of a quarter-cent tax increase in gross receipts tax enacted a few years ago.
4. Repealing or attempting to amend the city’s “immigrant friendly” policy, calling it a “sanctuary city” policy and requiring APD to assist and cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

It is no secret Mayor Tim Keller is preparing to seek a third term. Confidential sources say city councilors Louie Sanchez and Brook Bassan are contemplating a run against Keller.

The results are charter amendments to reduce Keller’s reelection chances and to improve theirs. The City Council should not override the Keller plurality elections veto and vote “no” to eliminate staggered terms.”


FINAL COMMENTARY

Simply put, the Charter Amendment to reduce the vote to win a City Council or Mayoral race with whoever gets the most votes with no runoffs is very bad government on many levels and will promote chaos in municipal elections. Initially when the Mayor-City Council form of government was created, it was common to have upwards of 15 candidates running for Mayor and who ever got the most votes won. The result was chaotic elections with fringe candidates diluting the vote. The city does not need to go back.

ABQ Journal Dinelli Guest Opinion Column: “Charter amendments are vendettas against Mayor, not good government”; Contact City Council And Tell Them To Vote “No” On Overriding Keller Veto And Charter Amendments

 

ABQ Journal Dinelli Guest Opinion Column: “Charter amendments are vendettas against Mayor, not good government”; Contact City Council And Tell Them To Vote “No” On Overriding Keller Veto And Charter Amendments

On Sunday, August 4, the Albuquerque Journal published on its editorial pages the following Pete Dinell guest opinion column:

HEADLINE: “Charter amendments are vendettas against Mayor, not good government”

BY: PETE DINELLI, Albuquerque Resident

“On June 17, the Albuquerque City Council voted to pass three charter amendments to be placed on the November ballot for voter approval.

The first gives the City Council more authority in the process for removing the chief of police and the fire chief.

The second creates a process to fill vacancies on a committee to resolve separation of powers mandating council representation.

The third eliminates all runoff elections for mayor and City Council and whoever gets the plurality vote wins, with no runoff between the two top vote-getters.

On July 3, Mayor Tim Keller vetoed the plurality vote measure but declined to veto the other two. The council plurality vote charter amendment has been severely criticized by the general public, Common Cause New Mexico and Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver as ill-advised and a big step in the wrong direction.

The Keller veto could be overturned on a 6-to-3 vote. Council President Dan Lewis immediately vowed an override of the veto at the council’s Aug. 5 meeting.

City Councilor Klarissa Peña is also sponsoring two amendments abolishing staggered terms for City Council and mandating elections where all nine city councilors and the mayor would be up for election at the same time.

The purpose for having staggered terms for city councilor is stability and institutional knowledge. With all city councilors and mayor running at the same time, a 100% turnover at City Hall could happen, resulting in the election of officials who have very little or no knowledge of city government that is vitally needed for city policy and to get things done.

The five charter amendments are not the first time the City Council has attempted to mess with our election process and our government structure itself.

In April 2023, first-term city councilors Democrat Louie Sanchez and Republican Renee Grout announced draconian legislation proposing a city charter amendment for a public vote that would have made the mayor of Albuquerque a member of the City Council. They wanted to transfer all the mayor’s executive and city management duties to a city manager chosen by the City Council.

All the proposed changes to the charter by the City Council have absolutely nothing to do with good government, nor improving our election process, but reflect a personal vendetta against Mayor Tim Keller. The more conservative City Council has shown significant resistance to Mayor Keller’s progressive agenda as going too far.

Repeatedly, the current more conservative City Council has attempted to repeal ordinances and resolutions enacted by the previous more progressive City Council, and to limit the authority of Mayor Tim Keller to no avail as he outmaneuvers them and vetoes measures with the council unable to muster the necessary six votes to override the vetoes.

Prime examples include the following:

  1. A resolution to repeal or limit mayoral authority during a public health emergency.
  2. A resolution barring the city from mandating COVID-19 vaccines for the municipal government workforce.
  3. Repeal of a quarter-cent tax increase in gross receipts tax enacted a few years ago.
  4.  Repealing or attempting to amend the city’s “immigrant friendly” policy, calling it a “sanctuary city” policy and requiring APD to assist and cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

It is no secret Mayor Tim Keller is preparing to seek a third term. Confidential sources say city councilors Louie Sanchez and Brook Bassan are contemplating a run against Keller.

The results are charter amendments to reduce Keller’s reelection chances and to improve theirs. The City Council should not override the Keller plurality elections veto and vote “no” to eliminate staggered terms.”

Pete Dinelli is a former Albuquerque city councilor, former chief public safety officer and former chief deputy district attorney. You can read his daily news and commentary blog at www.PeteDinelli.com.

https://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/opinion-charter-amendments-are-vendettas-against-mayor-not-good-government/article_a2dbcc02-4978-11ef-86ec-df39be215780.html

Many thanks to the Albuquerque Journal for publication of the guest opinion column.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYIS

On Monday, August 5, the City Council meeting will be held in the Vincent E. Griego Council Chambers, basement level of the City of Albuquerque Government Center, 1 Civic Plaza NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102.  The meeting is open to the public. The meeting will begin at 5:00 p.m., and to speak during the meeting on the resolution during public comments, you must sign up beginning at 4:30 p.m.

Voters and residents are urged to attend the meeting or contact and voice their opinion and tell all city councilors and their city council service assistants to vote NO on overriding the Mayor’s veto on plurality elections and the Charter Amendments.

CITY COUNCIL PHONE: (505) 768-3100

CITY COUNCIL AND SUPPORT STAFF EMAILS

 

APD Internal Affairs Commander For Professional Standards Fired, Another Officer Resigns; Both Implicated In Bribery-DWI Dismissal Scandal; Federal Criminal Charges Still Pending As Mayor Keller And APD Chief Medina Pivot, Deflect and Blame

On August 1, the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) announced that it  has fired an APD Commander of Internal Affairs for Professional Standards and that another  DWI officer has resigned  as a result of the ongoing Federal  Investigation into corruption involving the bribery of APD officers in exchange for the dismissal of DWI cases . Both are being investigated as part of an APD probe and FBI investigation into allegations that DWI officers worked with prominent DWI Criminal Defense Attorney Thomas Clear  to get drunken driving cases dismissed in exchange for money and other favors. Six other APD officers implicated in the scandal have  resigned during the Internal Affairs investigation bringing  the total number to 8.

Commander Mark Landavazo was the Commander of the Internal Affairs Professional Standards Division. He has been on administrative leave and under investigation since February 13. Landavazo started with APD in  2007 and was with the DWI unit from 2008 through 2013.  APD spokesperson Gilbert Gallegos said, Landavazo was fired after the internal investigation found he had violated 3 policies. Gallegos said he was disciplined for two of the policies and fired after the third investigation was completed.

The on line news outlet City Desk ABQ reported earlier this summer that it had  obtained emails that showed the FBI had forwarded a tip in June of 2022 to Landavazo about an officer working with attorney Thomas Clear III and his paralegal to guarantee a DWI charge would go away if the defendant paid $10,000. According to those emails, Landavazo suggested the special agent contact the Civilian Police Oversight Agency and an APD spokesperson said he did not tell the chief about the allegations.

APD Officer Neill Elsman who had worked in the DWI unit within the past several years resigned on July 30 before returning to work from military leave.  He had been on military leave since October which was before the investigation began and after he was told he had to return to the department, he resigned.

APD Chief Harold Medina said this in a news release announcing the termination:

“I said we would leave no stone unturned with these investigations. … We will continue to follow the evidence and ensure everyone is held accountable.”

