On July 1 the national news agency CNN published on line the following news story entitled “Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s historic decision Granting Donald Trump Immunity” written by CNN  staff reporters John Fritze,  Tierney Snedd and Devan Cole  with CNN’s Katelyn Polantz contributing  to the report. Following is an edited version of the report:

“[On July 1] The Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision .. granting Donald Trump partial immunity from special counsel Jack Smith’s election subversion case, handing the former president a significant win during his reelection bid.  [You can read the entire Supreme Court decision here]:

Click to access 23-939_e2pg.pdf

Though the 6-3 ruling technically allows Smith to inch the prosecution toward resolution, the majority opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts left many technical questions unresolved – making it increasingly unlikely that a trial can get underway before the November election.

[Roberts wrote for the conservative majority:]

“The President is not above the law. … But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.  That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office. … A president inclined to take one course of action based on the public interest may instead opt for another, apprehensive that criminal penalties may befall him upon his departure from office. … But Congress may not criminalize the president’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch under the Constitution.”

Smith’s case now returns to lower courts, which must review the specific steps Trump took to overturn the results of the 2020 election and whether those actions were official, and therefore receive immunity, or private, and do not.

Here’s a look at the key takeaways from a historic decision:

TRUMP GOT A BIGGER WIN THAN EXPECTED

In several key respects, Trump got what he wanted from the 6-3 court – and more.

For starters, the Supreme Court ruled that for “core” presidential activity, Trump has the absolute immunity he had sought. The majority said that Trump’s conversations with the Justice Department – his efforts to try to get officials on board with his effort to overturn the election – were covered with absolute immunity.

For other official actions and more routine powers held by the president, the court said there is at least some immunity and it largely deferred to lower courts to sort that out. That’s a process that could take weeks or even months.

The analysis about what’s immune and what isn’t “ultimately is best left to the lower courts to perform,” Roberts wrote.

Perhaps even more important, the majority made clear that official acts cannot be considered at all as evidence in a potential trial, which could make it much harder for Smith to prevail.

Roberts also wrote that the lower courts may not consider a former president’s motive, which may allow Trump’s attorneys to argue that the he wasn’t attempting to overturn an election in his favor at all.

“The opinion found Trump is “absolutely immune” from prosecution for alleged conduct involving discussions with the Justice Department. Trump is also “at least presumptively immune” from allegations that he tried to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to reject certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s electoral vote win on Jan. 6, 2021. Prosecutors can try to make the case that Trump’s pressure on Pence still can be part of the case against him, Roberts wrote.

The court directed a fact-finding analysis on one of the more striking allegations in the indictment — that Trump participated in a scheme to enlist fake electors in battleground states won by Biden who would falsely assert that Trump had won. Both sides had dramatically different interpretations as to whether that effort could be construed as official, and the conservative justices said determining which side is correct would require additional analysis at the trial court level.

Roberts’ opinion further restricted prosecutors by prohibiting them from using any official acts as evidence in trying to prove a president’s unofficial actions violated the law. One example not relevant to this case but which came up in arguments was the hypothetical payment of a bribe in return for an ambassadorial appointment.”

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-capitol-riot-immunity-2dc0d1c2368d404adc0054151490f542

WHAT’S NEXT IN THE FEDERAL CASE AGAINST TRUMP?

With the justices giving the lower courts some limited guidance, the next steps are likely to be more hearings, written arguments and even proceedings with witness testimony and debates over evidence before US District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, DC.

Those are likely to come in the days after the Supreme Court hands the opinion down formally to the federal courts in DC. The mechanism for sending a case back down usually takes about as long as a month, but the high court could act more quickly.

Once Chutkan works through the legal issues, it’s possible that more appeals of her preliminary decisions could put the case on hold again – adding in significant delay.

LIBERALS TEAR INTO MAJORITY FOR CREATING ‘A KING ABOVE THE LAW’

The court’s three liberal justices pulled no punches, with two written dissents excoriating the majority opinion as an appalling affront to the nation’s long-held principle that no one is above the law.

That principle, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, was washed away by a ruling that means that in “every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”

Joined in full by the court’s two other liberal members, Sotomayor, the court’s senior liberal, wrote that the majority was relying on “misguided wisdom” to give Trump “all the immunity he asked for and more.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the decision “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law. …  [The majority relied on] little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for `bold and unhesitating action … [giving  a president] all the immunity he asked for and more.”

The ruling, she wrote, would allow a president to order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, organize a military coup to hold onto power or accept a bribe in exchange for a pardon.

“With fear for our democracy, I dissent” Sotomayor wrote.

Sotomayor was especially critical of the decision to not allow prosecutors to use anything done by Trump that is shielded by immunity as they try to convince a jury to convict him over unofficial acts.

“That holding is nonsensical”  the justice wrote at the end of her 30-page dissent.

Sotomayor went on to list “nightmare scenarios” involving illegal conduct by a future president that would, she argued, be shielded from criminal prosecution under the court’s ruling.

“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune,” she wrote.

Sotomayor took the rare step of reading her dissent from the bench … in a move that underscored how aggrieved the liberal bloc of the court is.  … .

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson penned a solo dissent in which the court’s newest member said the majority ruling “breaks new and dangerous ground” by granting immunity “only to the most powerful official in our government.”  While Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson “agreed with every word” of Sotomayor’s powerful dissent, she wrote a separate opinion to add her own admonishment. She said the nation has “lost a substantial check on presidents who would use their official powers to commit crimes with impunity while in office. …  The majority of my colleagues seems to have put their trust in our Court’s ability to prevent Presidents from becoming Kings through case-by-case application of the indeterminate standards of their new Presidential accountability paradigm. …  I fear that they are wrong. But, for all our sakes, I hope that they are right.”

TRUMP’S NOMINEE BARRETT PUSHES FOR A SWIFT TRIAL

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s last appointee to the high court before leaving office, expressed frustration with how the court was sending the case back to lower courts for more proceedings and more delay in a short concurrence that failed to gain support from any of her colleagues.

In a significant break from the court’s other conservatives, Barrett seemed to suggest Trump should go to trial quickly.

“I would have framed the underlying legal issues differently,” Barrett said.

She suggested that because Trump’s wholesale challenge to the indictment had failed, at least some of the case could go forward.

The conservative justice wrote that “a President facing prosecution may challenge the constitutionality of a criminal statute as applied to official acts alleged in the indictment.”

“If that challenge fails, however, he must stand trial,” Barrett wrote.

The justice took issue with how the court had ruled that evidence from Trump’s official acts should be excluded from the trial, writing that there was no reason to depart from the “familiar and time-tested procedure” that would allow for such evidence to be included.

POSTERITY VS. TRUMP

There was a clear tension through the course of the case between justices who wanted to limit the decision to the facts surrounding Trump’s effort to overturn the election and the broader concerns about presidential immunity for all future presidents.

In the end, Roberts repeatedly framed the court’s decision as one made for posterity rather than any single president.

The immunity the court found, he wrote, “applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.”

The immunity case, he wrote, “poses a question of lasting significance.” In answering that question, he said, “we cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies.”

But given the timing, it was unlikely to be viewed that way by many Americans. The decision landed in the middle of a presidential election featuring the first former president ever convicted of a felony crime.

“On purely partisan lines, the Supreme Court today for the first time in history places presidents substantially above the law,” said David Cole, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union who has repeatedly argued before the justices. “The opinion also sits like a loaded weapon for Trump to abuse in the pursuit of criminal ends if he is reelected.”

JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS QUESTIONS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SMITH’S APPOINTMENT

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas added a concurrence to raise questions about whether Attorney General Merrick Garland violated the Constitution when he appointed Smith as special counsel.

Pushing the fringe legal theory about the legality of Smith’s appointment in 2022 has been part of Trump’s defense strategy in his classified documents criminal case in Florida, which also was brought by the special counsel. Trump’s attorneys have argued that Garland does not have legal authority to appoint someone as special counsel who hasn’t been confirmed by the Senate.

Thomas, too, appears to support that argument.  Thomas wrote in his concurrence:

“And, there are serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law. Those questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed. … The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding.”  

ONE LOSS FOR TRUMP: IMPEACHMENT ISN’T A LEGAL SHIELD

Trump has also argued that he should be immune from prosecution since he was previously impeached and acquitted by the Senate, therefore creating a double jeopardy situation.

But in one rare win for the special counsel, the court said that argument had no merit.

Addressing Trump’s claims, Roberts wrote that a president who evades impeachment for one reason or another, such as by resigning from office before an impeachment proceeding got underway, would “never be held accountable for his criminal acts.” Roberts wrote:

“Impeachment is a political process by which Congress can remove a president.  Transforming that political process into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the constitution or the structure of our government”  

The link to the entire unedited CNN report with photos is here:

Click to access 23-939_e2pg.pdf

BIDEN AND TRUMP REACT TO RULING

Both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump and their campaigns were quick to react to the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity.  Not surprising, each used  the ruling to fuel their respective campaigns.

Former President Donald Trump said this on his Truth Social page in all caps:

“BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY.”

Trump’s federal election interference indictment will be sent back to a lower court for further investigation, reducing the possibility of the case heading to trial while he campaigns for reelection. Will Scharf, an attorney for Trump, said this:

“It will take a lot of the air out of the sails of this insane effort of prosecuting President Trump. … Any day he spends in a courtroom is a day that he’s not out holding rallies meeting with voters.”

Trump is also seeking to delay sentencing in his New York hush money trial, arguing that the immunity opinion could change the case.

https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/trump-reacts-immunity-case-ruling

https://www.wbaltv.com/article/biden-trump-react-supreme-court-ruling-presidential-immunity/61482931

President Biden, speaking at the White House said this:

“There are no kings in America. Each, each of us is equal before the law. No one, no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States. (With) today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed. For all practical purposes, there are virtually no limits on what the president can do. It’s a fundamentally new principle and it’s a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law even including the supreme court of the United States. I know I will respect the limits of the presidential powers that I have had for 3 1/2 years. … The American people must decide if they want to entrust … the presidency to Donald Trump, now knowing that he’ll be even more emboldened to do whatever he pleases whenever he wants to do it.”

