The greatness of a city is reflected by the extent it commits to a better life for its homeless who suffer from mental illness.

On Monday, August 20, 2018, after more than two hours of public comment and deliberation, the Albuquerque City Council showed a little greatness with a 5-3 vote.

The Albuquerque City Council voted to award $2 million to St. Martin’s HopeWorks to build a complex that will provide behavioral health services, medical care, counseling and treatment and shelter to the chronically homeless and the homeless who suffer from mental illness.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1211351/councilors-approve-2m-for-proposed-hopeworks-village.html

THE HOPEWORKS PROJECT

According to the HopeWorks project Request For Proposal (RFP), the “priority population” will include individuals in four criteria including homelessness or severe housing instability, frequent admission to MDC’s psychiatric unit, frequent utilization of detox services, and frequent use of emergency medical service for behavioral health needs.

The project is to be built on a site near St. Martin’s Hospitality Center on Third Street NW, which has been at the location for decades.

The HopeWorks project includes purchasing land, planning, designing, constructing and improving a single-site behavioral health services center with associated supportive and transitional affordable housing.

The HopeWorks project will be developed in three phases.

PHASE 1 will include a 42-unit supportive housing building for chronically homeless individuals.

On the first floor, residents will be able to access behavioral health and case management services.

Residential units will comprise the second and third floors of the building.

The proposed HopeWorks project will include one-bedroom units, designed to be both ADA accessible and contain universal design features.

PHASE 2 includes construction of a new administrative and services building.

The complex will include a management office, a maintenance room, a central front lobby, a social services provider’s office and additional service space, as well as public gathering spaces and laundry areas.

PHASE 3 will replace the existing day shelter and dining hall and combine them into one building.

The program will identify the “chronic homeless” that need medical assistance and counseling but by no means is transitional housing.

Approximately $9 million total is being expended on the project: the $2 million from the city council, $3 million in Bernalillo County funding and housing vouchers and another $4 million from the New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority.

The project should in no way be considered near or similar to the $2 million “Tiny Home Village” project of 35 small one room, 110 square foot shelters, to be built on one acre of land and that is to provide transitional housing to those who qualify.

ST. MARTIN’S HOSPITALITY CENTER NOW ST. MARTIN’S HOPEWORKS

St. Martin’s Hospitality Center has been around for over 32 years and for 25 years has been at the current location between 3rd and 4th streets just north of Mountain Road.

St. Martin’s provides critical services for people experiencing homelessness and near homelessness.

According to its web site, services provided by St. Martins include: Housing; Shelter and Emergency Support Services; Mental Health Treatment Services; Outpatient Treatment Services; Psycho-Social Rehabilitation; Residential Treatment Services for Co-Occurring Disorders; Consumer-Run (Peer-Support) Services; Recovery support for returning citizens through Dismas/Covenant House Program; Supports the severely disabled through the Assertive Community Treatment Program (ACT); and Employment Services.

On average, nearly 6,000 individuals, including those with severe and persistent mental illness, substance abuse problems, military veterans, woman and families fleeing domestic violence and the medically fragile seek the various services from St. Martins.

St. Martin’s is now being rebranded as St. Martin’s HopeWorks and is the main developer of the 42-unit supportive housing multifamily development project.

Greg Morris has been the Executive Director St. Martin’s Hospitality Center for the last two years.

Greg Morris had this to say about the “rebranding and renaming” of St. Martin’s Hospitality to “HopeWorks” combining the two words hope and works as one:

“Hope is a powerful word. … We’re serving a population that has largely lost all hope. Part of our job is to re-instill hope in each human soul we come in contact with. What the indomitable human spirit can do with just a little bit of hope is just incredible and we see these success stories on display in our community every day. … Works’ is an action word, and if there’s something we know how to do at St. Martin’s it’s action that makes a tangible difference in the lives of the people who we serve.”

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

NIMBY stands for “Not In My Back Yard” relating to proposed projects opposed by homeowners, property owners, and business owners.

Two of the biggest issues that generate extensive public outcry of “not in my backyard” are the location of methadone clinics, homeless shelters and locating service providers to the homeless.

Not at all surprising, many spoke in opposition to the St. Martin’s HopeWorks project.

Opposition arguments ranged from negative impacts on new area businesses such as brew pubs, residential areas, to neighborhood safety to cost justification.

One argument made was that the complex will be only a 42-unit complex.

The argument fails to account for the on-going influx of patients over a period of years with thousands to be assisted and helped.

The Reverend Vincent Chavez, pastor of St. Therese Parish and Catholic School, told city councilors that the proposal will not solve “this serious issue” of the homeless.

Reverend Chavez was quoted as telling the City Council:

“We the residents and businesses of North Downtown, Wells Park and near North Valley are overstressed and are at wit’s end. … None of us, the deprived neighbor or our residents with an actual roof over their heads has a quality of life, security and well-being as long as the homeless issue has no real permanent solution.”

So much for acts of charity, compassion and Christianity by the Reverend Chavez.

St. Martin’s HopeWorks will be providing services to people and patients that are far more likely a danger to themselves than North Downtown, Wells Park and the near North Valley.

The people who will benefit from HopeWorks will be off the streets of Albuquerque.

Reverend Chavez and those in opposition to the project apparently do not recognize that the project is in fact a “real permanent solution” for the homeless.

