The 2024 New Mexico legislature begins January 16. The 2024 legislative session will be a 30 short  session where budgetary matters will be the primary focus. On January 4, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham released her proposed 2024-2025 state budget that begins on July 1.  She is proposing a $10.5 billion budget which is a 9.9% increase from the current fiscal year that ends on June 30.

The Governor  has submitted a record breaking $10.5 billion budget where she  is recommending the state capitalize on “record revenues” with $10.5 billion in recurring funds and $2.1 billion in one-time, nonrecurring cash infusions for the upcoming fiscal year budget.

Major increases in pay raises is being proposed for all state employees with even higher pay increases for law enforcement.  The Governor is proposing a 3% pay raise  for all state employees and teachers. State Police officers would be given a larger pay raise of 14% while corrections, probation and parole officers would get 7% pay raises. More than half a billion would be earmarked for law enforcement recruitment, pay, and equipment and support for other first responders.

The governor wants to put more than $3 billion toward healthcare initiatives to help subsidize patient care and draw more providers to the state. Hundreds of millions would also be allocated for economic development investments, roads and infrastructure, and shoring up the state’s water supply.

Lujan Grisham’s proposed budget includes provisions to keep more than a third of state revenues in reserve, in case of revenue shortfalls in the future. The New Mexico Constitution requires a balanced budget.  However  during the 2008 recession and an oil bust in the early 2010s, reserves proved insufficient to cover the losses.

PUBLIC EDUCATION

As usual, public education is  the  biggest area for funding. More than $4 billion would go toward K-12 education to expand early childhood programs, train educators and  boost teacher pay.  A 7% budget increase from last year is being proposed for the Department of Public Education.   $4.5 billion would go to summer and after-school programs, literacy programs and a new Structured Literacy Institute, among other programs.

Spending on public education would increase by $283 million, or 6.8%, to nearly $4.5 billion. One goal is to bolster specialized literacy programs, while founding a state literacy institute. Additional funds would help extend annual instructional time at public schools across the state. Republicans in the legislative minority oppose the push to expand public school calendars.

The Lujan Grisham administration hopes to add 2,000 slots for infant and toddler childcare and expand early preschool by 1,380 slots through increased state spending, while also bolstering aid to children being raised by grandparents.  Legislators have expressed frustration in recent months with the results of sustained spending increases on public education. Statewide, the share of students who can read at their grade level is 38%. Math proficiency is at 24%. The state’s high school graduation rate hovers at 76%, well below the national average of 87%.

OIL AND GAS REMAINS LARGEST REVENUE SOURCE

As usual, oil and gas revenues still dominates state revenues and is makes  up to almost 40% of the expected $13.05 billion in general fund revenues for the next fiscal year.

Although state revenues are still high,  Department of Finance and Administration Secretary Wayne Propst acknowledged that growth is expected to slow. Propst said this in a statement:

“We’re fully aware that growth is projected to slow in future fiscal years, but the state is in a unique position to continue to make smart investments now, while maintaining historically high reserves. … It’s also important to note that as we improve health outcomes, lift families out of poverty and bolster the state’s economy, costs for programs and services go down.”

The Governor’s proposed budget also addresses clean energy initiatives.  $20 million would be made available as low-interest loans to communities for projects that reduce carbon emissions, and $30 million would head to improving electric vehicle infrastructure in the state. The Governor’s Office is also pursuing incentives for the purchase of electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids to bolster new clean cars requirements adopted by the state.

But Larry Behrens, the communications director for Power the Future, a group that advocates for energy worker interests, wanted more from the “massive” budget recommendation.

MAJOR BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS

A breakdown of what the governor is asking by category for is as follows:

Water & Natural Resources 

• $500 million capital appropriation from severance tax bonds for the Strategic Water Supply. Lujan Grisham announced the Strategic Water Supply program during a December trip to Dubai. It treats water for use in renewable energy production
• $250 million general fund transfer to the Land of Enchantment Conservation Fund, which feeds into the Land of Enchantment Legacy Fund
• $20 million to support low-interest loans to communities to implement projects that reduce carbon emissions

Housing & Homelessness 

• $250 million for the New Mexico Housing Trust Fund
• $250 million to the New Mexico Finance Authority Opportunity Enterprise Revolving Fund to increase funding for affordable housing, including developments of low-income multi-family housing, down payment assistance for low and middle-income households, homeowner rehabilitation and weatherization programs, etc.
• $40 million for homelessness initiatives to coordinate and expand homelessness services statewide

Education 

• $33 million to expand early pre-kindergarten by 1,380 slots
• $101.2 million increase to the State Equalization Guarantee Distribution for the necessary adjustment to 180 classroom days
• $58.1 million for structured literacy, including $30 million for a new Structured Literacy Institute
• $43.5 million for healthy, universal school meals
• 3% pay increase ($96 million) for all educators

Health Care, Behavioral Health & Child Well-Being 

• $2.15 billion in recurring general fund for the Health Care Authority, formerly the Human Services Department
• $100 million for the Rural Healthcare Delivery Fund
• $87.9 million for Medicaid provider rate increases to 150% for maternal/child health, primary care, and behavioral health
• $24.7 million to create a new Family Services division at the Children, Youth and Families Department

Public Safety 

• $35 million for corrections and law enforcement recruitment statewide
• $5 million for the Governor’s Commission on Organized Crime
• $35 million for the Firefighter and EMT Recruitment Fund

Economic Development & Infrastructure 

• $100 million to launch the New Mexico Match Fund, which will leverage federal funding for infrastructure investments, including roads, bridges, water, energy and broadband
• $25 million for the Local Economic Development Act Program (LEDA)
• $9.7 million for the Job Training Incentive Program (JTIP)
• $5 million in total funding for the New Mexico Media Academy
• $1.5 million special to the Economic Development Department to broaden New Mexico’s international market reach

GOVERNOR LUJAN GRISHAM ISSUES STATEMENT

Governor Lujan Grisham in releasing here 2024-2025 proposed budget said this:

“Because of our historic – but prudent – investments made over the last few years in New Mexico in everything from small businesses to hospitals, childcare to college, free school meals to law enforcement, the future of our state is brighter than ever. … Here’s my promise to New Mexicans today: I will continue to push for programs, services and solutions that work. Here’s my promise to New Mexicans in future years and future generations: We will continue to spend within our means, responsibly and with an eye toward accountability, always, while capitalizing on the fiscal opportunities available.”   

LINKS TO QUOATED NEWS SOURCES ARE HERE:

https://www.governor.state.nm.us/2024/01/04/gov-lujan-grisham-releases-fy25-executive-budget-recommendation-recommendation-continues-bold-investments-while-maintaining-fiscal-responsibility/#:~:text=SANTA%20FE%20%E2%80%93%20Today%2C%20Gov.,will%20maintain%20reserves%20at%2034.2%25.

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/governor-releases-budget-recommendations-for-2025-fiscal-year/

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/legislature/governor-releases-recommendations-for-10-5b-budget/

https://www.koat.com/article/new-mexico-governor-government-spending-increase-proposal/46291284

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/lujan-grisham-recommends-10-5-billion-budget-for-fiscal-year/article_13f944ea-ab55-11ee-9792-f36ae2c7bdc0.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The 30 day New Mexico legislative session begins on January 16  at noon and ends on February 15 at noon.  The Legislative Finance Committee is expected to release its own proposed budget on January 5.  Once the session begins, both budgets will be subject to legislative hearings in both the House and Senate. A final budget will emerge.

One thing is for certain, the governor’s proposed budget is ambitious because of the 9.9% increase she is proposing but the job of promoting her programs during the 2024 legislative session will be made much easier because of the oil boom that has propelled New Mexico’s government revenue to record highs.

The record surplus should allow the Governor to virtually fund all the education programs she wants, invest in capital projects and infrastructure but only if the legislature allows her.

Manny Crespín Jr. is the Founder of Coalition for Fire Fund Fairness. In response to the devastating wildfires in Northern New Mexico in 2022 and 2023, the Coalition for Fire Fund Fairness (CFFF) has emerged as a dedicated alliance committed to restoring the lives of those affected by the Hermit’s Peak-Calf Canyon Fire. CFFF’s mission is to ensure full compensation for victims, addressing not only economic losses but also the profound emotional and spiritual toll inflicted by the wildfires which include non-economic damages.

The urgency of their cause stems from the belief that justice is not an option but a necessity for the people of Northern New Mexico. Beyond financial restitution, the CFFF strives to mend the mental, emotional, and spiritual well-being of the victims, recognizing the profound injustice they face. With a clear mission to bring wholeness to those impacted, the Coalition is a powerful advocate for justice, a beacon of hope, and a resolute force against the overwhelming adversity caused by the wildfires.

GUEST OPINION COLUMN

On December 31, 2023, the Albuquerque Journal published the following guest column by Mr. Crespin and he has given his authorization to publish on www.PeteDinelli.com:

HEADLINE: FEMA Bureaucrats Are Failing Northern New Mexico Wildfire Victims

“622 days. A painful reminder of the trauma inflicted by the Hermits Peak/Calf Canyon Fire.

As we enter another holiday season traditionally filled with warmth and joy, the majority of victims have not been compensated. Their hearts are burdened by prolonged suffering and mismanagement of the Hermits Peak/Calf Canyon Claims Office.

President Biden’s promise to make victims whole, and Congress’ actions in passing the Hermits Peak/Calf Canyon Fire Assistance Act, were important first steps, but the FEMA bureaucrats charged with administering the act have failed us.

At FEMA’s (recent) town hall, Director Angela R. Gladwell stated that FEMA has distributed $146 million of the $3.95 billion fund to victims. In the more than 14 months since the fund was created, Gladwell and FEMA have paid out less than 4% to victims who lost their homes and livelihoods.

Gladwell went on to state that FEMA projects it will spend approximately 7% of the $3.95 billion fund – or $276.5 million – on running the claims office. This is an outrageous waste of taxpayer money.

