Making Sausage: Legislative Agenda for 2022 NM Legislature Includes Controversial Legislation; Pre-Trial Detention, Hydrogen Development Legislation, Ethics Disclosure By Legislators And Lobbyists, Election Law Changes

Posted on January 18, 2022 by Pete Dinelli

There is a very old saying in politics: “If you like laws and sausages, you should never watch either one being made” meaning the legislative process, though messy and sometimes unappetizing, can produce healthy, wholesome results or the sausage can make you sick to your stomach.

New Mexico’s Great Sausage factory known as the New Mexico legislature begins on Tuesday January 18, at 12 Noon, for the 2022 New Mexico Legislature as it convenes for its biennial 30-day legislative session commonly referred to as the short session. The legislation considered are limited to budgetary and revenue bills and other issues subject to the Governor call, or issues the Governor orders placed on the legislative agenda for the legislature consider.

Democrats have solid majorities in both the New Mexico House and Senate chambers. In the New Mexico House of Representatives, there are 44 Democrats, 25 Republicans and 1 Independent. In the New Mexico Senate, there are 26 Democrats, 15 Republicans and 1 Independent.

From January 3, 2022 to January 14 legislation was allowed to be prefilled. The session begins on January 18, and the deadline to file all legislation is February 2. There have been 727 bills prefilled, but only 88 of the bills have been approved for consideration.

The blog article provides a listing of the legislation as gleaned from news reports and pre-filings by individual legislators before the session begins.

COMPETTING BUDGETS RELEASED

On Thursday, January 6, 2022, Governor Michell Lujan Grisham and the Legislative Finance Committee released their separate competing state budgets for the 2022-2223 fiscal year. With the projected $1.6 Billion projected windfall, both of the proposed budgets increase total budgetary spending to $8.4 billion and provides 7% salary increases for teachers and state employees. In the Governor’s proposed budget of $8.4 billion, education accounts for more than half of it at $4.8 billion.

In addition to funding the states essential services, both the Governor’s and the LFC proposed budgets call for upwards of $2.6 billion, which is 30% of state spending, to remain in cash reserves in case projected revenue levels don’t materialize. The reason for setting aside so much in cash reserves is due to a 2017 law that has bolstered New Mexico’s “rainy day” fund by taking a certain percentage of oil and gas tax revenue in cash-flush years and setting it aside for future use, which has now paid off significantly.

Both budget proposals call for significant overall spending hikes. The governor’s proposed budget increase spending levels by $998 million or by 13.4% over current spending. The Legislative Finance Committee’s plan increases spending by more than $1 billion, or by 14%.

The $8.5 Billion budget is the largest budget ever proposed in state history. Both budgets increase government spending levels by upwards of $1 billion over the fiscal year that ends June 30. Both plans represent nearly a 50% state spending growth over the last 10 years.

Both budget plans provide more money to hire additional law enforcement officers, reduce a waiting list for a state program for individuals with developmental disabilities and expand early literacy initiatives. Other increases in funding will target replacing one-time funding for Medicaid spending that will expire in April 1, 2022.

The link to the related blog article is here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2022/01/10/governor-and-legislative-finance-committee-release-competing-budgets-for-2022-legislative-session-both-budgets-place-emphasis-on-public-education-teacher-pay-state-workers-pay-public-safety/

CRIME FIGHTING LEGISLATION

On January 13, Governor Michell Lujan held a press conference with both Democrat and Republican legislators, Attorney General Hector Balderas, DA Raul Torrez, Mayor Tim Keller, New Mexico State Police Chief Tim Johnson and APD Chief Harold Medina and unveiled what she termed as “tough on crime” proposals for the 2022 New Mexico Legislative session. The crime fighting proposals include increasing penalties for gun and certain violent crimes, adding new rules to what judges may consider before letting criminals out of jail ahead of trial and raising state police officers pay.

The link to a related blog article entitled “Governor MLG’s Crime Fighting Proposals Place Too Much Emphasis On Punishment Ignoring Intervention, Diversion And Behavioral Health Care And Rehabilitation” is here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2022/01/17/governor-mlgs-crime-fighting-proposals-place-too-much-emphasis-on-punishment-ignoring-intervention-diversion-and-behavioral-health-care-and-rehabilitation/

REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF BEING VIOLENT

A bill sponsored by Democrat State Rep. Marian Matthews of Albuquerque would make it a “rebuttable presumption” that a defendant charged with a violent crime is violent and an immediate threat to the public and should be held in jail unless the charged defendant convinces the court the defendant does not pose an immediate threat to the public. As of the opening day of the legislative session, the bill had not been pre filled and was yet to be introduced. Matthews has until February 2 to file the bill.

At the very heart of the proposed changes to the existing pretrial detention process is the current bail reform law approved in 2016. The Governor wants the courts to put in jail until trial individuals who have been charged with violent crimes.

Under the current reform state law, prosecutors are required to convince a judge in an evidentiary hearing that a charged defendant poses and immediate threat of violence to the public and to hold the defendant in jail until trial and not allow bond. The bill sponsored by Democrat State Representative Marian Matthews of Albuquerque would make it a “rebuttable presumption” that a defendant charged with a violent crime is violent and should be held in jail unless the charged defendant convinces the court the defendant does not pose an immediate threat to the public.

The rebuttable presumption bill essentially shifts the burden of proof from state prosecutors, who must prove a case “beyond a reasonable doubt to convict”, to the defendant who would have to show they are not a danger to the public in order to be allowed to be released pending trial. A defendant may feel that they must waive their constitutional right to remain silent and take the stand to show that they are not violent allowing the prosecution to cross examine and solicit testimony that could be used during a trial to get a conviction. The prosecution would still have to file pretrial motions in order for people to be held.

According to the Governor:

“This puts a wedge in this revolving door. … It doesn’t minimize our constitutional responsibilities to every single New Mexican irrespective of their income but it also makes really clear that the constitutional right to be safe in your home and communities is also an area that we must maintain and do something significant about.”

A link to the quoted material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2461187/gov-unveils-tough-on-crime-proposals.html

DEFENSE BAR RESPONDS TO REBUTABLE PRESUMPTION LAW

“The Law Offices of the Public Defender found that 22% of defendants who were held pending trial did not end up being convicted of the crime for which they were locked up. Of the 2,129 cases – where detention motions were granted – that were resolved by the end of 2020, 476 ended without a conviction. That number does not include cases that were turned over to federal prosecutors, were dismissed because of pleas in other cases or where the defendant was found incompetent, or where the defendant died.”

In otherworld’s, people who were charge with a crime sat in jail for weeks, perhaps months, without ever being found guilty only to be released because prosecutors did not go to trial with charges dismissed

The link to the quoted source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2462114/stakes-high-for-those-held-prior-to-trial.html

Jennifer Burrill, president-elect of the New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association responded to the proposed “rebuttable presumption” law by saying the proposal is absurd and she said:

“I think it’s an unconstitutional burden-shifting. … If the state’s going to make the allegations, then they need to be the ones to prove it. … We know that a very few number of cases where people were released, even though a preventative detention motion was filed, a very few number of people have gone out to commit new violent crimes… .”

Burrell said that case law in New Mexico requires the state to prove that a defendant is dangerous to the community. But once many of these cases get into the trial process, prosecutors just don’t work the cases, and so the defendant needlessly sits in jail.

Jonathan Ibarra is the vice president of the New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. He has been a public defender for eight years, but before that, he was a prosecutor for about 12 years and a district court judge in Bernalillo County. Ibarra had this to say:

“I don’t think that people who are presumed innocent should have to prove that they should get out of jail. … Shifting the burden onto primarily poor people, primarily people of color, to somehow prove a negative, to prove that they’re not going to do something bad. I don’t know how you prove a negative. … This whole [criminal justice] system is predicated on innocent until proven guilty… We don’t get to punish people because of something we think they did. You have to prove it and proving it means actually proving it – it doesn’t mean keeping somebody sitting in jail as some sort of other fix.”

The links to quoted source material is here:

https://sourcenm.com/2022/01/12/proposal-to-erode-bail-reform-gaining-steam/?fbclid=IwAR3tMg35KHrO8Y0ujuvcZNW_jRi-vi1jwWyfJjuII5aBqyHAzSippgCR30I

https://www.abqjournal.com/2462114/stakes-high-for-those-held-prior-to-trial.html

The link to a related blog article is here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2022/01/17/governor-mlgs-crime-fighting-proposals-place-too-much-emphasis-on-punishment-ignoring-intervention-diversion-and-behavioral-health-care-and-rehabilitation/

OTHER CRIME LEGISLATION LISTED

There are 8 other crime bills that have been prefilled that are worth noting. They are as follows:

HOUSE BILL 16 is sponsored by Albuquerque Democrat Miguel P. Garcia. It will appropriate $5 million to the Crime Victims Reparations Commission to fund advocates for victims of gun violence and violent crime.

HOUSE BILL 26 is sponsored by Albuquerque Republican State Representative Bill Rehm who is retired law enforcement. The bill will make carrying a firearm while trafficking a drug a third-degree felony. A third-degree felony carries a basic sentence of up to 3 years in prison and a possible fine of up to $5,000.

HOUSE BILL 28 would increase the penalty for a felon possessing a firearm.

HOUSE BILL 29 would define “organized retail crime” in the criminal code.

HOUSE BILL 31 would expand the types of felony convictions that qualify for life imprisonment under the state’s three strikes law, so narrow it has never been used.

HOUSE BILL 53 is sponsored by Albuquerque Republican Bill Rehm. The bill would strengthen courts authority to issue a warrants to conduct chemical tests for those suspected of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

HOUSE BILL 64 is sponsored by Albuquerque Democrat Miguel P. Garcia. It would stiffen sentencing enhancements for brandishing a firearm.

SENATE BILL 1836 is sponsored by Republican Rio Rancho Senator and Minority Whip Craig Brandt and it makes it a fourth-degree felony to make a shooting threat. A fourth degree felony carry’s a basic sentence of 18 months in jail and a fine up to $5,000.

HYDROGEN ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LEGISLATION

Lujan Grisham has said she will push lawmakers to enact new clean fuel standards and pass a requirement New Mexico reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

The $1.2 trillion federal infrastructure bill, approved by the U.S. Congress and signed into law last year by President Joe Biden, includes $8 billion to build four initial “hydrogen hubs” around the country. It also includes $1 billion in federal assistance for hydrogen-technology research and development.

The Governor is supporting a proposed bill that would create a legal framework for hydrogen energy development in the state. Lujan Grisham Administration government officials and the oil and gas industry contend that the development of the state’s hydrogen can provide a tool for the transition to a clean energy economy. They argue that hydrogen has many potential applications as a relatively clean-burning fuel that doesn’t emit carbon dioxide. Republican Aztec State Senator Steve Neville, R-Aztec said hydrogen development would be a boon for northwest New Mexico. The northwest of the state produces large amounts of natural gas but there has been a dramatic decline in residents in recent years and the area is facing the closure of the coal-powered San Juan Generating Station.

Advocates argue hydrogen can help decarbonize transportation when electric batteries are not viable options, such as long-haul trucking, trains and planes for freight. Proponents also argue that hydrogen development could be used to produce electricity, replacing fossil fuels like coal or natural gas to run turbine generators in power plants.

The hydrogen development plan does have major critics, especially New Mexico environmental groups who have become highly critical of the Governor over the issue. At issue is hydrogen’s actual ability to lower carbon emissions in the hydrogen-production process and the potential danger of applying hydrogen solutions to decarbonize energy use in areas better served by renewable resources.

Western Environmental Law Center Executive Director Erik Schlenker-Goodrich but it this way:

“Methane-based hydrogen production is a very risky investment bet with state resources or private-sector capital … hydrogen may be cost competitive in the short-term, but that could be reversed by 2030 compared with green hydrogen. We could invest billions in New Mexico in a scheme that could be outdated by other technologies in a decade.”

