On September 7, in what can only be considered a major flip flop of epic proportions, Republican City Councilor Trudy Jones voted “NO” to override Democrat Mayor Tim Keller’s veto of a one-year moratorium on the application process for “Safe Outdoor Spaces”.   In order to override the veto, 6 YES votes were needed.  The 4 who voted NO to override were Republican Trudy Jones who joined Democrats Isaac Benton, Pat Davis and Tammy Fiebelcorn.  The 5 who voted YES to override the veto. Were Republicans Brook Bassam, Renee Grout, and Dan Lewis who were joined by Democrats Klarissa Peña and Louie Sanchez.

A “Safe Outdoor Space” is a lot, or a portion of a lot, developed to provide designated spaces for occupancy by tents, recreational vehicles, and/or light vehicles. Designated spaces are provided to occupants at no charge. A safe outdoor space offers social services and support facilities.  The Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) limits Safe Outdoor Space camps to 40 spots and a total of 50 residents each and makes them a temporary use where operators can run them for two years at a selected sites with the possibility of a single two-year extension.

https://www.cabq.gov/family/services/homeless-services/about-homeless-services#encampments

It was on Monday, August 15, the City Council passed the moratorium on a 6 to 3 vote that barred the City Planning Department from accepting or approving any pending applications for “Safe Outdoor Spaces”.  The moratorium, as well as pending repeal legislation, was a direct result of severe public backlash and outcry by city residents and neighborhood associations that refuse to support Safe Outdoor Spaces.  The August 15 vote was bipartisan.

Voting YES for the moratorium where Republicans Trudy Jones, Brook Bassan, Renee Grout, and Dan Lewis who were joined by Democrats Klarissa Peña and Louie Sanchez. Voting “NO” on the moratorium were Democrats Isaac Benton, Pat Davis and Tammy Fiebelcorn.  On August 26, Mayor Keller vetoed the moratorium.  Under the vetoed legislation, a complete moratorium would have been in effect until August 1, 2023, unless the City Council enacts a separate bill removing them totally from the zoning code.

It was City Councilor Brook Bassan who initially sponsored the safe outdoor space legislation that was first enacted and then reversed her support and then sponsored the moratorium on Safe Outdoor Spaces. Bassan moved for the veto override.  She said Albuquerque residents simply do not want Safe Outdoor Spaces. She attributed the opposition to the community’s other problems, saying so many people feel unsafe now that “we’re losing our compassion as a city.” Bassan in voting to override Keller’s veto said this:

“I believe Albuquerque is becoming a sanctuary for criminals. and I do not think it can continue. People do not feel safe and they’re pleading with us to help, they’re pleading with us for behavioral health treatment, drug addiction, they’re pleading with us to help with homelessness, I get that. I believe that we’re trying our best I believe that we’re really trying hard, but what we’re not doing is recognizing that even if every tool in the toolbox is what we have, maybe there’s only a right tool for the job. … Instead of adding salt to the wounds and not seeing improvement, and ignoring the public and what they’re asking for, let’s listen to them.”

Sara Fitzgerald, representing the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce, urged the council to move forward with the moratorium and said this:

“We don’t believe so-called safe outdoor spaces will remain safe or small for long and we believe the proliferation of homeless camps, however they are constituted,  will not make our streets safe and will hurt efforts to attract visitors, residents and employers alike.”

Mayor Keller’s office was quick to react to the vote by issuing the following statement:

“Albuquerque needs more tools, not less, to address the homelessness crisis while keeping our neighborhoods, parks and businesses safe. Council initially created Safe Outdoor Spaces as one tool among the many needed to help people move off of the streets, and this new approach should be allowed to go forward.”

SILENCE FOLLOWED BY PATHETIC EXPLANATION FOR VOTE CHANGE BY TRUDY JONES

During the September 8 city council meeting, discussion about the veto went on for more than an hour. The city council heard from more than 15 people who signed up to comment, and from several councilors who spoke both for and against Safe Outdoor Spaces.

What is interesting to note is that City Councilor Trudy Jones for more than a few days ignored or would not respond to calls and questions from her constituents who wanted to voice their support for the veto and who wanted to know how she intended to vote. During the September 8 City Council debate on the veto, Jones remained stoically silent and then when the time came to vote, she voted NO without any explanation for her reversal.

Councilor Jones in an interview after the vote was asked why she changed her vote and she had this to say:

“It’s the right thing to do. … Sometimes, along the line, you have to stick your neck out and do what’s right, not what is politically expected.”

The links to quoted news sources are here

https://www.abqjournal.com/category/news/abq-news

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/albuquerque-city-council-fails-to-override-veto-of-safe-outdoor-spaces/

OTHER APPLICATIONS PENDING

According to the Planning Department’s website, there are 6  others that  are either under review or waiting for review.   There are proposals for Safe Outdoor spaces for 512 Wheeler SE and 715 Candelaria NE that are marked as “under review.”

Three applications are classified as “awaiting review” by the Planning Department and those locations listed are:

5915 Bluewater NW

2626 Arizona, NE

2401 University SE

Four of the 5 pending locations are church properties, with 715 Candelaria site being private property according to county property records.

The link to the city web site listing the applications is here:

https://cabq.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/768cc1b5e4404fa1a28db56c2019ee71

EIGHT APPEALS FILED ON THE ONE APPLICATION APPROVED

On August 8, the City Planning Department approved the Dawn Legacy Point application for a Safe Outdoor Space homeless campsite at 1250 Menaul, NE which will be used by woman who have been “victims of sex trafficking”.   The City Planning Department unilaterally reviewed the application behind closed doors with no notice to surrounding businesses or neighborhood associations, no public hearing and no public input. The application was “fast tracked” by the Planning Department to approve the application just 8 days before the City Council was scheduled to repeal the Safe Outdoor Spaces zoning use on August 16.

Less than a half mile from the vacant land and within walking distance from the property is Menaul School, a private boarding school for 6th to 12th graders. Directly across the street from the property is the T-Mobile Call Center and a Quality Inn & Suites. Going West on Menaul and one block from the property is Carrington College and two apartment complexes. Immediately East of the Freeway is the massive TA Travel Truck Stop on University that can accommodate parking of upwards of 150 semitrucks. Within law enforcement circles, the truck stop is known for prostitution and illicit drug activity. Immediate south of the truck stop on University Blvd is the Crown Plaza Hotel.

