On July, 14 2023, the Mayor Tim Keller Administration City announced that it has negotiated a new, two-year contract with the Albuquerque Police Officers Association.  Under the new 2 year contract, APD police officers are being paid a 5% pay increase for the budget year that started on July 1 and goes through June 31, 2024. Hourly pay will again increase 4% for the next budget year that starts on July 1, 2024 and ends June 31, 2025. The contract will now be sent to the City Council for approval.

The Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office had surpassed the Albuquerque Police Department’s pay scale in June, giving first class deputies a 17% raise, or $35.72 an hour.  With the new contract, when APD first class officers get their second raise they will be making $35.91 an hour.

In addition to announcing the negotiated 2 year contract with the police union, the Keller Administration announced pay increases for Police Service Aids and APD Academy Cadets.

POLICE SERVICE AIDE HOURLY  PAY

The next Public Service Aide (PSA) class starts July 31. APD currently has 47 Police Service Aides, the highest the department has ever employed. According to department officials, more PSA’s are taking on roles like taking reports for minor traffic crashes and blocking streets during investigations so sworn officers can respond to higher-priority incidents. The PSA program also serves as a pipeline of future officers to join the the department. PSA’s  hourly pay will go up from $15.43 to $16.20 an hour.

APD POLICE ACADEMY CADET HOURLY PAY RAISES

The APD police cadet class that started the Police Academy on July 17 are being paid $28.84 an hour or $60,000 annually, a 37% pay increase.

POLICE UNION NEGOTIATED HOURLY PAY RAISES

Under the signed 2023 negotiated police union contract approved by union members, the negotiated yearly and hourly pay increases are as follows:

Patrolmen 2^nd Class who have been on the force one full year will be paid $30.28 an hour or $63,000 a year, a 31% pay increase.

2 TO 4 YEAR SERVICE HOURLY PAY RAISES

In the 2023 fiscal year that began July 1, 2023 and ends June 30, 2024,   2 to 4 year service pay goes from  $68,411.20 yearly pay, or $32.89 hourly,  to $71,831.55  yearly pay, or $34.53 an hour. (5% total yearly pay raise of $3,420.56 + $68,411 yearly base pay = $71,831 ÷ 2,080 yearly working hours = $34.53 hourly).

In the 2024 fiscal year that will begin on July 1, 2024 and ends June 30, 2025,  2 to 4 year service pay will go from $71,831 yearly pay, or $34.53 an  hour to  $74,704.24 or $35.91 an hour (4% total yearly pay raise of $2,873.24 + $71,831 yearly pay ÷ 2,080 yearly working hours = $35.91 hourly.)

5 TO 14 YEARS OF SERVICE HOURLY PAY RAISES

In the 2023 fiscal year that began July 1, 2023 and ends June 30, 2024,   5 to 14 year service pay goes  from  $70,761 pay a year or $34.02 hourly to $74,299 or $35.72  an hour. (5% total yearly pay raise of 3,538 + $70,761 yearly pay = 74,299.05 yearly pay ÷  2,080 yearly working hours = $35.72 hourly pay)

In the 2024 fiscal year that will begin on July 1, 2024 and ends June 30, 2025,  5 to 14 year service pay goes  from  $74,299.05  pay a year  or $35.72 hourly pay  to  $77,271.01  pay a year or $37.14 an hour (4% total yearly pay raise of  $2, 971.96  +  $74,299.05 yearly pay  = $77,271.01 yearly pay or $37.18  hourly.)

15 OR MORE YEARS OF SERVICE HOURLY PAY RAISES

In the 2023 fiscal year that began July 1, 2023 and ends June 30, 2024, 15 or more years of service  pay goes from $74, 297 pay a year or $35.72 an hour  to $78,011.85 pay a year or $37.50 an hour. (5% total pay raise of  $3,714.85 +  $74,297 yearly pay = $78,011.85 yearly pay  ÷ 2,080 yearly working hours = $37.50 hourly pay.)

In the 2024 fiscal year that will begin on July 1, 2024 and ends June 30, 2025,  15 or more years’ service  pay  goes from  $78,011.85 a year pay or $37.50 an hour to $81,132 a year pay or $39.00 an hour.  (4% yearly pay raise of 3,120.47 +  $78,011.85 pay a year = $81,132 pay a year ÷ 2,080 yearly working hours or  $39.00  hourly pay.)

