Over 100 years Of Government Mandated Vaccines And Masking Mandates In The Context Of Employment, Religion, Disability And The Schools

“Nearly all COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. now are in people who weren’t vaccinated, a staggering demonstration of how effective the shots have been and an indication that deaths per day — now down to under 300 — could be practically zero if everyone eligible got the vaccine. An Associated Press analysis of available government data from May shows that “breakthrough” infections in fully vaccinated people accounted for fewer than 1,200 of more than 107,000 COVID-19 hospitalizations. That’s about 1.1%.”

The link to the complete quoted article is here:



On Monday, August 23, The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted full approval to Pfizer and BioNTech’s Covid-19 vaccine making it the first in the United States to win the coveted designation and giving even more businesses, schools and universities greater confidence to adopt vaccine mandates. Up until now, the mRNA vaccine, which will be marketed as Comirnaty, was on the U.S. market under an Emergency Use Authorization that was granted by the FDA in December. Since then, more than 204 million of the Pfizer shots have been administered, according to data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


This blog article is an in-depth analysis of government mandated vaccines and masking mandates in the context of employment rights , religious rights, disability rights and the public schools.

DISCLAIMER: The materials and opinions offered herein under no circumstances are offered as definitive legal opinions to be relied upon as to individual circumstances relating to topics discussed. People wanting legal advice for employment, religious, work place disability accommodations and public school exemptions need to seek the services of an attorney.


As COVID-19 vaccination rates have stalled in the United States especially with the emergence of the Delta variant, which is far more contagious and more deadly than the Covid 19 virus itself, mandatory vaccinations and talk of it are becoming more and more prevalent.

The United States military, the state of California, New York City, hospitals and nursing homes, colleges and universities and school systems throughout the country are mandating vaccinations from the covid virus especially with the emergence of the Delta variant as it spikes throughout the United States. Hospitalizations and deaths are reaching the same levels as last year at the beginning of the pandemic. Major employers such The Walt Disney Company, Wal Mart, Delta and United airlines, Goldman Sachs are all mandating vaccinations or proof of vaccination from Covid.

Other major corporations with vaccination mandates for employees include Facebook, Google, Twitter, Uber, Lyft, Morgan Stanley, Viacom CBS, Netflix, Ford motor company, Walgreens, Citigroup Bank, Saks, Microsoft, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Tyson Foods, Amtrak (17,500 employees), Anthem health care insurance, BlackRock, Cisco (tech and telecoms conglomerate), Door Dash food delivery service’s, Union Square Hospitality Group, Equinox fitness company, Facebook, Google, Ford motor company, and Jefferies just to mention a few.

The link to the news source is here:


Vaccine mandates in the United States have routinely been upheld by the United States Supreme Court upholding states’ rights to enforce such mandates as not being a violation of constitutional rights. Mask and vaccine requirements vary from state to state. State laws do often allow exemptions for certain medical conditions or religious or philosophical objections but with strict conditions.


Simply put, the resounding answer is YES that employers can require a coronavirus vaccine as a condition of employment. The employee must decide to either quite or be fired.

“Private companies and government agencies can require their employees to get vaccinated as a condition of working there. Individuals retain the right to refuse, but they have no ironclad right to legal protection [from being terminated, especially if they are “at will” employees with no employment contract giving them a vested right or property right in their job.].

“Those who have a disability or a sincerely held religious belief may be entitled to a reasonable accommodation under civil rights laws, so long as providing that accommodation does not constitute an undue hardship for the employer,” said Sharon Perley Masling, an employment lawyer who leads the COVID-19 task force at Morgan Lewis. Employees who don’t meet such criteria “may need to go on leave or seek different opportunities,” she added. [In other words, an employee can quite or be fired.]

The U.S. Justice Department [has] addressed the rights of employers and workers in a legal opinion this week. It tackled an argument raised by some vaccine skeptics that the federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act prohibits employers from requiring vaccination with shots that are only approved for emergency use, as coronavirus vaccines currently are.

Department lawyers wrote that the law in question requires individuals be informed of their “option to accept or refuse administration” of an emergency use vaccine or drug. But that requirement does not prohibit employers from mandating vaccination as “a condition of employment.”

The same reasoning applies to universities, school districts, or other entities potentially requiring COVID-19 vaccines, the lawyers added. Available evidence overwhelmingly shows the vaccines are safe and effective.