This waste is particularly galling because Gladwell has unilaterally decided that the fund will not pay victims for their pain and suffering, even though the act requires victims to be paid according to New Mexico law, which explicitly allows victims to recover non-economic damages. Thus, while refusing to fully compensate victims for their losses, Gladwell is wasting tens of millions of dollars that should be paid to victims.

Director Gladwell is failing to comply with the act, which requires FEMA to provide a written offer within 180 days of victims submitting claims.

The Coalition for Fire Fund Fairness has learned from victims and their attorneys that there are dozens of claimants that have not received their 180-day offer. In response, Director Gladwell provided deliberately misleading information to the public and the press, stating that 73% of claims have been paid. That is simply false.

After Gladwell made her 73% assertion, CFFF checked with our members and found that of 178 claimants who have filed paperwork through their legal counsel, only three have been considered for payment. This amounts to approximately 1.7% of claims filed by legal counsel.

Further, FEMA has provided zero documentation to show the accurate number of claims that have been paid to date. At best this claim amounts to fuzzy math, at worst it amounts to a bald-faced lie intended to trick the press into thinking the claims process is working and only adds insult to injury for the victims of the Hermits Peak/Calf Canyon Fire.

CFFF believes that our community deserves a fair and transparent process. We hope that the Biden-Harris administration and the New Mexico congressional delegation will listen to local leaders and community members and institute meaningful change by replacing the current claims office leadership with a competent administrator. This individual must have an extensive legal background and be familiar with New Mexico’s unique culture and traditions tied to our land and water. There are several current and former New Mexico judges and appellate justices who would be perfect for this role.

The holidays should be a time of healing, not a continuation of the pain that has lingered for far too long.

Manny Crespín Jr. is the founder of the Coalition for Fire Fund Fairness.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/opinion-fema-bureaucrats-are-failing-northern-nm-wildfire-victims/article_f84b775c-a4fd-11ee-868f-1b8332d28b73.html

LETTER TO PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN

On December 4, Mr. Crespin sent to President Joe Biden, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Deanne Criswell the following letter with 12 cosigners asking for assistance with the Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon Fire Assistance Act claims process:

December 4, 2023

The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

President of the United States

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

The Honorable Alejandro Mayorkas

Secretary

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, D.C. 20528

The Honorable Deanne Criswell

Administrator

Federal Emergency Management Agency

500 C Street S.W.

Washington, DC 20472

Dear President Biden, Secretary Mayorkas, and Administrator Criswell:

First, we want to thank you for what you have done thus far by signing the Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon Fire Assistance Act, visiting New Mexico during and after the fire and attempting to put the claims process into action. It has been a long and difficult recovery. While many of the impacted communities have begun to heal, the ongoing administration of the claims process has fallen short and continues to have emotional and psychological impacts on victims. Please remember that the federal government’s negligence caused the Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon Fire, and through acknowledging this fact we hope you will work with community leaders and victims in Mora, San Miguel, and Taos counties to institute critical reforms to the claims office and ensure victims are fully compensated for their losses (both economic and non-economic).

Unfortunately, the United States Government has a long record of making promises to New Mexicans that are never kept. (1)  This history begins with The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (2) and now continues in the 21^st Century as Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) officials dismiss statutory deadlines, fail to acquire the necessary personnel to investigate claims, and deliberately advise victims not to seek legal representation. To be clear, we believe the individual federal employees tasked with standing-up the Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon Claims Office have tried their best, and perhaps have not been given the proper guidance while interacting with the community. This only raises the serious need for immediate reforms and changes in leadership of the claim’s office.

Equally as important, we feel the current leadership of the Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon Claims Office does not possess the fundamental understanding of the long-documented history of land loss (3), institutional discrimination, and land mismanagement by federal agencies in New Mexico (4) that the deep wounds the Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon Fire has re-opened. Without this cultural and historical understanding, it is virtually impossible for the claims office to be fair, sincere, and adequate in its approach to properly administer claims. Therefore, we ask that the Biden Administration appoint an outside and objective individual to lead the claims office. This individual must have a substantial legal background, a deep understanding of New Mexico’s culture and history, and must not be a career bureaucrat or current political appointee. Below are names of individuals that the community, writ large, will accept as knowledgeable and objective to lead the claims office:

Richard Bosson, retired Justice, New Mexico Supreme Court

• Judith Nakamura, retired Chief Justice, New Mexico Supreme Court
• Linda Vanzi, retired Chief Judge, New Mexico Court of Appeals
• Tim Garcia, retired Judge, New Mexico Court of Appeals
• Alan Mallot, retired Judge, New Mexico District Court
• Michael Aragon, Judge, New Mexico District Court 

Finally, we recognize it is likely that the Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon Fire Assistance Act needs legislative fixes so the claims office can broaden its outreach and acknowledgment of the size and scope of claims. We ask that the White House and the FEMA External Affairs Office (OEA) work directly with impacted communities, local leaders, and the New Mexico Congressional Delegation to draft and pass the necessary legislative fixes to promote maximum fairness to claimants before the end of the 118^th Congress.

Land and water are traditionally and generationally important to New Mexicans, not only to sustain life, but also as a foundation of our identity and culture. This goes far beyond any economic value you can tie to our land and water resources. Land loss, whether through annexation, confiscation, systemic poverty, or negligent wildfires, constitutes a loss of the very essence of what it means to be New Mexican.

Mr. President, the commitments you made on your visit to New Mexico during the fire are desperately needed. You stated, “We [the Biden-Harris Administration] have a responsibility to help this state recover, to help the families who have been here for centuries, and the beautiful northern New Mexico villages who can’t go home and whose livelihoods have been fundamentally changed.” (5)  We are hopeful that you will reaffirm your commitment to the victims of this fire by immediately addressing the concerns we have presented in this letter including the implementation of changes to the claims process, changes to claims office leadership, and seeking legislative fixes that streamline FEMA’s ability to work with impacted communities and victims. 

Land and water are traditionally and generationally important to New Mexicans, not only to sustain life, but also as a foundation of our identity and culture. This goes far beyond any economic value you can tie to our land and water resources. Land loss, whether through annexation, confiscation, systemic poverty, or negligent wildfires, constitutes a loss of the very essence of what it means to be New Mexican.

Mr. President, the commitments you made on your visit to New Mexico during the fire are desperately needed. You stated, “We [the Biden-Harris Administration] have a responsibility to help this state recover, to help the families who have been here for centuries, and the beautiful northern New Mexico villages who can’t go home and whose livelihoods have been fundamentally changed.  We are hopeful that you will reaffirm your commitment to the victims of this fire by immediately addressing the concerns we have presented in this letter including the implementation of changes to the claims process, changes to claims office leadership, and seeking legislative fixes that streamline FEMA’s ability to work with impacted communities and victims. 

Sincerely,

Manny Crespín Jr.

Founder, Coalition for Fire Fund Fairness (CFFF)

Representing over 300 impacted community members in San Miguel, Mora and Taos Counties

LISTED CO SIGNERS

/s/ George A. Trujillo, County Commission Chair, District 2, County of Mora, NM

/s/ Mayor David Romero, City of Las Vegas, NM

/s/ Michael L. Montoya, City Councilor (Ward 2), City of Las Vegas, NM

/s/ David Ulibarri, City Councilor (Ward 1), City of Las Vegas, NM

/s/ Dr. Barbara A. Perea Casey, Ed.D., City Councilor (Ward 3), City of Las Vegas, NM

/s/ State Senator Michel Padilla (Dist. 14), Majority Whip

/s/ State Representative Reena Szczepanski (Dist. 47),

/s/ Majority Whip/s/ State Representative Ambrose Castellano (Dist. 70)

/s/ State Representative Harry Garcia (Dist. 69)

/s/ State Representative Joseph Sanchez (Dist. 40)

/s/ Liz Stefanics (advocating for San Miguel County victims)

Links to footnotes are here:

1. https://abcnews.go.com/US/mexican-americans-seek-atonement-ancestral-lands-generations/story?id=73320792
2. https://www.nmag.gov/about-the-office/civil-affairs/treaty-of-guadalupe-hidalgo-division/#:~:text=The%20OAG%20Treaty%20of%20Guadalupe,the%20Constitution%20of%20New%20Mexico
3. https://www.benjaminjameswaddell.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Zentella-Land-Loss-Among-the-Hispanos-of-NM.pdf
4. https://www.historicsantafe.org/hsff-gift-shop/new-mexicos-stolen-lands-a-history-of-racism-fraud-deceit-ray-john-de-aragon
5. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/06/11/remarks-by-president-biden-in-a-briefing-on-the-new-mexico-wildfires/

On December 26,  in a press release, the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) announced that the federal Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Court Appointed Federal Monitor overseeing APD’s reform efforts agreed  to transition Level 2 and 3 police officer use-of-force investigations from the External Force Investigation Team (EFIT) back to the APD Internal Affairs Force Division (IAFD).

What this means is that APD is once again primarily responsible and in control of  all of  APD’s use-of-force investigations of  the most serious use-of-force cases involving APD police officers.  This is a major step forward for  a department that has been under a Court Approved Settlement Agreement  with the U.S. Department of Justice since 2014 and after federal investigators found a “culture of aggression” within APD and that it had engaged in “a pattern of  excessive use of  force and deadly force.”

There are 3 Use of Force Classifications enumerated in the APD Use Of Force Policies:

Level 1 is force that is likely to cause only transitory pain, disorientation, or discomfort during its application as a means of gaining compliance. This includes techniques which are not reasonably expected to cause injury, do not result in actual injury, and are not likely to result in a complaint of injury (i.e., pain compliance techniques and resisted handcuffing). Pointing a firearm, beanbag shotgun, or 40-millimeter launcher at a subject, or using an Electronic Control Weapon (ECW)  to “paint” a subject with the laser sight, as a show of force are reportable as Level 1 force. Level 1 force does not include interaction meant to guide, assist, or control a subject who is offering minimal resistance.