EDITOR’S NOTE:  Although APD Sergeants and Lieutenants are management, they are still allowed to be in the police union which is a likely violation of State law that prohibits management from joining unions but the city allows the practice.. Approximately 20 years ago, APD Captains, now classified as Commanders, were allow to be in the police union, but were removed from the collective bargaining unit.

SERGEANT HOURLY PAY RAISES

In the 2023 fiscal year that began July 1, 2023 and ends June 30, 2024, Sergeant pay goes from $82,533 a year, or $39.69 hourly pay to $86,659.65 a year or $41.66 an hour. (5% total pay raise of $4,126,55 ₊ 82,533 a year = $86,659.65 ÷ 2,080 yearly working hours = $41.66 hourly pay.)

In the 2024 fiscal year that will begin on July 1, 2024 and ends June 30, 2025,  Sergeant pay goes from$86,659.65  a year or $41.66 an hour to $90,126.04 a year or $43.33 an hour. (4% total pay raise of  $3,466.38 +  $86,659.65 = $90,126.04 ÷ 2080 = $43.33 hourly pay.)

LIEUTENANT HOURLY PAY RAISES

In the 2023 fiscal year that began July 1, 2023 and ends June 30, 2024,  Lieutenant pay goes from  $94,348 yearly or $45.36 hourly to  $99,065.40 or $47.63 an hour. (5% total pay raise of + $4,717.40 + $94,348 = $99,065 ÷ 2, 080 yearly working hours = $47.63 hourly pay.)

In the 2024 fiscal year that will begin on July 1, 2024 and ends June 30, 2025, Lieutenant pay  goes from $99,065 yearly pay or $47.63 an hour to  $103,027 a year pay or $49.53 an hour. (4% total pay raise of $3,962.60 = $99,065 yearly pay = $103,027 a year pay ÷ 2, 080 yearly working hours = $49.53 hourly pay. )

LATERAL OFFICERS PAY

APD’s Lateral Class that started May 22 has 14 officers who have experience with other police agencies. The class is the largest in four years when APD experienced a boost of transfers due to higher salaries. Laterals with 2 years of experience will receive a pay increase from $63,065.60 a year or $30.32 an hour to $66,331.20 a year or $31.89 an hour.

REACTION TO PAY INCREASES

Mayor Tim Keller had this to say about the new contract:

“Fighting crime continues to be our top priority. That means we have to support the officers we have and work to expand the department.  Our investments are paying off with more people signing up to join the force and more officers choosing stay with APD.”

APD Chief Harold Medina had this to say in a statement about the pay increases:

“Mayor Keller’s investment in our police officers puts us in a great position as we work to recruit new officers and keep the hard-working officers who are putting in the hard work every day to keep Albuquerque safe. … This 5% raise with another 4% next year sends a strong message that we support our officers. They deserve all the support we can give them.”

Shaun Willoughby, president of the Albuquerque police union, said this:

“[Officers were] overwhelmingly in favor. … Only five, out of hundreds, voting against it. … I think that we’ve made some major strides. I think we have a lot of work ahead of us to do but the rank and file are happy about the contract and we’re waiting for it to go through the process so it can start to reflect in their paycheck.”

Links to quoted news sources are here:

https://www.cabq.gov/police/news/apd-officers-to-get-5-pay-raise-followed-by-4-next-year

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-police-officers-could-receive-pay-raise/44549567

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/albuquerque-police-officers-to-receive-5-pay-bump-this-year/

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/albuquerque-police-to-get-5-raise-in-new-contract/article_f25f21aa-2351-11ee-a28f-57f6647d30b2.html

13% PAY RAISES FROM 2022 to 2023

On February 4, 2022 it was reported that the Keller’s administration had negotiated a new police union contract making APD the best paid law enforcement agency in the region by increasing hourly wages and longevity pay and creating a whole new category of “incentive pay”. All of APD sworn police officers are members of the police union, including patrol officers, sergeants and lieutenants. All of APD sworn police were given combined pay increases of 13% under a two-year contract.

Under the 2022 signed union contract, APD’s starting wages were well above cities and law enforcement agencies of comparable size including Tucson, Arizona, $54,517, and El Paso, Texas, $47,011. Under the 2022 contract terms, longevity pay increased by 5% starting at $2,730 per year with those who have 5 years of service and with incremental service years up to 17 years or more who will be paid $16,380.