The Justice Department opinion followed earlier guidance from the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that federal laws prohibiting discrimination in the workplace “do not prevent an employer from requiring all employees physically entering the workplace to be vaccinated for COVID-19.” The EEOC has listed some cases in which employers must offer exemptions. People who have a medical or religious reason can be accommodated through alternative measures. Those can include getting tested weekly, wearing masks while in the office, or working remotely.”


“Most employers are likely to give workers some options if they don’t want to take the vaccine. For example, New York City and California have imposed what’s being called a “soft mandate” [where] workers who don’t want to get vaccinated can get tested weekly instead.

If an employer does set a hard requirement, employees can ask for an exemption for medical or religious reasons. Then, under EEOC civil rights rules, the employer must provide “reasonable accommodation that does not pose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business.” Some alternatives could include wearing a face mask at work, social distancing, working a modified shift, COVID-19 testing or the option to work remotely, or even offering a reassignment.”

The link to quoted source material is here:

“COVID-19 vaccine mandates: Can employers require workers to get the shot?”



“If an employee refuses to obtain a vaccine [on disability or medical grounds], an employer needs to evaluate the risk that objection poses, particularly if an employer is mandating that employees receive a COVID-19 vaccine. …

A vaccination mandate should be job-related and consistent with business necessity. Under the ADA, an employer can have a workplace policy that includes “a requirement that an individual shall not pose a direct threat to the health or safety of individuals in the workplace.”

If a vaccination requirement screens out a worker with a disability, however, the employer must show that unvaccinated employees would pose such a threat. The EEOC defines a “direct threat” as a “significant risk of substantial harm that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.”

The agency said employers should evaluate four factors to determine whether a direct threat exists:

1. The duration of the risk.
2. The nature and severity of the potential harm.
3. The likelihood that the potential harm will occur.
4. The imminence of the potential harm.

If an employee who cannot be vaccinated poses a direct threat to the workplace, the employer must consider whether a reasonable accommodation can be made, such as allowing the employee to work remotely or take a leave of absence.

“Managers and supervisors responsible for communicating with employees about compliance with the employer’s vaccination requirement should know how to recognize an accommodation request from an employee with a disability and know to whom the request should be referred for consideration,” the EEOC said.

Employers and employees should work together to determine whether a reasonable accommodation can be made. Helene Hechtkopf, an attorney with Hoguet Newman Regal & Kenney in New York City, said employers should evaluate:

1. The employee’s job functions.
2. Whether there is an alternative job that the employee could do that would make vaccination less critical.
3. How important it is to the employer’s operations that the employee be vaccinated.”

The link to quoted source material is here:



“The Frist Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to Freedom of Religion. … [Notwithstanding] many courts have ruled that there is no constitutional right to either religious or philosophical exemptions. … [In] 48 states, laws have been passed that allow for an objection along religious grounds and more than a dozen states grant exemption and philosophical beliefs. … Some states require proof of membership in a recognized religion while others are satisfied with an affirmation of religious or philosophic opposition.

“Title VII [of the United States statutes annotated] requires an employer to accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice or observance, unless it would cause an undue hardship on the business. Courts have said that an “undue hardship” is created by an accommodation that has more than a “de minimis,” or very small, cost or burden on the employer.

The definition of religion is broad and protects religious beliefs and practices that may be unfamiliar to the employer. Therefore, the employer “should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief,” according to the EEOC. “However, if an employee requests a religious accommodation, and an employer is aware of facts that provide an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief, practice or observance, the employer would be justified in requesting additional supporting information.”

“If an employee cannot get vaccinated because of a disability or sincerely held religious belief, and there is no reasonable accommodation possible, an employer could exclude the employee from physically entering the workplace,” said Johnny C. Taylor, Jr., SHRM-SCP, the Society for Human Resource Management’s president and chief executive officer. “But this doesn’t mean an individual can be automatically terminated. Employers will need to determine if any other rights apply under the EEO laws or other federal, state and local authorities.”

The link to quoted news source material is here:



The New Mexico legislature has enacted the “Immunization Exemption Statute”, Sections 24-5-1 to 24-5-15 NMSA, that deals with exemptions from school and daycare immunization requirements. Section 24-5-2 makes it clear in no uncertain terms that it is unlawful to enroll in school children that have not been immunized and states in part:

“It is unlawful for any student to enroll in school unless he has been immunized, as required under the rules and regulations of the health services division of the health and environment department [department of health], and can provide satisfactory evidence of such immunization. … ”

The New Mexico Public Education Department and the Public Health Department have the authority to include corvid vaccinations in the list of mandatory vaccinations.