Level 2 is force that causes injury, could reasonably be expected to cause injury, or results in a complaint of injury. Level 2 force includes: use of an Electronic Control Weapon (ECW), including where an ECW is fired at a subject but misses; use of a beanbag shotgun or 40 millimeter launcher, including where it is fired at a subject but misses; OC Spray application; empty hand techniques (i.e., strikes, kicks, takedowns, distraction techniques, or leg sweeps); and strikes with weapons, except strikes to the head, neck, or throat, which would be considered a Level 3 use of force.

Level 3 is force that results in, or could reasonably result in, serious physical injury, hospitalization, or death. Level 3 force includes: all lethal force; critical firearms discharges; all head, neck, and throat strikes with an object; neck holds; canine bites; three or more uses of an ECW on an individual during a single interaction regardless of mode or duration or an ECW application for longer than 15 seconds, whether continuous or consecutive; four or more strikes with a baton; any Level 2 use of force, strike, blow, kick, ECW application, or similar use of force against a handcuffed subject; and uses of force resulting in a loss of consciousness.

EFIT CREATION AND WHY

The EFIT was created on February 26, 2021 by an agreed court order after the Federal Monitor found that APD intentionally did not investigate 667 Police Officer of Use of Force cases.  A Court Order was agreed to by the City and APD after the Department of Justice made it know it was prepared to seek “Contempt of Court” for willful violation of the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA) and seek sanctions against the city and APD.

The EFIT is an outside team of experienced law enforcement investigators on contract with the city that was responsible for training APD’s Internal Affairs Force Divion (IAFD) on how to properly investigate use-of-force cases.  Independent Monitor James Ginger was highly critical of APD creating a backlog of 667 Use of Force Cases saying it had “failed miserably in its ability to police itself.” Another function of EFIT was to clear the backlog of  cases.

18^th FEDERAL MONITOR’S REPORT

In his most recent  18^th Federal Monitor’s Report filed on November 8, 2023,  Federal Monitor James Ginger completely changed his tune regarding APD’s performance and implementation of the reforms mandated by the  Court-Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA) with the DOJ.   According to the Federal  Monitor,  a crucial part of APD’s  compliance gains, has come from the  higher-quality use-of-force investigations by the Internal Affairs Force Division  under EFIT’s guidance.

The 18^th Federal Monitors Report covers the time period of February 1, 2023 through July 1, 2023 and reports APD’s compliance levels being as follows:

• Primary Compliance 100%
• Secondary Compliance 99% (Down 1%)
• Operational Compliance 94%(95% is needed to be achieved and sustained for 2 years)

The 3 compliance levels are explained as follows:

PRIMARY COMPLIANCE

Primary compliance is the “policy” part of compliance. To attain primary compliance, APD must have in place operational policies and procedures designed to guide officers, supervisors and managers in the performance of the tasks outlined in the CASA. As a matter of course, the policies must be reflective of the requirements of the CASA; must comply with national standards for effective policing policy; and must demonstrate trainable and evaluable policy components.

SECONDARY COMPLIANCE

Secondary compliance is attained by implementing supervisory, managerial and executive practices designed to and be effective in implementing the policy as written, e.g., sergeants routinely enforce the policies among field personnel and are held accountable by managerial and executive levels of the department for doing so. By definition, there should be operational artifacts such as reports, disciplinary records, remands to retraining, follow-up, and even revisions to policies if necessary, indicating that the policies developed in the first stage of compliance are known to, followed by, and important to supervisory and managerial levels of the department.

OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE

Operational compliance is attained at the point that the adherence to policies is apparent in the day-to-day operation of the agency e.g., line personnel are routinely held accountable for compliance, not by the monitoring staff, but by their sergeants, and sergeants are routinely held accountable for compliance by their lieutenants and command staff. In other words, the APD “owns” and enforces its policies.

Click to access final-imr-18.pdf

The 18^th report finds that APD is only ONE percentage point from full compliance in “Operational Compliance” going from 92% to 94%.  APD went down by 1% in “Secondary Compliance” going down from 100% to 99%.  APD sustained Primary Compliance at 100%.

Under the terms and conditions of the CASA, once APD achieves a 95% compliance rate in all 3 identified compliance levels and maintains it for 2 consecutive years, the case can be dismissed. Originally, APD was to have come into compliance within 4 years and the case was to be dismissed in 2018.

TRANSITION OF USE OF FORCE INVESTIGATIONS FROM EFIT TO APD

EFIT was on call 24/7 and was required to respond to all call outs within one hour of notification. All Use of Force (“UOF”) investigations must be completed within 60 days with an additional 30-day supervisory review period for a total of 90 days from start to finish.  EFIT was required to conduct joint investigations with APD Internal Affairs Force Division (“IAFD”) of all Level 2 and Level 3 Use of Force incidents.   The joint investigations included all Tactical Deployments where Use of Force was utilized. EFIT also assisted APD with training concerning the Use Of Force. The EFIT Executive Team worked with APD IAFD to establish a detailed IA Investigative Process Narrative that governs the response protocols to any Level 2 and 3 UOF cases.

On March 21, 2022, an Amended Stipulated Order Establishing the EFIT was agreed to by the parties. The Amended Stipulated Order modifies the EFIT in two ways:

First it required the EFIT to investigate all use-of-force incidents occurring between January 1, 2020, through July 16, 2021, that APD did not investigate, in full or in part, in violation of the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (“CASA”).

Second it extended by 24 months, from May 2022 through May 2024, the period during which the City shall continue to engage EFIT to assist IAFD to investigate Level 2 and Level 3 use-of-force incidents. This ostensibly will no longer be the case.

The EFIT Executive Team worked with APD to establish a detailed Process Narrative that governs the response protocols to Level 2 and 3 Use Of Force cases. EFIT and APD continued to review this document to ensure that it is serving the interests of the assignment and has made modifications, as necessary.

Closed Use of Force cases are presented to the Force Review Board (“FRB”).   All Level 3 cases, tactical deployments and 10 % of Level 2 cases are presented at FRB. Initially, EFIT had no role in the Force Review Board process other than as an observer. However, as the cases that EFIT jointly investigated with Internal Affairs Force  Division were at the FRB level.

According to the most recent notice pleading filed with the Court, prior to the transfer of Use of Force Cases to APD, the  EFIT, DOJ and the city developed a six-part transition plan for Internal Affairs Force Division complete investigations in a timely, thorough, and fair manner” without EFIT’s assistance.  There are 14 of APD’s Internal Affairs Force Division investigators, made up of sworn personnel and civilians, were still under EFIT’s supervision  when APD took over the investigation of cases. Eleven investigators had previously graduated from EFIT’s guidance to conduct investigations on their own.

IAFD’s transition plan includes a manual and orientation program for new investigators, as well as on-the-job training that pairs them with experienced IAFD personnel and replicates EFIT’s function.  IAFD also created a rubric for evaluating whether investigations and case reviews follow policy and a dashboard to track cases and personnel performance.

As part of the transition of investigations back to APD,  the department assigned an APD Internal Affairs Force Deputy Commander as the quality control manager “to ensure consistency amongst commanding officer reviews, replicating the EFIT Executive Team’s similar function.” According to court pleading filed, the plan outlines that EFIT will remain available to assist IAFD at APD’s request, and the department will regularly document IAFD’s ability “to train personnel and complete investigations within timelines.”   APD will also send DOJ and EFIT weekly reports on IAFD’s casework and its training program for new investigators.

According to the notice pleading filed with the federal court on the transfer of investigations to APD:

“IAFD has demonstrated its capacity to complete investigations in a timely, thorough, and fair manner. IAFD has also set up systems to independently train, mentor, and oversee personnel going forward,” Returning the responsibility for Level 2 and Level 3 force investigations back to APD while EFIT continues working on the backlog also provides the Parties, the Monitor, the Court, and the public an opportunity to evaluate the efficacy of APD’s systems for investigating force, with a backstop still available if it is needed.”

PROGRESS MADE IN CLEARING BACKLOG OF CASES

It was on November 16, 2022, the External Force Investigation Team (EFIT) filed its 4^th quarterly report covering  the time period of August 5, 2022 to October 27, 2022. The EFIT reported that as of November 14, 2022, the total backlog of Use of Force Cases APD failed to investigate was 667 prompting a scathing review of the Federal Monitor.  The EFIT now  reports it has made substantial progress in clearing the cases and  so far has  cleared 470 of the backlogged cases with 197 remaining to be cleared. The problem with clearing backlogged cases that are past due, if officers violated policies, they cannot  be disciplined as per the union contract.

WORDS OF PRAISE WITH WORDS OF CAUTION

While Federal Monitor Ginger praised the progress made by Internal Affairs Force Division (IAFD) investigators and supervisors in his 18^th Federal Monitors report,  he also raised concerns about APD’s top  command staff  not heeding IAFD’s findings. He noted in particular APD command staff deeming fatal police shooting as being in line with APD policy when it was not.

Dr. James Ginger in his 18^th Federal Monitor’s Report praised APD’s significant progress over the last 2 years and applauded the work of force investigators and supervisors.

During the 18^th reporting period, from February 1, 2023 through July 1, 2023, the monitor reported:

“… training processes  remained strong, reflecting “best-standards” of training needs, curricula development, and delivery of CASA-congruent training programs. Importantly, during this reporting period, with the approval of the Parties and the concurrence of the monitor, APD is now self-monitoring 157 specific paragraphs.  APD continues to develop the ability to independently self-monitor with review by the monitoring team.”

The monitor noted compliance findings began improving markedly during the 2021 IMR-14 reporting period and that APD continued to make gains for 5 consecutive monitoring periods.  The monitor reported that the compliance surge was due to APD’s finally understanding the change process, and focused APD leadership vis a vis compliance issues.

During the 18^th reporting period, the monitor’s team reviewed 8 cases completed by the External Force Investigation Team and found each case to be “thorough, accurate, well-documented, and congruent with APD policy and national standards.   This is a major milestone.  The case reports comply with  policy, training, and in-field performance.  This is a central reform requirements of the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA).”

The Federal Monitoring Team found APD’s disciplinary findings and practices continue to improve during this reporting period. However, the monitoring team found they are not yet at the 95% compliance level which is mandated for 2 years before the case can be dismissed.