The 42-unit project represents a “real permanent solution” for the homeless designed to provide an array of medical, counseling and housing services that can help people “regain self-sufficiency” and where possible integrate back into society.

The St. Martin’s HopeWorks project should have been a “no brainer” of a vote and should have passed on a 9-0 vote given the amount of planning and development dedicated to the project and the decades of documented success by St. Martin’s to provide services to the homeless.

Democrat City Councilors Ken Sanchez, Isaac Benton, Diane Gibson, Klaressa Pena and Cynthia Borrego all voted for the HopeWorks project recognizing the void the project will fill in providing necessary medical services to the chronic homeless suffering from addiction or mental illness.

Not all surprising fiscal conservative Republicans Brad Winter and real estate broker Trudy Jones voted against the project with Republican City Councilor Don Harris unable to attend the meeting.

All three Republican City Councilors represent the most affluent neighborhoods and parts of the city where the homeless are seldom seen but for them to see even one on a street corner or freeway entrance is unacceptable to them, especially Trudy Jones who was the sponsor of the “anti-panhandling ordinance”.

“Mr. Progressive” Democrat City Councilor Pat Davis voted no with Republicans Winter and Jones but only after trying to speak eloquently about the need to help the homeless, but explaining he could not vote for the project saying that the project would have too much of a negative impact on a developing area.

Democrat Pat Davis and Republicans Winter and Jones had no problem approving $130 million for the ART Bus project that has had a major negative impact on Route 66, but no, they just could not bring themselves to vote to allocate $2 million to help a homeless service provider.

All too often, we tend to forget our humanity, our political philosophy and perhaps even religious faith and resent or even condemn the homeless for what we think they represent or who we think they are.

We fear and even condemn the homeless whenever they interfere with our lives at whatever level such as pandering for money on street medians, begging for food, acting erratic, acting emotionally unstable, and yes even when they are found sleeping in doorways and defecating in public.

All too often, people loudly condemn the families of the mentally ill for not making sure their loved one has not been institutionalized or not taking their medications.

All too often, the families of the homeless mentally ill are totally incapable of caring for or dealing with their loved one’s conduct or unrelated people feel they have no choice but to call law enforcement to deal with the homeless who suffer from mental illness.

Historically, calling law enforcement in Albuquerque to deal with the mentally ill usually ends tragically as was the case with mentally ill homeless camper James Boyd who was shot and killed in the Sandia foothills by APD Swat.

We easily forget that the homeless are indeed human beings who may have lost all hope and all respect for themselves and are imprisoned for life in their own minds condemned to fight their demons every hour, every minute and every second of their life until the very day they die.

One thing we should never forget is the homeless have human rights to live as they choose, not as any one says they should live.

The homeless should not and cannot be arrested and housed like criminals or animals.

Many homeless do not want to ever be reintroduced into society and many have committed no crimes and they want to simply be left alone.

The homeless cannot be forced or ever required to do anything for their own benefit, or against their own free will or change their life unless they want to do it themselves, but that does not mean no effort should ever be made to offer them help they so desperately need.

Too often, the homeless are the victims of crimes, even being bludgeoned to death for fun as Albuquerque saw a few years ago when 3 teenagers killed two Native Americans sleeping in a vacant lot on a discarded mattress.

Charitable organizations such as Joy Junction, St. Martins HopeWorks project, Steelbridge, The Rock at Noon Day, Albuquerque Healthcare for the Homeless, provide services to the homeless and do so by being where the homeless can be found and where the homeless can reach and seek out and have easy access to services.

These organizations are filling a void that government can not fill.

The sooner Mayor Tim Keller signs the $2 million city council appropriation for HopeWorks the better.

**************************************************************************

POSTSCRIPT

It is estimated that the City of Albuquerque has between 1,300 to 1,500 chronic homeless people that can be documented by the City living on the streets.

The City does provide extensive services to the homeless that include social services, mental or behavioral health, homeless services, health care for the homeless, substance abuse treatment and prevention, multi-service centers, public housing, rent assistance, affordable housing development, and fair housing, just to mention a few.

The following homeless services are funded by the City of Albuquerque, HUD’s Continuum of Care grants, Emergency Shelter Grants, and other grants administered by the City of Albuquerque:

1. Emergency Shelters for short-term, immediate assistance for the homeless for men, women, families, emergency winter shelter and after-hours shelter.
2. Transitional Housing assistance designed to transition from homelessness to permanent housing.
3. Permanent Supportive Housing for homeless individuals dealing with chronic mental illness or substance abuse issues
4. Childcare services for homeless families
5. Employment Services and job placement for homeless persons
6. Eviction Prevention or rental assistance and case management to prevent eviction and homelessness
7. Health Care services for homeless individuals and families
8. Meal program providing for homeless individuals and families in need
9. Motel Vouchers or temporary vouchers for homeless individuals with immediate medical issues and families with children, where emergency shelters cannot accommodate them.
10. The Albuquerque Heading Home program initiative which moves the most medically fragile and chronically homeless people off the streets and into permanent housing. Since its inception in 2011 to January, 2017, it has placed 650 people into housing that assists with housing and providing jobs.

For more on Albuquerque’s homeless see “Out of Sight, Out of Mind Solution To Homeless” at:

“Out Of Sight, Out Of Mind” Solution To Homelessness Proposed

The New Mexico Republican Party is circulating a poll that claims that there is a statistical tie in the race for Governor between Democrat Michelle Lujan Grisham and Republican Steve Pearce with only a 2-point spread.