The statute, section 24-5-3 NMSA, allows for only 2 types of exemptions for children seeking exemption from required immunizations to enter school, childcare or pre-school: a medical exemption and a religious exemption.

The statute does NOT grant immunization exemptions for philosophical or personal reasons. The two exemptions are medical or religious.

If there is a medical reason for exempting immunization, a signed medical exemption must be obtained from a duly-licensed physician attesting that the required immunization would endanger the life of the child.

If there is a religious reason for exempting, the child’s parent or legal guardian must ask an officer and agent of the church to write a letter stating that the one seeking an exemption are a member of the church, and the church uses prayer or spiritual means alone for healing.

If access to a church officer is not possible, then the child’s parent or guardian must complete the Certificate of Exemption Form. The form requires a statement of the religious reasons for requesting to have a child exempted from immunization. Once a completed, notarized, original Certificate of Exemption Form is filed with the Department of Health, the Department has up to 60 days to notify the parent or legal guardian if the request is approved or denied.

Section 24-5-3 entitled “Exemption from immunization” also requires affidavits:

A. Any minor child through his parent or guardian may file with the health authority charged with the duty of enforcing the immunization laws:

(1) a certificate of a duly licensed physician stating that the physical condition of the child is such that immunization would seriously endanger the life or health of the child; or

(2) affidavits or written affirmation from an officer of a recognized religious denomination that such child’s parents or guardians are bona fide members of a denomination whose religious teaching requires reliance upon prayer or spiritual means alone for healing; or

(3) affidavits or written affirmation from his parent or legal guardian that his religious beliefs, held either individually or jointly with others, do not permit the administration of vaccine or other immunizing agent.

B. Upon filing and approval of such certificate, affidavits or affirmation, the child is exempt from the legal requirement of immunization for a period not to exceed nine months on the basis of any one certificate, affidavits or affirmation.

The links to the statutes are here:

The links to the statute are here:




“[Over a century] plenty have argued against the legality of vaccine mandates [even] reaching the Supreme Court many times. But the courts have routinely protected the rights of states to require vaccinations in the interest of public health.

In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, justices held that a health regulation requiring smallpox vaccination was a reasonable exercise of the state’s police power that did not violate the liberty rights of individuals under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court recognized the possibility of adverse events following vaccination and the inability to determine with absolute certainty whether a particular person can be safely vaccinated. But it specifically rejected the idea of an exemption based on personal choice. Doing otherwise “would practically strip the legislative department of its function to [in its considered judgment] care for the public health and the public safety when endangered by epidemics of disease,” the Supreme Court said.

In Zucht v. King, the high court ruled against the plaintiff, who used a due process 14th Amendment challenge to argue against city ordinances that excluded children from attendance if they failed to prove vaccination. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that “these ordinances confer not arbitrary power, but only that broad discretion required for the protection of the public health.”

The link to quoted news source material is here:

“History of vaccine mandates in the United States”


The United States Supreme court has said in rulings that it is constitutional in a public health crisis for the government to require people to do certain things or to prohibit certain things that they normally would not do or could do.

In 1905, during the small pox epidemic, the United State Supreme Court case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The United States Supreme Court upheld the authority of Cambridge, Massachusetts, to require smallpox vaccinations when a Massachusetts minister, not on religious grounds, refused to get a vaccination for the disease.

The US Supreme Court’s decision was that the freedom of the individual must sometimes be subordinated to the common welfare and is subject to the police power of the state. The court ruled that the state did have a right to legally require the vaccinations. The United State Supreme Court came down in favor of state governments being allowed to mandate vaccinations so long as it is reasonable to protect the public health, safety and welfare of citizens.

It is also well settled United States Supreme Court constitutional case law that the legislative branch can give the executive branch the authority to issue executive orders in times of national emergency over private enterprise. In 1952, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) that the authority to issue executive orders is whatever authority the legislative branch gives to the executive.

The case involved President Harry Truman. Truman order seizing of the steel mills and directed the steel mill presidents to operate mills as managers for the United States during the Korean War. The Supreme Court found that Truman did not have the authority. The Supreme Court found that the President’s power, if any, to issue such an emergency order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself. Subsequent Supreme Court ruling have found that “executive power” of the President and by extension state governors to issue executive orders is whatever power the congress or the state legislators gives to them by enactment of legislation giving them those powers.