FUNDAMENTAL CONCERNS ABOUT APD OVERSIGHT

A major concern was identified about the trend during IMR-17 and IMR-18 with Force Review Boards mishandling of some officer-involved shootings. The report noted it is extremely difficult for an agency to function well, absent strong oversight processes related to high-risk critical tasks, particularly when these tasks are a major reason for the existence of the CASA.  The monitor identified this issue as a major problem due to the fact that one of the major reasons for the existence of the CASA was questionable APD officer-involved shootings over a protracted period.

The 18^th Federal Monitors Report raised fundamental concerns about oversight from the top management levels of APD, or those who make up the Internal Affairs Force Division (IAFD) and Force Review Board (FRB). The report said for the second time, the FRB and IAFD had disagreed with investigators, deeming fatal police shooting as being in line with APD policy when it was not.

A few nonfatal police shootings have been found out of policy in recent years but yet APDs top command staff has yet to find a fatal police shooting out of policy, meaning an officer’s actions were not “objectively reasonable, proportional, nor the minimum amount of force necessary.”  The Federal Monitoring team said it identified “a grave and substantial malfeasance” in the top command staff mishandling of a fatal police shooting, erroneously ruling it justified.

The monitoring team reported the concerning trend of Internal Affairs Force Division leadership and the Force Review Board “mishandling” police shootings following a year in which the department shot or shot at a record-high 18 people, with 10 of them being killed.

The Federal court has scheduled next hearing on APD’s reform efforts and the Federal Monitor’s 18^th report  for January 4.

APD REACTION TO RESUMING USE OF FORCE INVESTIGATIONS

APD officials said its Internal Affairs Force Division resuming control of use-of-force investigations marked “another key milestone” in the department’s reform effort. APD Chief Harold Medina had this to say in a statement:

“This is a major accomplishment and one of the most meaningful changes we’ve made as a department. … It is critical that we are able to conduct our own, thorough and professional use-of-force investigations. … The Albuquerque Police Department has come a long way in trust transparency and actually properly investigating uses of force and getting that information out to the public,” APD’s Chief Harold Medina said. … We now have a review of our shootings every six months to see what the current trends are and that’s something we never did before as a department. … It’s really taught us to self-reflect to see how we can make changes before it’s brought to us by the Department of Justice.”

Links to quoted news sources are here:

https://www.cabq.gov/police/news/apd-resumes-control-of-use-of-force-investigations#:~:text=APD%20agreed%20in%202021%20with,of%20force%20used%20by%20officers.

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/apd-regains-control-of-use-of-force-investigations/

https://www.krqe.com/news/apd-retakes-over-use-of-force-investigations/

https://www.koat.com/article/apd-review-use-of-force-incidents/46238640

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/albuquerque-police-reclaims-oversight-in-investigating-use-of-force/article_bb055e4c-a699-11ee-a5ce-9f35a0766e67.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

REFORMS ACHIEVED UNDER THE CASA

On November 16, 2023, it was a full 9 years that has expired since the city entered into the CASA with the DOJ. It was originally agreed that implementation of all the settlement terms would be completed within 4 years, but because of previous delay and obstruction tactics  by APD management and the police officers’ union found by the Federal Monitor as well as APD backsliding in implementing the reforms, it has taken another 5 years to get the job done.

Now after  9 full years, the federal oversight and the CASA have produced results.

Reforms achieved under the CASA can be identified and are as follows:

• New “use of force” and “use of deadly force” policies have been written, implemented and all APD sworn have received training on the policies.
• All sworn police officers have received crisis management intervention training.
• APD has created a “Use of Force Review Board” that oversees all internal affairs investigations of use of force and deadly force.
• The Internal Affairs Unit has been divided into two sections, one dealing with general complaints and the other dealing with use of force incidents.
• Sweeping changes ranging from APD’s SWAT team protocols, to banning choke-holds, to auditing the use of every Taser carried by officers and re-writing and implementation of new use of force and deadly force policies have been completed.
• “Constitutional policing” practices and methods, and mandatory crisis intervention techniques an de-escalation tactics with the mentally ill have been implemented at the APD police academy with all sworn police also receiving the training.
• APD has adopted a new system to hold officers and supervisors accountable for all use of force incidents with personnel procedures implemented detailing how use of force cases are investigated.
• APD has revised and updated its policies on the mandatory use of lapel cameras by all sworn police officers.
• The Repeat Offenders Project, known as ROP, has been abolished.
• Civilian Police Oversight Agency has been created, funded, fully staffed and a director was hired.
• The Community Policing Counsels (CPCs) have been created in all area commands.
• The Mental Health Advisory Committee has been implemented.
• The External Force Investigation Team (EFIT) was created and is training the Internal Affairs Force Division on how to investigate use-of-force cases, making sure they meet deadlines and follow procedures.
• Millions have been spent each year on new programs and training of new cadets and police officers on constitutional policing practices.
• APD officers are routinely found using less force than they were before and well documented use of force investigations are now being produced in a timely manner.
• APD has assumed the self-monitoring of at least 25% of the CASA reforms and is likely capable of assuming more.
• The APD Compliance Bureau has been fully operational and staffed with many positions created dealing directly with all the reform efforts and all the duties and responsibilities that come with self-assessment.
• APD has attained a 100% Primary Compliance rate, a 99% Secondary Compliance rate and a 92% Operational Compliance rate. 

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It is now undeniable that APD has in fact turned the corner when it comes to investigating Polic Officer Use of Force cases.  From March 21, 2021 when APD entered into a stipulated order where EFIT assumed use of force case investigations only after being threatened with contempt of court for willful failure to investigate 667 Use of Force cases until December 26, 2023, when it was announced that APD with consent of the Department of Justice will again assume responsibility, there has been a dramatic turn around and APD is finally getting the job done. The backlog of cases has gone from 667 to now 197 cases.

With the passage of time, those investigations become far more difficult, and no disciplinary action can be taken leading to the questioning if anything substantive will actually be accomplished with APD and its reform efforts other than carrying out a demand that the DOJ has made that all the cases must be resolved. Notwithstanding, significant progress has been reported.

With APD assuming self-monitoring in many areas and assuming Use of Force Investigations, and after over 9 years of implementing the mandating DOJ reforms, and millions spent on training, APD appears to have finally turned the corner on implementing the 271 mandated reforms.  Under the terms and conditions of the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA), once APD achieves a 95% compliance rate in the 3 identified compliance levels and maintains it for 2 consecutive years, the case can be dismissed. Primary Compliance is now at 100%, Secondary Compliance is now at 99% and Operational Compliance is now 80%.

Over the last 9 years, APD has devoted thousands of manhours and the city has spent millions of dollars on the reform process, creating and staffing entire divisions and roles and rewriting policies and procedures. More recently, APD has implemented oversight outside of the CASA requirements, implementing six-month reviews of police shootings to identify shortcomings and possible solutions.

Despite the concerns raised in the 18^th  Federal Monitors Report,  the city’s compliance with reforms has never been higher. The monitor’s 18th report shows APD has reached  100% in Primary Compliance,  99% in Secondary Compliance and 94% in  Operational Compliance the highest levels ever reached in 9 years.   Once 95% compliance or better is reached in all 3 of the compliance levels, APD  must sustain that compliance for two years. After a full two years of compliance in the 3 compliance levels, the case can be dismissed bringing and to end the consent decree.

Given the extent of the compliance levels, the work of the Federal Monitor is in fact winding down. The purpose and intent of the settlement has been achieved.  The city should seek to negotiate a stipulated dismissal of the case with the Department of Justice (DOJ) sooner rather than later.  Should the DOJ refuse, the City Attorney should move to immediately to dismiss the case under the termination and suspension provisions of the CASA by filing a Motion to Dismiss the case and force the issue with an evidentiary hearing and let the assigned federal judge decide the issue of dismissal.

The link to a related blog article is here:

Federal Monitor Issues 18th Federal Monitors Report On APD; Primary Compliance At 100%, Secondary Compliance At 99%, Operational Compliance At 94%;Civilian Police Oversight Advisory Board Found In Crisis; Police Union President Calls Monitoring Process “A Scam”; City Should Seek Dismissal Of Case

More than two dozen states are seeking to keep former President Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot because of his actions surrounding the January 6 riot and relying on the insurrection clause of the United States Constitution. It is Section 3, Disqualification from Holding Office, of the Fourteenth Amendment that is referred to as the  insurrection clause and it states as follows:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The cases in Michigan and Colorado are among the most notable. Many  have been dismissed, while secretaries of states in places like New Hampshire and Oregon have said they don’t have the authority to exclude Trump from the ballots in their states.

THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT RULING

The decision from the Colorado Supreme Court finding Trump cannot hold the presidency was unprecedented and marks the first time a presidential candidate has been deemed ineligible for the White House under Section 3 known as the insurrection clause the the United States Constitution.  Trump is appealing the ruling and it  sets up a politically charged showdown before the Supreme Court that has huge implications for the 2024 presidential election.

On December 19, the Colorado Supreme Court kicked former President Trump off the state’s Republican primary ballot under the 14th Amendment in a 4-3 ruling, making it the first state to block him from seeking the presidency because of his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack.  The court put its ruling on hold until January 4, so Trump can first seek review from the  U.S. Supreme Court. Trump’s spokesperson quickly vowed to do so, meaning Trump’s name automatically remains on the ballot until the justices in Washington resolve the appeal.

“The Colorado Supreme court affirmed he engaged in insurrection by inflaming his supporters with false claims of election fraud and directing them to the Capitol — preventing him from a second White House term under the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection clause.”  The state justices determined that the office of the president is covered under the insurrection clause, which specifically lists those who previously took oaths to support the Constitution as “a member of Congress,” “officer of the United States,” “member of any State legislature” or an “executive or judicial officer of any State.” The district court had ruled that the office of the president was not covered under the clause.”

“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” the upper court wrote in its decision. “We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”

If allowed to take effect, Colorado’s secretary of state may not list Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, nor may she count any write-in votes cast for him.

Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for Trump’s campaign, blamed the decision on the “all-Democrat appointed” court, swearing to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. The seven-member bench of Colorado’s Supreme Court was entirely appointed by Democratic governors; six later faced voters and won retention elections, while the seventh will do so next year.

“The Colorado Supreme Court issued a completely flawed decision tonight and we will swiftly file an appeal to the United States Supreme Court and a concurrent request for a stay of this deeply undemocratic decision,” Cheung said. “We have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these unAmerican lawsuits.”

Norma Anderson, a petitioner and former Republican majority leader of the Colorado House and Senate, said in a statement that the plaintiffs’ win bolstered their efforts to protect the state’s elections.

“My fellow plaintiffs and I brought this case to continue to protect the right to free and fair elections enshrined in our Constitution and to ensure Colorado Republican primary voters are only voting for eligible candidates,” Anderson said. “Today’s win does just that.”

…  .

The Colorado Supreme Court decision has been stayed until the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether Trump is barred by the Civil War-era provision, which prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.

The link to the quoted news source is here:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4368569-trump-kicked-off-colorado-ballot-in-14th-amendment-case/

The link to read the full Colorado Supreme court ruling is here:

https://www.npr.org/2023/12/20/1220583273/trump-colorado-supreme-court-ruling#:~:text=The%20Colorado%20Supreme%20Court%20on,to%20the%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court.

A NEW MEXICO CASE CONNECTION

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is also pushing to remove Trump from State Ballots. CREW was successful in its effort to remove a New Mexico County Commissioner Couy Griffin from his post due to his participation in the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

A district judge in New Mexico barred Otero County commissioner and “Cowboys for Trump” founder Couy Griffin, citing a clause in the 14th Amendment that prohibits those who have engaged in insurrection from serving. Griffin was convicted of a misdemeanor trespass charge. The judge’s ruling was the first time in 150 years that the provision has been used to disqualify an official and the first time that a court has ruled the events of January 6 were an “insurrection.”

Griffin was arrested on January 8, 2021, on a federal misdemeanor trespassing charge related to the January 6, 2021 insurrection. Griffin was convicted of the charge on March 22 and sentenced on June 17 to 14 days’ time served, ordered to pay $500 restitution, pay a $3,000 fine, complete community service and one year of supervised release.

Following Trump’s announcement that he would make a third bid for the White House, CREW released a statement saying it would work to ensure that Trump is disqualified from ever holding office again.  A statement from CREW said this:

“We warned him that should he decide to run again, we would be taking action to ensure the Constitution’s ban on insurrectionists holding office is enforced.  Now we will be. Trump made a mockery of the Constitution he swore to defend, but we will see that it is defended.”

In an interview with ABC News, a CREW official said its focus now is doing whatever possible to keep Trump off the ballot. CREW Executive Vice President and Chief Counsel Donald Sherman said this:

“I will say we are focused on winning. We are not focused on getting our name in the paper … We are focused on bringing the strongest cases possible in order to win and hold the former President accountable. And we are making the strategic choices in order to effectuate that.”

MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT REJECTS BID TO KEEP TRUMP OFF 2024 PRIMARY BALLOT 

On December 27, the Michigan Supreme Court rejected an appeal from a group of voters in the state who challenged former President Donald Trump’s candidacy for the presidency under the US. Constitution’s “insurrection clause.”

“In a brief order, the state high court denied a request from four voters to review a Michigan Court of Appeals decision that allowed Trump to remain on the Republican presidential primary ballot. The Michigan Supreme Court, composed of seven justices, said it is “not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this court.” The order was not signed, and a vote count was not noted.

The decision means that Trump’s name will be listed on Michigan’s presidential primary ballot. The primary is scheduled for Feb. 27.

One justice, Elizabeth Welch, dissented and wrote the only legal issue properly before the state supreme court is whether the lower courts erred in finding the Michigan secretary of state lacks the authority to exclude Trump’s name from the presidential primary ballot. Welch wrote that she agrees with the Court of Appeals that Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson must place Trump on the primary ballot regardless of whether he is disqualified from holding office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, known as the “insurrection clause.”

Under Michigan law, Welch wrote, “the secretary of state is not legally required to confirm the eligibility of potential presidential primary candidates. She lacks the legal authority to remove a legally ineligible candidate from the ballot once their name has been put forward by a political party in compliance with the statutes governing primary elections.”

Unlike in Colorado, the Michigan Court of Claims did not conduct a trial or reach the question of whether Trump was disqualified under the insurrection clause. Instead, Judge James Robert Redford dismissed the case on technical grounds, finding it involved a political question that cannot be decided by the courts and concluding that the political parties determine their presidential candidates for the primary.

A three-judge Court of Appeals panel agreed with the lower court in rejecting the challenge to Trump’s candidacy, finding that the Michigan secretary of state’s role in the context of presidential primary elections is limited and, beyond publishing a list of potential candidates, “purely administrative.”

The head of each political party ultimately identifies which candidates will be placed on the primary ballot, the judges said.

“The Secretary of State’s role in presidential primary elections is chiefly that of an administrator,” the Court of Appeals panel concluded. “In particular, when it comes to who is or is not placed on the primary ballot, the statutory scheme leaves nothing to the Secretary of State’s discretion. As the Court of Claims explained, who to place on the primary ballot is determined by the political parties and the individual candidates.”

The judges wrote it would be “improper” to decide whether to declare Trump ineligible for the presidency at this time.

“At the moment, the only event about to occur is the presidential primary election. But as explained, whether Trump is disqualified is irrelevant to his placement on that particular ballot,” the appellate court found.”

The link to the quoted news source is here:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michigan-supreme-court-decision-donald-trump-2024-primary-ballot/

MAINE’S SECRETARY KICKS TRUMP OFF BALLOT

On December 28, Maine’s Democratic Secretary of State Shenna Bellows  removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot under the Constitution’s insurrection clause, becoming the first election official to take action unilaterally as the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to decide whether Trump remains eligible to return to the White House.

Bellows found that Trump could no longer run for his prior job because his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol violated Section 3, which bans from office those who “engaged in insurrection.” Bellows made the ruling after some state residents, including a bipartisan group of former lawmakers, challenged Trump’s position on the ballot.

Bellows issued the decision after presiding over an administrative hearing earlier this month about Trump’s eligibility for office. A bipartisan group of former state lawmakers filed the challenge against Trump. In her decision, Bellows concluded that she has a legal obligation to adhere to the 14th Amendment’s insurrectionist ban and remove Trump from the primary ballot.

Bellows wrote in part in her 34-page decision:

“I do not reach this conclusion lightly. … I am mindful that no Secretary of State has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. I am also mindful, however, that no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection. … The oath I swore to uphold the Constitution comes first above all, and my duty under Maine’s election laws … is to ensure that candidates who appear on the primary ballot are qualified for the office they seek,”

The Trump campaign immediately slammed the ruling.  Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said in a statement:

“We are witnessing, in real-time, the attempted theft of an election and the disenfranchisement of the American voter”.

The Trump campaign said it would appeal Bellows’ decision to Maine’s state courts. Bellows suspended her ruling until that court system rules on the case.

Legal experts said that Thursday’s ruling demonstrates the need for the nation’s highest court, which has never ruled on Section 3, to clarify what states can do.

Links to quoted news sources are here:

https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/28/politics/trump-maine-14th-amendment-ballot/index.html

ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

On December 20, CNN offered the following analysis and commentary by Jeremy Herb of the Colorado Supreme court ruling:

HEALINE: Unprecedented Colorado ruling puts courts at the center of Trump’s fate next year

Analysis by Jeremy Herb, CNN

“The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision that Donald Trump is constitutionally ineligible to appear on the ballot in next year’s state primary represents a stunning rebuke of the former president and a new level of accountability for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, threatening his 2024 electoral prospects in a way the four criminal indictments against him have not.

While the court’s 4-3 decision Tuesday may not ultimately lead to the former president’s removal from the ballot in Colorado or any other state – because of expected appeals – the ruling puts the country in uncharted territory, raising the shocking prospect that a major party’s candidate could be barred from office.

It’s perhaps the final exclamation point to cap off a year of unprecedented events encircling Trump, posing new and potentially grave challenges to American democracy heading into a tumultuous election year from a former president who embraces political chaos.

Outside of the courtroom, Trump has increasingly embraced inflammatory rhetoric, musing about being a dictator should he retake power next year and launching attacks against his opponents reminiscent of Nazi propaganda. Trump repeated his incendiary comments about immigrants at an event in Iowa Tuesday evening, pushing back against criticism from the Biden campaign and others that he was echoing Adolf Hitler.

“It’s crazy what’s going on. They’re ruining our country. And it’s true, they’re destroying the blood of our country. That’s what they’re doing. They’re destroying our country. They don’t like it when I said that,” Trump said. “And I’ve never read ‘Mein Kampf.’”

To Trump’s detractors, the Colorado decision signals that the legal system is finally beginning to hold the former president accountable for his efforts to overturn his election loss in 2020 and the attack on the US Capitol that unfolded on January 6, 2021.

“Accountability for inciting an insurrection. It’s about time,” wrote Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat who led the House’s first impeachment against Trump.

But Tuesday’s ruling also could help propel Trump back to the White House, emboldening his supporters who have embraced the former president’s message that the criminal cases against him are unjustified and are a key reason he should be returned to power. Trump’s allies railed against the Colorado decision, coming to his defense just as they have following each of his four criminal indictments this year.

“Democrats are so afraid that President Trump will win on Nov 5th 2024 that they are illegally attempting to take him off the ballot,” Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, the House’s No. 3 Republican, said in a statement.

Even former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, the most prominent anti-Trump Republican running for president, was critical of the Colorado decision. “I don’t believe it’s good for our country if he’s precluded from the ballot by a court,” he told voters in New Hampshire.

Next year may end up as one of the most chaotic in American legal history.

The US Supreme Court will be faced with both deciding if Trump is eligible for the White House and whether he’s immune from prosecution for his efforts to subvert the 2020 presidential election.