ENVIRONMENTALISTS PREFER BLUE VERSUS GREEN HYDROGEN

“Blue” hydrogen refers to a process that captures and sequesters carbon emissions released during production. That’s considered to be a step above “gray” hydrogen production, which uses the same process but simply vents those emissions into the atmosphere with no effort to capture and sequester them.

Environmentalists prefer “green hydrogen,” which uses renewable generation from solar or wind to power a process known as electrolysis. That process pulls hydrogen molecules from water, with no carbon emissions. But green production is still too expensive for widespread deployment, and the technology cost isn’t expected to drop enough for large-scale commercialization until the 2030s.

Environmentalists also fear the emerging focus on hydrogen could derail the accelerated adoption of renewable generation now underway nationwide as policymakers and investors pursue massive hydrogen development rather than pushing full speed ahead on solar, wind and battery-storage technology.”

The link to quoted news source material are here:

“New Mexico Legislative Guide”, page 14 and 15:

https://abqjournal-nm.newsmemory.com/?special=Special+Section&selDate=20220115

“Ready or not its legislative time”

https://www.abqjournal.com/2461690/ready-or-not-its-legislative-session-time.html

ELECTION LAW CHANGES

The Governor’s and Secretary of State’s joint proposals include the following:

• Increasing voter access by extending the early voting period through the Sunday before Election Day, designating Election Day as a state holiday, and allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to participate in local elections;
• Creating a permanent absentee voter list that allows individuals to voluntarily receive mail ballots for each election without needing to make individual requests;
• Expanding online voter registration opportunities by allowing individuals without MVD-issued ID to register online using their full social security number;
• Extending the timeline for mailing ballots to voters to 35 days before an election and extending the deadline for accepting voted ballots to 7 p.m. the Friday after an election to accommodate for mail delivery time;
• Supporting Native voting access by expanding the timeline for indigenous nations, tribes, and pueblos to request alternate voting sites;
• Improving automatic voter registration by adopting a system that provides a mechanism for eligible individuals to become automatically registered to vote upon completing a transaction at the Motor Vehicle Department;
• Enabling nominating petition signatures to be securely submitted electronically;
• Automatically restoring the voting rights of those convicted of a felony who are not currently incarcerated; and
• Creating an option to vote a straight party ballot.

The link to a relate blog article is here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2022/01/14/gov-mlg-and-secretary-of-state-toulouse-oliver-announce-election-law-changes-some-good-some-bad-some-questionable-like-giving-16-year-olds-right-to-vote/

NEW MEXICO ETHICS COMMISION DISCLOSURE ACT

In its 2021 annual report released in December, the State Ethics Commission, called the state’s existing disclosure law for income received by public officials “vague and undemanding.” As it stands now, state lawmakers face broad requirements for disclosing income sources over $5,000. Many draw income from a law firm, farming and ranching, or similarly general categories. The commission now wants to repeal the old law and replace it with the commission’s proposed Disclosure Act.

NEW DISCLOSURE ACT REQUIREMENTS OF LEGISLATORS

Specifically, the Ethics Commission is asking for changes to state law that would require New Mexico’s citizen legislators to release more information about their sources of personal income and business relationships. It is also asking for increased transparency requirements for lobbyists. The Ethics Commission wants disclosure of what bills lobbyist are working on and if they are advocating for or against the legislation.

Under the requested changes, any lawmaker to whom it would apply, would have to disclose before voting if any family member lobbied on any bill. Currently, a number of legislators are married to lobbyists thus creating appearance problem to what extent they are influencing any pending vote.

The new Disclosure Act proposed outlines in great detail requirements for the disclosure of personal assets, personal debts, sources of family income over $600, including any spousal and dependent children. The new act would also require disclosure of real property or land holding ownership and values.

The new disclosure requirements will cover membership in corporations and nonprofit groups, gifts of $50 or more from lobbyists and work done by the official or their spouse involving public agencies. Elected state officials, heads of state agencies, candidates and others would have to file annual disclosure statements.

NEW DISCLOSURE ACT REQUIREMENTS OF LOBBYISTS

The new Disclosure Act requirements are designed to shed light on potential conflicts of interest given the fact lobbyists play a crucial role in shaping legislation.

A report by New Mexico Ethics Watch released in 2020 found that 34 former legislators who either retired or who were defeated worked as lobbyists and that another six lobbyists were spouses or relatives of legislators.

Under the new law, lobbyists would have to file 2 separate reports during legislative sessions outlining what bills they are working on, their position on the bills and specific provisions they supported or opposed within the legislation.

The Ethics Commission is proposing a two-year ban on ex-legislators and other state officials from becoming paid lobbyists after they leave public service. “Revolving door” bans have failed to get legislative approval for many years.

The link to a related blog article is here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2022/01/12/states-ethics-commission-proposes-new-disclosure-act-rogues-gallery-of-corrupt-new-mexico-lawmakers/

NUTSHELL LISTING OF ISSUES

On January 15, the Albuquerque Journal published a 20 page insert entitled “New Mexico Legislative Guide” with lengthy articles on the various issues to be considered during the session. The link to the Albuquerque Journal “New Mexico Legislative Guide” is here:

https://abqjournal-nm.newsmemory.com/?special=Special+Section&selDate=20220115

Pages 10 and 11 of the Journal “New Mexico Legislative Guide” contains a “nutshell” listing of “ISSUES AT STAKE” and is an excellent summary as follows:

BUDGET/TAXES

■ Eliminate the tax on Social Security benefits for all but the wealthiest New Mexicans and offset the lost revenue with a tobacco tax increase.
■ Reduce the state’s gross receipts tax base rate by 0.125 percentage points.
■ Create tax deduction for purchase of tampons and other feminine hygiene products. Establish new income tax credit for electric vehicles.

EDUCATION

■ Boost starting teacher pay to $50,000 annually.
■ Increase stipends for those participating in teacher residency programs.
■ Provide funding to increase number of school nurses.
■ Limit increases in spending on administrative expenses so that more money goes into classrooms.
■ Make taking a financial literacy class a high-school graduation requirement.

ENVIRONMENT

■ Propose $50 million in general obligation bonds for forest thinning, watershed restoration and other conservation projects.
■ Approve “Green Amendment” making a clean and healthy environment a constitutional right.
■ Set up state reforestation center to address impact of climate change on forests.
■ Boost funding by $12 million for state engineer to carry out water planning, administration and management.
■ Add $60 million to the water trust fund.

CRIME

■ Abolish life in prison without parole for juveniles sentenced as adults.
■ Prohibit “chop shops” that strip and dismantle stolen vehicles.
■ Remove statute of limitations on prosecution of second-degree murder charges.
■ Add more crimes to list of crimes that trigger life sentence upon third violent felony conviction.

COURTS

■ Change state’s pretrial detention laws to make it easier for individuals charged with violent crimes to be kept in jail until trial.
■ Spend $45 million to bolster retirement system for judges.
■ Allow prison inmates age 55 and older with chronic medical conditions to apply for parole.

ENERGY

■ Establish legal framework for making New Mexico a hydrogen energy hub.
■ Offer income tax credits for energy storage systems.
■ Require extra registration fees for electric and plug-in vehicles, with revenue directed to roads improvements.
■ Enact new clean fuel standards.

HEALTH/ COVID-19 PANDEMIC

■ Earmark $60 million in federal relief funds to purchase high-quality face masks and at-home COVID-19 test kits for state residents.
■ Expand nursing programs at New Mexico higher education institutions.
■ Limit an emergency declaration by the governor to 90 days unless the Legislature is called into special session to address the emergency.
■ Convene a task force to make recommendations for paid family and medical leave.

ETHICS/TRANSPARENCY

■ Require legislators and lobbyists to disclose more information, including lawmakers’ sources of personal income.
■ Create public works commission to vet proposed capital outlay projects.
■ Mandate that recipients of state economic development initiatives provide more job creation data.

VOTING/ELECTIONS

■ Allow 16-year-olds to vote in local elections.
■ Expand early and absentee voting.
■ Automatically restore voting rights of felons who aren’t incarcerated.
■ Make it easier to register to vote online.
■ Create option for straight-party voting.
■ Expand timeline for Indigenous nations to request alternate voting sites.
■ Make Election Day a state holiday.
■ Allow independent voters to participate in primary elections.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It is clear that the 2022 legislative session has its work cut out for it. What is also clear is that with only 30 days allowed for the session many of the bills will die in committee and never be enacted for the Governor’s signature. After the session ends, then and only then will the public know if it has produced healthy, wholesome sausage or sausage that will make us all sick to our stomachs.

Governor MLG’s Crime Fighting Proposals Place Too Much Emphasis On Punishment Ignoring Intervention, Diversion And Behavioral Health Care And Rehabilitation

Posted on January 17, 2022 by Pete Dinelli

On January 12, it was reported in Albuquerque that 2 men were shot dead in separate incidents, and a third person was found lifeless in an alleyway in less than 12 hours. By Thursday afternoon, all three were being investigated as homicides and no arrests had been reported. There were 14 homicides in January 2021, the most of any month of last year, and the annual record was shattered by year’s end, with 117 homicides.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2460901/apd-investigating-homicide-in-southwest-albuquerque-2.html

GOVERNOR MLG ANNOUNCES CRIME FIGHTING PROPOSALS FOR 2022 SESSION

On January 13, as if on que to react to the 3 murders reported the day before, standing in the parking lot of a cleaning, alterations and repairs shop on Zuni near San Mateo and in front of a mural dedicated to people lost to gun violence, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, both Democrat and Republican legislators, Attorney General Hector Balderas, Bernalillo County District Attorney Raul Torrez, Mayor Tim Keller, New Mexico State Police Chief Tim Johnson and APD Chief Harold Medina unveiled what they termed “tough on crime” proposals for the 2022 New Mexico Legislative session that begins on Tuesday, January 18. The crime fighting proposals include increasing penalties for gun and certain violent crimes, changing the rules to what judges may consider and shifting the burden of proof before letting criminals out of jail ahead of trial and raising state police officers pay along with recruitment of 100 more sworn police.

https://www.krqe.com/news/governor-state-city-leaders-to-announce-crime-fighting-priorities/

During the news conference, the Governor said she is well aware New Mexicans are fed up with crime in the state and she, along with lawmakers and state leaders in attendance, said something needs to be done now to change things. They all acknowledge that violence is a problem throughout the state.

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said this:

“This is not just an Albuquerque issue, this is a state issue, this is a neighborhood by neighborhood, community by community issue. … New Mexico can, and will, do better.”

Attorney General Hector Balderas put it this way:

“An officer was shot in Farmington, a baby dumped in a dumpster in Hobbs, three shootings last night and Albuquerque [are examples of the violence.] … This plan targets repeat violent offenders, gun violence, and more importantly, prioritizes victims and their families.”

Bernalillo County District Attorney Raul Torrez was even more aggressive with his comments and said:

“The people of the state, the people of my community, are fed up. They’re sick and tired of violent crime. They’re sick and tired of a criminal justice system that doesn’t protect them, that doesn’t work on their behalf.”

State Representative Marian Matthews (D) Bernalillo County had this to say:

“There are too many people in our city who are dying or being injured because of the violence that is happening in our city.”

Mayor Tim Keller for his part said given Albuquerque’s position in the crossroads of the state, it needs help in addressing its issues and he said:

“[The Albuquerque Police Department] has made a number of changes and we’re doing a lot of things different when it comes to investigations with the DA’s office. … We’re doing a lot of things different when it comes to auto theft and working with our statewide partners, and when it comes to shoplifting with the attorney general. But we also know we need some help from the Legislature. That’s what we’re so excited about here today.”

The New Mexico State House Republicans sent out a statement in response to the Governor’s proposals:

“Hopefully with the governor now taking Republican crime proposals seriously, maybe we can honor and provide justice to the many families and victims of violent crime who have, thus far, been ignored and sidelined by progressive politicians.”