Landavazo is the first officer to be fired related to APD’s internal probe. Including Landavazo, 9 officers have been placed on leave, and 7 of those have resigned or retired in the past several months,   including Elsman and officers Daren DeAguero, Alba, Joshua Montaño, Nelson Ortiz, Johnson and Lt. Justin Hunt. No one has been charged in the case. The FBI is investigating the allegations as a criminal matter.  U.S. Attorney Alex Uballez has said the probe focuses on alleged wrongdoing by “certain” APD officers and others.

Links to quoted and relied upon news sources are here:

https://citydesk.org/2024/apd-officer-connected-to-dwi-scandal-fired-another-resigns/

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/albuquerque-police-fire-commander-another-officer-resigns-amid-dwi-corruption-probe/article_5a2a9ae6-5059-11ef-aa52-f70dbeaa5be5.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-police-commander-fired-officer-dwi/61768455

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/seventh-apd-officer-resigns-commander-terminated-following-dwi-unit-investigation/

https://www.krqe.com/news/crime/albuquerque-police-department-dwi-investigation/7th-apd-officer-resigns-commander-fired-amid-dwi-unit-investigation/

APD BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION SCANDAL IN A NUTSHELL

It was on Friday January 19 that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) executed search warrants and raided the homes of 3 Albuquerque Police officers and the home and law office of prominent DWI criminal defense attorney Thomas Clear, III.  All 6 are allegedly involved in a bribery and conspiracy scheme spanning a decade to dismiss DWI cases. Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman ordered the dismissed 196 DWI cases because of the scandal due to the main witnesses’ credibility being called into question which in all the cases are APD officers.

The Albuquerque Police Department  opened its own Internal Affairs investigation. APD Chief  Medina appointed Commander  Kyle Hartsock of the Criminal Investigations Division to lead the internal investigation into officers’ conduct as well as into whether anyone else at the department knew about wrongdoing but did not report it.

6  other APD Police officers implicated in the scandal  have resigned during the Internal Affairs investigation. The names and dates of the other 6 resignations are:

  • On February 7, 2024 Justin Hunt,who started at APD in 2000, resigned.
  • On February 29, 2024, Honorio Alba, who started at APD in 2014, resigned.
  • On March 13, 2024, Harvey Johnson, who started at APD in 2014, resigned
  • On March 15, 2024, Nelson Ortiz,who started at APD in 2016, resigned.
  • On March 20, 2024 Joshua Montaño, who started at APD January 2005, resigned.
  • On May 2, 2024 Daren DeAguero,who started with APD in 2009, resigned.

The FBI searched the homes of Alba and Johnson and the law offices of Thomas Clear III and the home of Clear’s paralegal Ricardo “Rick” Mendez.    The US Department of Justice and US Attorney’s office have confirmed the APD police officers and the criminal defense attorney are at the center of the federal investigation involving the dismissal of hundreds of pending DWI criminal cases by the APD Officers for remuneration to have the cases dismissed by the officers failing to appear for hearings. No one has yet to be charged as the federal investigation is ongoing.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Mayor Keller and Chief Medina have made more than a few stunning admissions throughout this sordid APD corruption scandal and they seem joined at the hip. They admit that the APD bribery and conspiracy scheme to dismiss DWI cases went on the entire 6 years they have been in charge of APD, but they never detected what was going on.

Both admitted that only after they found out the FBI was investigating APD the decision was made to initiate a city criminal and internal affairs investigation and to proclaim cooperation with the FBI. Medina admitted that he knew about the corruption as far back as December 2022 when APD first got a complaint related to the department’s DWI unit in December 2022, yet he waited and essentially did nothing for a full year.

Keller’s admissions come from a person who was first elected as the “white knight” state auditor who stopped “waste, fraud and abuse” and held people accountable for government corruption. Medina’s admissions come from a chief who claims he has never looked the other way at police corruption. Keller and Medina have looked the other way on documented corruption involving overtime pay abuses by police officers. There have been seven audits in eight years documenting the corruption, waste, fraud and abuse in police overtime.  One of those audits was done by none other than New Mexico State Auditor Tim Keller.

Chief Medina went so far as to blame the Bernalillo District Attorney’s Office for a failure to advise APD when officers did not appear for court. Medina also  accused the Public Defender’s Office of being aware of complaints that Public Defender Board of Director member Tom Clear, III was involved with nefarious conduct and that the Public Defender’s Office did nothing.

BASTION OF “DIRTY AND CORRUPT COPS”

There is absolutely no doubt that APD’s reputation has been trashed to a major extent because of this scandal. It’s downright disgusting that the APD Commander for Internal Affairs for Professional Standards was fired leading, the very commander who should have prevented the corruption.  APD will likely be viewed by many as again having just another bastion of “dirty and corrupt cops” who have brought dishonor to their department and to the department’s professed values of “Pride, Integrity, Fairness and Respect”.  This is so even before any charges have been filed against anyone, before any one is fired from APD and before any action is brought against the police officers involved for government corruption and criminal conspiracy to dismiss cases working with a prominent criminal defense attorney.  Should the criminal defense attorney be charged and convicted of the crimes, he is likely facing jail time in prison as well as disbarment from the practice of law.

There is little doubt that this whole DWI dismissal bribery scandal has shaken the public’s faith in our criminal justice system. The only way that any semblance of faith can be restored and for people to begin trusting APD again is if all the police officers involved in this scandal are held accountable, the lawyers involved are held accountable.  That will only happen when there is aggressive prosecutions and convictions, the police officers are terminated and they lose their law enforcement certification and disbarment occurs with the attorney.

Ultimately, it is Mayor Tim Keller and Chief Harold Medina who need to be held accountable with what has happened. Mayor Tim Keller and Chief Harold Medina must ultimately be held accountable and take full responsibility for failed leadership of APD and this most egregious  APD scandal.  Mayor Tim Keller and Chief Harold Medina instead have been in full fledge “politcal spin cycle” of “pivot, deflect and blame” since the news broke and since the Albuquerque City Council accused them of failed leadership in dealing with the scandal as they attempt to get ahead of this most recent scandal involving APD.  They both have attempted to take credit for the investigation and for taking action to hold bad cops accountable for the corruption when it was in fact the federal investigation that forced their hand and after they both allowed the problem to fester for 6 years.

 

Repulsive Trump Hits All New Low; Says Vice President Kamala Harris “All Of A Sudden, She Turns Black. I Did Not Know She Was Black”; One Of Many Inflammatory Claims Made During Interview Before African American Journalists; Trump Is A Racist Not Fit To Be President

On July 3, Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump in a 30-minute wide-ranging Question and Answer event  before the National Association of Black Journalists Annual Convention, took racial swipes at Vice President Kamala Harris by challenging her racial identity.

Trump was interviewed by a panel of African American Journalists that included ABC News’ Rachel Scott, Semafor’s Kadia Goba and Fox News’ Harris Faulkner.  Rachel Scott began the interview by asking Trump this:

“You have pushed false claims about some of your rivals, from Nikki Haley to former President Barack Obama, saying that they were not born in the United States, which is not true. You have told four congresswomen of color, who were American citizens, to go back to where they came from. You have used words like ‘animal’ and ‘rabid’ to describe Black district attorneys. You have attacked Black journalists, calling them a ‘loser,’ saying the questions they ask are, quote, ‘stupid’ and ‘racist.’ You’ve had dinner with a White supremacist at your Mar-a-Lago resort. So my question, sir – now that you are asking Black supporters to vote for you, why should Black voters trust you after you have used language like that?”