The poll was conducted by Emerson College Polling which is part of the School of Communication at Emerson College.

Emerson college is located in Boston, Massachusetts, it is a private institution that was founded in 1880 and is considered by some an Ivy League college.

Emerson College Polling has been ranked as the most accurate collegiate pollster by Bloomberg New, and successfully executed multiple polls during the 2016 Presidential Elections, including in wide-ranging states such as OH, NV, and NH.

https://www.emerson.edu/communication-studies/emerson-college-polling-society

EMERSON POLL RESULTS

The poll results are 42% for Michelle Lujan Grisham, 40% for Steve Pearce and 18% undecided.

Libertarian candidate Bob Walsh was not included in the Emerson poll as in previous polls in that he dropped out of the race which likely helped Steve Pearce, but not by much.

The Emerson poll was taken on August 17 and 18, 2018 and was of 538 registered voters, not likely voters, and has a margin of error of +/- of 4.6%.

The data was weighted by ethnicity, gender, party affiliation, mode and with very difficult to believe 3rd congressional district polling.

Lujan Grisham leads Pearce as expected in her home New Mexico First Congressional District 48% to 32%.

Pearce leads Lujan-Grisham as expected in his home New Mexico Second Congressional District at 43% to Lujan-Gresham’s 35%.

It was the polling in the Third Congressional District represented by Congressman Ben Ray Lujan that is difficult to rationalize.

In the Northern Third Congressional District, Steve Pearce unexpectantly leads at 46% to Lujan-Grisham at 42%.

Democrats lead on a generic congressional ballot test at 43% to 33% with 20% undecided.

A breakout by district has the generic Democrat in Lujan Gresham’s Congressional District 1 leading 51% to 27%, while in Pearce’s 2nd Congressional District, the Republican is at 39% and the Democrat at 35%, in District 3 Congressional District the generic Democrats have a 45% to 32% edge.

Overall, both Gubernatorial candidates are popular, which is a far cry from what we saw in the Trump-Clinton Presidential race just 2 years ago.

Lujan Grisham has 45% favorable rating and 29% unfavorable rating.

Pearce has a 41% favorable rating and 31% unfavorable rating.

EMERSON POLL NUMBERS ON MARTINEZ, TRUMP AND THE WALL

Outgoing Governor Susana Martinez has a 30% job approval and 47% disapproval rating.

President Trump has a lower job approval in the Land of Enchantment than his national average of 43% to 52%, with a 35% approval and 54% disapproval in New Mexico.

Regarding the Trump’s border wall along Mexico, 38% of those polled favored the US significantly expanding construction of walls along the US-Mexico border, while a majority at 54% said no it should not be expanded.

The boarder wall issue is split along party lines with 72% of Republican agrees with the expanded wall while 76% of Democrats disagree.

Independents said no to the border wall 55% to 36%.

You can read the full Emerson Poll here:

https://www.emerson.edu/sites/default/files/Files/Academics/ecp-pr-nm-8.19.18.pdf

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Any political consultant should be fired who believes the accuracy of the Emerson Poll, especially when it comes to Northern New Mexico, if they are employed by Michelle Lujan Grisham or Steve Pearce.

The Emerson poll is replete with way too many contradictions so as to call into serious question its accuracy statewide.

Emerson Poll used landlines and on-line panel of voters and did not conduct any live cellphone interviews.

Another problem with the Emerson poll is that it did not call “likely” voters but only called registered voters who say they plan on voting.

A “likely voter” in the political polling business are those who have a demonstrated history of voting in recent state elections.

Conducting cell phone interviews as well as “likely voters” is what Brian Sanderoff with Research and Polling does who has the best track record of any one predicting New Mexico election results.

The Emerson Poll reports that in the Third Congressional District represented by Congressman Ben Ray Lujan has Pearce leading at 46% to Lujan-Grisham at 42%.

The Northern District is by far is the most progressive of all 3 New Mexico Congressional Districts with the highest percentage of Hispanics.

Pearce is campaigning hard in Northern New Mexico for the Hispanic male vote, but when push comes to shove, Lujan Gresham’s northern Hispanic generation roots will command a huge loyalty.

Complicating things for Steve Pearce is how well woman are doing in elections in New Mexico and there is clearly a gender gap with Mitchell Lujan Grisham having an 11%-point lead over Steve Pearce with women at 45% to 36%.

Right Wing Republican and Republican Freedom Caucus member Steve Pearce has as munch in common with voters in Northern New Mexico as President Donald Trump has with President Barack Obama or former President Nelson Mandala of South Africa.

The Emerson Poll breakout by district has the generic Democrat in Northern District 3 with a 45% to 32% edge, a 13% edge which means it is far more likely to vote for Lujan-Grisham than Pearce and by a very big margin.

Another red flag on the credibility of the Emerson Pearce leaning poll is that Republican Governor Susana Martinez has a 47% job disapproval rating.

Martinez will be a lead weight around Pearce’s neck as was Bill Richardson around Diane Dennish’s neck meaning that voters will be more inclined to vote Democrat and for Michelle Lujan Grisham as opposed to Steve Pearce who shares the same political philosophy as Martinez who has been a total disaster as Governor.

Pearce is walking lock step with Trump on the US-Mexican border wall expansion.