Chief Public Defender Bennett Baur said his office has not seen the actual bills but had this to say anyway:

“I’m concerned that the focus is all on police, prosecutors and punishment, and seems to ignore the effects that the proposals would have on the courts, public defenders, jails and prisons, and on what happens when anyone accused of a crime is eventually released. … The evidence is that people on pretrial release are not a significant cause of the increase in violent crime, and, in fact, incarcerating more people before trial, or with increased penalties, will further harm our communities.”

The links to quoted news coverage is here:

https://www.koat.com/article/new-mexico-violence-crime-albuquerque-laws/38762164

https://www.abqjournal.com/2461187/gov-unveils-tough-on-crime-proposals.html

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN REACTS

In order for any of the crime bills to pass, the legislation must first be vetted by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Las Cruces Democrat New Mexico State Senator Joseph Cervantes is the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman. Cervantes said he has not yet seen the crime-related legislation proposed by the governor and law enforcement officials but did say the measures would be closely scrutinized in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Cervantes suggested a better-funded state judicial system would do more to address crime rates than hasty changes to sentencing laws. Cervantes pointed out that violent crime rates in some parts of southern New Mexico are much lower than in New Mexico’s largest city and said:

“[Violent crime is] a problem that Albuquerque has largely created for itself. … It’s not really about changing state law.”

Cervantes had this to say about the proposed “rebuttable presumption” law:

“I wouldn’t say I’m on board with it. But I understand the frustration that’s leading to that solution. I don’t know that a “rebuttable presumption” is where we need to be going to solve the problem. But there is a problem – too many individuals are being released when they should be held.”

Links to quoted news sources are here:

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/public-safety-bills-may-face-roadblock-at-roundhouse/6358018/?cat=500

https://www.abqjournal.com/2461690/ready-or-not-its-legislative-session-time.html

DETAILS OF SPECIFIC CHANGES PROPOSED

Governor MLG said the legislative package has 5 major areas of focus:

1. Proposed changes to the rules surrounding pre-trial detention.
2. Tougher penalties for second-degree murder.
3. Increased penalties for crimes where a gun is used.
4. A $100-million dollar fund for public safety resources.
5. A 19% raise for New Mexico State Police officers.

CHANGES TO PRE-TRIAL DETENTION RULES

At the very heart of the proposed changes to the existing pretrial detention process is the current bail reform law approved in 2016. The Governor, and those who attended the press conference, want the courts to have more guidance when it comes to keeping people charged with violent crimes behind bars.

Under the current reform state law, prosecutors are required to convince a judge that a charged defendant poses and immediate threat of violence to the public with an evidentiary hearing in order to hold defendant in jail until trial. A bill sponsored by Democrat State Rep. Marian Matthews of Albuquerque would make it a “rebuttable presumption” that a defendant charged with a violent crime is violent and should be held in jail unless the charged defendant convinces the court the defendant does not pose an immediate threat to the public.

The rebuttable presumption bill essentially shifts the burden of proof from prosecutors, who must prove a case “beyond a reasonable doubt to convict”, to the defendant who would have to show they are not a danger to the public in order to be allowed to be released pending trial. A defendant may feel that they must waive their constitutional right to remain silent and take the stand to show that they are not violent allowing the prosecution to cross examine and solicit testimony that could be used during a trial to get a conviction. The prosecution would still have to file pretrial motions in order for people to be held.

According to the Governor:

Senate Majority Leader Peter Wirth, D-Santa Fe, who was a primary sponsor of the current bail reform law approved in 2016, said the bail reform law made important strides that included eliminating bond for defendants determined to pose a clear danger to the public. Wirth reacted to the proposed changes by saying he shares in the frustration over rising violent crime rates in Albuquerque and said that he did not understand why some high-profile defendants have been released pending trial. Wirth added that changing the law to force low-income defendants represented by a public defender to convince a judge that they should be released until trial is very problematic and said:

“There are some constitutional safeguards that we have to make sure we don’t just throw aside. … I think we have to be very careful.”

Every since being first elected to his first term as Bernalillo County District Attorney, Raul Torrez has said the criminal justice system is broken and that it’s the courts who fail to jail defendants who are violent repeat offenders pending trial. Torrez has always refused to accept the fact that his office is part of the problem with voluntary dismissals of violent crime cases by his office at record highs. During the January 13 press conference, Torrez said he was hopeful going into the legislative session and urged lawmakers not to waste the opportunity.

District Attorney Raul Torrez said Jacob Montoya is an example of what is happening with the courts. Torrez said Montoya had multiple violent felony charges when he was allowed back on the streets with a GPS monitor last summer. He didn’t show up for court, and the monitor’s battery died. Torrez said Montoya went on a violent crime spree that ended with a shootout with law enforcement.

DEFENSE BAR REACTS TO REBUATTABLE PRSUMPTION LAW

Jennifer Burrill, president-elect of the New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association responded to the proposed change in the law and “rebuttable presumption” law by saying the proposal is absurd and she said:

The link to quoted source material is here:

https://sourcenm.com/2022/01/12/proposal-to-erode-bail-reform-gaining-steam/?fbclid=IwAR3tMg35KHrO8Y0ujuvcZNW_jRi-vi1jwWyfJjuII5aBqyHAzSippgCR30I

INCREASING PENALTIES ON GUN VIOLENCE CRIMES

The Governor is proposing two sperate legislative actions to increase the penalties for certain violent crimes.

One proposal would increase sentencing for second-degree murder from 15 years to 18 years in prison and remove the statute of limitations.

The second proposal would increase penalties for gun crimes, including making unlawful possession of a handgun a felony instead of a misdemeanor.

The law change would also make fleeing a law enforcement officer when it results in injury a third-degree felony and a second-degree felony if it results in great bodily harm. A third-degree felony carries a basic sentence of up to 3 years in prison and a possible fine of up to $5,000. The basic sentence for a second-degree felony is up to 9 years in prison, plus a maximum fine of $10,000.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/felony-offense/new-mexico-felony-class.htm

The proposal would also enhance the penalties for brandishing a firearm during a drug transaction.

Lujan Grisham had this to say about the penalty changes:

“If you know you’re going to A) be released or B) it’s a misdemeanor or it’s a fourth-degree felony, the lowest felony with minimal jail time, it’s no real risk for you engaging in this criminal activity. … The signal here is there is risk to you, you’re a risk to us, and we aren’t going to tolerate it anymore.”

Jennifer Burrill, president-elect of the New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association responded to the Governor by saying studies have shown that there is no evidence that keeping people in jail for a longer period of time makes them less likely to commit a crime when they are released and said:

“In fact it’s the exact opposite. … The longer people are traumatized and are in prison the more likely they are to be unstable when they come back into the community.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph Cervantes, who is a respected trial attorney, when asked his opinion on where he stands on the bills to increase prison he had this to say:

“I favor the idea of giving our judges the opportunity to do their job. That means trusting their discretion. Now, again, we’ve got to be holding judges accountable for that. We’ve got to make sure that the judges are doing that job well. But I don’t generally favor tying the hands of judges, because that’s essentially a vote of no confidence.”

The link to the quoted news source is here:

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/public-safety-bills-may-face-roadblock-at-roundhouse/6358018/?cat=500

LAW ENFORCEMENT FUND

During the January 13 news conference, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham again announced her executive budget recommendation of $100 million to be put into a fund to recruit, hire and retain law enforcement and staff in law enforcement departments around the state. It also includes a 19% raise for New Mexico State Police officers. In making the announcement, the Governor had this to say:

“You can’t wait a year for resources to hire police, we can’t go to every legislative session, there has to be a meaningful tool so that we’re not stealing police officers and law enforcement officers from one jurisdiction to another. … We have shortages statewide. This means that we can recruit, retain, do the right training, and send a signal to everyone in this state, and particularly to our men and women who put on a uniform every day: We need you.”

Jennifer Burrill, president-elect of the New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association was asked about more money going toward law enforcement and she wondered about the effect more officers would have on the rest of the criminal justice system if it was not staffed up in the same way.

Burrill had this to say:

“The reality is that many more officers without increasing the number of judges, prosecutors and public defenders, will cause the system to come to a grinding halt… When the court can’t handle that many cases because they don’t have the resources to do so, more cases are going to get dismissed.”

The links to quoted news source material are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2461187/gov-unveils-tough-on-crime-proposals.html

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/public-safety-bills-may-face-roadblock-at-roundhouse/6358018/?cat=500

METRO CRIME INITIATIVE

On Thursday, September 23, “Metro Crime Initiative” concluded. It was a series of meetings with law enforcement and community partners to address what all participants called the “broken criminal justice” system. The participants included the Governor office, the Attorney General office, the District Attorney, the Chief Public Defender, Senate and House members, the Mayor, City Council members, Bernalillo County Commissioners, APD, NM State Police, Metro and District Courts and many others.

The program consisted of 5 sessions, each lasting upwards of two hours. Panel discussions with law enforcement, court officials, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and representatives from higher education addressed opportunities for early intervention, detention, diversion and hearings, resources for victims’ advocates and offender reentry, and career pipelines.

ACTION ITEMS

The topics of discussion were broken down into 6 major categories. During the September 23 concluding press conference, local leaders admitted they have not been providing enough protection and resources to keep people safe. A list of 40 action items were revealed with the hope that once implemented they will lower Albuquerque’s crime efficiently and quickly. More than 20 departments statewide developed the checklist.

Following are the action items announce in each of the 6 categories:

FIGHT CRIME

1. Fully fund public safety agencies
2. Hire more officers
3. Create retention programs for officers
4. Expand crime-fighting technology
5. Crack down on chop shops by enacting a law that makes owning, operating or doing business with a “chop shop” a crime.
6. Extend anti-auto theft & felony warrant partnerships
7. Fund dashboard to track criminal cases
8. Support security infrastructure for businesses
9. Coordinate to identify violent criminals
10. Invest in mobile speed enforcement

REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE

11. Strengthen gun storage laws
12. Detain gun offenders until trial
13. Strengthen gun crime penalties
14. Close loopholes in Red Flag law
15. Urge gun owners to self- record serial numbers
16. Study gun violence as public health issue

CLOSE THE REVOLVING DOOR

17. Fix 24/7 ankle monitoring
18. Increase staffing in courts
19. Use grand juries to protect victims & clear backlogs
20. Limit case management orders to detainees

STRENGTHEN DIVERSION

21. Expand court ordered treatment
22. Increase pre-arrest diversion offers
23. Lower cost barriers to diversion programs
24. Increase number of diversion agreements
25. Increase funding and capacity for specialty courts

REBUILD BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SYSTEM

26. Incentivize new provider services
27. Build peer support programs
28. Create 24/7 sobering center
29. Expand Turquoise Lodge
30. Increase addiction treatment services
31. Develop behavioral health career paths
32. Career training for underserved youth

EXPAND VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS

33. Fund CABQ Violence Intervention Program
34. Expand Violence Intervention Program statewide
35. Bring restorative justice to schools

MISCELLANEOUS ADDTIONS

Identified items added to the to-do list were the following:

36. Bail bond reform with a pre-trial presumption of dangerousness when an offender uses, brandishes, or is in possession of a firearm during a violent, drug or property crime.
37. Invest in “mobile speed enforcement” to free up officers while combating the scourge of dangerous driving”.
38. Create a task force to examine officer retention and lateral recruitment programs for all police agencies in New Mexico.
39. Create restorative justice programs in schools.
40. City funding for indigent copays for drug testing for pre-prosecution diversion programs”

EDITOR’S NOTE: A very detail “check list” pamphlet was produces containing details of each action plan and can be found here:

https://www.cabq.gov/mayor/documents/mci.pdf

Links to quoted source material are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2431408/officials-unveil-to-do-list-to-fix-broken-criminal-justice-system.html

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/law-enforcement-leaders-develop-checklist-to-tackle-crime-in-the-metro/6245077/

https://www.abqjournal.com/2431408/officials-unveil-to-do-list-to-fix-broken-criminal-justice-system.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Even if virtually all of the Governor’s proposed legislation passes it will not at all likely have any real impact on reducing violent crime. Way too much emphasis is placed on incarceration and punishment and with false presumptions. The proposed changes in the law announced merely scratch the surface of what needs to be done.