The vacant land borders   Sunset Memorial Park to the West.  It has been reported that workers daily patrol the cemetery grounds, monitoring the activity of homeless people who have taken to lounging in the various meditative shelters provided for grieving families. The homeless are known to use the various fountains throughout the park to wash themselves or use the fountains as a toilet, despite there being an easy-to-find portable toilets located at the northeast end of the park.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2523606/cemeteries-lament-bathing-camps-on-grounds.htm

As of September 7, eight separate appeals of the Dawn Legacy Point Safe Outdoor Spaces homeless tent encampment have been filed asking the City Planning Department to reverse its decision and deny the Safe Outdoor Space application of Dawn Legacy for 1250 Menaul. Appeals have been filed by the following parties:

1. Martineztown Santa Barbara Neighborhood Association
2. Menaul Middle School
3. Life Roots
4. Reuele Sun Corporation, a participant in the Menaul Redevelopment Area
5. Crown Plaza Hotel, a participant in the Menaul Redevelopment Area
6. T-Mobil Cell Phone Call Center
7. Sunset Memorial Cemetery
8. Greater Albuquerque Hotel and Lodging Association

The appeal has yet to be scheduled by the planning department.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Safe Outdoor Spaces are not the answer to the homeless crisis. “Safe Outdoor Spaces” will be a disaster for the city as a whole. Safe Outdoor Spaces are not the type of “tool” needed to solve a real crisis.  In reality, Safe Outdoor Spaces are a “political hatchet job”  that  will destroy neighborhoods, make the city a magnet for the homeless and destroy the city’s efforts to manage the homeless through housing. Tents are not a permanent solution for the homeless.

The homeless crisis will not be solved by the city, but it can and must be managed. Safe Outdoor Spaces represent a very temporary place to pitch a tent, relieve oneself, bathe and sleep at night with rules that will not likely be followed.

The answer is to provide the support services, including food and permanent lodging, and mental health care needed to allow the homeless to turn their lives around, become productive self-sufficient citizens and no longer dependent on relatives or others.

Hiding out and failing to even respond to constituent inquiries, phone call and emails by an elected official is the sign of sure political cowardice, which was exhibited by Trudy Jones.  With her reversal of her position on the Safe Outdoor Space moratorium, Republican City Councilor has lost virtually all of her credibility and public trust with her constituents because her failure to represent her constituent’s best interests.

City Councilor Trudy Jones is up for reelection next year for a 5^th term and it is said she will not be running.  This likely explains her sudden “change in conscience” and new found courage to “stick her neck out.”

On September 3, the Albuquerque Journal published a report entitled “ABQ Gateway Center likely to open some time this winter” with the article written by staff reporter Jessica Dyer.  The article makes the disclosure that Mayor Tim Keller had met with Albuquerque Journal editors and reporters on the Gibson Gateway Homeless Shelter and the city plans for converting the Gibson Medical Center into a homeless shelter.

The link to the entire unedited Journal article is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2529657/abq-gateway-center-likely-to-open-some-time-this-winter-ex-mayor-say.html

The takeaways to the Journal article included the following major disclosures ostensibly made by Mayor Tim Keller to the Journal Editors and reporters thereby giving the paper and exclusive news report:

The first phase of the extensive construction and remodeling will cost an estimated $14 million.  The first phase will feature 50 emergency shelter beds exclusively for women. It also includes 20 beds for medical respite, which will provide people without other options, a place to recuperate from illness or injury. It also includes 20 beds for medically supervised sobering.

Albuquerque Family and Community Services Department Director Carol Pierce said the city selected the nonprofit Heading Home to run the 24/7 homeless shelter operation.  The facility services will concentrate on serving people picked up by APD police, or other first responders, but who do not belong in the emergency room or jail. That includes those who are intoxicated, dealing with mental illness or “down and outs” as they are commonly described by first responders.

According to Pierce and Mayor Tim Keller, it is the facility’s use as a “first responder dropoff”  that could have the most profound impact on the homeless community.  Pierce called the dropoff  “a huge piece of this puzzle” while Keller said the drop-off is a “disproportionately important” part of the Gateway Center.

Keller had this to say:

“We have to have a 24/7 low-barrier, first-responder dropoff. … Until we have that, we’ll never see a significant difference in what’s happening throughout our system.”

The city estimates 1,500 people could go through the drop-off each year. The “dropoff  for the down and outs” will initially have 4 beds.  It is primarily imagined as a funnel into other services.  While that likely will include other on-site services, city officials say it will also help move people to a range of other destinations, including different local shelters, or even the Bernalillo County-run CARE Campus, which offers detoxification and other programs.  The city says it has several other components planned for the property.

Interior demolition and remodeling of the 572,000 square foot building has been going on for a number of months to prepare the facility for a homeless shelter.  According to the Journal report, the beds for 50 women as planned and for the first responder dropoff is to come online this winter. The city plans to launch other elements of the 24/7 shelter by next summer.

According to Keller, the city’s plan is to continue adding capacity, with ultimate plan to have a total of 250 emergency shelter beds, and 40 beds for medical sobering and 40 beds for medical respite beds for a total of 330 bed capacity.

Counting the other outside providers who lease space inside the building, city officials believe the property’s impact will be significant. In responding to questioning, Mayor Tim Keller said this:

“How many people did Lovelace help every day [when it was a hospital]? The answer is about a thousand …  We’re on track to do roughly the same thing.”

KELLER’S MISHANDLING OF HOMELESS CRISIS 

Since being sworn in as Mayor the first time on December 1, 2017, Mayor Tim Keller made it known that building a city operated homeless shelter was his top priority. Keller deemed that a 24-hour, 7 day a week temporarily shelter for the homeless critical towards reducing the number of homeless in the city. Keller’s plans were that the city owned shelter was to assist an estimated 300 homeless residents and connect them to other services intended to help secure permanent housing. The new facility was intended to serve all populations of men, women, and families. Further, the city wanted to provide a place anyone could go regardless of gender, religious affiliation, sobriety, addictions, psychotic condition or other factors.

The city facility was to have on-site case managers that would guide residents toward counseling, addiction treatment, housing vouchers and other available resources.  The new homeless shelter would replace the existing West Side Emergency Housing Center, the former jail on the far West Side. The west side facility was deemed unsustainable costing over $1 million in transportation costs a year for the homeless. The goal was for the new homeless shelter to provide first responders an alternative destination for the people they encounter known as the “down-and-out” calls.