The Emerson poll shows a majority of New Mexican’s believing by 54% the US-Mexican border wall should not be expanded.

It is more likely than not that people who oppose building the US-Mexican Border wall will be voting for Michelle Lujan Grisham over Steve Pearce.

On June 18, 2018 Carroll Strategies released the first poll for the November general election.

Although two months old, the Carroll Strategies poll is far more reliable than the Emerson poll.

https://www.kob.com/politics-news/poll-lujan-grisham-leads-pearce-in-race-for-governor/4956518/?cat=500

According to Tom Carroll, the president of the company, 1,199 people were polled as compared to the Emerson poll of 538 registered voters.
The reported margin of error is 2.8 percent.
Democrat Michelle Lujan Grisham – 50.5%
Republican Steve Pearce – 42.1%
Libertarian Bob Walsh – 3.1%
Undecided – 4.3%

(NOTE: Libertarian candidate Bob Walsh dropped out after this poll was conducted.)

A Survey USA poll also conducted for KOB-TV June 19-23 had the race 51 to 38 in favor of Lujan Grisham over Pearce.

Both candidates have spent tremendous amounts on TV commercials, but it is still very early.

There are 79 days left until the November 6, 2018, which is a lifetime in politics.

Notwithstanding when you analyze the polls taken thus far, it is more likely than not the Mitchelle Lujan Grisham has a 8% to 10% lead over Steve Pearce and she should win by 55% to 45%.

This is what you call refusing to take no for an answer.

On Tuesday August 14, 2018, the Bernalillo County Commission voted 3 to 2 not to place the “Democracy Dollars” on the November 6, 2018 ballot.

The “Democracy Dollars” was a voter petition drive initiative to place on general election ballot amendments to the City of Albuquerque’s public finance laws.

The County Commissioners who voted not to put the measure on the ballot expressed serious concerns about the proposal, especially about how the coupons would be tracked, used, distributed and funded, and questioning why the Albuquerque City Council was not asked to do it, all very legitimate concerns.

Heather Ferguson, executive director of Common Cause New Mexico had this to say after the county commission declined to put “Democracy Dollars” on the ballot:

“We’re really disappointed that the county commission decided to take an action tonight that was against the wishes and will of 28,000 of their constituents. … every single one of the residents of Albuquerque are their constituents here in the county, and that was silencing their voices. It was incredibly disappointing to hear.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/1208997/democracy-dollars-ballot-initiative-fails.html

The very day after the county commission voted against putting the measure on the ballot, organizers of “Dollars for Democracy” mounted an extensive social media and phone lobbying effort to have the county commission reconsider their vote claiming that the county commission disenfranchised petition signers by refusing to put the measure on the ballot.

In response to the pressure, the Bernalillo County Commissioners have now scheduled a special public hearing for Tuesday, August 21, 2018 for the “Democracy Dollars”.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1210268/bernco-commissioners-to-revisit-democracy-dollars-ballot-question.html

DEMOCRACY FOR DOLLARS EXPLAINED

Because the November election is a statewide and county election, the Bernalillo County Commission was required to vote to place it on the ballot, but only if they wanted to.

The voter initiative if it passes would direct the Albuquerque City Council to establish an ordinance providing for issuance and redemption of $25 coupons and change the date for municipal elections from its usual October date to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November on odd-numbered years.

Under the Democracy for Dollars proposal, all registered city voters and all voting age residents, would be given $25 Democracy Dollars coupons issued by the city to contribute to their choice of qualified candidates.

All registered voters would automatically be mailed or given $25 vouchers finance by city taxpayers.

Voter age residents who are not registered voters would be able to get the $25 vouchers by applying to the Albuquerque City Clerk.

Municipal candidates would then redeem the dollars with the city clerk, up to a limit, for funds to spend in support of their municipal campaigns.

What is not clear or definite from the petition signed by registered voters is if “foreign nationals” who are Albuquerque residents and who are not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States will be given the $25 vouchers, which would violate federal law, both by the candidates soliciting the vouchers and the foreign national themselves.

The federal election contribution laws prohibit a person, including candidates from soliciting, accepting, or receiving a contribution or donation from a foreign national.

The federal law applies to local elections such as Albuquerque’s municipal election.

FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LAWS

Section 52 U.S. Code § 30121 of the federal statutes governs contributions and donations by foreign nationals to candidates for office or political campaigns and states:

“PROHIBITION: It shall be unlawful for—

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to contribute or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) [It shall be unlawful for] a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

(b)“FOREIGN NATIONAL” DEFINED: As used in this section, the term “foreign national” means: a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or

(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States … [as defined by federal statute] and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by [federal statute] … ”

Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules and regulations defines individuals who are considered “foreign nationals” and are subject to the prohibition to include foreign citizens, not including dual citizens of the United States, and immigrants who are not lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

The $25-dollar coupons or vouchers called “Democracy for Dollars” clearly have a value once redeemed and fall within the definition “a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value.”

Foreign nationals who knowingly and willfully engage in the prohibited activities of donating to candidates for office or political campaigns may be subject to an FEC enforcement action, criminal prosecution, or both.

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/types-contributions/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Democracy Dollars is a clear attempt to make major changes on how contributions and donations are made in Albuquerque’s Municipal elections and for that reason it will be subject to federal contribution laws.