“I can’t overstate the consequences of this evening, and I also want to stress how we now have two major, very critical Trump election issues barreling toward the court. They will have to decide both of these one way or another,” said CNN’s Senior Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic.

The former president has been indicted four times, with criminal trials that could play out at the same time he’s campaigning against President Joe Biden and potentially simultaneously fighting in court to get back on the ballot.

In a poll from The New York Times and Siena College released Tuesday, there was no clear leader between the two, with Trump taking 46% to Biden’s 44% among registered voters. Among those who are, at this early stage, considered likely to vote, Biden takes 47% to Trump’s 45%. Importantly for Trump, the Times/Siena survey finds the former president leading Biden among registered voters who did not participate in the 2020 election, a finding that mirrors other recent polling, CNN’s Ariel Edwards-Levy wrote.

IMPACT OF RULING

“Up until the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling, the numerous court-driven efforts to disqualify Trump from the ballot were not succeeding at blocking him from office, as one state court after another ruled against the lawsuits. Even in Colorado, the trial judge concluded last month that Trump had engaged in an insurrection but that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban” doesn’t apply to the presidency.

The Colorado Supreme Court reversed that finding … . Now with that court’s unprecedented ruling, the notion of the courts removing Trump from the ballot in 2024 is no longer theoretical – it’s a real possibility.

In its decision, the state Supreme Court’s majority wrote that it had “little difficulty” in determining that January 6 was an insurrection. The court found that Trump “engaged in” the insurrection and that Trump’s messages to his supporters in the lead-up to the attack on the Capitol “were a call to his supporters to fight and that his supporters responded to that call.”

The four justices stressed that they “do not reach these conclusions lightly.”

“We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us,” the court’s majority wrote. “We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”

The three dissenting justices cited several reasons they disagreed with the majority, including due process concerns that Trump has not been convicted of any insurrection-related crime. Chief Justice Brian Boatright wrote in his dissent that he believes Colorado election law “was not enacted to decide whether a candidate engaged in insurrection,” and said he would have dismissed the challenge to Trump’s eligibility.

Trump is not charged with engaging in an insurrection in the election subversion federal case against him brought earlier this year by special counsel Jack Smith. But the January 6-related charges involve many of the same actions cited by the Colorado court’s majority on Tuesday night.

The judge in Trump’s federal election subversion case had set a trial date for March 4, 2024, but that is now on hold as the DC US Circuit Court of Appeals considers whether Trump is immune and can be tried. In a bid to speed that appeals process, the special counsel has asked the US Supreme Court to step in.

It’s still unclear whether that trial or any of the other criminal charges against Trump will be heard before Election Day next year.

But the special counsel’s appeal to the US Supreme Court last week – and Trump’s plan to appeal the Colorado decision to the nation’s high court – means that the federal justices are all but assured to play a key role in both Trump’s legal and electoral fate next year.

“When Donald Trump was in office, every single case of his from administration policy to his own business cases that came to the court, they were all fraught,” Biskupic said, “and these are especially fraught because they will affect his election process.”

The link to the article is here:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/20/politics/colorado-trump-ruling-analysis/index.html

The 2023 New Mexico Legislature enacted House Bill 130 which was signed into law by Governor Lujan Grisham. The law  requires public schools in New Mexico to increase instructional time from 990 hours to 1,140 hours. Schools in session for five-day work weeks are required to have 180 instructional days, while schools in session for four-day work weeks are required to have 155 instructional days.

There are rural school districts in New Mexico that have adopted a four-day work week. The PED’s proposed changes would require all schools to adopt five-day weeks with 180 instructional days a year. State Education Secretary Arsenio has said the proposed changes are part of a multi-pronged approach to help students succeed.

https://www.koat.com/article/new-mexico-four-day-school-weeks-proposal/46109066

EDUCATION SECRETARY ARSENIO ROMERO CONFRONTED

On December 15, State Public Education Secretary Arsenio Romero gave as presentation on the Public Education Department’s multi-billion-dollar budget before the LESC. The postscript to this blog article reports on the proposed budget changes and legislation that will be considered by the 2024 legislature.

After Education Secretary Romero gave his presentation,  many of the committee members  took the opportunity to challenge him about  the  controversial rule  that will require public schools to spend at least 180 days in school outside of teachers’ professional development or other work time.  The rule also restricts school districts that have implemented four-day school weeks, requiring all public schools to spend more than 50% of their time on five-day school week schedules.

The Public Education Department reported that it has received well over 800 hundred written public comments on the rule change. Many of those public commenters were extremely critical the rule.  During the December 15 LESC meeting, lawmakers had little to nothing good to say about the proposal.  LFC Chairman Sen. George Muñoz, D-Gallup, told Romero this:

“You’re making a mistake right now. … House Bill 130 … was all vetted through the Legislature … a long-term approach on how to make that change, and we get a report and you guys want to change it by rule. It’s not gonna work.”

The proposed rule comes after lawmakers passed House Bill 130, increasing the amount of instructional time students must spend in school to 1,140 hours while allowing some educator professional work time during instructional hours. Previously, first through sixth graders were required to go to school for at least 990 hours per year, and secondary students for 1,080 hours per year.

The Public Education Department (PED) has argued that many school districts and charter schools actually lost time with students, and proposed the 180-day rule as a way of getting it back. Romero told the LEFS committee members this:

“There are many other things that play into why schools can either be successful or not. But in all of my experiences, having more time with teachers has always been a positive thing. … The 180 rule is not to pick on four-day districts.   It is to increase instructional time for students and teachers across New Mexico.”

There are many rural school districts that have implement four-day school week schedules to accommodate students’ and teachers’ long commutes to school.  State Representative Gail Armstrong, R-Magdalena, recounted a similar experience in her elementary school years and worried the rule would strip such districts of local control to determine what works best for them.

Representative Joy Garratt, D-Albuquerque, one of HB 130’s sponsors, pointed out the legislation represented a year’s worth of feedback from people across the state and questioned the effort to quickly change how class-time requirements work.  Garratt said this:

“It wasn’t just something that came out of the head of Zeus. …  And so I was appalled when, after only four months of implementation … Suddenly, a rule is being proposed without any discussion ahead of time. I’m deeply troubled by that.”

Citing the flood of public comments, the department has received on the proposed rule, Romero said he welcomed feedback and that it will inform the department’s decisions on how to move forward.

“We’ve got a lot of it, and I really love that we have a lot of it coming from all over the state of New Mexico. … I am looking forward to looking at every single piece of feedback as we move forward.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/youre-making-a-mistake-lawmakers-take-education-secretary-to-task-over-proposed-180-day-rule/article_b26cc90a-9bc2-11ee-af2c-1b8c3fc42063.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

13 LESC MEMBERS OPPOSE 180 INSTRUCTIONAL DAYS

Soon after the December 15 Legislative Education Study Committee meeting 13 of its members signed a letter to PED in opposition to the rule change stating the mandate goes against the purpose of House Bill 130  increasing instructional hours. The 13 legislators wrote:

“The mandate of 180 instructional days for all school districts and charter schools does not align with the Legislature’s clear intention to allow local flexibility, while still requiring 1,140 instructional hours with no requirement for a specific number of days.”

The letter added that the requirement of at least half of school weeks needing to be five days “effectively eliminates” the four-day school week due to practicality.

PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON RULE

On December 20, the Public Education Department held a public hearing on the 180 day rule to take public comments before making a final decision on approving the rule. If approved, its final version will be published in January.

Many educators, parents and administrators from rural communities hoping to keep their modified schedules testified at the December 20 public input hearing. Many expressed concerns that teachers would leave if the rule was adopted.  Several speakers called the rule a “one size fits all” approach to educational schedules.

One speaker argued that the shorter week attracts teachers to the rural community. Switching to a five-day week would increase operational costs and potentially push away teachers lured by a flexible schedule. The 2023 New Mexico Educator Vacancy Report, produced by New Mexico State University, found 751 teacher vacancies and an overall educator vacancy of 1,471. The number of teacher vacancies was up about 9% from last year.

It will be rural communities such as ranching and farming communities that will be affected the most by the 180-day rule.  Many include districts with four-day school week. The Springer School District is a good example of a District that will be affected.  Springer has had a four-day school week in place since 1983 and it no doubt is threatened by a PED proposal mandating a 180-day school schedule across the state.

The proposal has been made despite the Legislature’s passage earlier this year of a bill that increased instructional time from 1,080 hours to 1,140.  PED has said the measure hasn’t successfully increased class time in all schools. A department spokesperson said 1 in 3 districts didn’t increase instructional time and that in fact, they decreased educational time. PED spokesperson Nate Williams said in a statement that improving student outcomes was the impetus for the proposal and said this:

“Additional time with teachers can only be a good thing  … This is an attempt to equalize instructional time across the state so that New Mexico students have every chance to succeed.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/educators-parents-and-administrators-turn-out-against-180-day-school-year-proposal/article_ea227a2a-9dfc-11ee-b1d5-abb58c148ca6.html

40% STUDENT CHRONIC ABSENTEE RATE

A November 17, 2023 a 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.

The relevant portion of the LESC report states in part as follows:

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. Missing 10% of school equates to missing two school days every month, or 18 days (more than 3 full weeks) over a  180 day period. 

…

Statewide chronic Absenteeism Rates data from the Public Education Department shows an alarming nearly 40% chronic absenteeism rate for the 2022-2023 school year. What this means is that 134,259 students in New Mexico are chronically absent at an average school calendar of 180 days, this means students are missing more than 3 weeks of school.  …

Chronic absence rates for Fiscal Year 2023 are highest for NATIVE AMERICAN students  at 48.4%, followed by NATIVE HAWAIIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER students  at 45.7%, BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN students at 40.8%, HISPANIC  Students at 40.7%, CAUCASIAN students at 38% and ASIAN STUDENTS at 23.37%.

Factors such as housing status, English learner status, family income, and whether a student has disabilities are frequently associated with chronic absences [and] … chronic absence rates are often highest among such students.  [For example] 60.8% of students experiencing housing insecurity in New Mexico where chronically absent during the 2022-2023 school year. For all of the student groups (students experiencing housing insecurity, students with disabilities, English learners, and economically disadvantaged students) chronic absentee rates were above the state average of 39.2% for the 2022-2023 school year.”