Under the union contract, sworn police are entitled to overtime compensation at the rate of time-and-one-half of their regular straight-time rate when they perform work in excess of forty (40) hours in any one workweek. Time worked over 40 hours per week is compensated at time and a half of the officer’s regular rate of pay, or in the form of “compensatory time.” There is no contract provision placing a cap on the amount of overtime any officer can be paid.

The 2022-2023 proposed budget also  included $13 million for a city-wide 2% cost-of-living increase. Buried in the 2022-2023 budget is the fact that the city hall workforce excluding APD sworn police, is approximately 5,916 (6,916 total workforce – 1,100 sworn) who will be given a mere 2% Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) but subject to union negotiations.

POLICE LONGEVITY PAY

In addition to their hourly pay,  APD sworn police officers are paid “longevity pay”.  APD sworn qualify for longevity pay in their fifth year of service. Under the police union contract terms, longevity pay starts at $2,730 per year and increases topping of at $16,380 annually for those who have served 17 or more years. The  longevity pay scale bi-weekly annual amounts are as follows:

Beginning Year 5 through 5, $105 paid bi weekly, $2,730 annually
Beginning Year 6 through 6, $131 paid bi weekly, $3,406 annually
Beginning Year 7 through 9, $236 paid bi weekly, $6,136 annually
Beginning Year 10 through 12, $315 paid bi weekly, $8,190 annually
Beginning Year 13 through 15, $368 paid bi weekly, $9,568 annually
Beginning Year 16 through 17, $473 paid bi weekly, $12,298 annually
Beginning Year 18 and above, $630 paid bi weekly, $16,380 annually

 https://www.cabq.gov/humanresources/documents/apoa-jul-9-2016.pdf/view

RETENTION PAY BONUSES

APD started a new retention package in October 2022 that provided incentives for experienced officers who might otherwise consider retiring. As a result, there have been only  18 retirements during the subsequent  8-month period. APD matched national trends in retirements prior to this year. In 2021, 97 officers retired and in 2022, 50 officers retired. The retention package provides officers who meet qualifications with an additional $1,500 dollars at the end of each month, and 10% of their medical is paid for by the city.

It was on October 7, 2022  APD Chief Harold Medina  announced retention  pay  bonuses for  police officers who have been on the force 19 years or more,  and who are eligible for retirement.  They are  paid as  much as $18,000 more per year, or $1,500 more a month.   In addition, the department pays 100% of the officers’ medical benefits.  In addition to $18,000 more a year in incentive pay to 19  year  veterans, police officers with 18 years or more of police service are paid  $16,380 annual longevity pay resulting in a combined  $34,380 of incentive pay and longevity pay in one year

POLICE OVERTIME PAY

Under the union contract, sworn police are entitled to overtime compensation at the rate of time-and-one-half of their regular straight-time rate when they perform work in excess of forty (40) hours in any one workweek. Time worked over 40 hours per week is compensated at time and a half of the officer’s regular rate of pay, or in the form of “compensatory time.” There is no contract provision placing a cap on the amount of overtime any officer can be paid. Compensatory time is the award of hours as already worked to be paid and is calculated at the rate of 1-1/2 times the hours actually worked. The maximum accrual of comp time for any officer is 150 hours.

During the last 11 years, the Albuquerque Police Department has consistently gone over its overtime budgets by millions. As examples, in fiscal year 2016, APD was funded for $9 million for over time but APD actually spent $13 million. A March, 2017 city internal audit of APD’s overtime spending found police officers “gaming the system” that allows them to accumulate excessive overtime at the expense of other city departments. A city internal audit report released in March, 2017 revealed that the Albuquerque Police Department spent over $3.9 million over its $9 million “overtime” budget.

2022 BREAKDOWN OF 250 TOP PAID CITY HALL EMPLOYEEs

At the end of each calendar year, City Hall releases the top 250 wage earners based on hourly wages paid. The list of 250 top city hall wages earners is what is paid for the full calendar year of January 1, to December 31 of any given year.  The City of Albuquerque has 26 separate departments and it employs upwards of 6,000 full time employees.  In 2022, APD averaged employing 856 full time

In 2022, the breakdown of the 250 top paid city hall employees reveals they were paid between $124,540.80 to  $235,992.53.   Of the top 250 top paid city hall employees, 143 of the top paid 250 wage earners employed included Patrol Officers First Class, Senior Police Officers, Master Police Officers, Sergeants and Lui tenants. Lieutenants, although management, are allowed to be members of the Police Union and are entitled to be paid time and a half for overtime.  The excessive wages of the 143 police officers in the top 250 city hall employee is directly attributed to overtime pay.