The link to a related blog article is here:



Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has been repeatedly vilified by the public for her health care orders to deal with the pandemic, especially by the Der Führer Republican Party to the point of being sued. The courts have dismissed the cases almost as quickly as they are filed. The dismissals are based upon state statues enacted that give the Governor wide ranging powers to deal with public health crisis.

The general public and School Boards across New Mexico are also objecting mask requirements and vaccine mandates issued by the Public Education Department. The Albuquerque Public School Board had to suspend a meeting when protesters disrupted a meeting over the board debating issuing mask mandates. Members of the public spoke to the Las Cruces school board for more than an hour, with most parents railing against the district’s masking policy. In Carlsbad, citizens and elected officials demanded that the school district fight for control from the Public Education Department and do away with mask and vaccine requirements. In Aztec and in Torrance County, county commissioners recently passed a resolution supporting local control and the authority of school boards to make decisions in the best interest of their students, staff and parents.


The school board that represents the rural Floyd School Board was suspended by the state Public Education Department (PED) for refusing to go along with state guidelines and not following the state public health orders. In a July 26 meeting the school board voted unanimously to make many COVID-19 mitigation requirements from the PED optional, including face masks, social distancing and advanced air filtration. Education Secretary Ryan Stewart warned the board it would face suspension if it did not rescind its July 26 decisions. On Friday, August 20, District Court Judge ruled against the Floyd District School Board members, who sought an injunction on their August 4 suspension by the Public Education Department.


There are 2 major statutes that that empowers the Governor to issue public health orders to deal with the pandemic and which include both civil and criminal remedies for the government to enforce. The statutes are the “Public Health Act” and the “Public Health Emergency Response Act.”


The Public Health Act is the law the state has been using to temporarily close businesses and it allows for the state to levy $100-dollar criminal fine against non-compliant businesses, per day.

In 1973, the New Mexico Legislature enacted the New Mexico Public Health Act (NMPHA), section 24-1-3, et. seq., (Laws 1973, Chapter 359, as amended) which is administered and enforced by the New Mexico Department of Health. It outlines the powers and authority of the department. There are at least 12 specific provisions of the NMPHA that empowers the department by and through the Governor by appointment of the cabinet secretary. Those sections are:

Section 24-1-3 (C) empowers the department to investigate, control, and abate causes of disease, especially epidemics, sources of mortality, and other conditions of public health.
Section 24-1-3 (D) empowers the department with the authority to establish, maintain and enforce isolation and quarantine.
Section 24-1-3 (E) empowers the department with authority to close any public place and forbid gatherings of people when necessary for the protection of the public health.
Section 24-1-3 (K) Ensure the quality and accessibility of health care services and the provision of health care when health care is otherwise unavailable;
Section 24-1-3 (L) Ensure a competent public health workforce;
Section 24-1-3 (M) empowers the department to bring action in court for the enforcement of health laws and rules and orders issued by the department;
Section 24-1-3 (P) Cooperate and enter into contracts or agreements with Native American nations, tribes and pueblos and off-reservation groups to coordinate the provision of essential public health services and functions;
Section 24-1-3 (Q) empowers the department to maintain and enforce rules for the control of conditions of public health importance;
Section 24-1-3 (R) empowers the department to maintain and enforce rules for immunization against conditions of public health importance;
Section 24-1-3 (U) Sue and, with the consent of the legislature, be sued;
Section 24-1-3 (X)Inspect such premises or vehicles as necessary to ascertain the existence or nonexistence of conditions dangerous to public health or safety;
Section 24-1-3 (Z) provides that the health department do all other things necessary to carry out its duties.


The New Mexico Public Health Act also contains a criminal penalty provision that can be sought and enforced for violations of the Health Department orders. The state police issues criminal citations that are misdemeanors that carry a maximum $100 fine and 6 months in jail. The penalty provision of the Public Health Act provides as follows:

NMSA §24-1-21. Penalties

Any person violating any of the provisions of the Public Health Act or any order, rule or regulation adopted pursuant to the provisions of the Public Health Act is guilty of a petty misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) or imprisonment in the county jail for a definite term not to exceed six months or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court.

Each day of a continuing violation of Subsection A of Section 24-1-5 NMSA 1978 after conviction shall be considered a separate offense. The department also may enforce its rules and orders by any appropriate civil action.