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/01/politics/joe-biden-immunity-supreme-court/index.html

https://www.wbaltv.com/article/biden-trump-react-supreme-court-ruling-presidential-immunity/61482931

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

With this landmark presidential immunity decision by the United States Supreme Court, the Trump 6 Supreme Court disciples of John G. Roberts, Jr., Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr. Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett continue do whatever they can to ensure his election over President Joe Biden and that his criminal trials are delayed.  The 6 do so at the expense of our democracy and our criminal justice system.  All six know full well that no on is above the law, yet they have now carved out an exception to benefit Donald Trump. They know  if the two federal criminal cases proceed to trial after the election, and he is elected, he will order the Justice Department to simply dismiss the cases or simply pardon himself.

The 6 appointed Republican Justices have already made a profound difference with their right wing Republican Judicial Activism. The 6 Republican  United State Supreme Court Justices have issued 6 major decisions that confirm it has become a far right wing activist court.  The 1st was the court’s seriously considering an attempt to empower legislatures with exclusive authority to redraw congressional districts without court intervention. The 2nd  struct down decades of affirmative action in college admissions. The 3rd ruled that a Christian business owners can discriminate and withhold services to the LGBTQ+ community based on religious grounds.  The 4th  invalidated President Joe Biden’s student loan debt relief plan. The 5^th strips federal government agencies of all regulatory power and mandates court approval of rules and regulations. The 6^th and most controversial  is the Supreme Court reversing Roe v. Wade and 50 years of precedent and denying a woman’s right to choose an abortion and leaving it up to the state’s.

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

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

What we have now is a Republican “politcal judicial monarchy” consisting of 6 conservative Republican Justices all dressed up in their black ropes with gavels replacing scepters and a courtroom replacing a royal thrown room as they render their decrees of justice to carry out the will of Der Führer Trump and his Trump Republican Party.

The link to a related blog article on the United States Supreme Court is here:

Trio Of US Supreme Landmark Cases Issued: Cities Can Ban Homeless Sleeping Outdoors, Strips Federal Agency Unilateral Powers To Regulate, Limits Criminal Obstruction Law As Applying To January 6 Prosecutions; Six Supreme Court Trump Disciple’s Continue With Right Wing Judicial Activist  Agenda

On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court neared its end of its term this year a trio of landmark decisions that will transform the lives of millions of Americans. All three rulings have been described as “profound” and “sweeping” as the United States Supreme Court rendered 3 sperate opinions on the homeless, government regulatory power, and the January 6 prosecutions of thousand who stormed the United States capitol to stop the certification of the election of President Joe Biden.

In one decision, the court held that local laws effectively criminalizing homelessness do not violate the U.S. Constitution and do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. In a second decision, the court overturned 40 years of precedent governing how federal agencies can issue regulations and requiring federal court approval.  In the third decision, the Supreme Court vacated all obstruction charges the Department of Justice  has filed against hundreds of January 6 defendants, including former President Donald Trump, declaring the Department of Justice exceeded its authority and went too far.  The United States Supreme Court term is not over yet in that the decision on Presidential immunity and concerning whether former President Donal Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution will be announce July 1.

This blog article is an in depth analysis and commentary of the 3 United States Supreme Court case decisions released on June 28.

CITIES CAN ENFORCE BANS ON HOMELESS PEOPLE SLEEPING OUTDOORS

The case of Grants Pass v. Johnson is a US Supreme Court case that challenges a municipality’s ability to bar people from sleeping or camping in public areas, such as sidewalks and parks. The case came from the rural Oregon town of Grants Pass, which appealed a ruling striking down local ordinances that fined people $295 for sleeping outside after tents began crowding public parks. The homeless plaintiffs argued that Grants Pass, a town with just one 138-bed overnight shelter,  criminalized them for behavior they couldn’t avoid: sleeping outside when they have nowhere else to go. Meanwhile, municipalities across the western United States argued that court rulings hampered their ability to quickly respond to public health and safety issues related to homeless encampments.  The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over the nine Western states, ruled in 2018 that such bans violate the Eighth Amendment in areas where there aren’t enough shelter beds.

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

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

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority:

“Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it. … A handful of federal judges cannot begin to ‘match’ the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding ‘how best to handle’ a pressing social question like homelessness. … Cities across the West report that the 9th Circuit’s involuntary test has crated intolerable uncertainty for them.”

Gorsuch suggested that people who have no choice but to sleep outdoors could raise that as a “necessity defense,” if they are ticketed or otherwise punished for violating a camping ban.

A bipartisan group of leaders had argued the ruling against the bans made it harder to manage outdoor encampments encroaching on sidewalks and other public spaces in nine Western states. That includes California, which is home to one-third of the country’s homeless population.

Homeless advocates argue that allowing cities to punish people who need a place to sleep would criminalize homelessness and ultimately make the crisis worse. Cities had been allowed to regulate encampments but couldn’t bar people from sleeping outdoors.

Progressive Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketangi Brown Jackson dissented. Sotomayor read from the bench the dissent and said this:

“Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime. … Punishing people for their status is ‘cruel and unusual’ under the Eighth Amendment. … It is quite possible, indeed likely, that these and similar ordinances will face more days in court. … It is possible to acknowledge and balance the issues facing local governments, the humanity and dignity of homeless people, and our constitutional principles. … [But the majority instead] focuses almost exclusively on the needs of local governments and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested.”

Attorney Theane Evangelis, who represented Grants Pass before the high court, applauded the ruling, saying the 9th Circuit decision had “tied the hands of local governments.”  Evangelis said this:

“Years from now, I hope that we will look back on today’s watershed ruling as the turning point in America’s homelessness crisis.”

The Supreme Courts ruling comes after homelessness in the United States has peaked and grown 12% last year to its highest reported level, as soaring rents and a decline in coronavirus pandemic assistance combined to put housing out of reach for more people. More than 650,000 people are estimated to be homeless, the most since the country began using a yearly point-in-time survey in 2007. Nearly half of them sleep outside. Older adults, LGBTQ+ people and people of color are disproportionately affected, advocates said. In Oregon, a lack of mental health and addiction resources has also helped fuel the crisis.

The Link to a quoted and relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.koat.com/article/supreme-court-oregon-homelessness/61453397

REACTION TO RULING

Peggy Bailey, executive vice president for policy and program development at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities had this to say about the ruling:

“Policymakers must focus on real solutions like rental assistance, cash supports, and strong, flexible community services that are proven to end homelessness and stabilize people with low incomes in housing.”

Some see the decision as removing an unnecessary restriction on the multifaceted approaches cities can take to addressing homelessness. Timothy Sandefur, vice president for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute, in a statement said in a statement:

[This ruling is] the first step toward a sensible approach to the many problems of homelessness. … Cities can only address these problems on a case-by-case basis.  [The decision] enables local communities to find actual solutions for the people who are suffering.”

Legal experts and advocates for the homeless worry that the decision will encourage a more punitive approach to managing homelessness at the expense of other solutions.  which could exacerbate the crisis.

Jennifer Hanlon Wigon, executive director of Women’s Lunch Place, a shelter in Boston said this:

“It sets a really dangerous precedent. …  It’s shifting the focus to law enforcement from human services.”

Claire Herbert, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Oregon, said this:

“There needs to be [a] wider reflection on the causes of homelessness and how we should be addressing this.” 

Legal experts worry that cities will now implement camping bans even when they don’t have to, creating more barriers to getting out of homelessness. Accumulated, unpaid fines and a criminal record make it hard, for instance, to get a driver’s license and can be used by landlords to deny housing.

Another consequence may be that homeless populations will move to communities that do not enforce camping bans, or have more resources. Police will have to enforce the bans at the expense of other issues.

Margot Kushel, director of the Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative at the University of California, San Francisco said this:

“The solutions to homelessness have always been clear, and this is not it. … [The ruling] is sweeping. It is extreme. It is cruel.”

The Link to a quoted and relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2024/0628/supreme-court-environment-homelessness-jan.-6

CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE PENDING LITIGATION ON THE HOMELESS

The Supreme Court ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson will no doubt have a major impact on the class action lawsuit filed against the city of Albuquerque. The city should seek an immediate dismissal of the case based on the Supreme Court ruling  or perhaps a settlement.

It was on Monday, December 19, 2022 the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, the NM Center on Law & Poverty, and the law firms of Ives & Flores, PA and  Davis Law New Mexico filed a “Class Action Complaint For Violations of Civil Rights and for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief” against the City of Albuquerque on behalf  4 men and 4 women identified Plaintiffs alleged to be homeless. According to the complaint filed, not one of the 8 plaintiff’s allege they were charged or arrested for refusing to leave Coronado Park on the day it was closed nor were they jailed.

The Plaintiffs allege they were displaced from Coronado Park when the city closed it and that the city did not provide satisfactory shelter options to them although the city said it did give notice and offered shelter and services, including vouchers.  According to an ACLU the lawsuit was filed to stop the City of Albuquerque from destroying encampments of the unhoused, seizing and destroying personal property and jailing and fining people.

The lawsuit alleges the city unlawfully seized personal property, denied due process of law, and violated constitutional rights by destroying property and forced all the unhoused at Coronado Park out with nowhere for them to go and with the city not providing shelter for them. The lawsuit is seeking court orders that will require the city to cease and desist enforcement actions to stop the unhoused from camping in public spaces which includes public streets, public rights of ways, alleyways, under bridges and city parks unless the city has shelter or housing for them.

STATUTES AND ORDINANCES ENUMERATED

The lawsuit specifically enumerates New Mexico Statutes and City Ordinances that have been enacted to protect the general public health, safety, and welfare and to protect the public’s peaceful use and enjoyment of property rights. The lawsuit does not challenge the constitutionality of any of the state statutes nor city ordinances.