Notwithstanding Mayor Keller’s desire for a city run shelter, there were many critics of the proposal. The critics included downtown business organizations such as the Greater Albuquerque Business Association (GABA) and neighborhood associations that mounted strong opposition. Critics argued against mixing populations and argued that a large facility would unduly burden any one neighborhood or business area of the city. Bernalillo County officials, homeless service providers and residents of neighborhoods surrounding potential locations seriously questioned the city’s efforts for a one centralized shelter.

KELLER FIRST ABANDONS GATEWAY CENTER CONCEPT

On Wednesday, May 7, 2020, Mayor Tim Keller conducted one of his daily briefings on the City’s response to the Corona Virus.  However, he dedicated most of the briefing to report on the “Gateway Center” Homeless Shelter. Participating in the briefing were City Council President Pat Davis, then County Commissioner Jim Collie and the city’s Chief Operating Officer Lawrence Rael.

The FACEBOOK video link to the press briefing is here:

https://www.facebook.com/MayorKeller/videos/290814465247439/UzpfSTEwNTQ4MTY4OTY6MTAyMjAwNDA5NDYxMDgwMTQ/

In a surprise announcement, Keller said that the city was abandoning the development concept of a single, 300-bed homeless shelter. He announced the city will be proceeding with a “multi-site approach” to the city’s homelessness crisis. Mayor Tim Keller went so far as to state that the 300 bed Gateway Center was “off the table”.

It was reported that a working group had been meeting regularly with the goal to reach a collective decision on how best to tackle both the city and county’s homeless problem. According to Keller, the City, Bernalillo County Commission, the University of New Mexico Hospital along with homeless service providers were pursuing other strategies to serve the upwards of 5,000 persons a year who are homeless in the city and county each year.

Keller said this during a media briefing:

“We are, I think, in a regrouping phase, but one I think is in many ways better with an eye toward a comprehensive solution and with an eye toward collaboration.”

Mayor Keller had made it known he wanted to start construction on the Gateway Center during the 2020 winter.  There was no clear timeline on the construction of any type of facility because the shift in strategy and because of the corona virus pandemic. Notwithstanding, Mayor Keller said the corona virus pandemic would not stop the city from developing some version of a Gateway Center plan.

Keller said the virus crisis has highlighted the need for an alternative to the city’s existing shelter, which is the former jail 20 miles from downtown and he said:

“The coronavirus has also shown us how important this is. … The amount of funding and logistics we have to deal with going back and forth to the West Side … is extremely hard.”

According to Mayor Keller at the time the working group was to develop a “multi-site” model.  Such a model would still involve using the Gibson Medical Center.  The big difference was no 300-bed facility would be built.  Smaller facilities of between 50 to 100 scale would be considered along with other locations throughout the city. Regardless of the final strategy adopted by the working group, the $14 million approved by city voters was considered enough to move forward with a project, no doubt scaled back and at different locations.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1452203/city-exploring-new-path-to-gateway-center.html

PURCHASE OF GIBSON MEDICAL CENTER

Fast forward to April 6, 2021. Mayor Tim Keller held a press conference in front of the Gibson Medical Center, formerly the Lovelace Hospital, to officially announce the city had bought the massive 572,000 square-foot building that has a 201-bed capacity, for $15 million.  Keller announced that the massive facility would be transformed into a Gateway Center Homeless Shelter.

In making the announcement, Keller made it clear either way, like it or not, the site had been selected and the Gibson Medical facility would  be used to service the homeless population as a Gateway Center.  Keller said in part:

“The City of Albuquerque has officially bought the Gibson Medical Center, the cornerstone of our Gateway Center network. In total, this represents the largest capital investment that Albuquerque has ever made for the unhoused. We have roughly 5,000 homeless people. … 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 his April 6, 2021, 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 for a homeless shelter. Residents of Elder Homestead, Parkland Hills, and Siesta Hills Neighborhood Associations led the efforts to aggressively oppose Keller’s plan to house hundreds of homeless residents in the District 6 Southeast Heights City Council District.  District 6 hosts more than 30 sites providing services to low-income and homeless residents. Area residents feared the clustering of unmanaged encampments and low rent by-the-night motels in the area will increase police calls for service and make things even worse for the area with a homeless shelter.

Fast-forward again to almost a year later to February 28, 2022.   It was reported that the city decided to launch the Gibson Gateway Center with 50 beds for women. It was ordinally reported that the city was scaling back the use of the facility as a direct result of neighborhood opposition and appeals filed to the zoning change for a homeless shelter.  In the past, the city said the Gibson Gateway Center was to be a 24/7 operation to aid anyone regardless of gender, religion or sobriety but announced it would start exclusively with women asserting that it made sense from a resource’s perspective.

On August 16, 2022, after a full 15 months of delay since the purchase of the sprawling Gibson Medical Center, it was announced the Keller Administration had finally secured the necessary zoning change to operate the facility as a 24-7 “homeless shelter.” The city went full speed ahead with the remodeling of the complex.

The Gibson Medical Center is currently home to 7 tenants, including three accredited hospitals, and various City of Albuquerque departments. Those tenants are:

AMG Specialty Hospital which is a long-term acute care hospital.

Haven Behavioral Hospital which is an   in-patient and out-patient treatments for individuals struggling with mental health and substance abuse issues.

Turquoise Lodge Hospital which is operated by the   NM Department of Health hospital and provides substance abuse treatment services to New Mexico residents.

Fresenius Kidney Care which provides education, support, and care for kidney health.

Zia Health Management which is an in-home medical care provider.

VIP Trauma Recovery Center, which is   a central hub to connect victims of violent crime to trauma recovery services.

The Encampment Outreach Team which secures ¼ mi radius around the facility  and connects individuals in encampments to service.

The city’s Violence Intervention Program offices have also moved into the facility.

The city’s website on the center reveals that, for Phase 1, “the Shelter and Engagement Center portion of Gateway will serve 50 single adult women-identifying individuals (on a yearly basis, up to 200 individual women). The First Responder Drop-Off will make up to 1,500 transports a year to needed services.”

KELLER CLOSES CORONADO PARK

On July 25, in a speech before a group of commercial and real estate developers,  Mayor Tim Keller announced closure of the unsanctioned homeless encampment at Coronado Park.  Keller said this:

“[The]situation is absolutely unacceptable, so we’re going to stop it. In August we’re closing Coronado Park. … It doesn’t matter if we know exactly what we’re doing next. It doesn’t matter exactly what the timing is or how we’re going to do it, but we have to do better than what’s happening at Coronado Park. There is a bed for every person [who stays at Coronado] to go. … The status quo will not stand … This remains a complex issue and while we work to determine what’s next for Coronado, we’ll keep stepping up to get folks connected to the right services and resources. …”

Mayor Keller was severely criticized for making the decision to close the park without conferring first and getting input from the surrounding neighborhoods, especially the Wells Park neighborhood, local businesses and stakeholders.  In particular, Keller was criticized for not having a plan on how to accomplish the closure or how to deal with the displacement of the homeless.