Too many of the 40 action items of the “Metro Crime Initiative” are ignored and not provided for at all in the Governors initiatives such as those action items listed under “Strengthen Diversion”, “Rebuild Behavioral Health System”, “Expand Violence Intervention Programs.” No funding is provided to expand court ordered treatment, to increase pre-arrest diversion offers, to increase addiction treatment services and behavioral health treatment.

The real problem is that the stakeholders who are part of the criminal justice system and who appeared at the January 13 press conference such as the District Attorney Raul Torrez, Mayor Tim Keller and APD Chief Harold Medina are simply not doing their jobs in a competent and effective manner to make a difference.

REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF VIOLENCE TO PREVENT RELEASE

It was in 2016 that New Mexico voters approved a constitutional amendment that largely eliminated the former system of money bail bonds. The change was made to prevent low-level defendants from being kept in jail because they lacked money to post bail. The bond reform also authorizes judges to order defendants held without bail pending trial if prosecutors present evidence at a hearing showing that the charged defendant is an immediate danger to the public and there are no reasonable means to prevent the charged defendant from committing a crime while released pending trial.

Prosecutors and law enforcement officials across the state repeatedly slam judges and the court system for letting out those accused of violent felonies, particularly when they re-offend. They know damn well that judges are bound by the Code of Judicial conduct and no judge can comment and defend themselves on any pending case or even make any kind of an attempt to publicly defend themselves in the court of public opinion.

On September 15, the Administrative Office of the Courts issued the results of a report to take sharp issue with recent proposals to change the bail bond system. The study was conducted by the University of New Mexico (UNM). The report supports the proposition that the existing system does not endanger the public. The UNM study reviewed 10,289 Bernalillo County felony cases from July 2017 to March 2020 in which defendants were released from jail while awaiting trial. The statistical findings were decisive and reported as follows:

Of the cases analyzed, only 13 were arrested for a first-degree felony while on pretrial release, or about 0.1% of the total.

19% of felony defendants released from jail pending trial, 1,951 of 10,289, were arrested for new criminal activity during the pretrial period. Most of those arrests were for fourth-degree felonies and misdemeanors, including property, drug and violent crimes.

Fewer than 5% of defendants, or up to 480, released pretrial were arrested for new violent crimes. Of the cases analyzed, 95.3% were not arrested for violent crimes during the pretrial period.

Artie Pepin, director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, had this to say about the study:

“The evidence from research clearly shows that the great majority of people released pending trial are not committing new crimes. … Objective research validates the pretrial justice improvements under way in New Mexico. Blaming judges and courts for crimes highlighted in news accounts does nothing to make anyone safer.”

Not at all surprising is that Jennifer Burrill, president-elect of the New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association had this to say about the “rebuttable presumption against release”:

“That basically means [the Governor, Keller and Torrez] are sacrificing … constitutional rights for their own political career. … We continue to ask the Legislature to make sure whatever decisions are made are based on evidence and not some kind of knee-jerk reaction, because that does not make the problem better. … That’s the same thing that we need to ask of our leaders on this situation.”

The link to quoted source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2429583/courts-pretrial-release-doesnt-fuel-violent-crime.html

NOT A BROKEN SYSTEM, BUT STAKEHOLDER FAILURE

The criminal justice system in this country and this state has never been perfect, nor will it ever be, but it is not broken as the “Metro Crime Initiative” participants would have all believe, especially those that are running for office. Yes, the criminal justice system does have its flaws and a number of inequities, but to say that it is a broken system is just plain ignorance of the criminal justice system or political opportunism at its worst.

Imbedded in our constitution is how justice is served, to ensure and to protect all of our constitutional rights of presumption of innocence, due process of law and requiring convictions based on evidence. The corner stone of our criminal justice system is requiring prosecutors to prove that a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury and in a court of law.

When you examine the “check list” of the 40 different proposals that were the result of the Metro Crime Initiative, the proposals are essentially what all the participants have been working on over the past 2 years and include many programs already announced. The list contains nothing new. The items listed are ones that the participants should have been doing in the first place.

The 3 major stakeholders in our criminal justice system that are always signaled out when it’s argued that the criminal justice system is broken are law enforcement, the prosecution and the courts. When you examine these 3 major stakeholders in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, one conclusion that can be arrived at is that they are not doing their jobs. They also have an extensive history of blaming others for their failures.

LAW ENFORCEMENT

APD statistics for the budget years of 2019 and 2020 reflect the department is not doing its job of investigating and arresting people. APD felony arrests went down from 2019 to 2020 by 39.51% going down from 10,945 to 6,621. Misdemeanor arrests went down by 15% going down from 19,440 to 16,520. DWI arrests went down from 1,788 in 2019 to 1,230 in 2020, down 26%. The total number of all arrests went down from 32,173 in 2019 to 24,371 in 2020 or by 25%.

In 2019 APD had 924 full time police. In 2020, APD had 1,004 sworn police or 80 more sworn police in 2020 than in 2019, yet arrests went down during the first year of the pandemic. APD’s homicide unit has an anemic clearance rate of 36%. The police union falsely proclaims officer’s hands are tied by the DOJ reforms and are afraid of doing their jobs for fear of being disciplined.

It is a “big lie” that the Department of Justice (DOJ) consent decree reforms are the cause of officer shortages, low morale and high crime rates. The Police Union has gone so far as to spend $70,000 on an ad campaign to disparage the reforms and blaming the consent decree for all of APD’s problems.

The Federal Monitor has documented the reform resistance and the negligent personnel management causing the problems they complain. The Federal Court and the Monitor have no management authority over APD. The departments problems are not caused by the reforms but caused by the way Keller, Medina and his 3 Deputies have implemented the reforms and union sergeant and lieutenant membership obstructing the mandated reforms.

THE PROSECUTION

A criminal prosecution cannot occur unless the prosecuting agency, usually the District Attorney, actually charges an offender and brings them to justice. When DA Raul Torrez ran for Bernalillo County District Attorney the first time, he said our criminal justice system was broken, it was in dire need of change and he was the guy to fix it. He is now running for Attorney General.

Within six months after being elected the first time, Torrez had his office prepare a report on the statistics regarding the number of felony cases that were being dismissed by the District Court. Torrez accused the District Court for being responsible for the rise in Albuquerque crime rates and releasing violent offenders pending trial. District Attorney Raul Torrez also accused defense attorneys of “gaming the system” in order to get cases dismissed against their clients.

A subsequent report prepared by the District Court revealed that it was the District Attorney’s office that was in fact voluntarily dismissing far more felony cases for various reasons, including his office not being prepared for trial, the office’s failure to meet discovery deadlines, and prosecutor’s failure to turn evidence over to defense counsel as mandated by law and discovery court orders.

The Bernalillo County District Attorney office currently has the highest voluntary dismissal rate in its history and indicts less than half what it would indict 10 years ago. Plea agreements with low penalties are the norm. Data given to the Supreme Court by the District court revealed overcharging and a failure to screen cases by the District Attorney’s Office contributes to a combined whopping 65% mistrial, acquittal and dismissal rate.

THE COURTS

The courts are viewed as part of a broken criminal justice system whether they like it or not. That negative perception is aggravated when individual judges appear to be way too lenient in releasing violent felons and not holding them for trial without bond. The District Court Judges assigned to the criminal division point to the New Mexico Supreme Court’s Case Management Order (CMO), as does the District Attorney, that much of the discretion they had before to hold those charged until trial has been taken away.

Bookings at the Bernalillo County jail have plummeted from 38,349 in 2010 to 17,734 in 2020. It’s common knowledge amongst trial attorneys that Judges are concerned about their disqualification rates and appeal reversals and how they are perceived by attorneys and the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission. Judges are reluctant to make decisions and hold off on making the hard decisions to avoid controversy to protect their jobs.

FINAL COMMENT

The criminal justice system at all levels is only as good as those who are responsible to make it work and succeed. The participants in the city sponsored “Metro Crime Initiative” know what is wrong with the state’s criminal justice system. They know it is not a “broken system” but a “systems failure” caused by their own failures to act and to do their jobs effectively. It is way too easy to declare the system “broken” when problems identified within the criminal justice system would go away if the stakeholders would just do their own jobs and concentrate on doing their jobs in a competent manner.

It’s Not A “Broken Criminal Justice System”, But The Failure Of Stakeholders To Do Their Jobs; “Metro Crime Initiative” Announces 40 Point Action Plan To Reduce Crime; Nothing New Announced

Gov. MLG And Secretary Of State Toulouse Oliver Announce Election Law Changes; Some Good, Some Bad, Some Questionable Like Giving 16 And 17 Year Olds Right To Vote

Posted on January 14, 2022 by Pete Dinelli

Gov. MLG And Secretary Of State Toulouse Oliver Announce Election Law Changes; Some Good, Some Bad, Some Questionable Like Giving 16 And 17 Year Olds Right To Vote

On January 18, the 2022 New Mexico legislature will convene for its 30 legislative sessions known as the “short session.” The 30 day sessions are dedicated to budget legislation and the agenda is set by the “Governor’s Call”, meaning the Governor dictates what legislation will be considered.

ELECTION LAW CHANGES

On January 6, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver announced their support for enactment of major changes in the state’s election laws by the 2022 New Mexico legislature. The link to the joint press release “Governor, Secretary of State announce plan to protect right to vote, expand ballot access” is here:

https://www.governor.state.nm.us/2022/01/06/governor-secretary-of-state-announce-plan-to-protect-right-to-vote-expand-ballot-access/

The January 6 announcement was very symbolic and significant in that it was the anniversary of the attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters and temporarily interrupting certification of President Joe Biden’s victory. An interesting side not is that on January 13, it was reported that the founder of the far-right militia group the Oath Keepers, was indicted and arrested over his organization’s alleged involvement in planning the January 6 attack. An additional 10 people, including nine others who already face separate charges in connection to the riot, were also indicted.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/oath-keeper-leader-10-others-charged-seditious-conspiracy-jan-6-n1287434

The proposed changes to the states voting laws comes in an election year. Both Lujan Grisham and Toulouse Oliver are up for reelection, and also on the 2022 ballot will be the races for attorney general, state auditor, state treasurer, land commissioner and 70 seats in the state House.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Senator Cliff Pirtle, a Roswell Republican and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that considers voting legislation, always make the tired and discredited argument that proposals to change election laws should include requiring voters to show their identification. Pirtle believes voter identification requirement ensure people qualified to vote are the only ones who actually cast a ballot, yet there is little proof that is indeed the case.

The major changes to New Mex law are sweeping and will no doubt cause heated discussion. This blog article is a discussion of the 8 proposals with commentary and analysis.

GIVING 16 AND 17 YEARS RIGHT TO VOTE

Allowing residents as young as 16 to vote in local elections, such as for city councils and school boards. This makes very little sense. Simply put, the U.S. Constitution does not allow 16 or 17-year-olds to vote in federal elections. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.” The drive to lower the voting age from 21 to 18 grew across the country during the 1960s, driven in part by the military draft held during the Vietnam War. A common slogan of proponents of lowering the voting age at the time was “old enough to fight and die, old enough to vote”.

It is very difficult to understand the rational why the Governor and the Secretary of State believe now is the time to create a whole new class of voters by giving 16 and 17-years old’s the right to vote, even though it would be only for local elections, such as for city council and school boards. It is dubious to think that 16 and 17 year old’s have the maturity let alone the understanding of local municipal and school board issues.

STRAIGHT-PARTY BALLOT VOTING OPTION

The Straight-party ballot option allowing voters to choose the candidate in one party for every single race is something Republicans have always vigorously opposed. The “straight party ticket voting option” was available at one time for many decades but was eliminated by the previous Republican Administration. Republicans argue that allowing straight party voting promotes party loyalty over an informed electorate and because of the Democratic advantage in numbers, no Republican would ever get elected.