The attorney general shall represent the department.”

Links to review the entire Public Health Act can be found here:




The “Public Health Emergency Response Act” (PHERA) is the law the state has been using to threaten or issue businesses a civil fine of up to $5,000 per day. Note that the actions for violations of the “Public Health Act” are criminal and that violations of the “Public Health Emergency Response Act” are civil.

The “Public Health Emergency Response Act” (PHERA) is the law the state has been using to threaten or issue businesses an up to $5,000 fine per day. In 2003, the New Mexico legislature also enacted the Public Health Emergency Response Act. The act empowers the Governor to issue executive orders to respond to a health emergency that threatens the public health, safety and welfare, such as the corona virus pandemic.

It is section 12-10A-5 that empowers the Governor to declare a state of public health emergency and it provides as follows:

A. A state of public health emergency may be declared by the governor upon the occurrence of a public health emergency. Prior to a declaration of a state of public health emergency, the governor shall consult with the secretary of health. The governor shall authorize the secretary of health, the secretary of public safety and the director to coordinate a response to the public health emergency.

B. A state of public health emergency shall be declared in an executive order that specifies:

(1) the nature of the public health emergency;
(2) the political subdivisions or geographic areas affected by the public health emergency;
(3) the conditions that caused the public health emergency;
(4) the expected duration of the public health emergency, if less than thirty days;
(5) the public health officials needed to assist in the coordination of a public health emergency response; and
(6) any other provisions necessary to implement the executive order.

C. A declaration of a state of public health emergency shall not abrogate any disease-reporting requirements set forth in the Public Health Act [ 24-1-1 to 24-1-22 NMSA 1978].

D. A declaration of a state of public health emergency shall be terminated:

(1) by the governor, after consultation with the secretary of health, upon determining that there is no longer a public health emergency; or
(2) automatically after thirty days, unless renewed by the governor after consultation with the secretary of health.

E. Upon the termination of a state of public health emergency, the secretary of health shall consult with the secretary of public safety and the director to ensure public safety during termination procedures.


The “Public Health Emergency Response Act” is civil in nature and as such provides for enforcement by the Secretary of Health and for $5,000 civil penalties as follows:

“12-10A-19. Enforcement; civil penalties.

A. The secretary of health, the secretary of public safety or the director may enforce the provisions of the Public Health Emergency Response Act by imposing a civil administrative penalty of up to five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each violation of that act. A civil administrative penalty may be imposed pursuant to a written order issued by the secretary of health, the secretary of public safety or the director after a hearing is held in accordance with the rules promulgated pursuant to the provisions of Section 12-10A-17 NMSA 1978.

B. The provisions of the Public Health Emergency Response Act shall not be construed to limit specific enforcement powers enumerated in that act.

C. The enforcement authority provided pursuant to the provisions of the Public Health Emergency Response Act is in addition to other remedies available against the same conduct under the common law or other statutes of this state.”

Link to the New Mexico Public Health Emergency Response Act are here:


The link to a related blog article is here:



“With the exception of small outbreaks, vaccine-preventable diseases are largely held at bay in the United States. The country saw a rise in measles cases in 2019 with 1,282 cases confirmed in 31 states. In 2020, that number dropped to [a mere 13 cases]. And as of July 9, 2021, the CDC could only confirm two measles cases this year.

But the most immediate vaccine-preventable disease is COVID-19. Vaccine manufacturers developed shots in 2020 that would dramatically reduce the population’s caseload, hospitalization rates and deaths. … Despite their safety and efficacy, vaccines are neither perfectly safe, more perfectly effective. Adverse events, or side effects, are common with inoculations. Usually, a recipient will experience soreness at the injection site, a fever, chills or a headache. Some people have conditions that make them more prone to serious adverse events, like allergic reactions. These people are largely exempt from being compelled to take vaccines.

Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna developed two-dose vaccines that offer 95% protection, while Johnson & Johnson’s shot offers roughly 66% protection. And in the months since the Food and Drug Administration authorized them for emergency use, America’s case numbers plummeted from the highs seen last winter.

More importantly, hospitalizations fell [thereby] alleviating the stress placed on the country’s health care system. And most importantly, the death rate dropped. For all of its troubles, [which include garnering] the most confirmed COVID cases and deaths in the world, the United States orchestrated one of the most robust vaccination rollouts of any country.