During 2022, APD averaged about 856 sworn officers and of that number 143 of those officers were in the top 250 paid employees.

In 2022, APD Lieutenants were paid a base pay $94,348 yearly or $45.36 hourly. There are 31 APD Lieutenants listed in the top 250 paid city hall employees who were paid between $125, 945  to $217,646  in 2022  because of overtime.

In 2022, APD Sergeant were  paid a base pay $82,533 a year, or $39.69 hourly. There are 35 APD Sergeants who were paid between $124,902.87 to $211,910  because of overtime.

In 2022, the  average yearly base pay  paid to Police Officers First Class, Senior Police Officers 1^st Class, Master Police Officers First Class,  depending on their total number of years of experience was  $71,156.  There are 6 police officer 1^st class,  19 Senior Police Officers 1^st class and  2 Master Police Officers 1^st class in the top 250 paid city hall employees that were paid between $124,902 and $165,330  because of overtime.

The link to review the entire list of 250 top city hall paid employees for 2022 is here:

https://publicreports.cabq.gov/ibmcognos/bi/?perspective=classicviewer&pathRef=.public_folders%2FTransparency%2FTop%20Earners%20of%20the%20City%20of%20Albuquerque%20List&id=i5AAD1EA752BA417099BA819E482F6642&objRef=i5AAD1EA752BA417099BA819E482F6642&action=run&format=HTML&cmPropStr=%7B%22id%22%3A%22i5AAD1EA752BA417099BA819E482F6642%22%2C%22type%22%3A%22report%22%2C%22defaultName%22%3A%22Top%20Earners%20of%20the%20City%20of%20Albuquerque%20List%22%2C%22permissions%22%3A%5B%22execute%22%2C%22traverse%22%5D%7D

APD PERFORMANCE MEAUSRES

The City of Albuquerque budget is a “performance based” budget.  All 27 city department, including APD are required to submit statistics reflecting job performance measures to justify increases or decreases in their budgets. Review of APD’s performance measures taken from  the city council approved budgets for  the past 3 full fiscal  years (July 1 to June 31)  reveals the following major highlights:

TOTAL APD FELONY ARRESTS:

2020: 10,945

2021: 6,621

2022:  6,122

TOTAL APD MISDEMEANOR ARRESTS

2020:  19,440

2021: 16,520

2022:  9,799

TOTAL APD DWI ARRESTS:

2020: 1,780

2021: 1,230

2022: 1,287

CLEARANCE RATE OF CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS (e.g., murder, rape, assault)

2020: 56%

2021: 56%

2022: 44%

CLEARANCE RATE OF CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY (e.g., robbery, bribery, burglary)

2020: 11%

2021: 12%

2022: 9%

CLEARANCE RATE OF CRIMES AGAINST SOCIETY (e.g., gambling, prostitution, drug violations)

2020: 79%

2021: 77%

2022: 57%

HOMICIDE CLEARANCE RATE (Uniform Crime Reporting definable)

2020: 57%

2021: 53%

2022: 71%

The link to 2024 fiscal year budget, page 150 for APD approved budget and  performance measures:

Click to access fy24-proposed-web-version.pdf

The link to 2023 fiscal year budget, page 242 for APD approved budget and performance measures:

https://www.cabq.gov/dfa/documents/fy23-approved-budget-final-sept-13.pdf

The link to 2022 fiscal year budget, page  229  for APD approved budget and performance measures:

Click to access fy22-approved-budget-numbered-w-hyperlinks-final.pdf

TRAFFIC CITATIONS

On December 15, 2022, APD released the Traffic Units 2022 statistics. It was reported that the traffic unit had an 82% increase in overall traffic citations and a 29% decrease in traffic fatalities.

As of December 15, 2022 the Motors Unit issued 34,108 traffic citations, up from 18,661 in 2021. The Traffic Unit also investigated 61 fatal crashes year to date, down from 80 in 2021.