The lawsuit makes the very broad allegation that “the  City regularly enforces City ordinances and state laws against unhoused people in a manner that criminalizes their status as homeless … [and] …  Unhoused people who erect tents or makeshift shelters around the City are routinely cited and/or arrested for violations of [the state laws and city ordinances].   Violations of these statutes and ordinances are punished as misdemeanors.”

All the laws cited have been on the books for decades and are applicable and are enforced against all citizens and not just the unhoused. The specific statutes cited in the lawsuit are:

1. NMSA 1978, Section 30-14-1 (1995), defining criminal trespass on public and private property.
2. NMSA 1978, Section 30-14-4 (1969), defining wrongful use of property used for a public purpose and owned by the state, its subdivisions, and any religious, charitable, educational, or recreational association.
3. Albuquerque City Ordinance 12-2-3, defining criminal trespass on public and private property.
4. Albuquerque City Ordinance 8-2-7-13, prohibiting the placement of items on a sidewalk so as to restrict its free use by pedestrians.
5. Albuquerque City Ordinance 10-1-1-10, prohibiting being in a park at nighttime when it is closed to public use.
6. Albuquerque City Ordinance 12-2-7, prohibiting hindering persons passing along any street, sidewalk, or public way.
7. Albuquerque City Ordinance 5-8-6, prohibiting camping on open space lands and regional preserves.
8. Albuquerque City Ordinance 10-1-1-3, prohibiting the erection of structures in city parks.

All the above laws are classified as “non-violent crimes” and are misdemeanors.  The filing of criminal charges by law enforcement are discretionary when the crime occurs in their presence.  The City of Albuquerque and the Albuquerque Polic Department has agreed that only citations will  be issued and no arrests will be made for violations of the 8 statutes and city ordinance as part of a court  approved settlement in federal case dealing with jail overcrowding. 

A preliminary injunction, which limited the circumstances under which the city could require people camping outside to leave or could seize their belongings, went into effect November 1, 2023. The injunction cited both the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, much like the Grants Pass Court of Appeals decision, and the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.  The injunction was designed to limit the citie’s sweeps of homeless encampments but the injunction was dropped in May. The injunction required that campers be given a 72-hour notice to vacate and be offered storage for belongings and transportation to a shelter. It also required an opportunity for belongings to later be reclaimed. The city said even though the injunction was dropped in May, it has been giving campers appropriate notice and offering resources.  The city said it will continue to send staff to conduct welfare checks at encampment sites and offer a list of services for campers.

An August trial  date in the  lawsuit filed against the city of Albuquerque alleging it violated the civil rights of homeless people was vacated, pending a decision in the Grants Pass case.  A new date has not been set, according to court records.

A news release from the City of Albuquerque in response to the Supreme Court decision said it “appreciates more flexibility to enforce ordinances.” The release said the city responds to more than 50 encampments per day. Mayor Tim Keller for his part said  this in a statement:

“I know there will be mixed reactions to this ruling in our community. … So I want to be clear [that] the City will continue to do everything in our power to get people the help they need and to deal promptly with illegal encampments.”

Links to a quoted and relied upon news sources is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/supreme-court-rules-that-outdoor-camping-bans-are-lawful-how-could-that-decision-affect-albuquerque/article_d708fdd6-3593-11ef-bb6d-8350d9880c72.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

SUPREME COURT STRIPS POWER FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES; OVERTURNS DECADES OLD CHEVRON DOCTRINE

The United States Supreme Court in a  6-3 ruling, overturned the 1984 precedent case of  Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.   The court ruling  shifts the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches of government. It gives  an important victory to conservatives who have sought for years to rein in the regulatory authority of the “administrative state.” The decision significantly weakens the power of federal agencies to approve regulations that  have sweeping implications for the environment, public health and the workplace.  The decision overturns what is referred to as the Chevron Doctrine that requires the  courts to give deference to federal agencies when creating regulations based on an ambiguous law. Congress routinely enacts open-ended laws that give latitude to agencies to work out and adjust the details to new circumstances.

In the case of the fishermen who brought the case, the law allowed the government to mandate the observers but was silent on the question of who had to pay their salaries, which the fisherman argue added roughly $700 a day to their costs. They encouraged the court to rule that agencies couldn’t enact such a requirement without explicit approval from Congress.

Conservatives have long sought to rein in regulatory authority, arguing that Washington has too much control over American industry and individual lives. The justices have been incrementally diminishing federal administrative power for years, but the new case gave the court an opportunity to take a much broader stride. The Supreme Court has been prohibiting federal agencies from  approving  regulations on their own. In 2021  the court’s conservatives struck down a Biden administration effort to extend an eviction moratorium first approved during the Trump administration. Last year, the court’s conservatives similarly invalidated a Biden plan to wipe out student loans of millions of Americans.

The ruling means that federal courts no longer have to defer to federal  agency interpretations in deciding whether their policies are lawful. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court that the  Chevron Doctrine “defies the command of” the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how agencies operate, because that says that courts should interpret statutes, arguing the longstanding precedent told courts to “ignore, not follow, ‘the reading the court would have reached’ had it exercised its independent judgment” and “demands that courts mechanically afford binding deference to agency interpretations.”  Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion:

“Chevron is overruled. … Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.”  While appreciating that laws may not always be clear, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion the Framers envisioned “that the final ‘interpretation of the laws’ would be ‘the proper and peculiar province of the courts. … “The only way to ‘ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion,’ is for the Court to leave Chevron behind.”  Chief Justice Roberts noted that the decision does not affect past cases, and that courts would need to provide a “special justification” for overturning them.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote separately and  called the  Chevron Doctrine “a grave anomaly when viewed against the sweep of historic judicial practice. … It undermines core rule-of-law values ranging from the promise of fair notice to the promise of a fair hearing … [It] operated to undermine rather than advance reliance interests, often to the detriment of ordinary Americans.”

Progressive Justice Elena Kagan, writing a dissent joined by the court’s two other progressives Justices Sonia Sotomayor and  Ketangi Brown Jackson said this about overturning the  Chevron Doctrine:

“In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue — no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden — involving the meaning of regulatory law. As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar. …  A rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris.”

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said this:

“[This ruling is] yet another deeply troubling decision that takes our country backwards. … Republican-backed special interests have repeatedly turned to the Supreme Court.  Once again, the Supreme Court has decided in the favor of special interests.”

In Supreme Court briefing, the federal government  warned the court that overturning Chevron would be a “convulsive shock to the legal system” and “destabilizing” to all areas of the federal government, arguing the ruling would “threaten settled expectations in virtually every area of conduct regulated by federal law.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling is likely to reverberate throughout the federal government mandating that federal judges weigh in on any number of federal policies and regulation and overturn them without deferring to the federal agencies, which critics on the left fear will lead to conservative judges striking down scores of policies enacted by the Biden administration or other Democratic White Houses. Although Chief Justice Roberts noted  in the  court’s ruling  that the ruling will not apply to any rulings in the past that have relied on Chevron, it’s likely to have a big impact on the judiciary going forward.

Critics of the ruling see it as part of a broader effort by conservative activists, aided by a sympathetic conservative activist Supreme Court to transfer regulatory power from federal agencies to the courts. One example is that the Supreme Court rolled back the power of the Securities and Exchange Commission to impose civil penalties for fraud. Instead, federal regulators would need to seek a jury trial. Notwithstanding, the Supreme Court  has sided with federal agencies on occasion, including when it upheld the funding mechanism of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

But the prevailing trend has seen the court chip away at the powers of the so-called “administrative state.”  Two years ago, the court issued a decision that fleshed out what it calls the major questions doctrine. The doctrine holds that federal agencies can’t take major actions without clear direction in law from Congress, with courts deciding which actions are “major.”

Critics of the administrative state argue that the Chevron Doctrine  puts too much power in the hands of unelected and unaccountable federal bureaucrats. Supporters of the administrative state claim that power is now being put in the hands of unelected and unaccountable federal judges.

Links to quoted and relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/28/politics/chevron-precedent-supreme-court/index.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/06/28/supreme-court-strips-power-from-federal-agencies-overturning-decades-old-precedent/

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2024/0628/supreme-court-environment-homelessness-jan.-6

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-january-6-obstruction-trump/

SUPREME COURT LIMITS PROSECUTION OF JANUARY 6 DEFENDANTS FOR OBSTRUCTION

The United State Supreme Court  ruled 6-3 to limit the federal obstruction criminal law that has been used to charge hundreds of January 6  Capitol riot defendants as well as former President Donald Trump.   The Supreme Court ruled that the charge of “Obstructing an Official Proceeding”, enacted in 2002 in response to the financial scandal that brought down Enron Corp., must include proof that defendants tried to tamper with or destroy documents. The provision of the law at issue  imposes criminal charges on anyone who “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.” A conviction carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

The Supreme Court remanded the case of former Pennsylvania police officer Joseph Fischer back to the lower court the to determine if Fischer could be charged with “Obstructing an Official Proceeding. Fischer has been indicted for his role in disrupting Congress’ certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory over Trump.  Fischer is among about 350 people who have been charged with “Obstructing an Official Proceeding.” Some pleaded guilty to,  or were convicted of, lesser charges.

More than 1,400 people have been charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes. For around 50 people who were convicted, obstruction was the only felony count. Of those, roughly two dozen who still are serving their sentence are most likely to be affected by the ruling. Only some of the people who violently attacked the Capitol on January  6, 2021, have been charged with obstruction. The overwhelming majority of the approximately 1,000 people who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to Capitol riot-related federal crimes were not charged with obstruction and will not be affected by the outcome.

Under the ruling issued, dozens of defendants could seek new sentences, ask to withdraw guilty pleas, or have charges dropped. Most defendants convicted of obstruction were also convicted of another felony so their sentence may not be significantly impacted, if at all.

Notwithstanding, the court ruling is being  used  for claims by former President Trump and his Republican allies that the Justice Department has treated the Capitol riot defendants unfairly.

Roughly 170 Capitol insurrection defendants have been convicted of obstructing or conspiring to obstruct the January  6 joint session of Congress, including the leaders of two far-right extremist groups, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. A number of defendants have had their sentencings delayed until after the justices rule on the matter.