Common Cause and “Democracy for Dollar’s” have missed the mark by promoting just another way for candidates for office to collect donations for their campaigns instead of promoting meaningful campaign and election reform for our municipal elections.

Bernalillo County has no “public finance” system in place for any of its elected officials, yet Common Cause and Democracy for Dollars wants the county to weigh in on demanding the city to make major changes to its campaign finance laws.

The New Mexico constitution provides that all minicpal elections are to be nonpartisan elections.

The voter petition initiative also wants to change the date of the city’s nonpartisan municipal elections to coincide with State and Federal partisan elections.

“Democracy Dollars” is proposing major changes to the City of Albuquerque public financing system yet county registered voters will be voting in November on the measure when they are prohibited from voting in municipal elections.

If anything, “Democracy Dollars” should be placed on the 2019 City nonpartisan election ballot by the Albuquerque City Council and not on the general partisan election ballot by the Bernalillo County Commission.

There are two major points that need to be made clear to the Bernalillo County Commission and to voters about “Democracy Dollars”:

1.The $25 vouchers are to be mailed or given to all registered voters as well as any resident of the city who is not a registered voter but who applies for a voucher.

2. The issuance of $25 vouchers to all city residents of the city and not just registered voters will result in a financial liability far above and beyond what is already in the city budget for publicly financed candidates.

The argument that Democracy Dollars involves “no new taxes” conveniently ignores that it still involves taxpayer money that must come from the city’s general fund that is used for essential services and social services.

The City sets aside approximately $500,000 a year for public financing campaigns out of the general fund.

Supporters of Democracy Dollars claim it will be funded by a $3,000,000 surplus that has built up in the Open and Ethical Elections Fund and the annual allocations already in place.

There are approximately 558,000 Albuquerque residents.

To print and implement a voucher system for the estimated 558,000 Albuquerque residents will result in a minimum financial exposure to the city of $13,950,000 million dollars. (558,000 city residents X $25 voucher = $13,950,000 million)

There are approximately 360,000 registered voters in Albuquerque.

To print and implement a voucher system for just registered voters will result in a minimum financial exposure to this city of $9 million dollars. (360,000 registered voters X $25 voucher = $9 million).

An unintended consequence of “Democracy Dollars” will be to add yet another difficult layer of campaign solicitation effort by candidates on top of an already very cumbersome process to collect $5.00 qualifying donations that sets up most candidates for failure.

Candidates will be soliciting not only $5.00 qualifying donations but the $25 city issued coupons that are in reality a city subsidized contribution being called a “block grant” from taxpayers.

Enforcement to prevent violations of campaign finance laws will also be a major hurdle and costly to the city.

The $25 voucher system being proposed can be very easily abused and undermined by a candidate who decides to just buy the voucher’s outright from residents at a lesser cost of say $5 to $10 for an example and then turn the purchased voucher into the city to collect the full $25.

It is very disingenuous for Democracy Dollars and Common Cause to refer to as “small donors” those residents who are not able to make monetary contribution on their own to a political campaign when they are given a $25 voucher with the funding source in fact coming from the city general fund and taxpayers and not their own pocket book.

It is extremely doubtful that any voucher system such as “Democracy Dollars” or for that matter any form of public financing of campaigns is going to have any major impact on increasing voter turnout in Albuquerque’s municipal election as being argued by supporters of the measure.

It is going to take more than a $25 voucher system and significantly more changes to put public financing directly in the hands of voters, especially with the existence of Citizens United in order to level the political donation playing field.

The “Democracy for Dollars” plan has absolutely no impact on the effects of measured finance committees and the unlimited amount of money they can raise and spend on behalf or even against a candidate.

It is totally discretionary for the Bernalillo County Commission to put “Democracy for Dollars” on the ballot.

Signing a petition is merely voicing an opinion at the time that may change and not a binding vote, so no one is being disenfranchised by the county commission’s decision.

It is downright laughable for anyone to argue that people who have sign the Democracy for Dollars petition are being disenfranchised by the Bernalillo County Commission when they declined to put it on the ballot seeing as they are acting totally within their authority to say NO.

It is called a “represented form of government” for a reason: people are elected to make decisions that they believe are in the best interest of their constituents.

We will now see if the Bernalillo County Commission majority will fold like cheap suits to public pressure and reverse themselves and put “Democracy for Dollars” on the ballot.

FOLLOWING ARE OTHER LINKS TO BLOG ARTICLES ON DEMOCRACY DOLLARS:

“Democracy Dollars” Voted Down 3-2 By Bernalillo County Commission

“Democracy Dollars” To Be Given To All Residents, Not Just Registered Voters

“Democracy Dollars” A New Form of “Dialing For Dollars”

2018 YEAR TO REFORM CITY PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS

New Mexico gubernatorial candidates Democrat Michelle Lujan Grisham and Republican Steve Pearce have now both taken a position on a judge’s controversial decision to release on a signature bond 5 adults arrested at compound north of Taos.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1210382/gov-candidates-question-pretrial-release-rules.html

All 5 defendants have been charged by the Taos District Attorney with child abuse and nothing more, even after the body of a child was found on the property.

The cause of death of the child has yet to be determined by an autopsy.

During the bond hearing for release, the District Attorney presented no evidence to the Judge of child abuse and no evidence of the condition of the other children.

During the bond hearing, the District Attorney alleged that one of the adults was training children at the compound to attack “corrupt institutions,” which could include schools, law enforcement agencies and banks.