The unit issued 675 freeway citations,1,010 citations during Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS) operations, and 7,529 citations along the Central corridor.

A full presentation of the unit’s overall numbers can be found here.

https://www.cabq.gov/police/news/apd-releases-end-of-year-traffic-unit-data

On April 24, it was reported that APD had about 22,000 citations issued so far this year and  that’s from the combined efforts of several operations.

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/22000-traffic-citations-issued-by-apd-so-far-this-year/

APD BUDGET

On May 26, Mayor Tim Keller signed off on the Albuquerque City Council approved $1.37 billion budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1, 2023 and ends June 30, 2024. The overall approved budget is for $1.37 billion with $827.1 million in general fund appropriations marking a 3% decrease from the current year. The combined operating and capital budget of $1,367,695,000 and it is $53.6 million lower than the fiscal year 2023 budget. The approved budget includes a 3.5% pay raise for city employees but not when it comes to APD police who will now be getting 9% pay increases combined over the next 2 years, not to mention APD officers receiving 13% pay raises combined in the previous 2 years.  The Albuquerque Police Department (APD) continues to be the largest city budget out of 27 departments. The fiscal year 2024 approved  General Fund budget is $257 million, a 1% increase from last year or 31% of the general fund. Last year’s 2023 APD’s budget was $255.4 million, which represented a 14.7% increase or $32.8 million above the fiscal year 2022 level.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

In August 2017, then New Mexico State Auditor Tim Keller, candidate for Albuquerque Mayor, had this to say about the city’s high crime rates:

“It’s unfortunate, but crime is absolutely out of control. It’s the mayor’s job to actually address crime in Albuquerque, and that’s what I want to do as the next mayor.”

Tim Keller ran on the platform promising to reduce the city’s spiking  crime rates, increase the number of sworn police to 1,200 and return to community-based policing. For 5 years, Keller has failed to  deliver on his promises  in that the city’s crime rates and murder rates are at historical highs, the number of sworn police has never even reached 1,000 let alone 1,200 under Keller and community base policing is nowhere to be found.

Mayor Tim Keller and APD Chief Harold Medina always and emphatically proclaim that fighting crime is their number one priority. What directly contradicts this is that APD performance rates for the past 3 years have been going down dramatically in total felony arrests, misdemeanor arrests, and DWI arrests. Further, APD performance rates have also gone done with clearance rates down in crimes against persons (e.g. murder, rape, assault), down in  crimes against property (e.g. robbery, bribery, burglary)  and down in crimes against society (e.g. gambling, prostitution, drug violations.)

Almost every year Keller has been Mayor, he has increased APD’s budget as well as given significant hourly pay increases to APD’s officers. With newly negotiated union contract, combined hourly APD hourly pay increases over the last 4 years Keller has been in office is upwards of a whopping 22%. The 22% amount does not even include incentive pay, longevity pay and overtime pay added on top of the pay raises. While APD sworn have benefited with significant pay increases from  Tim Keller being Mayor, the other 5,000 remaining city hall employees have had to endure with mediocre pay rases as low as 2% to 3%, if any, a year.

Throughout Keller’s five years in office, APD has consistently failed to recruit and fill sworn police vacancies and has failed to keep up with yearly retirements. During the last 4 years, funding has been for 1,100 sworn police each year.  Today, APD has 856 sworn officers.  APD’s budget line item proposed budget list 1,847 full time positions with funding for 1,040 full-time, sworn police positions and 804 civilian support personnel for the 1,847 full time positions.

APD’s performance measures over the last 3 fiscal years have been on the decline and should be considered mediocre at best. Notwithstanding, the city continues to fund the department at ever increasing millions a year. The Keller Administration always agrees to union demands to increase hourly pay and  that are not at all tied to overall performance measures of the department.

If Mayor Tim Keller and APD Chief Harold Medina indeed believe that crime is the number one priority, they need to concentrate more on requiring far more and expect far more from APD’s  personnel when it comes to performance measures and arrests and clearance rates rather than caving into police union demands for more pay. Otherwise, all they are doing is throwing money at salaries hoping that more arrests will be made and  crime will go down as Mayor Tm Keller seeks a third term in 2025.