The U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, which has handled January  6 prosecutions, said no one who has been convicted of or charged with obstruction will be completely cleared because of the ruling. Every defendant also has other felony or misdemeanor charges, or both, prosecutors said.

Some rioters have even won early release from prison while the appeal was pending over concerns that they might end up serving longer than they should have if the Supreme Court ruled against the Justice Department. They include Kevin Seefried, a Delaware man who threatened a Black police officer with a pole attached to a Confederate battle flag as he stormed the Capitol. Seefried was sentenced last year to three years behind bars, but a judge recently ordered that he be released one year into his prison term while awaiting the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Republican Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the court’s opinion. He was  joined by Republican conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas, and by progressive Democrat   Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a former federal public defender who also wrote a separate opinion.

While the case stemmed from January 6 riot, Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that the government’s interpretation of the law would criminalize not only serious conduct but also “a broad swath of prosaic conduct, exposing activists and lobbyists alike to decades in prison.” Roberts wrote the government “must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so.”

In a concurrence, Democrat Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson,  a member of the court’s progressive wing and a former public defender,  wrote that the mob “inflicted a deep wound on this nation [but the case] is not about the immorality of those acts. … Our commitment to equal justice and the rule of law requires the courts to faithfully apply criminal laws as written, even in periods of national crisis.”

Republican Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented, along with Democrat Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Barrett, one of three justices appointed by Trump, wrote that the law clearly encompasses the events of January 6.  Barrett wrote:

“Events like January 6th were not its target. (Who could blame Congress for that failure of imagination?) But statutes often go further than the problem that inspired them.  … The riot forced Congress to suspend the proceeding, delaying it for several hours.  …  [The court’s majority did]  “textual backflips to find some way, any way,  to narrow the reach [of the obstruction law].

Roberts, Jackson and Barrett made strikingly different word choices in their opinions. While Roberts described the attack as a “breach of the Capitol,” Barrett described the events as a riot and the participants as rioters. Jackson wrote that “an angry mob stormed the United States Capitol.”

REPUBLICANS CAST JANUARY  6 DEFENDANTS AS VICTIMS

Republicans, who have cast the January  6 defendants as victims of political persecution, have pounced on the ruling to argue the rioters have been unfairly prosecuted by the Justice Department. Trump has embraced Jan. 6 defendants on the campaign trial, and floated pardons for the rioters if he wins in November.

Trump, speaking at a rally in Chesapeake, Virginia, described the Supreme Court’s decision as a “great thing.” Trump said this:

“Free the J6 hostages now.  They should free them now for what they’ve gone through. They’ve been waiting for this decision for a long time. They’ve been waiting for a long time. And that was a great answer. That is a great thing for people that have been so horribly treated.”

ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK GARLAND DISAPPOINTED

Attorney General Merrick Garland said he was disappointed with the court’s decision, which he said “limits an important federal statute.”   Garland was quick to point out that the cases against the “vast majority” of people charged in the attack won’t be affected. Garland said this:

“January 6 was an unprecedented attack on the cornerstone of our system of government — the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. … We will continue to use all available tools to hold accountable those criminally responsible for the January 6 attack on our democracy.”

AFFECT ON PENDING CASES

It’s also likely to slow down cases in a court already clogged with January  6 defendants as judges are forced to grapple with how to apply the ruling. “It’s going to be a big mess,” said Randall Eliason, a professor at George Washington University Law School and former federal prosecutor in Washington.

Seventeen of the 18 trial judges who have weighed in have allowed the charge to stand. Among them, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, wrote that “statutes often reach beyond the principal evil that animated them.” But U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, another Trump appointee, dismissed the charge against Fischer and two other defendants, writing that prosecutor went too far. A divided panel of the federal appeals court in Washington reinstated the charge before the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case.

It’s unclear how the court’s decision will affect the case against former Predident  Trump in Washington, DC, which includes charges other than obstruction. Special Counsel Jack Smith has said the charges faced by the former president would not be affected. Trump’s case is on hold while the Supreme Court considers a separate case in which Trump is claiming immunity from prosecution. A decision is expected on Monday.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-2cdba47baa5cea8177d651de751760a6

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2024/0628/supreme-court-environment-homelessness-jan.-6

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

With these 3 landmark decisions by the United States Supreme Court, the 6 Supreme Court disciples of Donald Trump continue their assault on all things progressive with their judicial activism. The 6 appointed Republican Justices have already made a profound difference with their judicial activism over the last 2 years.

 At the end of June, 2023, the United State Supreme Court issued 4 major decisions that were highly anticipated and with great concern confirming it has become a far right wing activist court.   The first was the court’s rejecting an attempt to empower legislatures with exclusive authority to redraw congressional districts without court intervention. The second struct down decades of affirmative action in college admissions.  The third ruled that a Christian business owners can discriminate and withhold services to the LGBTQ+ community based on religious grounds.  The fourth invalidated President Joe Biden’s student loan debt relief plan. Then there is the matter of the Supreme Court reversing Roe v. Wade and 50 years of precedent and denying a woman’s right to choose an abortion and leaving it up to the state’s.

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

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

What we have now is a Republican “politcal judicial monarchy” consisting of 6 conservative Republican Justices all dressed up in their black ropes with gavels replacing scepters and a courtroom replacing a royal thrown room as they render their decrees of justice to carry out the will of Der Führer Trump and his Trump Republican Party.

On June 17 the Albuquerque City Council voted  on a 6 to 3 vote to  passed a Charter Amendment that would eliminate all runoff elections for Mayor and City Council. It would  mandate that whoever gets the most votes wins with no runoff between the two top vote getters.  Whoever secures the most votes of all the candidates running at the same time wins the election out right. The charter amendment was sponsored Democrat Councilor Klarissa Peña  and Republican Dan Lewis.  Republican City Councilors Dan Lewis, Brook Bassan, Renee Grout and Dan Champine and Democrat City Councilors Louie Sanchez and Klarissa Peña voted “YES”. Democrat City Councilors Tammy Fiebelkorn, Nichole Rogers and Joaquín Baca voted “NO”.

If the Chater Amendment is approved, in a crowded candidate field, the prevailing candidate would not have a majority vote but a much less percentage of less than 50% of the vote.  The charter amendment must be placed on the November 5 general election ballot. Passage of the charter amendment by the city council  has been severely criticized as a scheme to dilute the vote to help incumbents and those with high name identification by eliminating voter majority wins.  Mayor Tim Keller was quick to announce his intent to veto the charter amendment, but the veto could be overturned on a 6 to 3 vote resulting in it  being  placed on the November 5 general election ballot.

A few dozens members of public commented on the amendment. One commenter said, despite the high cost of runoff elections, it was “money well spent.”  Many of public commenters spoke against the  changes and  lowering the percentage of votes a candidate needs to win a city election. “Breaking with established norms, you are proposing to do away with majority rule, a cornerstone of a representative democracy. You are suggesting that a candidate that receives a majority of votes against them is fit to serve and carries a mandate to govern” said one public commenter.

Several public commentors called the proposal undemocratic which prompted City Council President Dan Lewis, a  bill sponsor to challenge the comment. Lewis said this:

“There’s nothing more democratic than Council to be voting on this tonight. … And nothing more democratic than the general public voting on this in November.”

In an Albuquerque Journal  June 17 guest opinion column, Republican City Councilor Dan  Lewis called runoff elections as being rooted in racist strategies in the deep south. The link to the guest column is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/opinion-runoff-elections-are-rooted-in-racist-strategies-in-the-south/article_159a1768-29f7-11ef-b97d-2732dbdccdf0.html

Councilor Klarissa Peña, the second sponsor of the amendment, said primary runoff elections are used in only a few states and were rooted in racist policies intended to keep white politicians in power. Peña said this:

“This is history, folks.”

It may be history of the deep south, but its not Albuquerque’s history.

First term City Councilor Nichole Rogers, the only African American on the city council, and who was elected in November, 2023 in a runoff election after none of the 4 candidates running secured 50% of the vote, rejected Peña argument and said this:.

“Do not use my people’s plight to justify … making things easier for you to win

SECRETARY OF STATE CALLS MEAUSURE “BIG STEP IN WRONG DIRECTION”

On June 25, New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver felt compelled to write  Mayor Tim Keller and all 9 Albuquerque City Councilors voicing in no uncertain terms her opposition to the proposed charter amendment.  Following is the full unedited letter:

June 25, 2024

Albuquerque City Council
One Civic Plaza NW
9th Floor, Suite 9087
Albuquerque, NM 87102

Mayor Tim Keller
Councilor Louie Sánchez, District 1
Councilor Joaquin Baca, District 2
Councilor Klarissa Peña, District 3
Councilor Brook Bassan, District 4
Councilor Dan Lewis, District 5
Councilor Nichole Rogers, District 6
Councilor Tammy Fiebelkorn, District 7
Councilor Dan Champine, District 8
Councilor Renee Grout, District 9

RE: Charter amendment changing winning vote threshold in city elections

Dear Mayor and Councilors:

“As New Mexico’s Chief Election Officer and the former Bernalillo County Clerk, I would not normally reach out to city leadership in this way, but because of my deep concern about Proposal P-24-1’s impact on the electoral process, I must urge each of you to reconsider these proposed changes to Albuquerque’s municipal elections.

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

However, although not ideal, the current system is still preferable to the charter amendment in Proposal P-24-1. Albuquerque voters already approved the current 50% threshold for winning candidates in 2013, and having candidates receive at least 50% of the total votes provides the public with a clear winner who then has a mandate to lead. Changing the city’s election system to one where a candidate can be elected with a minority of votes is a big step in the wrong direction.

If the city continues to feel that the existing system is a problem, the best solution is one that other New Mexico cities are already using, but which the Albuquerque City Council has not implemented: Ranked Choice Voting. This instant runoff approach to voting would eliminate the need for an election at a later date, providing cost savings for the city and a statewide election date voters can plan on each odd numbered year. Plus, Ranked Choice Voting ensures that the winner of the race is elected by a majority of voters.