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

During the December 16 meeting, Senator and LESC Committee Co-chair William Soules said there are many factors for the absentee numbers and said  most of those factors are out of the reach of any school district. Soules said this:

“It tends to be problems with housing. It tends to be problems with transportation. It tends to be problems with drug addiction and mental health, all things that are not education. … So much of the problem is a non-education problem yet we’ve tried to approach it as if it’s an education problem and punish the kids who are chronically absent when it’s not their fault, it’s our fault.”

The Public Education Department said  early invention is the key and needs to start as early as kindergarten to deal with absenteeism.  The PED told lawmakers there needs to be continued support for statewide attendance initiatives, funding for schools to implement the Attendance for Success Act and behavioral health initiatives and restorative methods to eliminate exclusionary practices, and legislation to focus on attendance interventions and reduce administrative burdens.

https://www.ksfr.org/education/2023-11-17/new-mexico-school-absentee-rates-still-at-high-levels

 2023 KIDS COUNT DATA BOOK, STATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL BEING

The 2023 Kids Count Data Book substantiates and identifies the problems that need to be overcome that are the major continuing factors that contribute to the 40% absentee rates.  On June 14, 2023, the New Mexico Voices for Children released the “2023 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 “Kids Count Data Book” this year is a 50  page document with an extensive number of tables, graphs charts and statistics.

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

Click to access aecf-2023kidscountdatabook-2023.pdf

New Mexico ranked 49^th in ECONOMIC WELL-BEING RANKING, with 24% (111,000) of New Mexico children living in poverty, 35% (165,000) of New Mexico Children whose parents lack secure employment, 26% (125,000) of New Mexico children living in households with a high housing cost burden, and 12% (14,000) of teens not in school and not working.

New Mexico ranked 50^th in education, with 59% (30,000) (years 2017 to 2021) young children ages 3 to 4 not in school,  4^th graders not proficient in reading (year 2022) grew from 76% to 79%, 87% of eighth graders not proficient in math (year 2022) and 23% of high school students not graduating on time (years 2019 to 2020).  (Page 35)  Fourth graders not proficient at reading

New Mexico 44^th in health rankings , above Alabama (45),  Wyoming (46) South Carolina (47) Texas (48) Louisiana (49), Mississippi (50). New Mexico had 9.4% (2,009) low birth rate babies in 2021, 6% (32,000) children without health insurance in 2021, 217 child and teen deaths per 100,000 in 2021 ranking the state 43, and with the state ranking 36 in children and teens (ages 10 to 17) who were overweight or obese. (Page 36)

New Mexico ranked 48^th in family and community (above  Louisiana (49) and Mississippi (50))  with 44% (196,000) children living with single parent families,  12% (59,000) of children living in families where the household head lacks a high school diploma in  the years 2017 to 2021,  and the state having a 19% teen birth rate per 1,000 births, 1,324 births in 2021.  (Page 37)

NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS PROFIENCY SCORES

On October 24, 2022, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) released its 2022 Proficiency Test Scores  in Math and Reading.  Results for all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and 26 participating districts were released. Students’ academic achievement during the COVID-19 pandemic was compared to pre-pandemic performance on the 2019 NAEP mathematics assessment as well as to previous mathematics assessments dating back to 1990.  No state improved in 4^th or 8^th grade math, and only a few states improved in reading.  Those that did, did so by a maximum of two points

https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/

NAEP NEW MEXICO PROFIENCY TEST SCORES

According to education officials, the NAEP tests were conducted in 29% of elementary schools and 42% of middle schools. The highest possible score on the NAEP test is 500.

In 4^th and 8^th  grade reading and math, New Mexico students came in shy of  dead last in proficiency out of the over-50 states and jurisdictions where the testing was administered. According to the report, New Mexico 4^th and 8^th graders lost ground in both math and reading.  This was  the case across the country.  National and New Mexico education officials attributed the declines in large part due to the corona virus pandemic and when there was widespread school closings and remote learning was instituted.

According to the 2022 NAEP report, New Mexico’s 4^th  graders fell upwards of 14 points behind national public school student averages overall.  It was the same for 8^th graders in math, but 8^th graders lagged about 11 points behind in reading.

In math, New Mexico 4th and 8th graders dropped about 10 points from state scores in 2019. They lost less ground in reading, where fourth graders dropped about five points and eighth graders dropped four.

That came out to 21% reading proficiency and 19% math proficiency rates of and  among 4^th  graders  which was 3% and 10%  points lower than in 2019.

A little more than 18% of eighth graders were proficient in reading and about 13% were proficient in math – a drop of five and eight percentage points, respectively.

APS SCORES

Students at Albuquerque Public Schools, the largest district in the state, mostly held steady in their proficiency levels. While there were drops in both subjects for eighth graders, the NCES found they were “not significantly different” from 2019 scores.

However, fourth grade math proficiency, at about 24%, was around six percentage points lower than it was in 2019.

Overall APS student scores also dropped across the board from their pre-pandemic levels, though not as much as statewide numbers did. The largest declines came in math, where both fourth and eighth graders lost roughly seven points each.

APS students suffered from the pandemic, Superintendent Scott Elder said. Still, he noted that Albuquerque was in a “much better place” than a lot of other places in New Mexico when it comes to accessibility to things like the internet.  And while APS students were still behind other large cities in both grades and subject areas, those gaps didn’t widen as some thought they would, he pointed out.

Elder told the Albuquerque Journal this:

“You don’t look at the scores and think ‘OK, great. … We lost a little bit, but we didn’t lose as much as I think people were afraid [we would. … We [did] see a significant decline in the math, but that’s similar to what we see nationally.”

COMMENTARY AND ANAYSIS

There is absolutely no doubt that the biggest crisis that our public school system is  facing is its miserable ranking of  50^th place in education.  As found by the  2023 Kids Count Data book,  New Mexico ranks  50^th in education, with 59% (30,000) (years 2017 to 2021) young children ages 3 to 4 not in school,  4^th graders not proficient in reading (year 2022) grew from 76% to 79%, 87% of eighth graders not proficient in math (year 2022) and 23% of high school students not graduating on time (years 2019 to 2020).  (Page 35)  Fourth graders not proficient at reading.

The blunt reality is that until the States Public Education Department gets a handle on and solves the 40% absentee rate, do not expect proficiency rates to improve at all. You can not teach a student if the student is no where to be found 40% of the time and a mandatory 180 hours lecturing to an empty class gets you nowhere. The states student absentee rates are growing even worse all the while the state spends more and more on education.

State Senator and LESC Committee Co-chair William Soules was absolutely correct when he said there are many factors for the absentee numbers and said most of those factors are out of the reach of any school district.  Notwithstanding, the Public Education Department has come up with a “one size fits all” solution that essentially highlights the divide between the State’s rural and urban communities.

The rule eliminates all discretion and strips districts of local control to determine what works best for them. It highlights the major differences between rural and urban New Mexico communities.  The 180 day teacher in school rule promulgated by the state’s Public Education Department deserves the grade of “F” and the department needs to reject it.

___________________________________

POSTSCRIPT

On December 14, State Education Secretary Arsenio Romero made a 50 minute presentation on the Public Education Department’s multi-billion-dollar budget to the New Mexico Legislative Education Study (LESC) Committee. The LESC announced  several draft bills for consideration for the upcoming 2024 legislative session.  Following is the proposed legislation for consideration by the 2024 New Mexico legislature:

INCREASING SALARIES

The most talked about bill the LESC endorsed increases the minimum salaries of educational assistants and provide a 2½-fold minimum pay increase in general. Under legislation endorsed by the LESC, all public school employees are guaranteed a minimum wage of $6 per hour with no set minimum salary. The bill would bump that up to $15 per hour and establish a $30,000 minimum salary for all  full-time employees.

Under the bill, educational assistants also would be again bumped from $25,000 minimum salaries to $30,000.  During the 2023 legislative session, lawmakers approved a more than twofold minimum salary increase for educational assistants, from $12,000 to $25,000. Last year, educational assistants argued that even $25,000 was still low. Educational Assistant Cyndi Garcia said this last year:

“You could make more money working at McDonald’s flipping burgers than you could going into a classroom and doing this job. … But this is a great start … in recognizing how valuable we are.”

According to LESC staff estimates, the  6% committee recommendation to increase public school employees’ of all full-time personnel salaries is passed  will  cost the state another $24.7 million.

TRAINING OF SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS

A second  draft bill the LESC endorsed would require training for school board members that is not currently mandated by the state. Under the legislation, new school board members would have to complete at least 10 hours of mandatory training covering a range of topics, including budget responsibilities, laws affecting school boards and student achievement, during their first year on the job. Present school board members would have to complete five hours of mandatory training on the same or similar topics, under the draft.

During the LESC hearing, there were doubts raised that without more teeth, such a bill wouldn’t actually hold school board members accountable. LESC Vice-Chair Sen. William Soules, D-Las Cruces said this:

“Passing a law that doesn’t have an enforcement mechanism, I don’t think is going to have much effect on the recalcitrant members that aren’t going to meetings now.”

Ultimately, Senator Soules  voted to endorse the bill, but said  he likely would propose an amendment in committee to give the bill more teeth. The draft bill does call for the amount of time board members spend in training to be posted to New Mexico Vistas, the state’s education information system, but that’s the primary enforcement mechanism.

In all, the LESC endorsed 5  draft education bills to be considered during the 2024 upcoming session.  The remaining three are:

The third bill would create a pilot program that distributes between $250 and $750 for each student in a district that successfully earns a credential in a specific industry that shows their competence in that field of work.

The fourth bill   would lay the groundwork for preparation programs for aspiring school administrators like principals and assistant principals, as well as an institute to develop their skills. Under the draft bill, the minimum salaries of principals and assistant principals also be increased to the minimums of Level 3 teachers of at least $70,000. That is then multiplied by a factor that takes into account their additional responsibilities, based on whether they work in an elementary, middle or high school.