The link to a related blog article is here

https://www.petedinelli.com/2022/05/01/apd-projected-to-have-12390000-in-unspent-sworn-police-salaries-at-end-of-fiscal-year-2023-apd-has-20-fewer-sworn-police-officers-than-when-keller-and-medina-took-over-in-2017-13-pay-raises-fo/

On Monday, July 11, New Mexico House Republican Caucus released a form they intend to send to all New Mexico parents with children in school.  The Republican caucus is  asking parents to send the form to the schools  to affirm their rights as  parents to have a say in  medical services, including abortion and gender-affirming care, and what instructional materials their children can receive while at school.

The form, which parents can sign and send to their students’ schools, offers an opportunity to lay out the types of information and health care services they want school personnel to tell them about before providing it to their children.  The Republican House caucus said the form comes in response to bills passed during the 2023 legislative session  year and they argue the legislation limits  parents’ involvement in such decisions.

Silver City area Republican Rep. Luis Terrazas said  hehopes school districts will honor parents requests. Terrazas said this:

“These bills cut at the very fabric of the family unit, and undermine [parental]  rights  when it comes to their children.”

TARGETED LEGISLATION

The two bills passed this year that the Republican Caucus are upset about are House Bill 7  and Senate Bill 397.  Both bills  were hotly contested measures during the 2023 legislative session.

House Bill 7 is 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.

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

House Bill 7  and Senate Bill 397 are among six total bills being targeted in a repeal effort by a coalition of Republican-leaning groups.

REPUBLICAN CAUCUS LETTER

The letter sent to parents of school age children reads as follows:

Dear Parent,

New Mexico laws passed during the 2023 session (HB 7 and SB 397) could restrict both parental involvement regarding certain types of medical services and instructional materials provided to minors during the school day, regardless of age. Medical services include “gender affirming care,” psychiatric care, and abortion services.

The following form is designed to help parents and guardians explicitly exercise their right to be fully informed prior to their child accessing medical and behavioral health services, including some instructional materials. HB7 and SB397 can be found by clicking the links below.

 https://www.nmlegis.gov/Legislation/Legislation?Chamber=H&LegType=B&LegNo=7&year=23

 https://www.nmlegis.gov/Legislation/Legislation?Chamber=S&LegType=B&LegNo=397&year=23

Parents and guardians are responsible for making educational and health care decisions for their children until the child reaches the age of majority. A minor child cannot consent to his/her own educational decisions or medical treatment. It is important for parents/guardians to remain engaged and informed with school district staff to ensure their children are receiving the appropriate education and health care.

 Parent/guardian engagement ensures the highest standard of care.

 Attached is the PARENTAL/GUARDIAN NOTIFICATION AND CONSENT SCHOOL FORM.

1.  Carefully read and mark each check box for which you are requiring notification before your child participates in activities that might be occurring on the school campus.   

2. Sign the notification form.

3.  Make two copies of the signed form.

4.  Keep one copy for your personal records.

5.  Email one copy to your child’s school admin office, requesting that a copy be placed in your child’s permanent record with the school district.

Please note that current New Mexico law, NMSA 32A-6A-15, provides for a child 14 years of age or older to consent to certain behavioral and family therapy and counseling programs. 32A-6A-15(C) also states that “A clinician or other mental health and developmental disabilities professional shall promote the healthy involvement of a child’s legal custodians and family members in developing the child’s treatment plan, including appropriate treatment for children fourteen years of age or older.

Sincerely,

NM House Republican Leadership

 https://www.nmhrcc.org/parentpower

 PARENTAL/GUARDIAN NOTIFICATION AND CONSENT SCHOOL FORM

Below is the Parental/Guardian Notification and Consent School Form prepared by the Republican Caucus and sent to parents:

NEW MEXICO PARENTAL/GUARDIAN NOTIFICATION AND CONSENT SCHOOL FORM

 I/We, __________________________________ the legal parent(s)/guardian(s) of,

__________________________________________________________: (Check all that apply.)

 [ ] Require prior notification before my child participates in, or is given access to, any health care services, referral for services, class, lesson, instruction, curriculum, assembly, guest speaker, activity, assignment, library material, online material, club, group, or association concerning transgender ideology, gender affirming care or gender identity.

 [ ] Require prior notification before my child participates in, or is given access to, any health care services, referral for services, class, lesson, instruction, curriculum, assembly, guest speaker, activity,assignment, library material, online material, club, group, or association concerning abortion.