The perceived legitimacy of our elections has been under significant strain in recent years. The public needs confidence that their municipal leaders have been legitimately elected, and the best way to do that is with a secure, accessible electoral system that demands the winner receives the majority of votes. I hope that you will reconsider your positions on this matter.”

Sincerely,

[Signature]

Maggie Toulouse Oliver
New Mexico Secretary of State

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The fact that New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver felt compelled to write to Mayor Keller and all 9 city councilors should give all 6 of the city councilors who voted for the measure great pause and grounds to reconsider their vote. Simply put, the Charter Amendment to reduce the vote to win a City Council or Mayoral race with whoever gets the most votes with no runoffs is very bad election policy and  government on many levels.  It will  promote chaos in municipal elections and the promotion of extreme fringe candidates that will dilute the vote and who would be culled out of an election with  runoffs between two top vote getters.

The relations between Mayor Tim Keller and the more conservative majority city council have deteriorated because of the sure frustration the conservatives on the council have experienced in not being able to stop the Keller progressive agenda with overriding vetoes.  As a result, the city council is once again trying to get city voters to change our basic form of city government with charter amendments in order to carry out a personal vendetta against a Mayor they do not like and who they perceive as ineffective and unpopular and who is running for a third term despite a low approval rating of 33%.

It’s downright offensive to city voters that City Council President Dan Lewis and Klarissa Peña pulled  the “race card” alleging runoff elections are rooted in racist strategies in the South. Both conveniently ignored the fact that it was voters who changed the charter provisions by requiring run offs where no one candidate secures 50% of the vote and it was done so on recommendation of a Charter Review Task Force.

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

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

Mayor Tim  Keller is right to veto the proposed Charter Amend measure on election votes and try to talk some sense into the Democrats City Councilors Klarissa Peña and Louie Sanchez in the hopes of changing their minds, but that will likely be an exercise in futility given the poor relations he has with the two and for that matter the city council in general.

On June 21, during a news conference to discuss Officer Involved Shooting incidents, the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) released a six-month report of seven officer-involved shootings for the second half of 2023. The report is dated October 4, 2023. The review was conducted by a working group comprised of APD Deputy Chiefs, one APD Major, one legal advisor, and one external contractor who specializes in uses of force.

APD Chief Harold Medina started the 6-month reviews in 2022.  The purpose of the reviews is to look at Officer Involved Shooting incidents collectively to identify patterns. The working group gave special consideration to whether de-escalation was used and where using a less-lethal tool earlier in the encounter might have avoided the need for deadly force.

SUMMATION OF REVIEW

According to the review, 2 of the 7 shootings began as minor offenses. Two were initiated as property crimes, and 3 related to violent offenses. Two of the 7 suspects shot at police. None began as behavioral health calls. All three people fatally shot had drugs in their bodies at the time of their deaths.  One of the 7 cases was deemed to be out of compliance with APD policy, but 38% of the officers involved had less than 6 years of experience, 35% had between 6 and 8 years of experience and 21% had more than six years’ experience.

APD Chief Harold Medina said that many of the incidents involved foot pursuits.  Medina said APD  is working on a policy to deal with the potential threats caused by a fleeing suspect and the potential threats of engaging in a foot pursuit.

Chief Harold Medina said this in a press release:

“We noted trends that need to be addressed, including the high number of foot pursuits that resulted in shootings. … We started work on a new policy that considers the potential threat caused by the fleeing suspect, whether the suspect has been identified by law enforcement, and any potential threats presented by engaging in a foot pursuit. Those factors must be balanced with APD’s mandate to enforce the law. … Officer-involved shootings will be reduced when the number of criminals who are armed in the community is reduced.”

REPORT FINDINGS

The review made 7 specific findings. Quoting the report, those 7 specific finding are:

1. 100%, 7 out of 7 Officer Involved Shooting  incidents involved an individual armed with a gun or knife/edged weapon. Five of those were armed with a gun.
2. 29%, 2 out of 7 Officer Involved Shooting incidents involved individuals who were shooting at officers at the time of the Officer Involved Shooting incident.
3. Less-lethal force was attempted prior to using deadly force in two of the OIS incidents.
4. The working group determined two Officer Involved Shooting incidents involved situations where the use of less-lethal force earlier in the encounter might have resolved the situation and thus, avoided the need for deadly force. In making this assessment, the working group could not  predict how the individual would have responded to the use of less-lethal force. It is entirely possible the situation would have still resulted in the use of deadly force.
5. De-escalation was used in two Officer Involved shooting The working group determined de-escalation was not feasible in 4 incidents based on the facts of each case. The working group determined de-escalation may have been used in one of the Officer Involved Shooting incidents after the initial shots had been fired, but before the second.
6. None of the individuals had a history with APD’s Crisis Intervention Team. One individual is believed to have had a history of mental illness, according to a family member. It is not known whether any other individuals suffered from mental illness.
7. Drug and/or alcohol use was not known with toxicology reports for deceased individuals having not been submitted at the time of the review.

RECOMMENDATIONS MADE

The working group recommended 5 action items. Quoting the report, those 5 action items are:

1. APD will prioritize in upcoming firearms training that officers will be trained on environmental and situational awareness, decision-making, and threat identification during lethal incidents.

There were 4 Officer Involved Shooting incidents where bystanders were in the vicinity of the offender during the incident, including one incident where two bystanders were shot and injured. APD said it will provide training in several areas including, but not limited to, firearms safety rules when pointing or shooting their firearm, identifying threats and non-threats with moving targets, and overall awareness of the environments in which they may need to use deadly force.

2. Evaluate the assignments of less-lethal tools, specifically “40 millimeter launchers.” EDITOR’S NOTE:  A 40-millimeter launcher fires hard-foam projectiles at a subject at a high rate of speed to sub due a suspect and the force used is classified as non-lethal.

 While each officer cannot be assigned every less-lethal tool available, APD will evaluate the current assignments of the “40 millimeter launchers” to ensure the officers most likely to become involved in a critical incident, the Field Services Bureau, are more likely to have them assigned to squads.

3. Prioritize command and control training and scenarios for upcoming supervisory training

APD is in the process of developing supervisory training that includes supervisory responsibilities during critical events. The Training Academy will include command and control training that includes decision-making and explicit assignment of officer roles (i.e. communications, lethal, and less-lethal).

4. Evaluate policy for potential revision for lethal weapons deployment

 The working group collaborated with the use of force expert contractor during this review period. One recommendation was for APD to evaluate its policy with deployment of lethal weapons, specifically rifles. The department will consider reducing the initial deployment of rifles based on the information at the time with the supervisory capability to evaluate the need for certain weapon types to properly address the involved individual(s).

5. Evaluate policy for potential revision for increased roles of supervisors and Emergency Communications Center (APD Dispatch)

Another recommendation provided by the use of force expert was for APD to determine if there are improved ways for supervisors and dispatchers to actively work together during calls for service with the goal of improving outcomes of calls for service, including but not limited to helping supervisors identify a call involving a mental health component, reminding officers to deescalate, providing a reminder to turn on their on-body recording devices, or to assist supervisors for additional resources.

The link to the October 4, 2023 six-month review of the 7 officer involved shootings is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/police/news/apd-conducts-6-month-review-of-officer-involved-shootings

Links to quoted and relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.krqe.com/news/apd-releases-data-on-7-police-shootings-from-2023/

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/apd-review-suspects-shot-at-by-police-have-wielded-guns/article_c56c20e0-301a-11ef-b2ba-4f2eebcc6d04.html

APD RANKS #1 IN CIVILIAN KILLINGS OUT OF THE 50 LARGEST CITY POLICE DEPARTMENTS IN THE COUNTRY

For the past nine years, the Albuquerque Police Department has been operating under a Court Approved Settlement Agreement mandating 271 reforms after a Department of Justice investigation found that APD had engaged in a pattern of “excessive use of force” and “deadly force” and finding a “culture of aggression.”

Over nine years, the city has spent millions on reform efforts, has created and staffed new divisions to hold APD officers accountable, rewrote use of force policies and procedures and trained APD officers in constitutional policing practices. The reform has been accomplished under the watchful eye of the federal court and an appointed Federal Independent Monitor.

 On April 10, the on-line news publication Searchlight New Mexico published a story researched and written by its staff reporter Josh Bowling.  The article is entitled “Can the Albuquerque Police Department ever be reformed?”  The article goes into great detail explaining the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA), what has been done to reform APD and the role of the Federal Monitor. The link to read the full, unedited Searchlight New Mexico article with photos and graphs is here:

https://searchlightnm.org/can-the-albuquerque-police-department-ever-be-reformed/?utm_source=Searchlight+New+Mexico&utm_campaign=ca4e266790-4%2F10%2F2024+-+Albuquerque+Police+Department+Reform&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8e05fb0467-ca4e266790-362667516&mc_cid=ca4e266790&mc_eid=ccd9412715

The Search Light New Mexico article reported that last year, the Albuquerque Police Department killed 10.6 people per million residents, more than any other sizable police department in the nation, according to data tracked by the national nonprofit Mapping Police Violence.

Following are the relevant excerpts from the Search Light New Mexico article:

“In 2022, the department set a record for police shootings with 18, 10 of which were fatal. That year, a Searchlight analysis found, only the police departments in Los Angeles, New York and Houston killed more people than APD.

 Law enforcement officials, including police leaders and district attorneys, say such figures are nuanced. They point to the acute dearth of mental health resources in New Mexico and, anecdotally, stories of people who draw guns on police officers as explanations for why the problem of police violence is so outsized locally.”

…

“In the past four years, Albuquerque police repeatedly shot people who were suffering visible mental health crises. They shot 26-year-old Max Mitnik in the head during a “schizoaffective episode” in which he asked officers to fire their weapons at him; they shot and killed 52-year-old Valente Acosta-Bustillos who swung a shovel at officers and told them to shoot him; they shot and killed 33-year-old Collin Neztsosie while he was on his cell phone, pleading for help with a 911 dispatcher.