Trump immediately became combative and asked Scott if she was with ABC news, saying the network was “a fake news network” and “a terrible network.” Trump said this:

“Well, first of all, I don’t think I’ve ever been asked a question so – in such a horrible manner, first question. You don’t even say, ‘Hello. How are you?’ … I think it’s disgraceful that I came here in good spirit. I love the Black population of this country. I’ve done so much for the Black population of this country, including employment, including opportunity zones with Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina. … I’ve done so much, and, you know, I say this: Historically Black colleges and universities were out of money, they were stone cold broke, and I saved them. I gave them long-term financing, and nobody else was doing it.”

Scott then asked if Trump found it acceptable that some Republicans on Capitol Hill have referred to Harris as a “DEI hire”  using the acronym for diversity, equity and inclusion. Trump said this:

“I really don’t know. Could be. Could be.”

Trump then went on to say this about Vice President Kamala Harris:

“She was always of Indian heritage, and she was only promoting Indian heritage. I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago, when she happened to turn Black, and now she wants to be known as Black. So I don’t know, is she Indian or is she Black?  … I respect either one, but she obviously doesn’t, because she was Indian all the way, and then all of a sudden she made a turn and she went – she became a Black person. … I think somebody should look into that too.”

Shortly after the panel ended, Trump on his Truth Social doubled down on his attack against Harris’ racial identity, sharing a video where she is cooking with actress Mindy Kaling, who is of South Asian decent. During the video, Harris and Kaling talk about their Indian culture. Harris in the video told Kaling that she looks like “the entire one half of my family.”

Harris is the first female vice president in U.S. history and also the first Black woman to hold the office. As a college  undergraduate, Harris attended Howard University, the nation’s most prominent historically Black college and university, where she also pledged the historically Black sorority Alpha Kappa Alpha. She later attended the University of California, Hastings College of Law,  where she earned her Juris Doctorate degree. As a U.S. senator, Harris was a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, supporting legislation to strengthen voting rights and to reform policing.

Harris for President Communications Director Michael Tyler criticized Trump’s comments  and said this:

“Trump lobbed personal attacks and insults at Black journalists the same way he did throughout his presidency. … [H]e failed Black families and left the entire country digging out of the ditch he left us in. Donald Trump has already proven he cannot unite America, so he attempts to divide us.”

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who was hosting a White House press briefing at the same time as Trump’s appearance before the National Association of Black Journalists.  She was read Trump’s comments on Harris’ and Jean-Pierre said this:

“Wow! As a person of color – as a Black woman, who is in this position that is standing before you at this podium, behind this lectern – what he just said, what you just read out to me, is repulsive. It’s insulting, and, you know, no one has any right to tell someone who they are, how they identify.  That is no one’s right. It is someone’s own decision.”

Vice President Harris responded to Trump’s National Association of Black Journalists interview the same day during remarks in Houston, Texas. Harris was addressing a historically Black sorority, Sigma Gamma Sorority, during its 60th Biennial Boule.  Harris  said this:

“It was the same old show − the divisiveness and the disrespect.  And let me just say: The American people deserve better. The American people deserve a leader who tells the truth, a leader who does not respond with hostility and anger when confronted with the facts. We deserve a leader who understands that our differences do not divide us.”

TRUMP’S OTHER CONTROVERSIAL REMARKS

Trump’s racial attacks on Harris were not the only controversial remarks Trump made to the National Association of Black Journalists Annual Convention.

THE SONYA MASSEY KILLING

Sonya Massey is the elderly African American woman who had called for law enforcement help earlier this month in her apartment. She was shot in the face and killed by Sangamon County Sheriff’s Deputy Sean P. Grayson who said Massey had a pot of boiling water she was about to throw on him when he shot her. Grayson has been charged with murder. The killing has sparked national outrage.

Trump was met with loud gasps from the audience of black journalists when he said he was unfamiliar with the details of the Massey shooting.  Trump said he “doesn’t know the exact case but I saw something” when asked about the case. Trump said this about the shooting without using Massy’s name:

“You’re talking with the water right? … It didn’t look good to me. It didn’t look good to me.”

Trump has previously said that police should get immunity from prosecution if he won the 2024 presidential race. Political reporter Kadia Goba asked whether Sangamon County Sheriff’s Deputy Sean P. Grayson, who is charged with the Massey murder, should have immunity. Trump sidestepped the question by talking about gun violence in Chicago. When asked again by Goba, Trump said that he would help a person who “made an innocent mistake” implying the killing was an innocent mistake. Trump said this:

“If I felt or if a group of people would feel that somebody was being unfairly prosecuted because the person did a good job, maybe with a crime, or made a mistake, an innocent mistake…I would want to help that person.”

STEALINNG BLACK AMERICAN JOBS

Trump doubled down on comments he has made accusing immigrants of stealing the jobs of Black Americans. Trump said this:

“I will tell you that coming from the border are millions and millions of people that happen to be taking Black jobs”.

ABC News senior congressional correspondent Rachel Scott quickly followed up and asked:

“What exactly is a ‘Black job,’ sir,”

Trump responded “A Black job is anybody that has a job” and continued to use racist rhetoric against migrants coming to the United States.

At one point, Trump said this:

“I have been the best president for the Black population since Abraham Lincoln.”

The audience responded with a mix of boos and little applause.

PLEDGE TO PARDON JANUARY 6 CAPITOL RIOTERS

Trump was asked about his pledge to pardon people convicted for their roles in the January  6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol and specifically whether he would pardon those who assaulted police officers. Trump said this:

“Oh, absolutely I would. … If they’re innocent, I would pardon them.”

It was  pointed out to Trump  they have been convicted and therefore are not innocent. Trump responded:

“Well, they were convicted by a very, very tough system.”

Trump  defended  his supporters who entered the Capitol on January  6 by saying “Nothing is perfect in life.”

Trump went on to  compare the 2021 insurrection to the protests in Minneapolis and other cities in 2020 following the death of George Floyd by Minneapolis police and to more recent protests at the Capitol last week by demonstrators opposed to the war in Gaza. Trump falsely claimed that no one was arrested in those other demonstrations and that only his supporters were targeted.

As Trump made the comparison, a man in the back of the room shouted out, “Sir, have you no shame?”

Links to relied upon and quoted news sources are here:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/31/politics/donald-trump-kamala-harris-black-nabj/index.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-kamala-harris-black-nabj-convention-chicago/

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/trump-says-he-didn-t-know-vp-harris-was-black-216104005894

https://apnews.com/article/trump-black-journalists-convention-nabj-1e96aa530e88013ed6f577feaf89ccb6

COMMENTARY AND ANALYISIS

Throughout his political career, Trump repeatedly questioned the backgrounds of opponents who are racial minorities. He did that with President Barrack Obama questioning his birth in the United States as well as Republican Niki Haley.  Trumps attacks become more and more vicious when it comes to woman. Trump on more than one occasion has made it clear with his words and conduct that he is a racist of the highest degree  who is not fit to be president.

Children Committing Violent Crimes With No Consequences; Time To Update Children’s Code; Charges Under Existing “Parental Responsibility Act” Should Be Included In All Petitions Alleging Delinquency To Hold Parents Accountable For Actions Of Their Minors; Increase $4,000 Damages Cap

On July 17, Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman testified and gave an update on juvenile crime in Bernalillo County to the Courts, Corrections and Justice Interim Committee.  The Committee is one of the most influential committees of the legislature and consists of 36 House and Senate members and meets year round and vets proposed legislation.

Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman gave very sobering insight into the extent of juvenile crime being committed within New Mexico’s most populated county.  Bregman reports that an alarming 19 minors are confined in the Bernalillo County Detention Center on first-degree murder charges. According to Bregman, they are the failed products of a juvenile justice system that has taught them they can be arrested, prosecuted and face little to no consequences. Until the day they kill someone. And then it’s too late.

Bregman reported to the committee that in the past 18 months, the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s office has charged 20 juveniles with murder, 19 of whom are facing first-degree murder charges. He also said a total of 1,221, mostly  felony cases involving juveniles, have been referred to his office, of which 319 involved a handgun.  Bregman told legislators this:

“I can assure you that this was not the first time these 19 children committed a crime. But rather, it may be the first time there will be consequences for their behavior. And now, the consequences will likely be life in prison. We currently have, as of yesterday, 61 juveniles in the detention center in Bernalillo County. Half are charged with murder. More than 90% are charged with gun crimes. … There’s so many of these young people that end up committing violence that we’ve seen before in our system. … I can tell you overall that I believe the adult criminal justice system is starting to see some progress. … But juvenile crime is going in the absolute wrong direction.”

Bregman presented this scenario to the legislators to highlight the crisis in juvenile crime:

“Today, a 15-year-old can be driving around with his friends in a stolen car with 10 fentanyl pills and an AR-15. … [U]under the current system in Bernalillo County, the way it operates, that juvenile will face little to no consequences. They know you will not spend one single night in detention, you will likely be placed on probation, where there’s not even the requirement under probation that he continue his schooling or that he has a curfew. … [That child will likely continue criminal behavior with] little to no consequences. Not until, and only if, that child commits a crime where a firearm is discharged in the commission of a crime will he spend any time in detention.”

With an increase in the severity of juvenile crimes, the proliferation of firearms, and a short-staffed detention center in Bernalillo County that has to turn away holding minors that officers arrest, Bregman said many young offenders laugh when they are caught and say, “nothing’s going to happen to me.”

To emphasize his point, Bregman recounted that as recently as July 16,  he was contacted by a law enforcement agent who detained 3  minors in a stolen car. The juveniles then ran, but were later apprehended. After finally being caught, Bregman said, “One of them was laughing.” Another wouldn’t give his name, and Bregman said the detention center “won’t even consider accepting the person because they don’t [give]… a name.” Bregman told lawmakers that the Bernalillo County Juvenile Detention Center on Second Street NW is so understaffed that officials turn away minors charged with serious crimes. When that happens,  law enforcement has little choice but to take them home to their parents.

DA Bregman is former criminal defense attorney. He had harsh words for our juvenile justice system and told lawmakers this:

“[The] pendulum has swung so far, we can never have harsh consequences on children when they commit crimes.  … [W]hat we’re left with is that, at the end of the day, they don’t see any consequences until, God forbid, they kill somebody. … I respectfully submit that waiting until that happens is simply too late.

I’m not into locking up children and throwing away the key. I don’t want to charge another child with first-degree murder. … The juvenile system does nothing. ‘Don’t commit another crime; don’t commit another crime.’ That’s what probation is right now. Well, you shouldn’t be committing one to begin with.”

A BROKEN JUVENILE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Bregman told the Courts, Corrections and Justice interim committee that The juvenile criminal justice system in New Mexico is broken. I do not say that lightly, nor do I cast blame on anyone or branch of government”. He said  the flaws in the juvenile justice system center around laws that have not been updated since 1978.  When asked if the current juvenile code is the biggest problem in the justice system, Bregman’s response was “[yes] because of the laws and how it all works right now.”

Bregman told lawmakers many minors escape punishment because the current juvenile code prevents law enforcement from holding a minor in custody. He said minors only face consequences when they commit a violent crime and that has got to change where they face consequences much earlier.  Bregman explained it this way:

“It’s not actually until they pull the trigger in a crime that they are accepting them into the D-home [detention center]. … That’s just got to change. …  I want to get these children when they first see the criminal justice system. … Get them the help they need, and get them an understanding that what they are doing is unacceptable. If we do that, maybe we are not going to see as many people indicted for first-degree murder at the age of 17.”

PUBLIC DEFENDER DISPUTES BREGMAN

Not at all surprising, the Law Offices of the Public Defender strongly disputed  DA Bregman’s assessment the juvenile criminal justice system in New Mexico is broken.  Dennica Torres, District Defender for the Law Offices of the Public Defender disputes that kids are not being held accountable and said recidivism in youth is low because they are given services rather than being locked up.  Torrez told the Courts, Corrections and Justice interim committee this:

“I do not agree [with DA Bregan]. I think that everybody has to keep in mind that these are children, they’re not adults.”

The public defender’s office did tell legislators they’d like to see some revisions in the children’s code. Torres said one challenge, for example, is the fact that there is no competency facility for the youth in New Mexico.  Torrez said this:

“We really need to funnel the money toward education and creating these services that the kids need. …  If we can figure out core issues and address those issues, we focus more on the rehabilitation than the punishment, right?”

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CHILDRENS CODE

It was on June 11, 2024 that Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman began calling for  reform of  the state’s Children Code after APD   arrested an 11-year-old boy for a series of violent crimes.  APD said at the time the child is a member of a gang calling itself “the Kia Boys.” APD said  the 11 year old  and at least 3 others were  caught on camera crashing into a convenience store and hopping over the counter to steal alcohol and cigarettes.   Bregman said this:

“The law doesn’t provide any specific consequences for a judge to be able to hand out to an 11-year-old doing the kinds of things they’re doing. … And in fact, the law basically affirmatively says you can’t incarcerate an 11-year-old. If there are super young like this 11-year-old alleged offender, then we will continue to be in uncharted territory. If they’re older, they’re 15 and over, we know how to handle those cases. It is a real concern under the children’s code, what we can what we can’t do at the District Attorney’s office, and we’re doing everything possible to focus on the safety of our community, but also the wellbeing of an 11-year-old. … I’m not someone who’s advocating out there throwing the book and throwing the key away on 11-year-olds. But I am saying we have to have some more tools in the toolbox.”

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/bernalillo-county-district-attorney-calls-for-reform-after-arrest-of-11-year-old-suspect/

Bregman is asking the New Mexico Legislature to revise the state’s Children’s Code during the upcoming 2025 regular session which is a 60 day session that begins on January 21 and ends on  March 22, 2025.

DA Bregman told the Courts, Corrections and Justice Interim Committee of the major changes he’d like to see to the juvenile justice system. One major change is expanding the definition of “serious youthful offender” so more types of crimes could lead to children being tried as adults.  Bregman supports expanding the types of offenses for which a juvenile over 15 can be charged as an adult. Right now, that can only happen for first-degree murder.  He wants to include crimes like armed robbery with a firearm, and child abuse resulting in death.  He’d also like to fix a law that currently allows a teenager to wield an assault rifle, though handguns are still illegal.

Other proposals Bregman is promoting include transferring a child to an adult detention center when they turn 18, unsealing more juvenile records, lengthening supervision of youthful offenders from 21 to 25, and including more firearms like rifles in the law banning from people under 19 from having a gun on them. Bregman said this about his proposed changes:

 “I’m not talking about throwing the key away on children. I’m talking about at an early age, showing them some consequence for bad behavior, criminal behaviors, so that they don’t end up facing life in prison because I’ve indicted them for first-degree murder.”

Bregman said of the changes that it’s just not about being tough, but it’s about stopping children from living a life of crime before they kill someone and he said this:

“It’s not that I want to get tough on kids and throw away the key. No, I want to have some consequences just like every one of you had with your parents when you were growing up, ‘If you do this, there’s going to be a consequence.”