The Republican argument is absolutely bogus given the party loyalty Republicans themselves are known for, especially in the age of Der Führer Trump. Many Republicans over many years, with some saying way too many, have been elected in New Mexico to local, State and Federal office when straight party voting was allowed. Examples: Republicans Senator Pete Domenici, Congressmen Manuel Lujan, Jr. and Steve Schiff and Congresswoman Heather Wilson, Republican Governors David Cargo, Gary Caruthers, Gary Johnson, and Susana Martinez, Republican Attorney General Hal Stratton, Republican Land Commissioner Pat Lyons, Republican PRC member Herb Hughes and David King and Republicans Court of Appeal Judge Rod Kennedy and Supreme Court Justice Judith Nakamura, Republican County Commissioners Les Houston, Pat Cassidy, Loni Talbert, Michael Brasher, Republican Albuquerque City Councilors Tom Hoover, Nadine Bicknell, Fred Burns, Brad Winter, Trudy Jones, Don Harris, Dan Lewis and Republican Mayors Harry Kinney and Richard Berry. Currently, the Albuquerque City Council has a 5 to 4 Democratic majority but just 8 years ago it was a 6 to 3 Republican Majority.

Voters do and can make informed decisions and saying otherwise is nothing more than hollow political rhetoric. Voters are more than capable of deciding not to vote straight party in that they decide how to vote on bond questions, judicial retentions, proposed constitutional amendments and nonpartisan races such as Mayor and City Council.

RESTORING VOTING RIGHTS TO FELONS

Under the law, once a convicted felon has done their time or completed their court-imposed sentence including probation, they have paid their debt to society that should allow them to return and be productive citizen. Automatically restoring voting rights to felons who aren’t incarcerated and make it easier to register online to vote should be a no brainer. Notwithstanding, even if their voting rights are restored, the question is are convicted felons more likely have any interest in voting as is the lack of interest of many non felons.

SUNDAY EARLY VOTING AND ELECTION DAY HOLIDAY

On proposal is to expand early voting by one day to the Sunday before Election Day and to designate election day as a state holiday. These two proposals are long overdue and should be adopted. Across the country, because of the big lie Trump has promoted that he lost the election and the lie of widespread fraud , red state legislatures are enacting laws to reduce access to the polls. New Mexico already requires employers to grant employees paid time off to vote and making election day a holiday is the logical next step.

CREATING A PERMANENT ABSENTEE VOTER LIST

Creating a permanent absentee voter list allowing people to receive ballots by mail without having to file new requests makes common sense and should be implemented in some form. Being able to cast a ballot should be made as simple as possible. Repeatedly requiring a person to make a request for an absentee ballot is an obstacle that should be eliminated.

REGISTERING ON LINE WITH SOCIAL SECUTITY NUMBER

This proposal does not make sense. Allowing people to register to vote online using their full Social Security number could create an environment of identity theft. Years ago, people’s social security numbers were placed on driver’s licenses and that practice had to be abandoned. A much better system to register to vote on line needs to be proposed.

EARLIER MAILING OF ABSENTEE BALLOTS AND EXTENDING BALLOT ACCEPTANCE

It is being proposed that absentee ballots be mailed to voters one week earlier or 35 days before Election Day. The Governor and the Secretary of State have yet to provide any real rational for the additional time. Further, extending the deadline for accepting ballots to the Friday after the election, rather than when polls close, is a double edge sword that could lead to chaos in very close elections. The point is all elections outcomes must come to a conclusion and voters must bear some responsibility to get their ballots to the clerks office in a timely manner.

In a statement making the announcement of changes to the state’s voting laws, Lujan Grisham had this to say:

“Protecting voting rights is essential to upholding our democracy and ensuring New Mexicans’ voices are heard.”

Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver for her part said:

“[This legislation] gives us the chance to pass one of the most powerful voting rights bills in our state’s history.”

FINAL COMMENTARY

A very strong argument can be made that at least 7 of the proposed changes in the state’s election laws will go a long way in protecting a person right to vote and even encourage voting. A major problem is that the 2022 legislative session, which is only a 30 day session, begins on Tuesday, January 18 and the bills ostensibly have not been drafted in that they have not been pre filed as is always the case with major legislation.

Changes to New Mexico’s election laws always generate partisan heated debate and accusations of potential voter fraud. Among recent changes that were controversial occurred with the enactment of the 2019 law that allows New Mexicans to register to vote and cast a ballot on the same day.

Too much is at stake with the 2022 midterm elections with primary voting scheduled in less than 6 months and with new congressional and legislative districts carved out. Given the complexity of some of the election code proposals, the Governor and the Secretary of State would be wise to hold off on the proposed changes until the 2023 sixty day legislative session where there will be more time to debate and consider the proposals.

Ethics Complaint Against Republican State Rep Rebecca Dow Made Public; Dow Found In Contempt Of Court, Fined $4,115 As Ethics Charges Proceed; State Ethics Commission Proposes New Disclosure Act; Will Legislature Have The Backbone To Enact?

Posted on January 13, 2022 by Pete Dinelli

On July 7, three term Republican State Representative Rebecca Dow of Truth or Consequences announced that she is running for the Republican nomination for Governor. In her announcement, she vowed to address “hard truths” related to the state’s high unemployment rate, low education rankings and chronic child welfare issues. She is a former early child care professional. Dow in her announcement immediately attacked Governor Lujan Grisham and described the governor as a “power hungry” career politician whose policies have hurt New Mexico and said:

“As a state, we have never experienced more dire conditions than we are currently struggling through right now.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/2415471/sanche-zjoins-gop-field-for-governor.html

DOW HIT WITH ETHICS COMPLAINT

Before the 2020 general election, an ethics complaint was filed against Rebecca Dow by her Democratic opponent Karen Whitlock. Dow won reelection by a 16% margin.

Parts of the ethics complaint were dismissed with the remaining allegations including accusations that Dow violated the state Financial Disclosure Act by failing to report over $5,000 in gross income from AppleTree Educational Center in 2019 and by not disclosing the nature of her work for the center. Dow is the founder and a former CEO of AppleTree, a nonprofit that serves children and families in Sierra County. Much of its revenue comes from state grants and contracts.

According to a January 13, 2022 front page story in the Albuquerque Journal:

“[Dow] vigorously fought subpoenas issued as part of the investigation into whether she properly disclosed income from a nonprofit group she founded … For almost two months … she refused to sit for a court-ordered deposition a conflict that resulted in sanctions of $50 a day.”

On Friday, January 6, hundreds of pages of documents became public automatically after Ethics Commission General Counsel Walker Boyd found “probable cause” to support allegations that Dow had violated state laws on financial disclosure and governmental conduct. More documents were released to the Albuquerque Journal pursuant to a request for public records.

Dow flatly disputes the allegations and contends that she is not only in compliance with the law, but also that she voluntarily amended financial disclosure documents to address concerns raised by the ethics commission. Dow had this to say:

“I have publicly disclosed – over disclosed – all the details of my work and very modest payment for an important nonprofit in my district. … [The Ethics Commission staff] is way out of bounds, and continues to invent new claims of violations as old ones are abandoned. … For years, the radical Democrats have tried to scare me out of running with bogus complaints. … They haven’t scared me yet. And they won’t.”

The link to full Albuquerque Journal article is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2460915/documents-dow-failed-to-obey-court-order-in-ethics-case-ex-im-not.html

DOW VIOLATES COURT ORDER

According to District Court pleadings filed, the New Mexico Ethics Commission last year subpoenaed Dow’s financial records and scheduled her deposition which is allowed under the law. Dow and her attorneys contested the agency’s demand for her sworn testimony, arguing the subpoenas were flawed and violated the rules of civil procedure or court rules. The Ethics Commission went to court to enforce the subpoena. The ethics commission secured a court order from State District Court Judge James T. Martin of the 3rd Judicial District compelling Dow to produce the financial documents and appear for her deposition. Dow refused to comply with the court order, did not produce the financial documents and failed to appear for her scheduled deposition. The Ethics Commission went back to court to get a court order.

According to court documents filed in August, State District Court Judge James T. Martin issued another order finding Dow in Contempt of Court and making findings that Dow violated the earlier court order by failing to appear at a scheduled deposition and not producing financial documents that had been subpoenaed by the Ethics Commission. Judge Martin found that the failure to produce the documents and to appear for the deposition “lacks a justification.” Judge Martin ordered fines of $50 a day until she complied with the court order for a deposition. According to the court filings, Dow paid $4,115. The amount paid included reimbursing the State Ethics Commission for costs incurred when she did not appear at the scheduled deposition. Dow has yet to give a reason for failing to appear for her deposition.

DOW’S OBJECTIONS OUTLINED

According to the Journal report, Ethics Commission documents released describe Dow’s legal objections as follows:

“[Dow’s] attorney, Lucas Williams, said the commission had improperly refused to identify what it was investigating and that its written questions to Dow exceeded its legal authority to subpoena information. He responded to a host of written questions, anyway.

Williams also said the commission’s subpoenas had “foundational errors.” They were filed in the wrong court, failed to match the format required by law and represented an attempt to “engage in unauthorized ex parte proceedings” … .

[Williams] disputed that Dow was in violation of a court order when she didn’t immediately sit for a deposition. When Dow finally appeared at the deposition late last year, she defended herself.

[Dow] said she had worked diligently to comply with the state’s ethics and disclosure laws, and thought she had addressed the ethics commission’s concern when she voluntarily amended a disclosure report listing her income sources.

Dow also told the commission’s staff that she had started volunteering her time rather than receiving pay, and curtailing some activity because of the unfair scrutiny brought about by her role as a legislator. [Dow] said in her deposition:

“I stepped down from every board that receives any state or federal funding because I wouldn’t want to put anybody through this.”

The link to quoted news source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2460915/documents-dow-failed-to-obey-court-order-in-ethics-case-ex-im-not.html

CREATION, POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION

On November 5, 2018, New Mexico voters, with a 75% majority, voted for a constitutional amendment to establish an independent statewide ethics commission with subpoena power. The State Ethics Commission is a seven-member, bipartisan group. On March 15, 2019, the New Mexico State legislature enacted legislation creating the new, independent ethics commission. On January 4, 2020, a little more than 10 months after the NM Legislature enacted the creation of the Ethics Commission became fully operational.

Under the New Mexico Ethics Commission Act, the commission:

“[May] initiate, receive, investigate and adjudicate complaints alleging violations of, and issue advisory opinions concerning, standards of ethical conduct and other standards of conduct and reporting requirements, as may be provided by law, for state officers and employees of the executive and legislative branches of government, candidates or other participants in elections, lobbyists or government contractors or seekers of government contracts and have such other jurisdiction as provided by law.”

Additionally, the Ethics Commission:

“[May] require the attendance of witnesses or the production of records and other evidence relevant to an investigation by subpoena as provided by law and shall have such other powers and duties and administer or enforce such other acts as further provided by law.”

The law establishing the State Ethics Commission keeps all investigations confidential unless there’s a probable cause finding to support the allegations. Someone who files a complaint is free to make the allegations public. Under law enacted, ethics complaints must be made public 30 days after “probable cause” is found to proceed with an investigation.

The case against Dow is the very first to be made public by the Ethics Commission after a finding of probable cause. The definition of “probable cause” is that the evidence gathered makes it more likely than not that an ethics violation has occurred.

Links to New Mexico Ethics Commission related websites are here:

https://www.sec.state.nm.us/faqs/#Section02

https://www.sec.state.nm.us/

DISPUTE SUMMARIZED

Ethics Commission General Counsel Walker Boyd summarized the dispute with Dow in his findings and recommendations to the Ethics Commission as follows:

The Ethics Commission General Counsel offered to settle the case in January, 2021 if Dow paid a $250 civil fine and acknowledged her responsibilities under state law. She did not respond to the settlement offer, but she later filed an amended financial disclosure statement that did not entirely address the potential violations.