On August 18, Mayor Tim Keller held a press conference, along with other city officials,  in front of a vacant, clean up and fenced off Coronado Park and made the announcement that Coronado Park was officially closed to the public making good on a promise he made on June 27 to close the park by the end of August.  According to city officials, 75 to 120 people would camp out nightly at the park at Third Street and Interstate 40.  By Tuesday, August 17 when the park was closed and after weeks of what the city called “intensive outreach” the number was down to 30 to 40 and 15 subsequently accepted transportation to a shelter.

Homeless campers were told of other housing options offered by the city. The city offered services and housing options to those using Coronado Park, including making limited property storage available to those who are interested or in need of it. Notwithstanding, many of the homeless displaced from Coronado Park  refused to accept any help of assistance from the city and  dispersed into the street and nearby neighborhoods

Mayor Keller Keller said the closure of Coronado Parke does not represent  “any kind of a comprehensive strategy” to resolve homelessness crisis. Keller said this:

“The actions taken today by the City of Albuquerque are made necessary by the threats to public health, safety and the environment that this encampment has created. … Let no one think, however, that these actions represent a comprehensive strategy for resolving the problem of what we commonly call the homeless in Albuquerque or anywhere else in America.

Mayor Keller added that the yearslong “status quo” and public safety risks at the park including drug and human trafficking to those who lived at the park and those who provided them services had become “no longer acceptable.”

It has been reported that a very large percentage of the Coronado Park homeless suffer from mental illness and/ or drug addiction. Many of the homeless simply refuse “shelter housing” offered by the city, including the shelter housing in the west side 24-7 facility. Virtually none of the individuals who were displaced from Coronado Park were placed at the Gibson Gateway Homeless Shelter in that it has yet to be made fully operational.

CITY’S FINANCIAL COMMITMENT TO THE HOMELSS CRISIS

The Keller Administration has adopted a housing first policy when it comes to dealing with the homeless crisis which also includes funding provided to at least 10 service providers.

During the 2021 fiscal year that  ended  June 10, 2021, the Family and Community Services Department and the Keller Administration spent upwards of $40 Million to benefit the homeless or near homeless. The 2021 adopted city budget for Family and Community Services Department provides for mental health contracts totaling $4,329,452, and substance abuse contracts for counseling contracts totaling $2,586,302 and emergency shelter contracts totaling $5,688,094, affordable housing and community contracts totaling $22,531,752, homeless support services contracts.

Mayor Keller’s 2022-2023 approved budget that began on July 1, 2023, significantly increased the Family and Community Services budget by $24,353,064 to assist the homeless or near homeless by going from $35,145,851 to $59,498,915. A breakdown of the amounts to help the homeless and those in need of housing assistance contained in the 2022-2023 budget is as follows:

$3,773,860 total for mental health contracts 

$2,818,356 total substance abuse contracts for counseling, up by $288,680 from last year.

$42,598,361 total for affordable housing and community contracts with a major emphasis on permanent housing for chronically homeless.

$6,025,544 total for emergency shelter contracts

$4,282,794 total homeless support services, up $658,581 from last year.

The links  to the adopted 2021-2022 and 2022-23 approved budgets are here:

https://www.cabq.gov/dfa/documents/fy22-approved-budget-numbered-w-hyperlinks-final.pdf

https://www.cabq.gov/dfa/documents/fy23-proposed-final-web-version.pdf

CITIZEN SURVEY AND JOURNAL OPINION POLL ON  THE HOMELESS

In late August, a Citizens Satisfaction Survey commissioned by the city revealed that 70% feel the city  is failing in its response to the homeless.

An Albuquerque Journal poll published on August 31 also found that 77% of the general public believes the homeless crisis is very serious and 16% feel it is somewhat serious with a staggering total of 93%. The percentage of residents who gave the city positive scores for addressing homelessness had risen from 13% in 2019 to 29% in 2020 but it has now fallen by 20% and is  9% currently.

The link to the full survey is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/mayor/documents/final_coa-citizen-sat-2022.pdf

What is clear from the Citizen Perception Survey is that Albuquerque residents are dissatisfied with the Keller Administrations response to the homelessness crisis despite the city’s huge financial commitment to dealing with the homeless.  70% of citizens survey respondents rate the city poorly for its performance in dealing with the homeless crisis.  This includes 41% who gave city hall the lowest possible rating.  Meanwhile, only 9% gave the city’s homelessness response a favorable review. In other words, 7 times more people rate the city poorly on the issue than offer a positive assessment.

Mayor Keller for his part defended the poor survey results regarding the homeless and said this:

“[The survey] validates and gives a mandate to what we’re doing. … I hope that other policymakers hear that and support us, whether it’s the state Legislature or City Council. … This is how people feel and we’re coming at it with a lot of things. And what we need is for people to help make those real, so that those (survey) numbers will change.”

Mayor Keller has said that his Administration has adopted an “all the above” approach with dealing with the homeless crisis.

The link to the quoted news source is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2529652/abq-residents-unhappy-with-citys-homelessness-response-survey-shows.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It is so damn laughable that Mayor Tim Keller would actually say the results of the Citizen’s Satisfaction Survey “validates and gives a mandate to what where’re doing”.   It’s difficult to know if Keller actually believes the political “bull shit” rhetoric he tells the media or if he could not make up a better answer to a question asked of him.  Notwithstanding, it is clear that Keller’s “all the above approach”  thus far is simply not working.

Keller has very little to show for with the upwards of $100 million his administration has already spent over the last 2 years to deal with the homeless crisis.  The truth is the homeless crisis was created in part by Keller’s own actions in allowing Coronado Park to be used as de facto homeless encampment and not enforcing city ordinances prohibiting camping, trespassing and loitering.