As inflammatory and alarming the claim of terrorism was, the Taos District Attorney offered no evidence of the allegation to substantiate the claim prompting the Judge to write in her ruling:

“No actual threats of terrorism or any credible evidence of a substantive plan was produced regarding the same. … the Court is requested by the State to surmise that these people are dangerous terrorists with a plot against the Country or institutions … The Court may not surmise, guess or assume. … The [District Attorney] did not produce any evidence of any history of violence that would cause the Court to conclude that they are a danger to the community or are unlikely to appear at hearings or to abide by their conditions of release.”

The Judge found that the Taos District Attorney did not prove that the suspects were dangerous to the community.

The Court’s bond release ruling drew sharp criticism and public outcry with threats of violence against the Judge to the point the Taos County Courthouse had to be closed.

GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATES POSTIONS

Not at all surprising, both Democrat Michelle Lujan Grisham and Republican Steve Pearce are now saying they favor re-examining the state’s current rules for pretrial release of violent offenders, which were enacted after voters approved a 2016 constitutional amendment.

Democrat Mitchell Lujan Grisham stated:

“We have an obligation to re-examine New Mexico’s pretrial detention policies, which empower judges to detain a defendant due to the severity of the crime. Ultimately, judges have a sacred responsibility to safeguard public safety, protect vulnerable populations and ensure that the community is not subject to further risk.”

Republican Steve Pearce stated:

“The state of New Mexico needs to be able to hold people who pose a significant flight risk without bond, and we, the people, should provide the courts with what we mean by ‘dangerous’. Judicial interpretation cannot continue to take the most extreme and lenient position to override the will of the people and compromise the safety of New Mexico communities, as it is under the current system.”

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Under the United States Constitution, all are guaranteed the right of due process of law no matter how heinous or violent the crime.

In criminal trials, any defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

The new court rules on bond hearings and the degree of proof needed to detain an accused are indeed a “work in progress” as pointed out by State Representative Gail Chasey, D-Albuquerque, chairwoman of the House Judiciary Committee when she said:

“I think we need to give the court some time to figure this out.”

The New Mexico Supreme Court needs to revisit the bond rules and find a solution that will give the District Court’s more latitude and discretionary authority when it comes to the bond hearings.

It was very appropriate for both candidates for Governor to voice concerns about the ruling and the constitutional amendment.

Given the public safety importance of “bond hearings” where a judge determines if an accused is released or held in jail pending a trial, it is extremely important that the candidates for Governor and the public understand our constitutional rights and guarantees of due process of law and the presumption of innocence.

What is clear is that that Michelle Lujan Grisham understands our constitutional rights of due process of law.

Lujan Grisham’s remarks were measured, but more importantly she understands the role of the judiciary and the judges when she said: “Ultimately, judges have a sacred responsibility to safeguard public safety, protect vulnerable populations… .”

Lujan Grisham understands that the role of the courts is to protect our freedoms and constitutional rights of due process of law.

Vilifying Judges and court rulings are a popular tactic perfected by President Trump and the Republicans to gin up their conservative base.

Steve Pearce’s comments “Judicial interpretation cannot continue to take the most extreme and lenient position to override the will of the people and compromise the safety of New Mexico communities” falls right in line with the vilification of our judicial system.

Pearce’s remarks reflect the philosophy of damn our constitutional rights of due process of law and the presumption of innocence.

What is also clear is that Republican Steve Pearce promotes the ultra-right wing Republican agenda by wrapping himself around his definition of “the will of the people” and ignoring the “constitutional rights of the person”.

For more on the Taos 5 bond ruling see:

Governor Martinez And GOP Chairman Ryan Cangiolosi Two Fools In A Pod Vilifying Judiciary

On Saturday, August 11, 2018, Democratic Wards 11A, 11B, and 11C held a joint Democratic Ward meeting.

About 65 people attended and most were and older crowd, 55 and older.

Mayor Tim Keller and State Senator Jerry Ortiz Pino spoke and did a fine job of addressing the many issues facing Albuquerque.

Among the topics discussed were APD, crime and the ART bus project.

Mayor Keller did say he is hoping the ART buses will be up and running by winter.

Mayor Keller reported that things are still being negotiated with the ART Bus manufacturer and that the city is still on the hook to pay for the buses already delivered.

One thing made clear is that the batteries of the buses will not allow them to be driven the 350 miles originally contracted for and that additional charging stations will need to be constructed.

Further, the buses cannot be easily modified, such as adding doors to opposite sides, that would allow them to be used on regular bus stops and the platforms constructed are all that they can be used on.

Further, it will take upwards of two years to order and get different buses from another manufacturer.

The “One Leadership Theme” Mayor Keller discussed is the philosophy of acknowledging Albuquerque serious problems that need to be acknowledge and respond with solutions.

With respect to APD, Mayor Keller talked about APD reorganization and working on a “downtown police district”.

The goal is to locate a facility, perhaps at Alvarado Transportation Center for example, to be able to have police officers patrol the Downtown area.

A downtown police station will require more sworn police, officers that APD does not currently have.

APD currently has 878 sworn police with the goal to hire 100 more over the next year.

Mayor Keller reported there are 44 cadets in the APD Police Academy with another 22 laterals hired.

Based on past performance numbers, the APD Academy in all likely graduate between 25 to 30 officers’ and the officer shortage will be affected by retirements.