The Ethics Commission secured court approval to issue subpoenas for Dow’s testimony and other information. Dow and her attorney contested the subpoenas. The matter was appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court which dismissed Dow’s petition for review.

Dow was eventually ordered by District Judge Martin to sit for a deposition, but she refused and was later held in contempt of court. She paid about $4,115 “in compensatory and coercive sanctions” for failing to comply with the court order, until she sat for a deposition in October, 2021.

Boyd found probable cause to support allegations that Dow had represented AppleTree before state agencies, in violation of the Governmental Conduct Act. State law restricts when legislators may represent a client before a state agency.

Boyd took note of the legal conflict in his report finding probable cause to the New Mexico Ethics Commission. In his report Boyd said it was Dow’s own “refusal to acknowledge apparent violations. … These actions [by Dow] are not consistent with a good faith willingness to provide evidence to the Commission or correct good-faith mistakes …[ that brought about the litigation].

DOW RESPONDS TO ETHICS CHARGES

In her response to the ethics charges, Representative Dow contends she consulted with attorneys for the Legislative Council Service on how to file her disclosure forms. According to Dow, she was told she did not need to list AppleTree. She said she is entitled to represent nonprofit groups and others as constituents in her district.

Dow also argues that she made so little as a consultant to AppleTree that she wasn’t required to report it and said:

“This is a nonprofit … that addresses the needs of families and their young children in crisis. … I used to run a nonprofit that does a great service for my community. … I’m not apologizing for trying to help my community EVER.”

ETHICS COMPLAINT MOVES FORWARD

Boyd’s finding of probable cause is not a final decision on the charges. The ethics complaint has now been assigned to retired U.S. Magistrate Judge Alan C. Torgerson who will serve as a hearing officer to consider the allegations. The final decision of Torgerson appealable to the entire ethics commission. Dow for her part said she looks forward to clearing her name in a public hearing.

STATE ETHICS COMMISSION PROPOSES NEW DISCLOSURE ACT

On January 18, the 2022 New Mexico legislature will convene for its 30 day legislative sessions known as the “short session.” The 30 day sessions are dedicated to budget legislation and the agenda is set by the “Governor’s Call”, meaning the Governor dictates was legislation can be considered.

The State Ethics Commission is a 7 member, independent, bipartisan group created in 2019 by the New Mexico State legislature. It became fully operational on January 4, 2020. Under the law creating the Ethics Commission, it issues a report each year recommending amendments to New Mexico’s ethics laws. The Ethics Commission is asking the 2022 legislature for an expansion of its powers, enactment of a legislature Disclosure Act and for additional funding.

NEW DISCLOSURE ACT REQUIREMENTS OF LEGISLATORS

In its 2021 annual report released in December, the State Ethics Commission, called the state’s existing disclosure law for income received by public officials “vague and undemanding.” As it stands now, state lawmakers face broad requirements for disclosing income sources over $5,000. Many draw income from a law firm, farming and ranching, or similarly general categories. The commission now wants to repeal the old law and replace it with the commission’s proposed Disclosure Act.

NEW DISCLOSURE ACT REQUIREMENTS OF LOBBYISTS

The new Disclosure Act requirements are designed to shed light on potential conflicts of interest given the fact lobbyists play a crucial role in shaping legislation.

The Ethics Commission is proposing a two-year ban on ex-legislators and other state officials from becoming paid lobbyists after they leave public service. “Revolving door” bans have failed to get legislative approval for many years.

STRONG SUPPORT EXPRESSED

Ethics commission spokesman Sonny Haquani said the agency worked with the offices of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General and State Auditor, on the proposed Disclosure Act and had this to say:

“[The new disclosure act] … would enable the public to identify conflicts of interest and deter violations of the public trust.”

Heather Ferguson, the executive director of the nonpartisan Common Cause New Mexico, says her organization strongly supports the new law, especially with the gifts to legislator provisions in the new act. Ferguson noted lawmakers are barred from accepting gifts exceeding $250 in value from donors, but the rules are sometimes skirted by deliberately undervaluing some gifts. Ferguson put it this way:

“Over the years, several ethics violation cases have tarnished New Mexico’s reputation and most of them could have been prevented with heightened disclosure laws. … The $250 gift threshold has been flouted openly over the years, especially with the gift passes given to legislators for activities such as multi-area skiing or golf courses throughout the state that are reported to value at just under… the individual threshold. … These questionably valued gifts raise the public’s concerns every year. A lower threshold with increased penalties will help to curb this activity.”

Secretary of State Maggie Talouse Oliver, Attorney General Hector Balderas and State Auditor Brian Colon have all announced support of the new Disclosure Act.

OTHER EXPANDED POWERS

The Ethics Commission is asking the New Mexico legislature to expand the commissions jurisdiction to include the parts of the state Constitution that prohibits profiting from public office and that bans legislators from having an interest in contracts authorized by legislation passed during their term in office. Specifically, the expanded jurisdiction would give the commission authority in 3 major areas over constitutional provisions prohibiting:

1. Increased compensation for public officials during their term of office.
2. Legislators having an interest in any state or city contract that was authorized by law during their term or for one year afterward.
3. State officials who already draw a salary from drawing outside fees or otherwise profiting for their service in public office.

BUDGET INCREASE SOUGHT

During last year’s 2021 legislative session, the Ethics Commission’s budget was cut by 5%. The legislature also expanded the agency’s duties by directing it to handle enforcement related to notaries public. The commission is seeking an increase of 40% over what it received for the 2021 approved budget. The agency is asking for a $1.28 million budget that would begin on July 1, 2022. The budget increase would be dedicated to increasing the commission staff from 5 to 9 employees. The additional funding will be used to hire an attorney, paralegal and database administrator and to restore a “special projects coordinator” whose funding was part of this year’s 5% budget cut.

Links to quoted source material are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2458308/ethics-agency-calls-for-firmer-disclosure-laws-ex-act-would-require-2.html

https://www.abqjournal.com/2434601/nm-ethics-agency-seeks-expanded-staff-jurisdiction.html

https://pinonpost.com/ethics-commission-asks-for-more-staff-expanded-jurisdiction-to-curb-legislator-corruption/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

To quote Republican State Representative Rebecca Dow in her announcement for Governor, the “hard truths” are that she is faced with some very serious charges of ethics violations that are still pending and her viability as a candidate for Governor has been tainted. The hard truth is that she was found in contempt of court violating a court order and she was fined as provided by law.

Ignoring a court order and Dow’s accusation that “… the radical Democrats have tried to scare me out of running with bogus complaints. … They haven’t scared me yet. And they won’t” is nothing more than an expression that she has distain for ethics laws and our courts and feels she is above the law and felt she could ignore a court order. Her actions are identical to Washington Republicans resisting court orders and subpoenas relating to the January 6 capital riot.

It is highly likely that the Dow ethics complaint is one of the major reasons why the New Mexico Ethics Commission is seeking enactment of the new disclosure act. Another hard truth is that there is absolutely no doubt that the ethics complaint now pending against New Mexico State Representative Rebecca Dow will become a major issue during the 2022 New Mexico Legislative session as the legislature considers the passage of the financial Disclosure Act for legislators and lobbyists.

Simply put, the New Mexico Ethics Commission is doing its job and handling the complaint against Republican State Representative Rebecca as provided for and envisioned under the new law. It would be a damn shame if the New Mexico legislature does not have the stomach nor the backbone to consider the proposed changes and enact the new financial disclosure act. It would also be a damn shame if the legislature even attempted to gut the New Mexico Ethics Commission by not fully funding it.

The proposed new act is long overdue and needed. The Governor and both Democrat and Republican leadership need to make enactment of the Disclosure Act a top priority as well as fully funding the Ethics Commission.

Links to related blog articles are here:

State Ethics Commission Proposes New Disclosure Act; Rogues Gallery Of Corrupt New Mexico Lawmakers

NM Ethics Commission Seeks Expanded Authority And Funding; Slow Start On Cases; Create Agency Formula Funding Source To Insure Independence From Legislature

State Ethics Commission Proposes New Disclosure Act; Rogues Gallery Of Corrupt New Mexico Lawmakers

Posted on January 12, 2022 by Pete Dinelli

NEW DISCLOSURE ACT REQUIREMENTS OF LEGISLATORS

In its 2021 annual report released in December, the State Ethics Commission, called the state’s existing disclosure law for income received by public officials “vague and undemanding.” As it stands now, state lawmakers face broad requirements for disclosing income sources over $5,000. Many draw income from a law firm, farming and ranching, or similarly general categories. The commission now wants to repeal the old law and replace it with the commission’s proposed Disclosure Act.

NEW DISCLOSURE ACT REQUIREMENTS OF LOBBYISTS

The new Disclosure Act requirements are designed to shed light on potential conflicts of interest given the fact lobbyists play a crucial role in shaping legislation.

STRONG SUPPORT EXPRESSED

“[The new disclosure act] … would enable the public to identify conflicts of interest and deter violations of the public trust.”

Secretary of State Maggie Talouse Oliver, Attorney General Hector Balderas and State Auditor Brian Colon have all announced support of the new Disclosure Act.

OTHER EXPANDED POWERS

1. Increased compensation for public officials during their term of office.

2. Legislators having an interest in any state or city contract that was authorized by law during their term or for one year afterward.

3. State officials who already draw a salary from drawing outside fees or otherwise profiting for their service in public office.

BUDGET INCREASE SOUGHT

Links to quoted source material are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2458308/ethics-agency-calls-for-firmer-disclosure-laws-ex-act-would-require-2.html

https://www.abqjournal.com/2434601/nm-ethics-agency-seeks-expanded-staff-jurisdiction.html

https://pinonpost.com/ethics-commission-asks-for-more-staff-expanded-jurisdiction-to-curb-legislator-corruption/

NEFARIOUS HISTORY OF CORRUPT NEW MEXICO LEGISLATORS

New Mexico has had more than its fair share of public corruption scandals over the years involving State Legislators. The rogue’s gallery of unethical conduct, fraud, theft and abuse of power and influence by New Mexico legislators includes both State Representatives and State Senators. Following are the most notable:

SENATOR ANTHONY LUCERO

Anthony Lucero was an Albuquerque area state senator. In 1974, Lucero, D-Albuquerque, was convicted by a Santa Fe County jury of taking bribes to help people obtain contractor licenses from the state Construction Industries Division.

SENATOR EDDIE BARBOA

Eddie Barboa was an Albuquerque area state senator. In 1975, Barboa, D-Albuquerque, was charged in federal court with possession of heroin with intent to distribute it. The government said that Barboa tried to set up a large sale of heroin with a man he thought was a New York underworld figure, but who was actually an undercover agent. Barboa said that he was trying to stop drug traffic in Albuquerque’s South Valley when he met the agent. But in two trials, Barboa got hung juries. After the second trial, federal prosecutors decided not to retry Barboa.

REPRESENTATIVE RON OLGUIN

Ron Olguin was an Albuquerque area State Representative. In 1992, Olguin was sentenced to 18 months in prison after he was convicted in state District Court of soliciting a $15,000 bribe in exchange for obtaining $100,000 from the Legislature for an Albuquerque crime counseling program. Refusing to resign, he faced censure by the State House of Representatives.

SENATOR MANNY ARAGON

State Senator Manny Aragon was president pro temp of the New Mexico Senate and for decades was considered one of the most powerful and influential state senators in the state history. Aragon pleaded guilty in federal court in 2008 to three felony counts of conspiracy and mail fraud and was sentenced to five and half years. All counts were related to a scheme to defraud the state of nearly $4.4 million in the construction of the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Courthouse in Albuquerque. The crimes took place while Aragon was serving as state Senate president pro-tem. In addition to his prison sentence, Aragon was fined $750,000, most of which he’d already forfeited to the government before he was sentenced, and ordered to pay at least $649,000 in restitution. He was released from federal prison in 2013.