In April, the U.S. reached a vaccine surplus, meaning anyone who wanted a shot could get one with relative ease. Even so, the vaccination effort peaked in April. Since that time, America is vaccinating fewer than 1 million people a day, compared to the more than 3 million daily inoculations seen in the spring. And the rise of the more infectious delta variant led to another uptick in cases when June rolled around.

All three FDA-authorized vaccines offer strong protection against the delta variant, according to Dr. Anthony Fauci — chief medical advisor to President Joe Biden. But more breakthrough cases (when a fully vaccinated person becomes infected) have occurred because of it.

… [The CDC has] released data that suggests vaccinated people can transmit the delta variant. The data has found vaccinated and unvaccinated people infected by the delta variant carry viral loads that “are actually quite similar.”

Even so, the vaccines have remained effective at keeping recipients out of the hospital and morgue. The White House and CDC have stressed since June that 99% of recent COVID-related hospitalizations and deaths are coming from unvaccinated people.

The CDC has asked vaccinated people to resume wearing masks in areas where COVID-19 is surging in order to protect those who are unvaccinated.”

The link to quoted source material is here:



Those who refuse to take the vaccine and become carriers of the deadly virus are essentially attempting to commit suicide and in a real sense committing attempted murder of others. No one should have any sympathy for those who refuse refuse to take the vaccine, refuse to mask up and then get infected. The mantra that mandated vaccines and wearing of masks are a violation of a person’s constitutional rights is 100% irresponsible and negligent especially by elected officials promoting their own political agenda. It is a reflection of absolute ignorance. There is no right to become a carrier of a deadly disease and put others in harm’s way. You may have the right to kill yourself but not to kill others.

Like it or not, and no matter what political party you belong to or your political philosophy, vaccination mandates by the government and by private employers as a condition of employment are on solid United State Constitutional law and state laws. Consistently, those who promote ways to get around the vaccine and mask mandates argue they are looking out for children’s health and parents’ rights, and peoples “constitutional rights” and freedom from government intervention for any reason.

Those who resist masking and vaccines are at best irrational and ignorant or at worst just dishonest and reckless. The “anti-vaccine” and “anti-mask” crowd are now undermining efforts to beat back the highly contagious delta variant to the point people are being hospitalized and dying at the same rates early in the pandemic. The overwhelming majority who are now being hospitalized and dying are those who have not been vaccinated.

Now that the vaccine has received full FDA approval, there is no excuse not take it. Please take the vaccine and mask up.

A link to a related blog article is here:

Der Führer Trump Booed At Rally Telling Supporters To Get Vaccinated; The Crazy And Unhinged Now Infecting The Country, NM Public Schools, Churches And ABQ Mayor’s Race; Country Needs A Vaccine For Crazy, Stupid Lies Or Duct Tape!

This entry was posted in Opinions by . Bookmark the permalink.


Pete Dinelli was born and raised in Albuquerque, New Mexico. He is of Italian and Hispanic descent. He is a 1970 graduate of Del Norte High School, a 1974 graduate of Eastern New Mexico University with a Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration and a 1977 graduate of St. Mary's School of Law, San Antonio, Texas. Pete has a 40 year history of community involvement and service as an elected and appointed official and as a practicing attorney in Albuquerque. Pete and his wife Betty Case Dinelli have been married since 1984 and they have two adult sons, Mark, who is an attorney and George, who is an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT). Pete has been a licensed New Mexico attorney since 1978. Pete has over 27 years of municipal and state government service. Pete’s service to Albuquerque has been extensive. He has been an elected Albuquerque City Councilor, serving as Vice President. He has served as a Worker’s Compensation Judge with Statewide jurisdiction. Pete has been a prosecutor for 15 years and has served as a Bernalillo County Chief Deputy District Attorney, as an Assistant Attorney General and Assistant District Attorney and as a Deputy City Attorney. For eight years, Pete was employed with the City of Albuquerque both as a Deputy City Attorney and Chief Public Safety Officer overseeing the city departments of police, fire, 911 emergency call center and the emergency operations center. While with the City of Albuquerque Legal Department, Pete served as Director of the Safe City Strike Force and Interim Director of the 911 Emergency Operations Center. Pete’s community involvement includes being a past President of the Albuquerque Kiwanis Club, past President of the Our Lady of Fatima School Board, and Board of Directors of the Albuquerque Museum Foundation.