Mayor Tim Keller’s special trip to the Albuquerque Journal Center to meet with the Journal Editors and reporters in order to give the Journal and exclusive story on updating what is happening with the Gibson Gateway Center can only be described as “damage control”.  It was Keller’s   attempt to pivot from a crisis he has created.  The damage control was no doubt the result of the following major factors converging over the last few weeks:

1. The controversy surrounding the manner and method in which Keller order the closure of Coronado Park and admitting he had no long-term plan to deal with the crisis.
2. The dramatic increase in the number and visibility of homeless and encampments throughout the city.
3. The results of the Citizens Satisfaction Survey that 70% of the public feel the homeless crisis has been poorly handled by the Keller Administration.
4. The 93% public opinion poll that feel the homeless crisis is very serious or somewhat serious.

The Alburquerque Journal rewarded Mayor Tim Keller for his exclusive story with a Sunday Journal editorial entitled “FULL SPEED AHEAD, Coronado Park Closure bolsters urgency for Gateway Center.”

The editorial said in part at the very end:

“Keller and his administration deserve credit for sticking with the Gateway initiative despite repeated hurdles. The project has been met with opposition since before Keller’s December 2020 announcement to buy the Gibson site.

… 

The city’s purchase of the former Lovelace Hospital for $15 million, finalized in April 2021, made it the largest city-owned facility outside of the Albuquerque International Sunport. Funding for the purchase and improvements includes $14 million from a voter-approved city bond question in 2019, $5 million from the city’s budget, about $1 million in past years’ state appropriations, $1 million from Bernalillo County bond proceeds and $500,000 in corporate contributions.

The money has been there to build an expansive homeless shelter and services facility. It’s just been a question of will and overcoming opposition from neighbors.

Albuquerque residents want something done. That’s clear from the Journal poll, in which 77% of likely voters described homelessness as a very serious problem, a sharp increase from four years ago when 54% of respondents described it as such. The overwhelming majority opinion was shared by Democrats and Republicans alike.

The closing of Coronado Park makes the need for solutions even more acute. The city should forge ahead and make the Gateway Center a success. It’s clear from the polling Albuquerque residents believe there’s no time to waste.”

It is now painfully obvious that what Mayor Tim Keller said on May 7, 2020 that the 300 bed Gateway Center was “off the table” and that the city was adopting a “multi cite” approach with smaller Gateway Homeless Shelters  of  50 or less was simply a ruse to get the appealing neighborhood associations off his back and to end the appeals.

What Keller announced to the Journal in his exclusive interview is that the Gibson Gateway Homeless Shelter will be a shelter that will have a total of 250 emergency shelter beds, plus 40 beds for medical sobering and 40 beds for medical respite beds for a total of 330 bed capacity shelter.  In other words, Tim Keller will be getting what he has wanted all along:  a 300-person shelter.  He will get what he has always wanted by being less than candid with the public, some would say sneaky, in order to get his way and be damned the neighborhoods.

What is needed is a far more targeted, surgical approach to address the mentally ill homeless and those suffering from substance abuse.   The mistake the Keller Administration is making is converting the Gibson Medical Center into a 24-7 homeless shelter for 300 plus when it should be a Homeless Hospital and Drug treatment center.

Much acrimony and a waste of time could have been avoided had Keller reached out and worked with the neighborhoods. Mayor Keller’s flip flopping back to a large single Gateway Homeless Shelter and away from a “multi-site approach” is likely due to political realities and damage control.

The City has released the City of Albuquerque Citizen Perception Survey dated August 2022. Each year, the City of Albuquerque commissions a survey to assess residents’ satisfaction with various City services and issues relating to crime, homelessness, and public safety.  During the last 3 years, the City’s response to the Corona Virus has been included. The study is required by City ordinance.  The link to the full survey is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/mayor/documents/final_coa-citizen-sat-2022.pdf

As has been the case for a number of years, the survey was conducted by Research and Polling which for decades has been considered the gold standard in New Mexico polling because of its consistent accuracy. A random sample of sample of 400 adult Albuquerque residents was interviewed by telephone by Research and Polling. The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9% points.

This blog article is a deep dive review of the Citizen Perception Survey.  The major categories covered by the survey are:

Quality of Life

Personal Safety

Albuquerque Police Department

City Services

Homelessness

Covid Response

The edited summary results of the survey are as follows:

QUALITY OF LIFE

“… When residents were asked, in an unaided, open-ended manner, what they believe are the things that make Albuquerque special, the most common responses include [the following]”:

“Weather or climate:  31%

The culture:  26%

The diverse population:  18%

Friendly people:  15%

The Sandia Mountains: 15%

The food/cuisine:  13%

When asked unaided what values are most important to Albuquerque, residents responded as follows:

23% of survey respondents mention family

17% cited safety/security

12% cited pride in community and culture/preserving culture are each mentioned

11% cited diversity.

17% of residents did not offer a response.

Residents rated the quality of life in Albuquerque as follows:

48% of residents rate the quality of life in Albuquerque as being either good at 42% or excellent at 6%.  30% give a fair rating.

17% of residents feel the quality of life in Albuquerque is either poor at 12% or very poor at 5%.

Fewer than half the respondents, 48%, rate the city’s quality of life as “excellent” or “good,” down from 59% in 2020. Though “good” remains the most common rating at 42%, 17% rated it as “poor” or “very poor. The percentage of residents who rate the quality of life in Albuquerque as being either good or excellent has fallen from 54% in 2018, and 59% during the height of the pandemic in 2020 to 48% currently.

The survey results revealed that over half those surveyed, 52%, say they are concerned about the city’s direction. This compares to 43% who say they are hopeful. In the December 2020 survey, 50% said they were hopeful.  The percentage of residents who say they are hopeful about the direction of the City has fallen from 50% in December of 2020 to 43% in 2022.

Although 43% of residents say they are either somewhat hopeful with 34% or very hopeful with 9% about the direction of the City, just over % say they are either somewhat concerned at 30% or very concerned at 22%.

Anglo residents with 58% are more apt than Hispanics with 44% to rate the quality of life in Albuquerque as being either good or excellent.

It is not surprising that many residents are concerned about the direction of the City given the challenges currently being faced across the nation.

The survey noted that residents across the nation have concerns about where the country is heading as a whole.   [An example is] the website RealClear Politics calculates the average of different polls conducted among voters and adults across the nation and currently shows that an average of 74% believe the country is currently off on the wrong track, while an average of just 18% feel the country is heading in the right direction.