SENATOR PHIL GRIEGO

Phil A. Griego was a New Mexico State from 1996 to 2015. The 69 year old was accused of using his elected position and acumen as a real estate broker to guide the sale of a state-owned building in downtown Santa Fe through various approvals without properly disclosing his financial interest. Griego maintained he did nothing wrong in earning a $50,000 commission from buyers of the property. He resigned from the Legislature in 2015. He was convicted of fraud, bribery and felony ethical violations stemming from allegations that he used his position for personal gain has been sentenced to 18 months in prison. Griego was sentenced to a 12-year-prison sentence, but all was waived except 18 months, and he was ordered to pay $47,225 in fines and was sentenced to serve five years of supervised probation upon his release from prison.

https://abc7amarillo.com/news/local/former-new-mexico-sen-phil-griego-sentenced-to-18-months-in-prison

REPRESENTATIVE SHERYL WILLIAMS STAPLETON

On September 21, 2021, former state Rep. Sheryl Williams Stapleton was indicted on 28 criminal charges including racketeering, money laundering and fraud charges in connection with what prosecutors have called an elaborate scheme to financially gain from a deal she helped broker with a Washington, D.C.-based company through her position as the head of the Career and Technical Education department at Albuquerque Public Schools, her employer. According to an affidavit filed in the case, the money amounted embezzled is $954,386.04. The Former House Majority Leader could face 79 years in prison if convicted on all 28 criminal counts. She was fired from the school district. All but two of the charges are felonies, and four charges carry a sentence of nine years of imprisonment and fines up to $10,000. Many of the others carry a basic sentence of 18 months and fines not to exceed $5,000.

Links to quoted source material is here:

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/former-state-lawmaker-williams-stapleton-indicted-on-28-counts/article_ffba17c4-1a2f-11ec-8c45-d3b644960660.html

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/former-nm-rep-sheryl-williams-stapleton-indicted-on-criminal-charges-/6243614/

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/officials-behaving-badly-a-look-back-at-the-misdeeds-of-new-mexico-public-officials/article_5236e7bf-293f-51dd-8f93-f7e739511697.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

New Mexico has had more than its fair share of public corruption scandals over the years. A rogue’s gallery of unethical conduct, fraud, theft and abuse of power and influence in New Mexico politics includes more than just state lawmakers. It includes two former Democrat State Treasurers, Michael Montoya and Robert Vigil, former Republican Secretary of State Dianna Duran, former Republican New Mexico Taxation, and Revenue Secretary Demesia Padilla.

Unproven allegations of “pay to play” plagued the 8-year tenure of Democrat Governor Bill Richardson with a federal grand jury investigation resulting in no indictments and no finding of “pay to play”. Former Republican United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico Gregg Forate, with an obvious strong Republican partisan bias, released a scathing letter of condemnation that accused the Richardson administration of “corrupting” the government contract award process.

During the 8-year tenure of former Republican Governor Susana Martinez, allegations of unethical conduct and undue influence with the award of the billion-dollar, 20-year Downs Race Track Lease, dubbed the “Dirty Downs Deal”, occurred. What also occurred was a federal grand jury investigation of the Republican Governor’s number one political consultant and campaign manager relating to misuse of her inauguration funding.

The fact that the 2022 New Mexico Legislative session is a 30 short session dictates that the New Mexico legislature may not have the stomach to consider the proposed changes. The short session makes it difficult to believe that the legislature will make enactment of the proposed Disclosure Act a priority.

Notwithstanding, the proposed new act is long overdue and needed. The Governor should place it on her call list and the Legislature should make it a top priority. If it fails to make it through, he 2022 session, it should be introduced in the 2023 session to be enacted and signed into law.

The link to a related blog article is here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2021/11/05/nm-ethics-commission-seeks-expanded-authority-and-funding-slow-start-on-cases-create-agency-formula-funding-source-to-insure-independence-from-legislature/
_____________________________________

POSTSCRIPT

ETHICS COMMISSION EXPLAINED

The New Mexico Ethics Commission is empowered to oversee state public officials, including state lawmakers, state employees and constitutionally elected officials, including the governor. The seven-member commission is empowered to fine public officials if they are found by the commission to have violated civil provisions of state laws. There is no authority to suspend or remove from office elected officials.

POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION

Under the New Mexico Ethics Commission Act, the commission:

“may initiate, receive, investigate and adjudicate complaints alleging violations of, and issue advisory opinions concerning, standards of ethical conduct and other standards of conduct and reporting requirements, as may be provided by law, for state officers and employees of the executive and legislative branches of government, candidates or other participants in elections, lobbyists or government contractors or seekers of government contracts and have such other jurisdiction as provided by law.”

Additionally, the Ethics Commission:

“may require the attendance of witnesses or the production of records and other evidence relevant to an investigation by subpoena as provided by law and shall have such other powers and duties and administer or enforce such other acts as further provided by law.”

Powers and duties of the commission also include the power to develop, adopt and promulgate the rules necessary to implement and administer the provisions of the State Ethics Commission Act.

Absent from the enabling legislation creating the ethics commission is any authority to suspend or remove elected or appointed officials for nefarious or unethical conduct.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/ethics/50-state-chart-state-ethics-commissions-powers-a.aspx

COMPLAINT PROCESS

An Ethics Case before the Commission can begin in one of three ways:

1. A complainant may file a complaint with the Commission.
2. Another agency may refer a complaint filed originally with that agency to the Commission.
3. The Commission may initiate a complaint with the approval of at least five Commissioners.

Anyone who files a complaint must secure a notary public and attest to the truth of the allegations in the complaint under penalty of perjury. Although the Ethics Commission accepts only signed complaints, it can also initiate its own complaints with approval from 5 of the 7 commissioners. It can also accept referrals from other agencies.

The attorney appointed as “general counsel” by the seven-member commission serves as an investigator and prosecutor. The commission’s general counsel determines whether a complaint warrants investigation and if so, the general counsel will investigate the allegations made.

The Ethics Commission “hearing officers” are appointed to adjudicate the cases where evidence suggests there is an ethical violation. The hearing officers are required to use the legal standard of “preponderance of evidence” to make the determination if there was an ethical violation and must make specific findings.

The legal term “preponderance of the evidence” means the greater weight of the evidence required for the trier of fact, the hearing officer, to decide in favor of one side or the other. “Preponderance of the evidence” is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence.

The Ethics Commission through its general counsel is empowered to petition a state judge to issue subpoenas for documents and other materials as part of its work and with a judge designated to issue and grant the subpoenas on behalf of the commission itself. A public official who disputes a hearing judge’s finding are given the right to appeal the ruling to the seven-member ethics commission.

Ethics complaints are be made public 30 days after probable cause is found to proceed with an investigation. The ethics commission is prohibited from revealing ethics complaints that have been deemed frivolous or unsubstantiated, but the accuser or accused can publicly disclose the complaints.

The ethics commission is not empowered to investigate violations of legislative policies by legislators, such as sexual harassment policies, unless the Legislature works out an agreement for the ethics commission to investigate such complaints. Even then, if the ethics commission determines that a legislator has violated legislative policy, the ethics commission is required to turn over its findings to the Legislature, which would then in turn determine the legislator’s punishment.

A very significant provision included in the commission powers is authority over include statewide public officials such as the governor, the lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, public land commissioner and state auditor, or candidates for those offices, to those prohibited from soliciting campaign contributions from January 1 through the end of each year’s legislative session. However, the ethics commission has no authority over school board members and local officials such elected Mayors or City Councilors.

The enforcement of the state’s Open Meetings Act and Inspection of Public Records Act is left to the New Mexico Attorney General, and such enforcement is not made part of the duties of the Ethics Commission. State legislators are already prohibited from soliciting campaign contributions from January 1 through the end of each year’s legislative session.

JURISDICTION OF COMMISSION

According to its website, the Commission has “jurisdiction to enforce the civil compliance provisions of eight statutes and one constitutional provision for public officials, public employees, candidates, persons subject to the Campaign Reporting Act, government contractors, lobbyists and lobbyists’ employers”.

Allegations of criminal conduct are referred to law enforcement agencies. The 8 statutes the Ethics Commission is authorized to enforce are strictly civil in nature and provides for civil penalties and fines. The one power or penalty the Ethics Commission is not granted is the power to suspend or remove an elected or public official.

OFFICIALS NOT SUBJECT TO THE COMMISSION’S JURISDICTION

According to its website, the Ethics Commission has limited jurisdiction and only over certain individuals. The Commission’s jurisdiction is limited. It cannot hear complaints alleging violations by local elected officials or local public employees such as county commissioners or municipal employees.

NO JURISDICTION OVER CRIMINAL CONDUCT

The Commission does not hear complaints alleging violations of state or federal criminal laws. The Commission will refer any complaint alleging criminal conduct to the Attorney General, the appropriate District Attorney, or the federal prosecutors. Such a referral does not prevent the Commission from pursuing civil enforcement, either through an administrative hearing or a civil action in state court.

LAWS OUTSIDE THE COMMISSION’S JURISDICTION

The Commission lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate complaints alleging violations of any law that is not expressly provided for in the State Ethics Commission Act including … the Human Rights Act, the Open Meetings Act, the Inspection of Public Records Act, the Extra Compensation Clause of Article IV, Section 27, or the Emoluments Clause of Article XX, Section 9.

LIMITATIONS BASED ON TIME

Three time-based constraints limit the Commission’s jurisdiction:

First, the Commission cannot adjudicate a complaint alleging conduct that occurred more than two years in the past or more than two years after the alleged conduct could reasonably have been discovered.

Second, the Commission lacks jurisdiction over a complaint that is filed against a candidate 60 days before a primary or general election for the pre-election period, unless the complaint alleges a violation of the Campaign Reporting Act or the Voter Action Act.

Third, the Commission lacks jurisdiction over conduct occurring on or before July 1, 2019.”

https://www.sec.state.nm.us/faqs/#Section02

WEBSITE LINK WITH INSTRUCTIONS

The link to the website can be found here:

https://www.sec.state.nm.us/

The website contains a section where the public can sign up for updates from the commission including pending cases and advisory opinions. The website also gives a detail explanation on how a complaint can be filed, gives instructions on how to file an ethics complaint, provides forms and outlines what the complaint needs to allege, including laws believed to have been violated, witnesses and evidence relied upon. The website also provides a guide to respondents and what they must do to respond.

Republican Schill Dan Lewis Loses Council Presidency Despite Vote Of DINO Louis Sanchez; Conservative 3 Stooges Lewis, Grout and Sanchez Begin Their Obstructionist Agenda; Keller Should Respond With Veto Message

Posted on January 11, 2022 by Pete Dinelli

After the December 7 City Council runoff election, the city council was split 5 Democrats to 4 Republicans as follows:

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

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

Four years ago, and after serving two terms on the city council, Republican District 5 City Councilor Dan Lewis left the city council to run for Mayor. Lewis ran unsuccessfully for Mayor against Tim Keller in 2017. Keller won the 2017 runoff by a decisive landslide by securing 60,219 votes or 62.20% against Dan Lewis who secured 36,594 or 37.8% of the vote. Four years ago, Lewis was replaced by Democrat Cynthia Borrego who Lewis defeated on November 2, 2021 to return to the city council for a third term.

MAJOR TEST FOR DEMOCRAT MAJORITY

The election for a new Albuquerque City Council President and Vice President occurred on Monday, January 10. It was the very first meeting of the new year for the new City Council. The council president appoints all committee chairs. When the votes were taken, and to the surprise of many, progressive Democrat City Councilor Isaac Benton emerged as the new City Council President. Conservative Republican Dan Lewis, nemesis to Mayor Tim Keller, was elected Vice President. It was also announced that moderate conservative Republican Brook Bassan was appointed Chair of the “Committee of the Whole” which is considered the most powerful city council committee in that it presides over the city’s budget process.