 [ ] Require prior notification before my child participates in, or is given access to, any health care services, referral for services, class, lesson, instruction, curriculum, assembly, guest speaker, activity, assignment, library material, online material, club, group, or association concerning contraception and other family planning.

 [ ] Require prior notification before my child participates in, or is given access to, any health care services, referral for services, or association concerning primary health care.

[ ] Require prior notification before my child participates in, or is given access to, any health care services, referral for services, or association concerning mental or psychiatric care.

 If I am not given prior notification and the opportunity to make an informed decision concerning the wellbeing of my child, I withhold consent for the items checked above.

 ___________________________ ___________________________ ____________________

Printed Name Signature Date

 ___________________________ ___________________________ ____________________

 Printed Name Signature Date

 Please also note that any parental notification does not prevent the mandatory disclosure of certain circumstances to law enforcement or the Children, Youth, and Families Department as required by law.

The form is available on the New Mexico House Republican Campaign Committee website:

Click to access v2-Parental-Notification-Form-House-GOP-23-07-10.pdf

HOUSE BILL 7 REPRODUCTIVE AND GENDER-AFFIRMING HEALTH CARE ACT MAIN TARGET

Republican State Representative Luis Terrazas, who represents Catron, Grant and Hidalgo counties, confirmed that the main target of the letter and the form is House Bill 7 which is the Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Act.  Terrazas  pointed out that  House Bill 7  states:

“A public body or agent of a public body shall not discriminate against a person based on that person’s use of or refusal to use reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care.”

According to Republican House members, House Bill 7  is unclear when it comes to parental notification and  the law never mentions parents or parental rights when it comes to knowing what is taught in schools. The letter says parents need to be notified when certain topics are discussed in class, such as abortion, gender identity, mental health care, or contraception.

Terrazas said this:

“This simple form …  is a parental notification and consent form that is free for you to download and print. … It asks school districts to keep parents informed on the curriculum, class discussions, and decisions that impact their child’s health care. … I recognize that there are some schools and districts that have policies that do not require notification … This letter and form released today makes it clear that those who wish to participate that parents’ rights are paramount and need to be respected, even if local policy says otherwise.”

During the press conference announcing the form letter, Republican Representative Terrazas was asked where he sees an effort to conceal medical services or instructional materials provided to students from their parents in the language of the bills.  Terrazas was not able to point to any specific language, saying the form mainly seeks to let parents be explicit about their wishes. He said this:

“There hasn’t been any clarity. And so this form, that’s exactly what it does … It just gives a parent the right look over the form, decide what they want to participate or not participate and submit it … so that we get a clear directive of what they’re comfortable or not comfortable with. … Even if these issues weren’t ambiguous in the law, why is it a problem for parents to ask to be notified about what their children are being presented in the classroom?”

DEMOCRAT REACTION

HB 7 sponsor Democrat Rep. Linda Serrato of Santa Fe  said neither bill mentions any sort of confidentiality from guardians nor makes a specific provision allowing school personnel to speak with children about things such as abortion services or gender-affirming care without parental approval.

“HB 7  doesn’t touch on that at all, to be quite frank. … It simply says that you can get gender-affirming and reproductive health care and that they can’t persecute you or prosecute you.”

According to Serrato, the closest either bill comes to confidentiality from parents or guardians is in HB 7, which states that public bodies or people working on their behalf cannot deny, restrict or interfere with someone’s access to such services.  She noted that  even that language  “doesn’t broach” interfering with parents’ involvement and she said this:

“It feels to me … like more of what you’d see out of Florida than out of New Mexico, because it just feels like a way to get attention that could actually really hurt people. … It definitely misleads individuals on what this bill does.”

Rep. Linda Serrato issued the following statement:

“This is nothing more than a political stunt. At best, these letters will create confusion for parents about what their kids are learning and concern for teachers about what they are allowed to teach. At worst, these letters have the potential to pit parents and teachers against each other, when we all should be working together in the interest of our kids – not standing in the way of their ability to get healthcare.

It’s also important to note, that HB 7 has absolutely nothing to do with school curriculum. It simply ensures that no matter where you are in New Mexico, you will not be discriminated against, prosecuted or persecuted for receiving the healthcare you need, including reproductive, abortion, or gender-affirming care.”