These grim numbers have led reform advocates, critics and law enforcement leaders themselves to question what it means to be “in compliance.”

“You can improve things on paper or comply with the terms of a consent decree and still have these things happening. … Albuquerque is a prime place to be asking the questions…about what impact consent decrees have. The city should be ground zero for the national conversation on police reform” said UCLA law professor Joanna Schwartz, author of the 2023 book “Shielded: How the Police Became Untouchable.”

This is not to say that the consent decree has been without merit. The 2014 Court-Approved Settlement Agreement between the DOJ and Albuquerque laid out nearly 300 mandated reforms: Since its launch, APD has fulfilled hundreds of reform requirements, including overhauling scores of policies and training procedures.”

The Search Light New Mexico article contains a horizontal graph listing the 50 largest cities in the United States. According to the graph, among the 50 largest cities, Albuquerque Police killed people at the highest rate than all the other city police departments in 2023  at the rate of  10.6 per 1 Million population. It is worth comparing Albuquerque’s 10.6 kill rate to the largest cities in the surrounding border states of Texas, Colorado, Arizona and also including Oklahoma and Nevada:

• Albuquerque, NM: 10.6
• San Antonio, Texas:  9.8
• Phoenix, Arizona: 8.7
• Austin, Texas: 7.3
• Denver, Colorado: 5.6
• Tucson, Arizona: 5.5
• Fort Worth, Texas: 5.4
• Houston, Texas: 5.2
• Colorado Springs, Colorado: 4.2
• Dallas, Texas: 3.1
• El Paso, Texas: 2.9
• Las Vegas, Nevada: 2.6
• Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: 2.0”

APD IN COMPLIANCE WITH DOJ SETTLEMENT DESPITE SHOOTINGS

On June 4, a federal court hearing was held on the 19th Federal Independent Monitor’s Report and APD’s progress in implementing the mandated reforms of the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA). The federal monitor reported that APD has reached 100% primary compliance, 100% secondary compliance and 96% operational compliance of the 271 reforms mandated by the settlement.

Under the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement, once APD sustains a 95% compliance rate in all three identified compliance levels and maintains it for two consecutive years, the case can be dismissed. The significance of APD being in compliance is that APD has now entered into a new “sustainment” phase to last until the end of 2025. If there’s no backsliding, which has occurred in the past, the DOJ consent decree can be dismissed.

ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

The APD six-month review of seven officer-involved shootings for the second half of 2023 is a reflection of the conflicting opposites that APD embodies. On the one had, APD is successfully implementing the mandated reforms and is achieving constitutional policing practices. On the other, APD is still having an alarming number of police shootings of suspects.  The report indicates that it can be attributed to the fact that APD officers are being confronted with more and more armed and aggressive offenders. The report says 7 out of 7 Officer Involved Shooting incidents involved an individual armed with a gun or knife or edged weapon with 5 of those were armed with a gun. Two out of 7 Officer Involved Shooting incidents involved individuals who were shooting at officers at the time of the Officer Involved Shooting incident.

Despite the improvement and gains made by APD in the implementation of the reforms, APD police officer shootings and the killing of civilians is occurring at an alarming rate. In terms of overall shootings, both fatal and non-fatal, law enforcement officers in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County shot 131 people between 2013 and 2022.

On April 10, the national nonprofit Mapping Police Violence reported that last year, APD killed 10.6 people per million residents, which is more than any police department of comparable size in the nation. APD was ranked No. 1 in police officers killing civilians in a listing of 50 largest cities in the United States.

The Court Approved Settlement Agreement was not designed to guarantee or completely stop nor prevent police officer shootings. It was designed to implement constitutional policing practices, especially when dealing with the mentally ill. There never was a guarantee that police officer shootings would go down or simply never occur even with reforms.

What the Court Approved Settlement Agreement reforms ensure is that police officers are being held accountable when they violate constitutional policing practices and people’s civil rights. All that really can be done is to train and implement constitutional policing practices in the hopes that it will bring down police officer shootings of civilians.

“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

— Matthew 19:13-14

On June 11 the New Mexico Voices for Children released the “2024 Kids Count Data Book, State Trends In Child Well Being.” The annual “Kids Count” Data Book is prepared by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. The Casey foundation is a nonprofit based in Maryland focusing on improving the well-being and future of American children and their families. It assesses how New Mexico children are faring in a number of areas including economic well-being, education, health, and family and community.

The link to the 2024 Kids Count Data Book is here:

https://www.aecf.org/resources/2024-kids-count-data-book

NATIONAL TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING

The 35th edition of the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Kids Count Data Book report contains a summary of National Trends in Child wellbeing.  The study confirmed that nationally, there was an unprecedented decline in student math and reading proficiency brought on by the impact of the COVID 19 pandemic on education.  Between 2019 and 2022, fourth-grade reading and eighth-grade math scores plummeted, representing decades of lost progress. The trend underscores the urgent need for action to address the growing academic disparities among U.S. students.

The summary states in part:

“Today’s students, who will comprise America’s future workforce, are ill-prepared for the high-level reading, math and problem-solving skills required in a competitive global economy. The failure to adequately prepare our children will have dire consequences for their futures and for the economic vitality of our nation.

In 2022, as COVID-19 restrictions eased, the impact of the pandemic on child well-being became evident. Six indicators worsened between 2019 and 2022, including educational achievement and the child and teen death rate. Between 2019 and 2021, the percentage of children scoring proficient or above in reading and math declined sharply. While this trend may have stabilized in 2022, the data indicate a significant setback in educational attainment. The child and teen death rate also remained elevated in 2022, with 17.0 deaths per 100,000 children and adolescents, compared to 14.7 in 2019.”

However, some positive trends emerged:

• Parents’ economic security improved significantly, with 62.4% of children living in economically secure homes in 2022, compared to 58.4% in 2021.
• The child poverty rate decreased from 17.2% in 2021 to 15.9% in 2022, returning to pre-pandemic levels.”

HEALTH AND FAMILY

Positive trends were also observed in the family and community domains. Fewer children lived with parents lacking a high school diploma, and the number of children living in high-poverty communities decreased. The teen birth rate reached a record low in 2021 and remained stable in 2022 at 14 births per 1,000 teen females.

These positive changes demonstrate how effective policies that address the root causes of challenges can contribute to significant improvements and create a brighter future for young people.

TRENDS IN RACIAL INEQUITIES

“Racial inequities in America persist, with American Indian/Alaska Native, Black and Latino children facing significant disparities. Nearly all well-being indicators show disparate outcomes by race and ethnicity, with American Indian/Alaska Native children and Black children experiencing the lowest well-being levels.

Generations of inequity and discrimination contribute to these disparities. Black children have higher rates of single-parent households and poverty, while American Indian/Alaska Native children are more likely to lack health insurance and live in resource-limited neighborhoods. Latino children have higher rates of obesity and live in households where the head may lack a high school diploma.

And despite overall better outcomes for Asian and Pacific Islander children, disaggregated data reveal significant disparities within this population. Burmese, Mongolian and Thai children experience higher rates of poverty and lack of high school diplomas in their households. Today, children of color constitute the majority of the nation’s children, highlighting the importance of ensuring their success for the future of America.”

NO CHANGE IN NEW MEXICO RANKINGS

The 2024 Kids Count Data Book contains an astonishing number of  depressing statistics for New Mexico’s children as they relate to overall  child well-being,  education, health and economic well-being. In 2024, out of all 50 states, New Mexico ranked 50^th in overall childhood well-being, ranked 50th in education, ranked 48th in economic well-being, ranked 44th in health and ranked 49th in family and community. Forty-one percent of New Mexico students between 2021 and 2022 were chronically absent.

The 2024 Kids Count Data Book statistics are essentially identical to the 2023 Kids Count Data Book statistics with a 1% decrease in Family and Community.  The statistics for both years for comparison are:

In 2024, New Mexico ranked 50^th in EDUCATION and in 2023 New Mexico also ranked 5Oth in EDUCATION.

In 2024 New Mexico ranked 48th in ECONOMIC WELL-BEING and in 2023 New Mexico ranked 49^th in ECONOMIC WELL-BEING RANKING.

In 2024, New Mexico ranked 49th in FAMILY AND COMMUNITY and in 2023 New Mexico ranked 48^th in FAMILY AND COMMUNITY.

In 2024 New Mexico ranked 44^th in HEALTH RANKINGS and in 2023  New Mexico ranked 44^th in HEALTH RANKINGS.

The link to the 2023 Kids Count Data Book is here:

Click to access aecf-2023kidscountdatabook-2023.pdf

The link to review New Mexico’s 2024 Kids Count Data profile page giving the state the overall ranking of 50 and the statistics in the categories of Economic Well Being, Education, Health, and Family and Communication is here:

Click to access 2024-KCDB-profile-NM.pdf

Maralyn Beck, founder and executive director of New Mexico Child First Network, which aims to improve foster care in the state said this about the statistics:

“Our kids are not OK. … Solutions exist to do better, but we need political will and political courage to push forward solutions that we know will improve outcomes for our children.”

Beck said that children in foster care also have lower educational outcomes and are at the “highest risk.” Beck said the Kids Count Data book highlights the average New Mexican student but does not fully address kids in foster care who are even more vulnerable. Beck said this:

“The kids I’m working with are the most vulnerable. … Kids in foster care have the lowest education outcomes. One in 7 kids will graduate from high school. One in 50 will graduate from college.”

ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCE

Across 2021 and 2022, one in two New Mexico children experienced an adverse childhood experience (ACE) defined as “a traumatic experience that could include abuse, neglect or witnessing domestic violence.” New Mexico tied with Mississippi for the highest rate of kids who had experienced such trauma.

George Davis, a child psychologist who has worked with the state Children, Youth and Families Department and children in the juvenile justice system, said Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE), can disrupt normal child development. Davis said children who are separated from their parents, for example, may later show struggles with self-regulation through aggression, trusting adults, trouble making friends and even challenges sitting still or paying attention in school. Davis said this:

“It undermines the foundations that you need to progress in life in very fundamental kinds of ways.”