PERSONAL SAFETY

Crime and feelings of personal safety are important components to perceived quality of life.  Overall, 81% of Albuquerque residents say they feel in their neighborhood during the day.  (Very Safe at  51%  + somewhat at 30% = 81%)   However, the 81%  drops to 57%  felling safe at night. (Very safe at  24%  +  somewhat safe at 33%  =  57%.) In other words, there is a day and night different of  24%.   The gap has narrowed from  2020, when 68% reported feeling safe in their neighborhoods at night and only 24% said they felt unsafe

ALBUQUERQUE POLICE DEPARTMENT

“Residents were asked to rate how strongly they either agree or disagree with several statements relating to the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) using a 5-point scale where 5 is strongly agree and 1 is strongly disagree.  [The results of the survey were]:

53% of residents agree APD is respectful in its treatment of citizens as indicated by a score of 4 or 5.  This is up from 48% two years ago. That is down from 49% in 2019 and the lowest number for any survey going back to at least 2011.  20% strongly agreed compared to 15% who disagree, with a score of 1 or 2.

29% have neutral or mixed feelings about APD with a score of 3.

47% of residents agree APD reflects the values of the City’s residents, with 18% disagreeing and 30% have a neutral opinion of APD and 27% disagree.”

DRAMATIC INCREASES IN APD RESPONSE TIMES

According to the citizen’ survey, 38% of residents agree APD is doing a good job of addressing public safety issues and making quick responses to emergencies, while 30% have a neutral opinion and 27% disagree.  The 38% can only be considered very low in making quick responses to emergencies.”

The survey results on APD emergency response times is no surprise. There have been news investigative reports on APD’s response times for Priority 1 calls. Priority 1 calls include shootings, stabbings, armed robberies, sexual and aggravated assaults, domestic violence with weapons involved and home invasions.  According to the data, the time it takes officers to get to a crime scene stayed relatively consistent between January 2018 to May 2021 and was roughly between 9 and 12 minutes. In 2020, it was reported that there was a 93% increase in APD response time over a 9-year period. In 2018, clearing a scene ranged from an hour to an hour and 12 minutes. Fast forward to 2021 and APD was averaging more than 2 hours to write reports, gather evidence and interview witnesses, a full hour longer than three years ago.

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/abq-4ward-examining-apds-response-times/6204745/

https://www.koat.com/article/apd-response-times-continue-to-climb/31028667

https://www.petedinelli.com/2020/02/24/93-increase-in-apd-911-response-times-since-2011-48-minutes-average-response-time-to-arrive-increase-despite-new-priority-call-system/

POLICE REFORMS

Since November 14, 2014, the City and the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) have been under a federal Court Approved Settlement Agreement with the appointment of a federal monitor after the Department of Justice (DOJ) found that APD engaged in a pattern of excessive force and deadly force. The DOJ found that engrained within APD was a “culture of aggression.” The City entered into a consent decree mandating 271 reforms which has resulted in  the city spending millions a year to implement the reforms and to train APD in constitutional policing practices.

In the the Citizen Perception Survey, residents were informed that the US Department of Justice has overseen a police reform program at APD.  They were  asked if they feel this has had a positive impact, negative impact, or no impact on the City of Albuquerque.  The results of the survey on APD were surprisingly as follows:

24% said they felt the reforms have had a positive impact on APD

14% said they felt the reforms have had a negative impact on APD

41% said they felt the reforms have had no impact on the on APD

20% said they did not have an opinion

CITY SERVICES

The percentage of residents who feel Albuquerque City Government is responsive to community needs has dropped from 48% observed in 2020, which was an all-time high dating back to 2011, to 32% a 17% drop.

Specifically, 32% agree Albuquerque City Government is responsive to community needs, 38% have a neutral opinion, 28% disagree that City Government is responsive.

These results are similar to those observed in previous studies dating back to 2011 with the exception of the 2020 study which saw a big spike in positive reviews. The 2020 results may have been an anomaly given that so much attention was being given to the COVID-19 pandemic and associated shutdowns coupled with the fact that the majority of residents give City Government high marks for the City’s response to COVID.

Residents were asked to rate how well Albuquerque City Government is handling specific issues using a five-point scale where five is excellent and one is very poor.

47% give City Government positive marks with a score of 4 or 5 when it comes to maintaining city parks and open space areas.

34% give positive ratings supporting renewable and clean energy programs.

34% give positive ratings for maintaining roads and streets

32% give positive ratings for supporting the local economy

THE HOMELESS

“The issue of homelessness continues to be a major challenge in Albuquerque as it is in many other cities.

70% feel the City is doing a poor job of addressing homelessness

9% of residents give City Government positive marks for addressing the homelessness issue

20% give a mixed or neutral rating.

The percentage of residents who give the City positive scores for addressing homelessness had risen from 13% in 2019 to 29% in 2020 but it has now fallen by 20% and is  9% currently.

Although there has been a lot of attention focused on homelessness in the news, % of Albuquerque residents say they are aware the city is the Gateway Center.  The shelter will be a 24/7 shelter providing to women experiencing homelessness during the first phase of its operation.”

RACE RELATIONS

59% of City residents believe relations between different cultures and racial backgrounds are either excellent, 10%, or good, 49%, while 31% say relations are fair. Only 7% of residents feel relations between people of different cultures and racial backgrounds in Albuquerque are poor. Demographically, 66% of Anglos are slightly more likely than Hispanics at 53% to rate relations as excellent or good.

COVID RESPONSE

As mentioned above, most Albuquerque residents feel City Government has done a good job responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, when asked to rate how well Albuquerque City Government has handled the Coronavirus/COVID-19 pandemic, three-in-five residents surveyed give positive scores (26% give an excellent rating). In comparison, 20% are critical of the way the pandemic has been handled by City Government, while 16% give a neutral or mixed rating. Overall, the percentage of residents who give City Government positive reviews for the way it has handled the pandemic has improved slightly from 54% in December of 2020, to 60% currently.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

There are 5 major areas of concern that have been red flagged by the 2022 Citizen Perception Survey that must be very disturbing to Mayor Tim Keller and his Administration.  Those areas of concern are

1. People do not feel safe in their own homes
2. The Homeless crisis
3. Dissatisfaction with city’s response to community needs
4. Direction the city is going
5. APD Police reforms have accomplished little

 PEOPLE DO NOT FEEL SAFE IN THEIR OWN HOMES AT NIGHT

One of the most disturbing statistics from the Citizen’s Survey is that only 57% of those surveyed felt safe at night in their own homes.  It likely that 57% is on the very low side. At the core of citizens do not feel safe in their homes at night is the City’s high violent crime and homicide rates.

A recent Journal poll found that 82% of the public feel that crime is very serious, 14% said crime is somewhat serious for a staggering total of 96%.  Albuquerque has seen a major spike in violent crime and the rates are some of the highest in the country.