APS REACTION

Albuquerque Public Schools do not provide heath care to their students, and leave all health care decisions up to parents. APS spokeswoman Monica Armenta told the Albuquerque Journal that APS does not provide the medical care or education the House Republicans are targeting in their letter. Armenta said it’s too soon to tell how the forms would be treated by APS but she did point to a district policy calling for provisions to be made “for review of student or parent objections to presentations or to print or multimedia instructional materials” about controversial or sensitive issues.

Links to quoted news sources are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/state-house-republicans-say-two-bills-passed-this-year-restrict-parental-rights-in-schools-but/article_a0645fc8-1f82-11ee-924e-6fb965fa224f.html

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/state-house-republicans-create-notification-form-for-parents-to-send-to-schools/

TARGETS FOR REPEAL BY REFERENDUM

The New Mexico Republican Party is working with three  conservative organizations and a petition drive and referendum process to repeal the legislation. Those 3 organizations are the  New Mexico Family Action Movement, the  “Better Together New Mexico”  and the “New Mexico Business Coaltion”. 

The 6  laws targeted for repeal took 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 6 bills targeted for repeal by petition drive referendum 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.

Governor  Michelle Lujan Grisham signed the six bills in question into law. She 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.”

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The action of the New Mexico House Republican Caucus in sending out their letter and form is a clear case of “False Forms Over Substance”.  Both should be treated as nothing more than a publicity stunt that should be ignored by all the school districts in the state.  The letter and the so called  Parental Consent Form is yet another example of the extreme lengths the  Republican Party and extreme right wing organizations  will go to oppose Democrat initiatives and interfere with the legislative process.

It is painfully obvious that when Republicans are not successful at the ballot box, are not successful in the legislative process, they revert to the courts, petition drives and publicity stunts such sending letters and forms to parents of school age children to make false claims and gin up animosity. The problem with this latest Republican publicity stunt is that it is an attempt to interfere with public education by creating animosity between parents and the school systems.  The Republican Caucus Parental/Guardian Notification and Consent School Form needs to be given an “F” by all educators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MOTION TO DISMISS FILED

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

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

 NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT RULES

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

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

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

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

DEMOCRATS DEFEND CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING

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

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

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

REACTION TO REMAND

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links to the quoted news sources are here:

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

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

CALLS FOR INDEPENDENT REDISTRCTIG COMMISSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The link to news source quotes is here:

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

FAST PACED TRIAL CALENDAR 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The link to news source is here:

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

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

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

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

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

___________________________________

POSTSCRIPT

RUCHO V. COMMON CAUSE

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

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

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

Justice Kagan wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The link to quoted new source material is here:

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

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

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

PROCESSED PETITION SIGNATURES AND $5 QUALFYING DONATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

DISTRICT 4 (NORTHEAST HEIGHTS)

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

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

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

DISTRICT 6 (NOB HILL, INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DISTRICT 8 (NORTHEAST HEIGHTS AND FOOTHILLS)

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

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

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

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

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

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

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

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

THE KELLER FACTOR

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

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

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

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

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

KELLER UNIVERASLLY DISLIKED AT THE DOOR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FINAL COMMENTARY

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

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

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

Best wishes and good luck to all the candidates.

___________________

POSTSCRIPT

REQUIRED PETITION SIGNATURES

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

REQUIRED $5 QUALIFYING DONATIONS

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

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

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

PUBLIC FINANCING AND SPENDING LIMIT

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

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

PRIVATELY FINANCED CANDIDATES

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

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

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

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

Right now, that doesn’t describe Bernalillo County.

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

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

That’s why I’m running.

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

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

Links to quoted sources are here:

www.swongerfornm.com

https://swongerfornm.com/

MATHIAS SWONGER IN HIS OWN WORDS

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

PERSONAL BACKGROUND

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

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

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

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

EDUCATION AND PUBLIC SERVICE.

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

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

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

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

SWONGER’S PLATFORM

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

 PROPOSALS A SAFER COMMUNITY:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The link to the quoted source material is here:

 https://swongerfornm.com/safer

PROPOSALS FOR A STRONDER AND  FAIRER COMMUNITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The link to the quoted source materials is here:

https://swongerfornm.com/fairer

DISTRICT ATTORNEY SAM BREGMAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 By Pete Dinelli

Jul 11, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________________________

POSTSCRIPT

ABOUT THE NEW MEXICO SUN

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

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

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

https://newmexicosun.com/