The public defender’s office disagrees with the change on expanding the definition of “serious youthful offender” so more types of crimes could lead to kids being tried as adults.  The Public Defender argues that’s what grand juries and preliminary examination hearings are for. District Public Defender Dennica Torres put it this way:

“Removing that mechanism and just saying they are accused of first-degree homicide, we’re going to automatically route them to downtown court, adult court is not, they’re taking away protections from them. They have that right to be presented to the grand jury as well.”

District Public Defender Dennica Torres responded to the proposed changes saying this way:

“DA Bregman was thoughtful with these proposed changes and I know that he would welcome all criminal justice partners to come to the table and work together. That’s all we ask.”

Links to relied upon and quoted news sources are here:

https://www.koat.com/article/new-mexico-crime-juvenile-bernalillo-county/61629156

https://www.krqe.com/news/crime/bernco-da-state-public-defenders-office-talk-about-juvenile-justice-system/

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/da-sam-bregman-urges-lawmakers-to-reform-juvenile-justice-system/

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/da-most-juvenile-offenders-face-few-consequences-after-arrest/article_54c42b62-4488-11ef-be60-9368ee68a93e.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

https://news.yahoo.com/news/bernalillo-county-da-calls-youth-233400526.html

CHILDRENS’S COURT

A Children’s Court is established in each of the 13 Judicial Districts in the state with the Children’s code establishing Court’s known as the Children’s Court. The Children’s Court jurisdiction is not exclusive to criminal charges filed against a child. The court has exclusive original jurisdiction of all proceedings under the Children’s Code in which a person is 18 years of age or older and was a child at the time the alleged act in question was committed or is a child alleged to be:

  1. A delinquent child;
  2. A child of a family in need of court-ordered services or a child in need of services.
  3. A neglected child;
  4. An abused child;
  5.  A child subject to adoption; or
  6. A child subject to placement for a developmental disability or a mental disorder.
  7. The court has exclusive original jurisdiction to emancipate a minor.
PURPOSE OF  CHILDREN’S CODE

 

State law establishes the purpose of the Children’s Code to be as follows:

 

  • “ To provide for the care, protection and wholesome mental and physical development of children coming within the provisions of the Children’s Code and then to preserve the unity of the family whenever possible. A child’s health and safety shall be the paramount concern. Permanent separation of a child from the child’s family, however, would especially be considered when the child or another child of the parent has suffered permanent or severe injury or repeated abuse. It is the intent of the legislature that, to the maximum extent possible, children in New Mexico shall be reared as members of a family unit;
  • To provide judicial and other procedures through which the provisions of the Children’s Code are executed and enforced and in which the parties are assured a fair hearing and their constitutional and other legal rights are recognized and enforced;
  • To provide a continuum of services for children and their families, from prevention to treatment, considering whenever possible prevention, diversion and early intervention, particularly in the schools;
  • To provide children with services that are sensitive to their cultural needs;
  • To reduce overrepresentation of minority children and families in the juvenile justice, family services and abuse and neglect systems through early intervention, linkages to community support services and the elimination of discrimination;
  • To provide for the cooperation and coordination of the civil and criminal systems for investigation, intervention and disposition of cases, to minimize interagency conflicts and to enhance the coordinated response of all agencies to achieve the best interests of a child victim; and
  • To provide continuity for children and families appearing before the children’s court by assuring that, whenever possible, a single judge hears all successive cases or proceedings involving a child or family.”

CATEGORIES OF CHILD OFFENDERS AND CRIMES

The Children’s code defines an “adult” as a person who is 18 years of age or older and defines a “child” as person who is less than 18 years old and the Children’s Code deals exclusively with the prosecution those who are less than 18 years of age.  There is a sperate and distinct legal process from what is done for adults under the Children’s Code to charge a child with crimes.

Petitions are filed charging a child as a “Deliquent Offender” and in need of supervision and once adjudicated delinquent by the court, the child is placed on probation with terms and conditions imposed and enforced by probation authorities.
Petitions or complaints are filed charging a child as “Youthful Offender” or “Serious Youthful Offender” and in such cases the child is afforded all the rights of an adult including representation by and attorney, due process of law and a jury trial with rights of an appeal.

In all cases begun pursuant to the provisions of the Children’s Code, when a child is taken into custody, the child must be released to the child’s parent, guardian or custodian and a child subject to the provisions of the Children’s Code is entitled to the same basic rights as an adult. Arrests of a child are also handled differently as is incarceration.

Children charged with a crime are divided into 3 distinct categories under the Children’s Code according to the crimes committed. Those categories are Delinquent Offender, a Youthful Offender and a Serious Youthful offender.

A “Delinquent Offender” is a delinquent child  who has committed a delinquent act and who is subject to juvenile sanctions only and who is not a youthful offender or a serious youthful offender.

A “Delinquent Act”  is defined as an act committed by a child that would be designated as a crime under the law if committed by an adult, not including the crime of  prostitution (Section 30-9-2 NMSA 1978), and  includes  the following:

(1)   any of the following offenses pursuant to municipal traffic codes or the Motor Vehicle Code [66-1-1 NMSA 1978]:

  •  driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs;
  •  failure to stop in the event of an accident causing death, personal injury or damage to property;
  •  unlawful taking of a vehicle or motor vehicle;
  • receiving or transferring of a stolen vehicle or motor vehicle;
  • homicide by vehicle;
  • injuring or tampering with a vehicle;
  • altering or changing of an engine number or other vehicle identification numbers;
  •  altering or forging of a driver’s license or permit or any making of a fictitious license or permit;
  • (eckless driving;
  • driving with a suspended or revoked license; or
  •  an offense punishable as a felony;

(2)  buying, attempting to buy, receiving, possessing or being served any alcoholic liquor or being present in a licensed liquor establishment, other than a restaurant or a licensed retail liquor establishment, except in the presence of the child’s parent, guardian, custodian or adult spouse. … .

(3)  a violation of Section 30-29-2 NMSA 1978, regarding the illegal use of a glue, aerosol spray product or other chemical substance;

(4)  a violation of the Controlled Substances Act [Chapter 30, Article 31 NMSA 1978];

(5)       escape from the custody of a law enforcement officer or a juvenile probation or parole officer or from any placement made by the department by a child who has been adjudicated a delinquent child;

(6)       a violation of Section 30-15-1.1 NMSA 1978 regarding unauthorized graffiti on personal or real property;

(7)       a violation of an order of protection issued pursuant to the provisions of the Family Violence Protection Act [Chapter 40, Article 13 NMSA 1978]; or

(8)       trafficking cannabis as provided in Section 26-2C-28 NMSA 1978;

(See 32A-2-3. Definitions, Delinquency Act )

A “Youthful Offender” is defined as a delinquent child subject to adult or juvenile sanctions who is 14  to 18  years of age at the time of the offense and who is adjudicated as committing at least one of the following offenses:

  • second degree murder, as provided in Section 30-2-1 NMSA 1978;
  • assault with intent to commit a violent felony, as provided in Section 30-3-3 NMSA 1978;
  • kidnapping, as provided in Section 30-4-1 NMSA 1978;
  •  aggravated battery, as provided in Subsection C of Section 30-3-5 NMSA 1978;
  • aggravated battery against a household member, as provided in Subsection C of Section 30-3-16 NMSA 1978;
  •  aggravated battery upon a peace officer, as provided in Subsection C of Section 30-22-25 NMSA 1978;
  • shooting at a dwelling or occupied building or shooting at or from a motor vehicle, as provided in Section 30-3-8 NMSA 1978;
  • dangerous use of explosives, as provided in Section 30-7-5 NMSA 1978;
  • criminal sexual penetration, as provided in Section 30-9-11 NMSA 1978;
  • robbery, as provided in Section 30-16-2 NMSA 1978;
  • aggravated burglary, as provided in Section 30-16-4 NMSA 1978;
  • aggravated arson, as provided in Section 30-17-6 NMSA 1978; or
  • abuse of a child that results in great bodily harm or death to the child, as provided in Section 30-6-1 NMSA 1978;
(See 32A-2-3. Definitions, Delinquency Act )
ASerious Youthful Offender” is a child 15  to 18  years of age who is charged with and indicted or bound over for trial for first degree murder. Note that there are no other crimes other than first degree murder and the child is sentenced as an adult for the crime.
(See 32A-2-3. Definitions, Delinquency Act )

THE DELINQUENCY ACT

The Delinquency Act is part of the Children’s Code. A child subject to the provisions of the Delinquency Act is entitled to the same basic legal rights as an adult. According to the Delinquency Act, its purposes are:

  1. Consistent with the protection of the public interest, to remove from children committing delinquent acts the adult consequences of criminal behavior, but to still hold children committing delinquent acts accountable for their actions to the extent of the child’s age, education, mental and physical condition, background and all other relevant factors, and to provide a program of supervision, care and rehabilitation, including rehabilitative restitution by the child to the victims of the child’s delinquent act to the extent that the child is reasonably able to do so
  2. To provide effective deterrents to acts of juvenile delinquency, including an emphasis on community-based alternatives;
  3. To strengthen families and to successfully reintegrate children into homes and communities;
  4. To foster and encourage collaboration between government agencies and communities with regard to juvenile justice policies and procedures;
  5. To develop juvenile justice policies and procedures that are supported by data;
  6. To develop objective risk assessment instruments to be used for admission to juvenile detention centers;
  7. To encourage efficient processing of cases;
  8. To develop community-based alternatives to detention;
  9. To eliminate or reduce disparities based upon race or gender;
  10. To improve conditions of confinement in juvenile detention centers; and
  11. To achieve reductions in the number of warrants issued, the number of probation violations and the number of youth awaiting placements.

Ultimately, a District Court Judge has the discretion to impose some confinement or juvenile sanctions on a youthful offender, but the court only has jurisdiction over the child until he reaches the age of 18.  The children’s court attorney must give notice of intent to invoke and seek an adult sentence.  A preliminary hearing by the court or a hearing before a grand jury must be held after the filing of the intent to invoke an adult sentence, to determine whether probable cause exists to support the allegations contained in the petition.

The link to review the entire children’s code is here:

https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsa/en/item/4389/index.do#!fragment/undefined/BQCwhgziBcwMYgK4DsDWsBGB7LqC2YATqgJIAm0A5AMwBMAggLQCMj1lAlADTJYAuAUwgBFRAMIBPKpS4QBRBKPFTKMuQpABlLIT4AhKQCUAogBljANXoA5AMLGufMBmh8scDhyA

JUVENILE CRIME

Crime within the juvenile population has been the subject of recent news reports where it is being said crime among the juvenile population is rising. However, the data that is available doesn’t paint a clear picture one way or another. From 2018 through 2022, there was a steady DECLINE in the number of children referred to juvenile justice services. 80% of those each year were delinquent referrals, meaning it was a crime committed under the law if committed by an adult.

While the trend of juvenile referrals has fallen, so have the number of referrals for detention.  In 2018, there were 3,012 children referred for detentionThat number fell to 1,185 in 2022. But that doesn’t paint the whole picture. While the total number of referrals has fallen, the percentage of referrals approved for detention has risen.

Despite the downward trend of juvenile justice referrals, crime amongst juveniles was a focus of the governor following the issuance of the public health order in 2023. Since Sept. 2023, 160 juveniles have been detained where a gun was present. Each month since the governor’s directed focus on juvenile crime, the number of juveniles detained has fallen.

The link to the quoted news source is here:

https://www.koat.com/article/new-mexico-crime-stats-town-hall/6051353

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY LAWS 

Parental responsibility laws are designed to hold parents legally accountable for the actions of their minors. These laws are predicated on the belief that parents have a legal and moral obligation to ensure that their children do not engage in behavior harmful to society.

https://www.shotlaw.com/blog/are-parents-responsible-for-their-childs-crimes/#:~:text=A%3A%20While%20parents%20are%20not,to%20prevent%20the%20child’s%20actions.

The Delinquency Act part of the Children’s Code  has two separate parental responsibility provisions:

Section 32A-2-27 of  the Delinquency Act, entitled “Injury to person or destruction of property; liability; costs and attorney fees; restitution”, and  provides as follows:

A.  Any person may recover damages not to exceed four thousand dollars ($4,000) in a civil action in a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction from the parent or guardian having custody and control of a child when the child has maliciously or willfully injured a person or damaged, destroyed or deprived use of property, real or personal, belonging to the person bringing the action.

B.  Recovery of damages under this section is limited to the actual damages proved in the action, not to exceed four thousand dollars ($4,000) taxable court costs and, in the discretion of the court, reasonable attorney fees to be fixed by the court or tribunal.

C.  Nothing contained in this section limits the discretion of the court to issue an order requiring damages or restitution to be paid by the child when the child has been found to be within the provisions of the Delinquency Act.

D.  Nothing contained in this section shall be construed so as to impute liability to any foster parent.

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-32a/article-2/section-32a-2-27/

Section 32A-2-28 of  the Delinquency Act, entitled “Parental Responsibility” states as follows:

A.  In any complaint alleging delinquency, a parent of the child alleged to be delinquent may be made a party in the petition. If a parent is made a party and if a child is adjudicated a delinquent, the court may order the parent or parents to submit to counseling, participate in any probation or other treatment program ordered by the court and, if the child is committed for institutionalization, participate in any institutional treatment or counseling program including attendance at the site of the institution. The court shall order the parent to support the child committed for institutionalization by paying the reasonable costs of support, maintenance and treatment of the child that the parent is financially able to pay. The court may use the child support guidelines set forth in Section 40-4-11.1NMSA 1978 to calculate a reasonable payment.

B.  If a fine is imposed against a child by a court of this state, the parent of the child is not liable to pay the fine.

C.  The court may enforce any of its orders issued pursuant to this section by use of its contempt power.

https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/PARENTAL-

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It is very disappointing that Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman would declare The juvenile criminal justice system in New Mexico is broken.” His conclusion is understandable and no doubt out of frustration  given the uptick in the serious violent crimes children are committing.  Simply put, New Mexico’s children are committing more and more violent crimes and where guns are involved, but this does not mean the juvenile system is broken.  The state’s Children Code and our Juvenile Criminal Justice System has not kept up with changing times to deal with what now can only be considered a crisis.  Part of the problem is just how complicated the children’s code really is and its application.

It is very clear that the primary emphasis and purpose of the Children’s Code is not punishment in the form of confinement of child for crimes committed but on rehabilitation, services, counseling and social services with the goal of keeping the family unit intact and what is in the best interest of the child. Such an approach is wise whenever you are dealing with delinquency types of cases and children of tender age.

Under the children’s code there is no mandatory sentencing and confinement when delinquency is found and when it does happen it can only be up and until the child reaches 18.  However, things do get very complicated when gun violence is involved and when it comes to sentencing a child as an adult when charges are brought against the child as a “youthful offender” or “serious youthful offender.”