In the last 3 years, Albuquerque has had a breaking number of homicides each year.  In 2021 the city had 117 homicides.  As of August 30, APD reports that there have been 88 homicides, with the city well on it way to breaking the 2021 all time record.

apd-homicide-list-for-web-site-as-of-02sep2022.pdf (cabq.gov)

https://www.abqjournal.com/2528871/ex-those-most-likely-to-vote-also-worry-about-the-economy-and-public.html

THE HOMELSESS CRISIS

The Citizens Survey of 70% feeling the city is failing in its response to the homeless is likely inaccurate and the public attitude has only gotten worse. A recent Journal poll found that 77% of the general public believes the homeless crisis is very serious and 16% feel it is somewhat serious with a staggering total of 93%.

What is clear from the Citizen Perception Survey is that Albuquerque residents are dissatisfied with the Keller Administration’s response to the homelessness crisis despite the city’s huge financial commitment to dealing with the homeless.   The survey confirms that residents feel Mayor Tim Keller and his admiration are failing.

70% of citizens survey respondents rate the city poorly for its performance in dealing with the homeless crisis.  This includes 41% who gave city hall the lowest possible rating.  Meanwhile, only 9% gave the city’s homelessness response a favorable review. In other words, 7 times more people rate the city poorly on the issue than offer a positive assessment.

This is a dramatic change from 2020 when only 36% gave the city poor marks for how it was tackling homelessness, including just 22% who offered the worst rating, while 29% provided a positive assessment.  There has been a dramatic 20% drop in how people feel the city is dealing with homeless from 29% in 2020 to 9% in 2022.

The 9% approval rating in the citizens survey   should be very alarming to Mayor Tim Keller and his administration.  Since day one from becoming Mayor on December 1, 2018, Mayor Keller has made dealing with the homeless a major cornerstone of his administration so much so that he advocated the construction of a 24-7 homeless shelter.  This ultimately resulted in the purchase of the massive 560, 000 square foot Gibson Medical center, formerly the Lovelace Hospital, for $15 million. The facility is being renovated and it is anticipated to open in the winter of 2022 as a 24/7 shelter.

The Keller Administration has adopted a housing first policy when it comes to dealing with the homeless crisis which also includes funding provided to at least 10 service providers. This past fiscal year 2021 ending June 10, 2021, the Family and Community Services Department and the Keller Administration have spent upwards of $40 Million to benefit the homeless or near homeless. The 2021 adopted city budget for Family and Community Services Department provides for mental health contracts totaling $4,329,452, and substance abuse contracts for counseling contracts totaling $2,586,302 and emergency shelter contracts totaling $5,688,094, affordable housing and community contracts totaling $22,531,752, homeless support services contracts.

Mayor Keller’s 2022-2023 approved budget significantly increases the Family and Community Services budget by $24,353,064 to assist the homeless or near homeless by going from $35,145,851 to $59,498,915. A breakdown of the amounts to help the homeless and those in need of housing assistance contained in the 2022-2023 budget is as follows:

$3,773,860 total for mental health contracts (Budget page105.)

$2,818,356 total substance abuse contracts for counseling (Budget page 106.), up by $288,680 from last year.

$42,598,361 total for affordable housing and community contracts with a major emphasis on permanent housing for chronically homeless.

$6,025,544 total for emergency shelter contracts (Budget page 102.).

$4,282,794 total homeless support services, up $658,581 from last year.

The links  to the adopted 2021-2022 and 2022-23 approved budgets are here:

https://www.cabq.gov/dfa/documents/fy22-approved-budget-numbered-w-hyperlinks-final.pdf

https://www.cabq.gov/dfa/documents/fy23-proposed-final-web-version.pdf

Mayor Keller for his part defended the poor survey results regarding the homeless and said this:

“[The survey] validates and gives a mandate to what we’re doing. … I hope that other policymakers hear that and support us, whether it’s the state Legislature or City Council. … This is how people feel and we’re coming at it with a lot of things. And what we need is for people to help make those real, so that those (survey) numbers will change.”

Mayor Keller has said that his Administration has adopted an “all the above” approach with dealing with the homeless crisis. It laughable that Keller would say the survey “validates and gives a mandate to what where’re doing”.  It’s difficult to know if Keller actually believes the rhetoric he tells the media. It is clear that Keller’s “all the above approach” is simply not working and he has very little to show for with the millions already spent. What is needed is a more targeted, surgical approach, to address the mentally ill and those suffering from substance abuse.

The link to the quoted news source is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2529652/abq-residents-unhappy-with-citys-homelessness-response-survey-shows.html

DISSATISFACTION WITH CITY REPONSE TO COMMUNITY NEEDS

The percentage of residents who feel Albuquerque City Government is responsive to community needs has dropped from 48% observed in 2020, which was an all-time high dating back to 2011, % a disturbing 17% decline.   This is very difficult to accept, let alone understand, given that Mayor Tim Keller has submitted, and the City Council has approved in 2 consecutive years the 2  largest city budgets in its history, one for $1.1 Billion in 2021 and the other for $1.4 billion in 2022.

On May 17, 2021, the Albuquerque City Council voted unanimously to approve the 2021-2022 city budget of $1.2 billion, $711.5 million of which is the General Fund. The General Fund covers basic city services such as police protection, fire and rescue protection, the bus system, street maintenance, weekly solid waste pickup, all city park maintenance, city equipment, animal control, environmental health services, the legal department, risk management, and payroll and human resources

On May 16, 2022, the Albuquerque City Council approved the 2022-2023 city budget. The overall budget approved by the city council was for $1.4 Billion with $841.8 representing the general fund spending with an increase of $127 million, or 17.8%, over the 2021-2022 c budget of $1.2 Billion.

The link to city approved budgets is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/dfa/budget/annual-budget

DIRECTION THE CITY IS GOING

Another very disturbing trend revealed by the survey is that residents show less satisfaction with current quality of life in the city and there is growing concern about Albuquerque’s future.  Although 50% of those surveyed believe Albuquerque is doing “about the same” as other cities dealing with problems and carrying out its responsibilities, the survey generally shows worsening perceptions of life in the city.

The percentage of residents who rate the quality of life in Albuquerque as being either good or excellent has fallen from 54% in 2018 to 48% in 2022.  The percentage of residents who say they are hopeful about the direction of the City has fallen from 50% in December of 2020 to 43% in 2022.