Mayor Keller intends to increase funding for winter sheltering of the homeless.

The Mayor pointed out that the old west side detention facility is now, and for a number of years, provided winter shelter for the homeless.

The Homeless are housed in the common areas of the old jail with the use bunk beds and pods for limited privacy.

Keller announced that more funding has been provided for afterschool programs.

One interesting proposal Keller intends to announce is a “children’s cabinet” to get more input from kids.

Keller also talked about his economic development plan and his “increment of one” program with an emphasis on economic base jobs and businesses.

Keller noted that property crime rates have declined, but Albuquerque’s homicide rate continues to rise.

Mayor Keller disclosed that the overwhelming majority of murders in Albuquerque involve domestic violence or drugs.

Albuquerque’s Homicides rate continues to rise.

Mayor also talked about how successful the newly renovated civic plaza and fountain has increased night time activity on the plaza.

Keller discussed a volunteer’s initiative to help with clerical duties with APD.

During the question and answer session at the joint ward meeting, Mayor Keller addressed the Top Golf veto override.

Keller said that the override was an exception not the rule saying he gets along just fine with the council.

As examples of getting along with the council, Keller cited the tax increase enacted by the council he signed after promising not to increase taxes without a public vote and the council increasing funding for projects he wants such as after school programs, the Safe City Strike Force and public safety.

Mayor Keller closed with talking about a roll out of a volunteer program and his One Albuquerque campaign.

The ultimate goal is to develop a core of volunteers that can help the city and APD with matters such as fingerprint processing and records keeping and clerical duties.

The volunteer program is part of Keller’s “One Albuquerque” initiative to encourage civic involvement with city issues.

Mayor Keller briefly discusses the city’s economic development plan to assist small business owners.

District Judge Sarah Backus of Taos is taking a tremendous amount of heat and criticism for releasing five adults arrested at a remote northern New Mexico compound. The 5 have been accused child abuse, suspected of murdering a child in an exorcism and accused by prosecutors of training children to carry out terrorist armed attacks, heinous crimes by anyone’s definition if true.
Things got so bad that the Taos County Courthouse was closed after credible threats of physical violence were made against the Judge and others.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1208891/judge-getting-threats-over-ruling-in-taos-compound-case.html

DISTRICT COURT RULING AND RATIONALE

The New Mexico Constitution provides that defendants can be held in jail without bond before trial “only if prosecutors show by clear and convincing evidence that they are so dangerous that no release conditions will reasonably protect public safety.”

According to news accounts, prosecutors argued during the lengthy 4 hour bond hearing:

1. That some of children at the compound were being trained to use guns in preparation for attacks on educational, law enforcement and other institutions with information coming from two teenagers, ages 13 and 15, who were interviewed by an FBI agent. The FBI agent testified that he was told that the children were undergoing firearms and tactical training to attack “corrupt” institutions that would be identified by the dead boy, who was to be resurrected as Jesus in the coming months.

2. Prosecutors offered as evidence a letter inviting another person to come to the compound and follow Allah until “he makes you die as a martyr”; the guns found at the compound and books about combat found there; weapons training and a trip to Saudi Arabia undertaken by Siraj Ibn Wahhaj; and the “magical thinking” shown by accounts from children who lived at the compound.

At the conclusion of the more than 4-hour hearing, District Judge Sarah Backus ruled that the District Attorney failed to meet the burden of proof as required by New Mexico law. District Court Judge Backus ruled that prosecutors had not shown by clear and convincing evidence what the Muslim group’s plan were so dangerous that no release conditions would reasonably protect public safety.

Judge Backus did express serious concerns about the “troubling facts” especially with the discovery of a child’s body at the compound. Notwithstanding the Judge said from the bench:

“The state alleges that there was a big plan afoot, but the state hasn’t shown, to my satisfaction, by clear and convincing evidence, what that plan was”. The court noted that people in the compound were living in an unconventional way, but that many in northern New Mexico live in unconventional ways.Further, the court noted that no one in the group has a criminal record except Siraj Ibn Wahhaj, who is accused of kidnapping his child from the boy’s mother in Georgia. Siraj Ibn Wahhaj is still being held in custody because of the kidnapping charge. At the conclusion of the bond hearing, the Judge set a $20,000, unsecured signature bond, with house arrest in new accommodations, ankle bracelets to monitor the defendants and other restrictions for each defendant.

The day after the hearing, District Judge Backus filed a written court order.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1209212/taos-judges-written-order-elaborates-on-controversial-compound-decision.html

The written court order says the District Attorney “apparently is inviting the Court to consider media reports [which are hearsay that the Court cannot consider as evidence], conjecture and assumption to piece together evidence of sufficient dangerousness” to justify incarcerating the defendants without bail until trial. The District Court Judge noted in her written ruling that while a boy’s body was found at the compound, the District Attorney’s office:

“has not charged any of the defendants with any crime related to the death of the child. … The State has not charged the defendants with any crime related to possession of any firearms. … No charges are pending regarding any actual threats of terrorism. No actual threats of terrorism or any credible evidence of a substantive plan was produced regarding the same. … The State offered a hand-written ‘manifesto’ of sorts but completely failed to establish in any way its origin.”

“The State did not produce any evidence of any history of violence that would cause the Court to conclude that they are a danger to the community or are unlikely to appear at hearings or to abide by their conditions of release,” the judge wrote.