The fifth bill would tweak legislation passed during the last session, clarifying  how school districts would be eligible for waivers from local dollars they would need to spend on brick-and-mortar projects the state also is investing in.

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/legislators-lay-out-education-priorities-ahead-of-upcoming-session/article_a0ee3fe2-9ae6-11ee-9430-a787bbbe9e1c.html#1

On December 19, the Colorado Supreme Court kicked former President Trump off the state’s Republican primary ballot under the 14th Amendment in a 4-3 ruling, making it the first state to block him from seeking the presidency because of his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack.  The court put its ruling on hold until January 4, so Trump can first seek review from the  U.S. Supreme Court. Trump’s spokesperson quickly vowed to do so, meaning Trump’s name automatically remains on the ballot until the justices in Washington resolve the appeal.

“The Colorado Supreme court affirmed he engaged in insurrection by inflaming his supporters with false claims of election fraud and directing them to the Capitol — preventing him from a second White House term under the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection clause.”  The state justices determined that the office of the president is covered under the insurrection clause, which specifically lists those who previously took oaths to support the Constitution as “a member of Congress,” “officer of the United States,” “member of any State legislature” or an “executive or judicial officer of any State.” The district court had ruled that the office of the president was not covered under the clause.”

“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” the upper court wrote in its decision. “We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”

If allowed to take effect, Colorado’s secretary of state may not list Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, nor may she count any write-in votes cast for him.

Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for Trump’s campaign, blamed the decision on the “all-Democrat appointed” court, swearing to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. The seven-member bench of Colorado’s Supreme Court was entirely appointed by Democratic governors; six later faced voters and won retention elections, while the seventh will do so next year.

“The Colorado Supreme Court issued a completely flawed decision tonight and we will swiftly file an appeal to the United States Supreme Court and a concurrent request for a stay of this deeply undemocratic decision,” Cheung said. “We have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these unAmerican lawsuits.”

Norma Anderson, a petitioner and former Republican majority leader of the Colorado House and Senate, said in a statement that the plaintiffs’ win bolstered their efforts to protect the state’s elections.

“My fellow plaintiffs and I brought this case to continue to protect the right to free and fair elections enshrined in our Constitution and to ensure Colorado Republican primary voters are only voting for eligible candidates,” Anderson said. “Today’s win does just that.”

…  .

The link to the quoted news source is here:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4368569-trump-kicked-off-colorado-ballot-in-14th-amendment-case/

The link to read the full Colorado Supreme court ruling is here:

https://www.npr.org/2023/12/20/1220583273/trump-colorado-supreme-court-ruling#:~:text=The%20Colorado%20Supreme%20Court%20on,to%20the%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court.

A NEW MEXICO CASE CONNECTION

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is also pushing to remove Trump from State Ballots. CREW was successful in its effort to remove a New Mexico County Commissioner Couy Griffin from his post due to his participation in the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

A district judge in New Mexico barred Otero County commissioner and “Cowboys for Trump” founder Couy Griffin, citing a clause in the 14th Amendment that prohibits those who have engaged in insurrection from serving. Griffin was convicted of a misdemeanor trespass charge. The judge’s ruling was the first time in 150 years that the provision has been used to disqualify an official and the first time that a court has ruled the events of January 6 were an “insurrection.”

Griffin was arrested on January 8, 2021, on a federal misdemeanor trespassing charge related to the January 6, 2021 insurrection. Griffin was convicted of the charge on March 22 and sentenced on June 17 to 14 days’ time served, ordered to pay $500 restitution, pay a $3,000 fine, complete community service and one year of supervised release.

Following Trump’s announcement that he would make a third bid for the White House, CREW released a statement saying it would work to ensure that Trump is disqualified from ever holding office again.  A statement from CREW said this:

“We warned him that should he decide to run again, we would be taking action to ensure the Constitution’s ban on insurrectionists holding office is enforced.  Now we will be. Trump made a mockery of the Constitution he swore to defend, but we will see that it is defended.”

In an interview with ABC News, a CREW official said its focus now is doing whatever possible to keep Trump off the ballot. CREW Executive Vice President and Chief Counsel Donald Sherman said this:

“I will say we are focused on winning. We are not focused on getting our name in the paper … We are focused on bringing the strongest cases possible in order to win and hold the former President accountable. And we are making the strategic choices in order to effectuate that.”

ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

On December 20, CNN offered the following analysis and commentary by Jeremy Herb of the court ruling:

HEALINE: Unprecedented Colorado ruling puts courts at the center of Trump’s fate next year

Analysis by Jeremy Herb, CNN

“The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision that Donald Trump is constitutionally ineligible to appear on the ballot in next year’s state primary represents a stunning rebuke of the former president and a new level of accountability for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, threatening his 2024 electoral prospects in a way the four criminal indictments against him have not.

While the court’s 4-3 decision Tuesday may not ultimately lead to the former president’s removal from the ballot in Colorado or any other state – because of expected appeals – the ruling puts the country in uncharted territory, raising the shocking prospect that a major party’s candidate could be barred from office.

It’s perhaps the final exclamation point to cap off a year of unprecedented events encircling Trump, posing new and potentially grave challenges to American democracy heading into a tumultuous election year from a former president who embraces political chaos.

Outside of the courtroom, Trump has increasingly embraced inflammatory rhetoric, musing about being a dictator should he retake power next year and launching attacks against his opponents reminiscent of Nazi propaganda. Trump repeated his incendiary comments about immigrants at an event in Iowa Tuesday evening, pushing back against criticism from the Biden campaign and others that he was echoing Adolf Hitler.

“It’s crazy what’s going on. They’re ruining our country. And it’s true, they’re destroying the blood of our country. That’s what they’re doing. They’re destroying our country. They don’t like it when I said that,” Trump said. “And I’ve never read ‘Mein Kampf.’”

To Trump’s detractors, the Colorado decision signals that the legal system is finally beginning to hold the former president accountable for his efforts to overturn his election loss in 2020 and the attack on the US Capitol that unfolded on January 6, 2021.

“Accountability for inciting an insurrection. It’s about time,” wrote Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat who led the House’s first impeachment against Trump.

But Tuesday’s ruling also could help propel Trump back to the White House, emboldening his supporters who have embraced the former president’s message that the criminal cases against him are unjustified and are a key reason he should be returned to power. Trump’s allies railed against the Colorado decision, coming to his defense just as they have following each of his four criminal indictments this year.

“Democrats are so afraid that President Trump will win on Nov 5th 2024 that they are illegally attempting to take him off the ballot,” Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, the House’s No. 3 Republican, said in a statement.

Even former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, the most prominent anti-Trump Republican running for president, was critical of the Colorado decision. “I don’t believe it’s good for our country if he’s precluded from the ballot by a court,” he told voters in New Hampshire.

Next year may end up as one of the most chaotic in American legal history.

The US Supreme Court will be faced with both deciding if Trump is eligible for the White House and whether he’s immune from prosecution for his efforts to subvert the 2020 presidential election.

“I can’t overstate the consequences of this evening, and I also want to stress how we now have two major, very critical Trump election issues barreling toward the court. They will have to decide both of these one way or another,” said CNN’s Senior Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic.

The former president has been indicted four times, with criminal trials that could play out at the same time he’s campaigning against President Joe Biden and potentially simultaneously fighting in court to get back on the ballot.

In a poll from The New York Times and Siena College released Tuesday, there was no clear leader between the two, with Trump taking 46% to Biden’s 44% among registered voters. Among those who are, at this early stage, considered likely to vote, Biden takes 47% to Trump’s 45%. Importantly for Trump, the Times/Siena survey finds the former president leading Biden among registered voters who did not participate in the 2020 election, a finding that mirrors other recent polling, CNN’s Ariel Edwards-Levy wrote.

IMPACT OF RULING

“Up until the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling, the numerous court-driven efforts to disqualify Trump from the ballot were not succeeding at blocking him from office, as one state court after another ruled against the lawsuits. Even in Colorado, the trial judge concluded last month that Trump had engaged in an insurrection but that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban” doesn’t apply to the presidency.

The Colorado Supreme Court reversed that finding on Tuesday. Now with that court’s unprecedented ruling, the notion of the courts removing Trump from the ballot in 2024 is no longer theoretical – it’s a real possibility.

In its decision, the state Supreme Court’s majority wrote that it had “little difficulty” in determining that January 6 was an insurrection. The court found that Trump “engaged in” the insurrection and that Trump’s messages to his supporters in the lead-up to the attack on the Capitol “were a call to his supporters to fight and that his supporters responded to that call.”

The four justices stressed that they “do not reach these conclusions lightly.”

“We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us,” the court’s majority wrote. “We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”

The three dissenting justices cited several reasons they disagreed with the majority, including due process concerns that Trump has not been convicted of any insurrection-related crime. Chief Justice Brian Boatright wrote in his dissent that he believes Colorado election law “was not enacted to decide whether a candidate engaged in insurrection,” and said he would have dismissed the challenge to Trump’s eligibility.

Trump is not charged with engaging in an insurrection in the election subversion federal case against him brought earlier this year by special counsel Jack Smith. But the January 6-related charges involve many of the same actions cited by the Colorado court’s majority on Tuesday night.

The judge in Trump’s federal election subversion case had set a trial date for March 4, 2024, but that is now on hold as the DC US Circuit Court of Appeals considers whether Trump is immune and can be tried. In a bid to speed that appeals process, the special counsel has asked the US Supreme Court to step in.

It’s still unclear whether that trial or any of the other criminal charges against Trump will be heard before Election Day next year.

But the special counsel’s appeal to the US Supreme Court last week – and Trump’s plan to appeal the Colorado decision to the nation’s high court – means that the federal justices are all but assured to play a key role in both Trump’s legal and electoral fate next year.

“When Donald Trump was in office, every single case of his from administration policy to his own business cases that came to the court, they were all fraught,” Biskupic said, “and these are especially fraught because they will affect his election process.”

The link to the article is here:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/20/politics/colorado-trump-ruling-analysis/index.html