Although 43% of residents say they are either somewhat hopeful with 34% or very hopeful with 9% about the direction of the City, just over % say they are either somewhat concerned at 30% or very concerned at 22%.

POLICE REFORMS VIEWED AS NOT ACCOMPLISNG MUCH AFTER MILLIONS SPENT

A plurality, or 41%, of those surveyed said the ongoing U.S. Department of Justice-mandated reform effort within APD has had no impact, while 24% say it has been positive and 14% say it has been negative.  There is no getting around it, even with the recent news that APD has improved in compliance levels with all of the reforms, APD still has a major image problem.

Over the last 7 years, the DOJ reforms have place great emphasis on implementing constitutional policing practices, increased training and crisis intervention and implemented community policing councils and a Citizens Police Oversight agency. Despite all the efforts made, an astonishing 41% of those feel the reforms have had no impact on APD.

CONCLUSION

Mayor Tim Keller has been Mayor now for 5 years. He has won both of his elections in a land slide.   After a full 5 years in office, Mayor Keller’s bright new sheen has worn off and the second term curse has begun with Keller’s mishandling of the homeless crisis. The ultimate question is if people feel the city is better off today than they were 5 years ago since Tim Keller took office on December 1, 2017?  The likely answer is NO with the city experiencing record breaking violent crime rates and the homeless crisis only getting worse.

Mayor Keller has already said privately to more than a few that he intends run for a 3rd term as Mayor in 2025 or perhaps run for Governor in 2026. If Tim Keller does indeed have higher ambitions, he needs to do a far better job than he is doing now.  It’s not at all likely Tim Keller will be winning any more elections in a landslide given his performance as Mayor.

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

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

CITY COUNCIL REDISTRICTING COMMITEE

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

PRINCIPLES OF REDISTRICTING OUTLINED

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

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

1. Population Equality

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

2. Minority Voting Rights

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

3. Compactness

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

4. Contiguity:

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

5. Communities of Interest

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

EIGHT MAPS RATED AND RECOMMENDED

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

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

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND RATINGS

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

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

The link to review all 8 redistricting maps is here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE REDISTRICTING MAPS ANALIZED

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

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

1. Concept Map A

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

2. Citizen Map 2

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

3. Concept Map D

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

4. Citizen Map 1

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

5. CITIZEN MAP 5

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

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

6. CITIZEN MAP 3

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

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

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

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

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

THE CONCEPT E MAP

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

CITIZEN MAP 4

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

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

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

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

DEMOCRATS

District 1 Conservative Democrat Louie Sanchez
District 2 Progressive Democrat Isaac Benton
District 3 Moderate Democrat Klarissa Peña
District 6 Progressive Democrat Pat Davis
District 7 Progressive Democrat Tammy Fiebelkorn

REPUBLICANS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On June 3, Tammy Fiebelkorn said in an email:

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

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

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

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

CONTACT YOUR CITY COUNCILOR

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

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

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

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The links to quoted news source material are here:

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

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

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

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

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

ANALYSIS OF AFFIDAVIT FOR SEARCH WARRANT

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

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

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

AFFIDAVIT CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STATUTORY AUTHORITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

… .

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

DEFINITIONS OF DOCUMENT CLASSIFICATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Affidavit states:

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

 DOCUMENTS TURNED OVER IN MAY

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

67 documents marked as CONFIDENTIAL

92 documents marked as SECRET, and

25 documents marked as TOP SECRET.”

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

HEAVILY REDACTED AFFIDAVIT

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

Links to review the unedited entire search warrant is here:

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

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

CNN REPORT

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

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

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

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

FBI FOUND 184 CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS FROM 15 BOXES EARLIER THIS YEAR

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

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

… .”

NEW DETAILS ABOUT HOW THE DOJ GOT INVOLVED

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

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

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

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

REDACTIONS KEEP OBSTRUCTION EVIDENCE SECRET

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SENSITIVITY OF DOCS TRUMP TOOK FROM WHITE HOUSE REVEALED

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

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

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

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

DOJ KEEPING DETAILS ABOUT PERSONNEL INVOLVED CLOSE TO THE CHEST

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

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

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

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

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

TRUMP CLAIMS THAT HE COULD UNILATERALLY DECLASSIFY DOCUMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

DOJ HOPED TO KEEP DOCUMENT SECRET

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

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

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

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

…  .”

The link to the unedited CNN report is here:

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

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

RESULTS OF ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL POLL

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

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

It should always be legal:  35%

It should be legal with some limitations: 22%

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

It should always be illegal: 12%

Don’t know: 2%

None of these/won’t say: 4%

POLITCAL PARTY BREAKDOWN

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

It should always be legal:

Democrats: 55%

Republicans: 8%

Other: 35%

It should be legal with some limitations:

Democrats: 24%

Republicans: 18%

Other: 26%

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

Democrats: 11%

Republicans: 41%

Other: 28%

It should always be illegal:

Democrats: 5%

Republicans: 24%

Other: 8%

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

ALBUQUERQUE METRO REGION

It should always be legal: 33%

It should be legal with some limitations: 23%

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

It should always be illegal: 11%

NORTHEAST/NORTH CENTRAL REGION

It should always be legal: 39%

It should be legal with some limitations: 22%

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

It should always be illegal: 14%

LAS CRUCES/SOUTHWEST REGION

It should always be legal: 44%

It should be legal with some limitations: 30%

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

It should always be illegal: 8%

EASTSIDE REGION

It should always be legal: 27%

It should be legal with some limitations: 15%

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

It should always be illegal: 15%

POLL ANALYSIS

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

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

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

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

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

REGIONAL ANALYSIS

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

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

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

GOVERNOR MLG SIGNS EXECTIVE ORDER FOR ABORTION CLINIC

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

The executive order states:

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

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

 The Executive order provides that the Human Services Department shall

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

The link to the Executive order is here:

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

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

The Governor said in a statement:

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

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

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

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

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

The links to quoted news source material are here:

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

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

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

 EMERGENCE OF A DEFINING ISSUE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEW MEXICO IS NO EXCEPTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DEMOCRATS LEAD IN ALL IN STATWIDE RACES

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

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

VOTER REGISTATION

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

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

Registered Democrats: 599,242, or 44.6 %,

Registered Republicans: 414,067 or  30.8 %,

No Party or Independents:  301,598 or 22.5 %

Registered Libertarian:  13,644  or 1.0 %

Other Registrations:  14,139 or 1.1 %

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

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

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

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

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

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

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

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