Davis said poverty alone is not ACE, but it can be associated with other traumatic experiences. The state has made some improvements in the childhood poverty rate, the report noted, but it still remained at about 24% in 2022, 8% higher than the national rate.

Davis said that addressing statewide gaps in health care and substance abuse treatment, as well as poverty, is needed to prevent ACE. Although Davis said he sees a political interest in preventing childhood trauma, the next steps may seem unclear. Davis said this:

“I think people don’t know what to do at the state level. … But I think there definitely is the will.”

HOMLESSNESS AND POVERTY

According to the 2024 Kids Count Data Book, New Mexico ranks 48^th with children living in poverty. A November 17, 2023 report prepared by the Legislative Education Study Committee found that nearly 40% of students were chronically absent from school in New Mexico during the 2022-23 school year. The number is slightly less than the previous year, but it’s still a major concern for educators and lawmakers who say children can’t learn if they aren’t in class. According to the report nearly 60.8% of students who are experiencing housing insecurity are also chronically absent. Chronic absenteeism is defined in New Mexico state law as missing 10% or more of classes or school days for any reason, whether excused or unexcused.

https://www.nmlegis.gov/handouts/ALESC%20111523%20Item%208%20.1%20School%20Attendance%20and%20Chronic%20Absence-Final%20Attendance%20Report%20-%20All%20Files.pdf

New Mexico Appleseed is an organization focused on reducing child poverty.  Jennifer Ramo, founder of New Mexico Appleseed, said homelessness can compound some of the issues raised in the Kids Count Data Book report. Ramo said transportation can be difficult for children who are homeless contributing to absenteeism.  Even if kids make it into the classroom, those factors can make it difficult to learn. Ramo said this:

“The teacher and the students, they’re both outgunned by poverty.  … In general, I don’t know how you can expect these kids to learn and be ready emotionally, and be focused, when maybe they haven’t eaten or they were sleeping on the floor or they have four people in their bed.”

Ramo said basic guaranteed income is something New Mexico Appleseed is pushing for as well as a statewide program to pay kids to show up to school.  Ramo said this:

“Most families are working and trying to get multiple jobs, and it’s still not adding up. … They still are not meeting the cost of living. … We can’t keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.”

A test program in two school districts in northern New Mexico paid students $500 per month if they attended tutoring, attended school 90% of the time and attended one socio-emotional meeting. The program worked. Ramo said this:

“They did it. … It’s a pretty profound impact. Between both districts, it was 93% [graduation rate for the participants].”

DATA LIMITATIONS CALLED INTO QUESTION

New Mexico Appleseed is an organization focused on reducing child poverty.  Jennifer Ramo, founder of New Mexico Appleseed, said every time the Kids Count report comes out, her heart sinks. Romo said she’d like to see the ranking system come to an end, especially with the state’s “economic reality.”  Romo said the ranking system does not suggest ways to grow.  Romos said this:

“We just get told, once again, how terrible we are, and there’s actually some pretty amazing work happening in New Mexico that we can scale and replicate. … It isn’t that we should ignore the data. We definitely need data, and we need to understand the problems. But I think that solution-oriented data is much more effective.”

NMCAN works with young people impacted by homelessness, foster care and the juvenile justice system.  Lorilynn Violanta, co-executive director of NMCAN, said they are people with “complex needs” and include young people and families the organization works with who often experience problems accessing available services. The Kids Count Data Book does not take into account fully accessibility to services those impacted by homelessness, foster care and the juvenile justice system.

Violanta described the problem this way:

“When I talk about the accessibility, I mean it in all different components. … Not only is the process easy to access, but then, when the family or the young person is accessing resources, how do we still meet them where they are, with the dignity they deserve? … Sometimes programs, as well-intentioned as they are, aren’t necessarily responding to the needs and the realities of young people and families.”

Gabrielle Uballez, the executive director of New Mexico Voices for Children, noted the Kids Count data is a couple of years behind and not reflective of what has happened over the last few years.  Uballez said the dataset includes several pandemic-era years and the effect of recent major investments may not be visible in the data for years to come. Uballez pointed to the creation of the Early Childhood Education and Care Department by Governor Lujan Grisham  which officially launched in summer 2020, and a 2022 voter-approved constitutional amendment to increase spending on early childhood education. Uballez said this:

“We should continue to make those investments. … Even though the results aren’t showing up this year or next year, we have a lot of faith that they will show up over the long term. So we should not be discouraged.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/new-mexico-at-the-bottom-of-national-child-welfare-report/article_8e2fad5c-284c-11ef-8409-7fd47a2fbf9e.html

NEW MEXICO’S FINANCIAL COMMITMENT TO KIDS EDUCATION

During the last 6 years, the New Mexico legislature has been very aggressive when it comes to increased funding to turn things around for New Mexico’s children when it comes to education and their wellbeing. Much of the legislatures efforts  have been a direct result of the 2018 landmark education case of Yazzie-Martinez v. New Mexico Public Education Department  where a  First Judicial District Court ruled the State of New Mexico violated students’ fundamental rights by failing to provide a sufficient public education mandated by the state constitution.  The court found that New Mexico students have a right to be college-and career-ready, a standard that was not being met by New Mexico’s education system. To address this, the state was ordered to take immediate action and establish an educational system that ensures at-risk students in New Mexico will be college and career ready.

In the summer of 2022, the New Mexico Public Education Department (PED) released updates on the progress made in response to the Yazzie-Martinez ruling. The report highlights various initiatives undertaken by the state, including increased funding, expanded access to pre-kindergarten programs, and targeted support for struggling schools.

“According to the report, the state’s spending on public education has received a substantial boost. In fiscal year 2018, New Mexico’s education system was funded at the tune of $2.69 billion; in fiscal year 2024, the education system is being funded at $4.17 billion. That is an increase of $1.3 billion over five years. State funds have been channeled toward reducing class sizes, hiring additional teachers, improving professional development programs, and enhancing resources for English language learners and special education students.”

In fiscal year 2019, public education funding spiked. The biggest accomplishments of the 2019 Legislative session were the dramatic increases in public education funding, creation of the Early Childhood Department (CYFD), the mandates to Children, Youth and Families and Public Education departments, not to mention raises for educators and increasing CYFD social workers by 125 were clearly the biggest accomplishments of the 2019 Legislative session.

Funding spiked in 2019  and was up to $306 million, including the following:

• $64 million for Pre-K to better prepare children for elementary school.
• $45 million for family, infant, toddler programs to help families with children with developmental delays.
• $30 million for K-3 Plus to add 25 days to the school year.

New Mexico is 1 of just 4 states with a stand-alone department dedicated to services targeting children through age 5. The initial operating budget for the new department was $419 million for the 2020-2021 fiscal year. The new department is tasked with overseeing the state’s growing investment in prekindergarten, home visiting programs for new parents, childcare and similar services that previously were scattered across several departments. One of the key goals is to better coordinate the state’s network of early childhood services by housing them in one department rather than having them overseen separately by other departments.

In 2020 the New Mexico Legislature created a $320 million early childhood education trust fund. In 2021, lawmakers and the governor agreed to up the spending on early childhood programs to $500 million.

2022 EDUCATION BUDGET FUNDING

During the 2022 New Mexico Legislative session, a trio of bills were enacted to fund programs to help Native American students succeed in school. The house bills provided more than $70 million to tribal entities to help offer culturally relevant lesson plans and access to virtual and after-school programs for those students.

The first bill appropriated $20 million from the state’s general fund to the Indian Education Act to be used to create culturally relevant learning programs, including Native language programs, for students in the K-12 system.

A second bill appropriated $21.5 million to help tribal education departments develop learning plans and programs for students, extend learning opportunities and support tribal school libraries.

The third bill was aimed at higher education and  appropriated $29.6 million to four state colleges and three tribal colleges for 53 initiatives.

In 2022, voters approved tapping the state’s Land Grant Permanent Fund for roughly another $240 million annually for early childhood education and K-12 schools. The additional distribution of funding from the Permanent Land Grant Fund goes into effect on July 1. The Early Childhood Education and Care Department recently reported it will experience a 68% increase in funding for Fiscal Year 2024.

The link to news source on funding is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/money-doesn-t-make-kids-count/article_65c5ecd8-0ca4-11ee-917e-93ee3771e5b3.html

 2023 EDUCATION BUDGET FUNDING

The enacted 2023-2024 New Mexico State budget contains major expenditures for  education and child wellbeing.  Those expenditures include:

• $220.1 Million for extended in-classroom learning time by increasing the number of minimum instructional hours per year in public schools.
• $30 Million to provide healthy universal school meals and to eliminate school meal costs for every New Mexico child.
• 2.9 Million to the Children, Youth and Families Department for 60 new protective services staff, to be supported by additional federal matching funds.
• $277.3 Million for continued investments in affordable, high-quality child care.
• $131 Million to maintain and expand access to high-quality pre-k education.
• $40.4 Million for the continued expansion of early childhood home visiting.
• $111.1 Million to provide a four percent salary increase for all school personnel.
• $157.4 Million for the Opportunity Scholarship program

 Links to quoted news source material are here:

https://www.governor.state.nm.us/2023/01/10/gov-lujan-grisham-releases-fy24-executive-budget-recommendation/

https://www.abqjournal.com/2563462/governor-calls-for-rebates-tax-cuts-and-increased-school-spending-in-budget-plan.html

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/ahead-of-2023-legislative-session-new-mexico-governor-releases-budget-suggestion/

 2024 EDUCATION BUDGET FUNDING

On February 12, 2024, the 2024-2025 Fiscal Year state budget was passed by the New Mexico Legislature. It contains  a 6.5% increase in recurring funds from last year’s  2023-2024 fiscal year.  The largest slice of the general fund goes to public schools, which are slated to receive about $4.3 billion for the fiscal year. That includes more than $94 million to give a flat 3% raise to all public-school employees, an amount that was trimmed by a Senate Finance Committee. Before public school employees were looking at a total average of 4% raises.  The final version the budget approved by the Senate includes $30 million for summer reading intervention programs, $14 million for early literacy and reading support and $5 million to train secondary educators in the science of reading.