DA Bregman’s proposals to expand the definition of “serious youthful offender” so more types of crimes could lead to children being tried as adults is reasonable. The legislature should expand the types of offenses for which a juvenile over 15 can be charged as an adult. Right now, that can only happen for first-degree murder.  What should be included are all violent crimes involving a weapon and should include the crimes of aggravated assault, aggravated battery armed robbery with a firearm, and child abuse resulting in death.  The legislature should also fix the law that currently allows a teenager to wield an assault rifle, though handguns are still illegal.

ENFORCE PARENT RESPONSIBILITY STATUTES

The District Attorney should take full advantage of New Mexico’s Parental Responsibility Act.  In any complaint alleging delinquency the parent of the child alleged to be delinquent should  be made a party in the petition filed by the state.  As provided by the statute, if a child is adjudicated a delinquent, the court should order the parent or parents to submit to counseling, participate in any probation or other treatment program ordered by the court. Where the the child is committed for institutionalization, the parent or guardians should be ordered to participate in any institutional treatment or counseling program including attendance at the site of the institution.

Another option that should be considered by the legislature is increasing the amount of damages a victim may recover from the parent of a delinquent for damages from $4,000 to at least $15,000, or all actual or provable damages.  Further, such recovery actions for monetary damages against a parent or guardian should be made mandatory and not be discretionary with the filing any Petition for Delinquency

The message must be sent loud and clear to both children and their parents that if a child commits crimes, there will be consequences were both the child and the parent will be held responsible.

Three “Take Back Our Neighborhood Initiatives” For City Alleys To Deal With Unhoused: Fencing Off And Closure of Alleyways To Prevent Homeless Encampments, Alley Clean Up  And Beatification,  Enforcement Of  State Laws And City Ordinances To Prevent Trespass And Outdoor Camping  

There is a very serious and reoccurring problem throughout the city with the unhoused taking over and squatting in the city alleyways behind businesses and residential homes. All too often, city alley ways become magnets for crime resulting in repeated calls for service to the Albuquerque Police Department and to the Community Safety Department.

There  currently exists 3 major options that the City, its residents and businesses have  to deal with and to prevent  the unhoused taking over and squatting in the city’s alley ways:

  1. Permanently closing off alleyways known to be problematic.
  2. Neighborhood beatification of alley ways increasing neighborhood use and security measures.
  3. Aggressive enforcement of existing state laws and city ordinances to prevent trespass and unauthorized outdoor camping.

This blog article is a discussion and update of all 3 options.

 PERMANENT CLOSURE AND FENCING OFF ALLEYWAYS

The City of Albuquerque is in the process of implementing a program of permanently closing off alleyways known to be problematic resulting in  high volumes of calls for service to the Albuquerque Police Department and to the Albquerquerqu Fire and Rescue Department.  The problem alleyways have become magnets for crime for illegal activity such as open drug use and areas where large numbers of the homeless congregate.

Three alleyways have been identified in the South East Heights International District for closure by means of fencing. Those alley ways are:

  1. The alleyway behind the Circle K gas station on Central Avenue and San Pedro Drive in the International district
  2. The alleyway at Central Avenue and Louisiana Boulevard behind the KFC
  3. The Alleyway at California Street and Linn Avenue near the New Mexico State Fairgrounds.

The alleyway closure is part of a City plan being advocated by first term Progressive Democrat City Councilor Nichole Rogers to permanently close off known problem alleys to deal with the homelessness, drugs, and crime in the area.  Rogers is hoping to have the same success at the 3 alleys in the International District  as the closure of an alley at Lomas and Louisiana behind Buffets Candies.

City Councilor Rogers had this to say:

“There’s not one magic fix to any of these issues. … We’re dealing with lack of housing, lack of mental health resources, lack of substance abuse resources. There’s so many layers to this so this is just one idea—we have to try something! …  [Closing alleyways] is something that we’ve done in other areas like behind Buffett’s Candies on Lomas and Louisiana and it had a huge effect on deterring crime in the area. Am I for every alley being shut down or closed? No. But we have to do something because people are suffering. …  And so we know, if we can beautify this alley, we can put lighting, we can do things like that it will also deter activity that people don’t want to do in the light.”

“I say to the critics, ‘roll up your sleeves and come help us figure out solutions,’ because we’re open to that.  This is an all hands on deck crisis and we need to be thinking of it that way and we need to be thinking about it, how do we alleviate suffering? Regardless of why someone is suffering, if you’re unsheltered you’re suffering.”

Donna Buffett, one of the co-owners of the family owned business  of Buffett’s Candies, said the alley behind their business’s fenced-in parking lot was a constant source of concern.  Buffet said this:

“The [homeless] started using the fence; they would hang their tents on them, they were making campfires. We would come in the morning, there would be ten to 15 folks. They would have everything set up. … We were calling the fire department a couple times a week because once it started getting cold, they were building fires.”

The city permanently fenced off the alley in early May after Buffet’s spend thousands of dollars to install a high-end fence with an electric gate to close the business off after hours.  Buffett said everything changed almost overnight because of the fencing.  Buffett said this:

 “They’re moving along and going to other places …  I don’t think it’s completely solved the problem, but it has definitely alleviated the issues here. … I think [the fencing is] a great idea, I think it is helping the businesses in the area to lower the crime, to lower the loitering. All of the trash that’s left behind, the drug paraphernalia, I think it is making it cleaner. … I do still hope that the leadership of the city realizes that it is going to help that specific area but until the problem is dealt with at a higher level, it’s just moving folks on down the road.”

According to the city, the  cost to install  the high grade  permanent fencing varies depending on the size of the alley.  The cost varies from anywhere from  between $30,000  to $90,000 depending on how wide and how big they area fenced off is.  The money comes from capital outlay dollars set aside for public safety and community enhancement. The fencing allows only businesses and residents who use the alley access to it while keeping everyone else out.

Albuquerque Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Matthew Whelan confirmed the dramatic impact the closure of alleyway behind Buffett’s Candies had and he said this:

“[W]e’re expanding this program because … when we closed that alley and it went from Planning and Code Enforcement getting over 100 calls to around ten calls. We’re already spending resources in that area so we want to collaborate with [Councilor Rogers], so she’s using about $100,000 of her set-aside to close off three areas and we’re looking forward to seeing how it works out.”

Whelan said the city  notifies  people in these alleys before they close them and try to connect them with the city’s many resources. Whelan said this:

“We’re not just trying to push anybody anywhere. What we’re trying to do, address these people experiencing homelessness and give them the resources. Albuquerque has plenty of resources, we have the Westside Shelter, the Gateway Center will be opening soon. So we’re trying to get people enacted into that. But we’re also trying to address the neighborhoods to ensure safety so that everybody knows that one of the number one priorities of this administration is homelessness but it’s also addressing public safety.”

The link to the quoted and relied upon news story is here:

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/city-of-albuquerque-begins-permanently-closing-off-alleys-in-the-international-district/

THE REVITALIZE SAN PEDRO PARTNERSHIP AND SAN PEDRO ALLEY INITIATIVE

The Revitalize San Pedro Partnership (RSPP) is a 501 (c) (3) charitable corporation that was incorporated effective January 1, 2024. It is a coalition of 4 neighborhoods bordering or to the north of the New Mexico State Fair grounds, The 4 neighborhoods are the Mark Twain Neighborhood, the Fair West Neighborhood, Alvarado Park neighborhood and Mile High neighborhood. The San Pedro Alley initiative is one of 5 alley projects in Bernalillo County with funding already in place.

The goal of the Revitalize San Pedro Partnership (RSPP) is to revitalize the San Pedro corridor from Central north all the way to I-40.  One project is the San Pedro Alley initiative. Quarterly meetings are held to discuss projects. The San Pedro Alley Initiative represents neighborhood and business clean up and beatification of alley ways, including ongoing and scheduled clean ups and mural painting and increasing use of alleys for events such as neighborhood association meetings, social events and block parties.