The DA’s Office said in court that Siraj Ibn Wahhaj took a trip to Saudi Arabia and suggested that he became radicalized on his return. The District Attorneys office noted that devout Muslims are required to travel to Mecca, in Saudi Arabia, once in their lifetimes.

“The State apparently expected the Court to take the individuals’ faith into account in making such a determination … The Court has never been asked to take any other person’s faith into account in making a determination of dangerousness. The Court is not aware of any law that allows the Court to take a person’s faith into consideration in making a dangerousness determination.”

THREE LEVELS OF BURDEN OF PROOF

In order to understand the District Court’s ruling, an explanation of the escalating levels of burden of proof need to be elaborated upon.

Under the United States Constitution, an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” and are entitled to due process of law, no matter how heinous the crime. Further, an accused is entitled to be given an opportunity to post a bond and to be released from jail until trial.

The bond posted is determined by the court, usually at an arraignment on charges, and the amount of bond set is intended to insure the defendant’s appearance.

In our criminal justice system, there are 3 very distinct escalating levels of evidence that must be proven by the prosecution:

1. “Evidence of Probable Cause”,
2. “Clear and Convincing Evidence” and
3. “Evidence Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.”

What is always confusing is bond hearings such as that involving the 5 Taos defendants are often confused with preliminary hearings or trials on the merits. The burden of proof for all three hearings is significantly different but always the responsibility of the prosecutors to meet.

“Evidence of probable cause” is a lower level of proof used for preliminary hearings or grand jury proceeding to charge someone with a felony. Evidence of probable cause is evidence presented showing it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed by the accused. Evidence of probable cause is evidence that leads you to believe that the accused committed the crime and it only provides enough grounds to charge but not to convict.

Clear and convincing evidence is the “medium level” of burden of proof standard which is a more rigorous standard to meet than “Evidence of Probable Cause”.

In bond hearings such the one involving the 5 Taos defendants, accused defendants can be held in custody without bond only if prosecutors show by “clear and convincing evidence” that they are so dangerous that no release conditions will reasonably protect public safety.

Black’s Law dictionary defines “clear and convincing evidence” as evidence that “is positive, precise and explicit, as opposed to ambiguous, equivocal, or contradictory proof, and which tends directly to establish the point to which it is adduced, instead of leaving it a matter of conjecture or presumption.”

Evidence of probable cause and clear and convincing evidence are less rigorous standard to meet than proving guilt by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

In criminal trials, any defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of evidence that exists in our criminal justice system.

The phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt” means that the established facts or evidence presented in a case lead the jury or the court to only one logical conclusion: that the defendant is guilty of the charges.

https://thelawdictionary.org/article/beyond-reasonable-doubt-matters-criminal-law/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

To quote Judge Backus “The canons of judicial ethics require that judges not concern themselves with public opinion and base their decisions in the law and the evidence presented in Court.” Given the evidence presented by the District Attorney against the 5 Taos defendants, it was not surprising that the court ruled the way she did in that that there was no “clear and convincing evidence” as required by the law.

The Taos District Attorney is appealing the District Court Judge’s ruling, in all probability to the Court of Appeals, in releasing the defendants which is the appropriate approach.

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico-news/da-to-appeal-ruling-to-release-nm-compound-suspects-on-bond/5031927/?cat=500

Another approach is to ask the District Court to reconsider her decision and review conditions of release and allow more evidence to be presented by the prosecution showing immediate danger to the public and flight risk.

A third option is for the District Attorney to seek a “Writ of Superintending Control” before the New Mexico Supreme Court to review the District Court’s Ruling.

It is highly likely that the Court of Appeals will not reverse the decision and find that there was no abuse of discretion by the judge.

Notwithstanding, the public perception is terrible and the District Attorney does not have many options other than appeal or seek more evidence to be presented to review conditions of release of the defendants. What is extremely troubling are the efforts by the Republican Party and state GOP Chairman Ryan Cangiolosi to make the ruling of District Judge Sarah Backus political by saying:

“Judge Backus has put New Mexicans at risk by releasing suspected terrorists back into the community.”

Cangiolosi makes the accusation even though no actual threats of terrorism or any credible evidence of a substantive plan was produced by the District Attorney and presented during the bond hearing. There is no doubt Cangiolosi would have kept his big mouth shut if the Judge was a Republican.

What is really disgusting is that our fool for a Governor just had to get into the act of publicizing the ruling when she said:

“I strongly disagree with this decision. … Unfortunately, it highlights for the entire nation how extreme the New Mexico Supreme Court has been in dictating pretrial release for all kinds of dangerous criminals.”

What makes Governor Susanna Martinez remarks so egregious is that she is a former 16 year elected Las Cruces District Attorney and a license New Mexico Attorney and she should know better.
With her remarks, Governor Martinez shows how ignorant of the law she really is or that she is just a pandering fool, but probably both.

Vilifying Judges is a popular tactic perfected by President Trump and the Republicans such as Dan Lewis when running for Mayor and Wayne Johnson running for Mayor and State Auditor to gin up their conservative base. What is not appropriate and downright dangerous conduct is for anyone to threaten any judge with physical harm over a ruling they make.

Martinez as a New Mexico attorney is an officer of the court, and her total failure to condemn people threatening the courts is a low as you can get even for the likes of this Republican Governor who cannot leave office soon enough.