 NM VOICES FOR CHILDRED ALLEGES RASCISM IN REACTION TO RANKINGS

The nonprofit advocacy group New Mexico  Voices for Children manages the state’s Kids Count Data Book  program. The organization issued the following statement in reaction to the 2024 Kids Count Rankings:

New Mexico’s ranking in the education domain is heavily impacted by national standardized test scores. . . These scores do not reflect the ability of our children, but rather an education system that is not designed with our multicultural, multilingual students in mind. New Mexico K-12 students of color and those who are Native American, from low-income families, and who have disabilities tend to not fare as well as their white, more affluent peers, largely as a result of generations of underfunding the education system and a lack of culturally responsive instruction and support. 

Institutionalized and systemic racism exacerbate inequities in child well-being, which are demonstrated in many of the KIDS COUNT indicators. Bottom-ranked states in the Data Book tend to have higher populations of children of color, highlighting that programs and systems are not designed to support them. 

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

On June 13, New Mexico Politics With Joe Monahan reported major pushback to the racism charge by New Mexico  Voices for Children  to the Kids Count Data Book rankings and reported as follows:

Maralyn Beck, director of the foster care group NM Child First Network, came with this reaction to the racism charge made by New Mexico  Voices for Children:

“It’s absolutely poor leadership. We are well past excuses. To be in a position of leadership and authority, and be recognized as the authority on the well-being of our kids and to say stuff like this should be a fireable excuse. As long as we listen to authority figures who say it’s OK to be last, we will remain last.”

Republican State Senator Crystal Brantley, who has been watch dogging state childhood programs, said this:

“As long as we give power, credibility, and an audience to leaders who justify the state’s failure to care for our children, we will remain last in the nation. We have ample opportunities to improve, but Democratic leaders seem to just accept this moral failure as an immutable fact of life and an inevitability given our state’s poverty. But we are not a poor state, nor are we helpless. We must demand more from our leaders or vote to change directions this November.”

Santa Fe radio talk show host and self-described “liberal Democrat” Richard Eeds said this:

“I don’t agree with this apologetic and excuse perspective and I never have. Every time they say that “we are working on improvements” and “just give us more time,” I always want to ask don’t you think the other 49 states continue towards improvement too? Or do you think that they just stop trying to help their kids improve outcomes after their 49th? There is no plan. It’s a pure stall.”

https://joemonahansnewmexico.blogspot.com/

FINAL COMMENT

After a full 6 years of millions spent each year on the state education programs and departments created, it difficult to accept the  excuses given as to why New Mexico has not improved in the annual Kids Count Data Book. If anything, the ratings are getting worse.

The excuses that there is “institutionalized and systemic racism exacerbating  inequities in child well-being” in New Mexico and that  “New Mexico’s ranking in the education domain is heavily impacted by national standardized test scores” ring very hollow.  They  are offensive and a reflection of cowardness by public education leaders to take responsibility for what is happening and its mismanagement. It’s a failure to hold people accountable  for failing our kids.  How much more time and more funding will it take to turn things around? No one knows for sure but blaming racism  and not holding people responsible just does not cut it.

Links to related blog articles on the annual Kids Count Data Book are here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2023/06/29/2023-annual-kids-count-report-again-ranks-new-mexico-50th-in-child-wellbeing-repairing-damage-done-by-republican-gov-martinez-to-states-public-education-system-taking-time-to-implement-refor/

https://www.petedinelli.com/2022/03/07/2021-new-mexico-kids-count-data-book-report-on-economic-well-being-education-health-and-community-of-new-mexicos-children-solutions-offered-funding-enacted/

https://www.petedinelli.com/2021/07/01/kids-count-data-book-new-mexico-still-at-the-bottom-with-our-kids/

https://www.petedinelli.com/2023/06/29/2023-annual-kids-count-report-again-ranks-new-mexico-50th-in-child-wellbeing-repairing-damage-done-by-republican-gov-martinez-to-states-public-education-system-taking-time-to-implement-refor/

On June 17 the Albuquerque City Council on a 6 to 3 vote passed a Charter Amendment that would eliminate all runoff elections for Mayor and City Council and mandating whoever gets the most votes wins with no runoff between the two top vote getters.  Whoever secures the most votes of all the candidates running at the same time wins the election out right. In a crowded field, the prevailing candidate would not have a majority vote but a much less percentage less than 50% of the vote.  The charter amendment must be placed on the November 5 general election ballot.  The charter amendment was sponsored Democrat Councilor Klarissa Pena and Republican Dan Lewis. Passage of the charter amendment has been severely criticized as a scheme to dilute the vote to help incumbents and those with high name identification by eliminating voter majority wins.  Mayor Tim Keller was quick to announce his intent to veto the  charter amendment, but the veto could be overturned on a 6 to 3 vote and then placed on the ballot.

What has not been widely reported is that Democrat City Councilor Klarissa Peña is still not done with attempting to change the basic city election process. Peña has introduced two additional charter amendments that have the goal of bringing all 9  city councilor elections into the same election cycle as the election for Mayor. The goal is to eliminate staggered terms of city councilors.

As it stands now under the city charter, 5 out of 9 City Councilors who represent the odd numbered City Council Districts 1,3,5,7and 9 are up for reelection in the same year as the Mayor. An individual who represents an odd number city council district can only run for City Council or Mayor, but not both. In other words, a City Councilor who represents an odd numbered City Council District must give up their seat if they run for Mayor.

Under one charter amendment the odd-district councilors representing Districts 1,3,5,7and 9 in 2025 would be elected to a two-year terms, then a four-year term in 2027. Under the other proposed charter amendment the even-district number councilors representing Council Districts 2,4,6 and 8 would in 2027 be elected to a two-year term requiring all 9 City Councilors to give up their seats to run for Mayor. Ultimately, only one of the two city charter amendment would be enacted by the city council. The next election for Mayor is in 2025.

It is common knowledge that Mayor Tim Keller is already preparing to run for a third term in 2025.  There are no term limits for Mayor or City Council. Councilors serve four-year terms on a staggered basis and there are no term limits for city council. District 1 City Councilor Louie Sanchez, District 3 City Councilor Klarissa Peña, District 5 City Councilor Dan Lewis, District 7 City Councilor Tammy Fiebelkorn, and District 9 City Councilor Renée Grout are up for reelection in 2025 and then again in 2029. To run for mayor next year in 2025 against Mayor Tim Keller, all 5 would have to surrender their city council seats. In 2013, then two term City Councilor Dan Lewis gave up his seat to run for Mayor. In 2017, then New Mexico State Auditor Tim Keller won the  runoff  election by a decisive landslide with 62.20% by securing 60,219 votes to Dan Lewis 37.8% who secured 36,594 votes.

District 2 City Councilor Joaquín Baca, District 4 City Councilor Brook Bassan, District 6 City Councilor Nichole Rogers and District 8 City Councilor Dan Champine are up for reelection in 2027 and then again in  2031.  All 4 could remain on the City Council to run for Mayor in 2025, and if elected Mayor would have to resign their position as a City Councilor but could then  appoint their successor.

Peña said she is very concerned about low voter turn outs in municipal elections. She said it could be beneficial for voter turnout to put all councilors on the ticket with the mayor. Peña said this:

“On the off years, we tend to garner more votes when we run with the mayor. … I think this would really drive out voter participation. … I’m just trying to achieve some fairness with this. … If you’re an odd-numbered councilor … then you really have to decide if this is the end of the road for you. [The 4 even numbered district city councilors] don’t have to make those decisions.”

Both Charter Amendments were introduced by Peña on June 17.  The charter amendments will have to go through the City Council’s committee hearing process and will likely have several rounds of public hearing before the 9 member City Council will take a final vote. Both Charter Amendments were fast-tracked in an effort to get them onto the ballot in November.  The City Council is on summer break and  the next City Council meeting will be on the August 5

The link to relied upon and quoted news source is here:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/half-city-council-seat-run-030100655.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

City Councilor Klarissa Peña’s support and sponsorship of eliminating all runoff elections for Mayor and City Council and now proposing abolishing staggered terms for city council and elections where all 9 city councilors would be up for election at the same time as the Mayor is a recipe for election chaos, total disruption of the election process and will be disastrous on many levels.  It also calls into question what is really motivating her and what are her own political plans.

Simply put, the Charter Amendment to reduce the vote to win a City Council or Mayoral race with whoever gets the most votes with no runoffs is very bad government on many levels and will result in chaos in municipal elections. Common Cause said it best when it was quick to address the city council vote on social media this way:

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

The primary purpose for having staggered terms for city councilors is ensure a degree of stability and allow for institutional knowledge on the city council when it comes to the legislative process. If all 9 city councilors are up for election in one election cycle, there could be a real possibly of a 100% turnover the same year on the city  council. This will result in the election of officials who have very little or no knowledge whatsoever of the legislative process, unless they have served on the council before,  that is so vitally needed for city policy and to get things done.

Councilor Klarissa Peña ostensibly believes that all city councilors should have the right to run for Mayor without giving up their seats on the city council, including herself. This is misplaced concern given that when you run for city council, it should be to do your best to represent your constituents with no concern to run for Mayor in the future. Those running for odd number city council districts know full well the limitations of running for Mayor and if not they should just ask Dan Lewis.

City Councilor Klarissa Peña said she is not aware of any odd-district councilors interested in running for mayor in 2025.  The truth is it is still way too early and it is doubtful any City Councilor who wants to run next year for Mayor would disclose it to her now or  to the public.

City Councilor Peña is up for reelection next year in 2025. What she has not disclosed is if she is running for another term or does she intend to run for Mayor against Mayor Tim Keller. In which case she will politically benefit from enactment of all the Charter Amendments she is sponsoring. In the interest of full disclosure and transparency Councilor Klarissa Peña should be far more candid about her own politcal ambitions and intentions before she starts asking voters to change our election process in such dramatic ways.