The Revitalize San Pedro Partnership initiative works with the City, the County and State officials and find ways to improve and make more attractive the corridor. The group works with the UNM School of Architecture to come up with innovative ways to improve alleyways with designs. It also  addresses what can be done to make alley use safer, including installation of surveillance cameras, lighting and fencing.

On July 17, the Revitalize San Pedro Partnership held a town hall focusing on the 3 major San Pedro Corridor alleys between Lomas and Constitution. The townhall meeting focused on reviewing concerns of residents and businesses adjacent to the alleys and to share examples of improvements to alleyways from other neighborhoods.

SURVEY OF BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS

The Revitalize San Pedro Partnership did a survey of businesses and residents along the 3 alleys that run parallel to San Pedro, NE, from Marble Street and Constitution. Feedback was received from both residents and business from both sides of the ally’s. The survey was revealing.

In general terms, residents and businesses said they do not feel safe in the alleys, many actively remove trash and weeds from the alleys themselves and assuming the cost. Those surveyed supported public safety measures such as better lighting, including solar lights with motion sensors and patrols by the Albuquerque Police Department and the Albuquerque Community Safety Department to deal with the homeless.  The most popular beatification improvements supported are murals and landscaping.

Following are the results of the survey:

Those who took the survey were asked about alleyway use and they said this:

  • 1% said they used the alleyways daily.
  • 8% said they used the alleyways weekly.
  • 5% said they used the alleyways monthly.
  • 5% said they used the alleyways every 3 to 6 months.
  • 1% said they never use the alleyways.

Those who took the survey were asked what was their primary reason for using the alleyway and those that responded said this:

  • 8% said use was for access to business premises.
  • 6% said to get access to their residence.
  • 5% said used for recreational uses such as walking, jogging or dog walking.
  • 1% said storage,
  • 50% did not respond or said the alleyway was not used by them.

Activities observed and disclose by residents and businesses responding to the survey were:

  • Littering and excessive trash (88%)
  • Overnight camping (81%)
  • Illegal dumping (75%)
  • Graffiti (69%)
  • Suspicious Activity (59%)
  • Drug use or drug sales (56%)
  • Campfires/fires set (47%)
  • Speeding vehicles (38%)
  • Personal Assaults, sexual activities, police presents responding (22%)

Those surveyed were asked if they feel safe using the alleyway behind their residences or business:

  • 50% said no, they did not feel safe using the alley.
  • 5% said they felt “somewhat safe”.
  • 5% said they felt safe.

Actions listed as taken to improve the alleys for use and  safety included “clearing weeds, removing trash and debris, calling APD or other enforcement agency or contacting the Albuquerque Fire and Rescue Department.”

Preventative or protective measures supported by residents and businesses in the survey were:

  • More or better lighting (78%).
  • Increase law enforcement (63%).
  • Cameras (41%).
  • Permission to construct higher barriers (34%).
  • Locked gates (28%).

Those surveyed were asked what beautification improvements or amenities would they be interested in improving alleyways and the responses were as follows:

  • Murals and landscaping (56%).
  • Trash bins and permeable pavement (34%),
  • Dog waste stations (22%).
  • Rainwater collection (19%).
  • Little library, benches, community garden (16%).
  • Water stations (6%).

ALBUQUERQUE ORDINANCES AND STATE STATUTES

On June 28, the United State Supreme Court announced its ruling in the case of Grants Pass v. Johnson where the court held that local laws effectively criminalizing homelessness do not violate the U.S. Constitution and do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The case challenged a municipality’s ability to bar people from sleeping or camping in public areas, such as sidewalks, parks and alleyways. The case came from the rural Oregon town of Grants Pass, which appealed a ruling striking down local ordinances that fined people $295 for sleeping outside after tents began crowding public parks.

The United States Supreme Court considered whether cities can enforce laws and take action against or punish the unhoused for sleeping outside in public spaces when shelter space is lacking. The case is the most significant case heard by the high court in decades on the rights of the unhoused and comes as a rising number of people in the United States are without a permanent place to live.

In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the Supreme Court  reversed a ruling by a San Francisco-based appeals court that found outdoor sleeping bans amount to “cruel and unusual punishment” under the United States Constitution. The majority found that the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment does not extend to bans on outdoor sleeping in public places such as parks and streets.  The Supreme Court ruled that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors in public spaces.

The City of Albuquerque and the New Mexico legislature have enacted laws that have the intent to prohibit trespassing and unauthorized camping on private and public open space. All the laws have been on the books for decades and are applicable and are enforced against all citizens and not just the unhoused. The specific statutes and ordinances are: NMSA 1978, Section 30-14-1 (1995), defining criminal trespass on public and private property.

  1. NMSA 1978, Section 30-14-4 (1969), defining wrongful use of property used for a public purpose and owned by the state, its subdivisions, and any religious, charitable, educational, or recreational association.
  2. Albuquerque City Ordinance 12-2-3, defining criminal trespass on public and private property.
  3. Albuquerque City Ordinance 8-2-7-13, prohibiting the placement of items on a sidewalk so as to restrict its free use by pedestrians.
  4. Albuquerque City Ordinance 10-1-1-10, prohibiting being in a park at nighttime when it is closed to public use.
  5. Albuquerque City Ordinance 12-2-7, prohibiting hindering persons passing along any street, sidewalk, or public way.
  6. Albuquerque City Ordinance 5-8-6, prohibiting camping on open space lands and regional preserves.
  7. Albuquerque City Ordinance 10-1-1-3, prohibiting the erection of structures in city parks.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Generally speaking, it is the adjoining property owners, city residents and businesses, that have the primary responsibility for the  clean up and maintenance of existing alleyways even though the alleys are city and county rights of ways. The city and the county should commit far more  financial resources for the regular clean up of alleyways, including regularly scheduled street sweeper dispatched to the alleys and assume the cost of regular clean ups.  The city and the county should also assume the financial responsibility for the securing of alleys to include adequate lighting and surveillance cameras along with regularly scheduled law enforcement patrols. Such security measures would have a dramatic impact on curtailing and reducing crime.

The City’s program of fencing and closing off of alleyways as solution to homeless encampments and to eliminate magnets for crime and locations for the crimes of drug use, drug sales and prostitution is long overdue and taxpayer money well spent.  The closure of alleyways can be easily prioritized by surveying APD calls for service and only those that have become chronic nuisances to homeowners and businesses should be fenced off and closed by the city.

The Revitalize San Pedro Partnership and the San Pedro Alley Initiative represent a viable alternative to closing and fencing off of alleys. Neighborhoods and businesses will become empowered and find new and additional uses of alleyways.

With the United State Supreme Court decision in the case of Grants Pass v. Johnson where the court held that local laws effectively criminalizing homelessness do not violate the U.S. Constitution and do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, the city should not have any reservations about enforcing the existing laws preventing and prohibiting unauthorized camping and trespassing in the city’s alleyways.

The 3 approaches of closing and fencing off alleyways that become magnets for crime, neighborhoods finding new and additional uses of alleyways and aggressive enforcement of existing laws combined can be characterized as “taking back our neighborhood” initiatives.  All 3 approaches will have a direct impact on reducing crime in neighborhoods and preventing the homeless from taking over and camping in public rights of ways.

The link to a related news story is here:

Neighbors come together to make alleys cleaner and safer

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/neighbors-come-together-to-make-alleys-cleaner-and-safer/