The final vote to elect Isaac Benton as the new city council President was 6 to 3 with Democrats Isaac Benton, Pat Davis, Klarissa Pena, Tammy Fiebelkorn and Republicans Brook Bassan and Trudy Jones voting for Benson. Those voting for Dan Lewis for city council President were Republicans Dan Lewis, Renee Grout and Conservative Democrat Louis Sanchez.

The votes for City Council President and Vice President were considered by many city hall observers as the first major test of whether or not the Progressive Democrats could hold onto a governing majority on a city council that has increasingly become more and more partisan and is now far more conservative after the November 2 elections. After his win on November 2, Republican Dan Lewis made it known that he intended to be the next City Council President. Lewis also made it known he intended to aggressively question Democrat Tim Keller’s department directors, including APD management and Mayor Keller’s representatives in person to hold them “accountable”. Lewis has already made it known to his supporters he intends to run for Mayor again in 2025 and use his city council seat as a springboard to the Mayor’s Office like he tried to do 4 years ago.

Confidential sources have confirmed that Lewis repeatedly talked with Isaac Benton to cut a deal where Lewis would be elected city council president and that Lewis would then appoint Benton Chairman of the Committee of the Whole and Finance Chairman. Lewis needed Benton’s vote in that he has a less than friendly relationship with his fellow Republican Brook Basaan.

LEWIS BEGINS HIS 4 YEAR OBSTRUCTIONIST AGENDA

After losing the vote to become City Council President, Dan Lew introduced 4 separate resolutions outlining what he intends to pursue in the coming few months. Those resolutions are:

1. Repeal the 3/8 of 1% gross receipts tax enacted 4 years ago. The city council enacted a 3/8 of 1% gross receipts tax four years ago on an 8-1 bipartisan city council vote. Lewis is proclaiming it’s a financial crutch the city does not need and reversal would put money “back into the pockets of hard-working Albuquerque citizens.” The enacted 2021 – 2022 city budget projects that the tax will generate $53.6 million this fiscal year. When originally enacted, the city was facing a $40 million dollar deficit and large cuts in essential services. Keller signed the tax increase despite his promise not to raise taxes without a public vote, even for public safety. The legislation initially required 60% of the proceeds to fund public safety and that requirement expired two years ago. Keller’s office, however, said money still goes to those efforts.

2. Bar the city from mandating COVID-19 vaccines for the municipal government workforce. Lewis says the bill answers concerns he has heard from police officers and firefighters about a potential vaccine requirement. Lewis claims he has been vaccinated himself but said he has a “big issue” with mandating them for city workers. According to Lewis “Many of them I know said they would quit[with mandated vaccines].” Lewis did not disclose if the oil distribution company he works for mandates vaccinations, if he threatened to quite if forced to get vaccinated or if he decided to get vaccinated to avoid termination.

It is well settled law that employers can mandate vaccinations as a condition of employment. The city is no different and could order all city hall employees to get vaccinated as a condition of continued employment. The city is preparing for a January 21, 2022 deadline that will mandate all city employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or face weekly testing for the virus under federal OSHA requirements. The city has over 6,000 employees that would be affected by the federal mandate. The OSHA mandate is being challenge in the United States Supreme Court with arguments heard by the US Supreme Court. Preliminary news reports are saying the conservative Supreme Court majority will strike the mandate down. As the US Supreme Court has yet to decide on an outcome, the city is continuing to move forward with the vaccination or testing mandates.

https://www.krqe.com/health/coronavirus-new-mexico/albuquerque-mayor-to-provide-update-on-citys-response-to-covid-19/

3. Repeal or limit mayoral authority during a public health emergency. The resolution would revoke most of the mayoral public health emergency authority the City Council added at the onset of the pandemic. In March 2020, the city council created a new “public health” category in the emergency powers ordinance, allowing the mayor to take actions like closing places of mass assembly and ordering retailers to limit the sale of certain items on a per-person-per-day basis. Under Lewis’ rewrite, the mayor can still proclaim a public health emergency but is limited to issuing public health “advisories or recommendations” thereby essentially gutting the Mayor’s authority during a health crises such and the pandemic.

4. Direct the city administration to consider and “to the extent advisable,” push to renegotiate the terms of the federal Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA). The settlement mandates 271 reforms of the Albuquerque Police Department (APD). The settlement was entered into on November 14, 2014 after a Department of Justice investigation found that APD engaged in a pattern of excessive use of force and deadly force and had a “culture of aggression.”

The Lewis DOJ city council resolution cites U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland’s 2021 guidelines for federal court appointed monitors that local and state governments pay to oversee federally-mandated police reforms. Garland recommends that agreements limit monitor fees and that a termination process occur after 5 years. While new rules do not apply to existing agreements like Albuquerque’s, the Lewis resolution directs the city to review the new guidelines anyway. Ostensibly, Lewis does not know that the City and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have already announced they were reviewing the guidelines. The Lewis resolution also calls for petitioning to reopen the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA) to address Garland’s recommendations “regarding capping independent monitor fees and assessing termination of monitors after no more than five years.” Federal Court Appointed Monitor James Ginger has overseen the Albuquerque Police Department since 2015. APD continues to struggle with implementing the reforms.

According to Lewis, the 4 bills address important community concerns and he had this to say:

“I want them to go through the process. … I fully expect the councilors and the administration to take a good, hard look at these bills to understand them and to consider the outcomes and certainly to listen to the public.”

The link to news source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2460283/lewis-proposing-tax-repeal-limiting-mayors-powers.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Like it or not, the tone of the new city council is more conservative with DINO City Councilor Louis Sanchez and conservative Republicans Dan Lewis and Rene Grout showing their willingness to take on and get in the face of Mayor Tim Keller to obstruct where they can under the guise of holding him accountable as Dan Lewis begins a 4 year quest to become mayor.

DISTRICT 1 “DINO” LOUIS SANCHEZ

Newly elected Democrat City Councilor Louis Sanchez became a “Democrat In Name Only” when he cast his vote Dan Lewis for city council president. The one vote for city council president clearly revealed exactly what kind of a Democrat Louis Sanchez really is, including thinking he is the swing vote on the city council. Least anyone forget Councilor Louis Sanchez made a big stink that he should not have to wait until January 1, 2021 to join the city council. He went so far as to threaten to file a civil lawsuit, did news interviews and was interviewed on the Bob Clark morning radio program. Clark is decisively right wing Republican. Sanchez was no doubt emboldened when the Albuquerque Journal editorialized that he should file a lawsuit and get a definitive court ruling on the issue.

The link to the editorial is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2452128/take-council-seat-to-court.html

Louis Sanchez was not satisfied with just winning his election over Lan Sena. What Louis Sanchez wanted to do is humiliate Lan Sean and force her off the council over his imaginary right of entitlement that he should be sworn into office before his term begins. Confidential City Hall sources confirmed that City Councilor elect Louis Sanchez met with Mayor Tim Keller in the Mayor’s Office and a verbal confrontation occurred wherein Sanchez demanded that City Attorney Esteban Aguilar and City Clerk Ethan Watson both be fired over their refusal to swear him in as the new City Council for District 1. According to confidential sources, Keller declined to terminate them. Sanchez told Mayor Keller that he intended not to vote to confirm either of them if they were not fired.

DINO Sanchez appears to have had a rude awakening finding out the Republican Brook Bassan is emerging as the swing vote. She has shown herself more than capable of working with the Keller Administration, as was the case when she agreed with Keller on the passage of a gross receipts tax bond that failed to secure the required 6 votes. Should Sanchez decide to throw his support to Republican causes, and should he have higher ambitions, including running for Mayor or County Commission, he might as well change his party affiliation to Republican now and not pretend he is a Democrat. Sheriff Manny Gonzales landslide loss to Mayor Tim Keller is proof that pretending to be a Democrat in a Democrat City gets you no where fast.

DISTRICT 9 REPUBLICAN RENEE GROUT

District 9 Conservative Republican City Council Renee Grout, who replaced Conservative Republican Don Harris, had this to say about the new city council before she was sworn in:

“There’s going to be more checks and balances [with the new council members. Mayor Keller’s] unchecked power is going to be different.”

Grout said she would use her early days in office to research, ask questions and listen. This coming from a liar and the lies she told her constituents along with a promise made to get elected.

On December 1, Republican Renee Grout mailed out a false “hit piece” campaign mailer against her opponent Democrat Rob Grilley. The political hit piece proclaimed:

“Grilley supports Sanctuary City that protects violent criminals . … Rob Grilley supports Sanctuary City policy that forces police to hide illegal immigrants from federal authorities, even if they commit crimes like rape or murder! In bold, bright red letters appear the words: “Protecting Violent Criminals.”

Below these words appears the following text:

“Jaqueline Vigil, a mother of two New Mexico Police Officers, was murdered by Luis Talamantes-Romero, an illegal immigrant with a lengthy criminal history. Vigil’s killer should have been deported before, but the city’s sanctuary city policy forced police to hide him from immigration officials.”

The political hit piece attacking Democrat Rob Grilley was simply a pack of lies told by Republican Renee Grout who resorted to fear tactics and misinformation to distract voters. Simply put, Albuquerque has never been a “sanctuary city” and it’s not likely it is ever going to be one. The truth is that in 2001, the Albuquerque City Council enacted a resolution that declared Albuquerque an “immigrant-friendly” city. The resolution was sponsored by then-Republican City Councilor Hess Yntema, whose wife is a naturalized United States citizen from Columbia.

An “immigrant-friendly” city implements “welcoming city” policies and does not provide for city enforcement of federal immigration laws, and addresses only city services, including licensing and housing. The focus is to create inclusive, immigrant-friendly, and welcoming policies. Albuquerque’s “immigrant-friendly” designation welcomes immigrants to the city and is mainly symbolic.

The accusation in the flyer “Vigil’s killer should have been deported before, but the city’s sanctuary city policy forced police to hide him from immigration officials” is the most glaring lie. When the murder occurred, it was first believed to have been a retaliation killing against Vigils’ two state police officer sons. APD did NOT “hide her killer from immigration officials” because APD had no idea who her killer was, and a search had begun while APD was investigating the murder.

What the investigation found is that the killer was “casing” homes at 5:30 am in the area, he came upon Jaqueline Vigil pulling out of her driveway to go to the gym and he shot her. The truth is Jaqueline Vigil’s killer had already been deported by the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) a few months before the killing.

The reason why the political hit piece is so important now that Renee Grout has been sworn in as the new District 9 City Councilor is the political promise to her supporters she made at events. Grout promised that she would introduce a resolution calling for the repeal of the “sanctuary city”. Demands are already being made by her constituents to see the legislation she intends to introduce but she has yet to produce even a rough draft of the legislation. Renee Grout is keeping her constituents waiting while she proclaims there will be more “checks and balances” on Mayor Keller. Then there is the matter of Renee Grout faced with the very embarrassing fact that she wants to repeal a nonexistent “sanctuary city” resolution.

OBSTRUCTIONIST AGENDA WAS PREDICTED

On December 31,2021, the blog article entitled “Red Flags” Of Confrontation Emerge Against Mayor Tim Keller With 4 New Council Members To Be Sworn In On Jan. 1st; Election Of Democrat Or Republican City Council President, Vice President Will Set Tone Of Cooperation Or Confrontation”. The article predicted major issues that Dan Lewis and Renee Grout are no doubt champing at the bit to oppose Mayor Keller in an attempt to be disruptive. All 4 of the new Lewis resolutions were predicted by the blog article. Those issues listed in the blog article, with the issues rearranged by the editor for this article, are as follows:

1. Oppose any and all increases in the gross receipts taxes or property taxes to fund city essential services even when deficits occur. One Lewis Resolution introduced calls for the repeal the 3/8 of 1% gross receipts tax the city council implemented four years ago on an 8-1 bipartisan city council vote.

2. Oppose enforcement by Mayor Keller of emergency health care orders for the Corona Virus Pandemic, including opposing any and all-mask mandates and opposing mandatory covid vaccinations of city employees. One Lewis Resolutions introduced calls for the repeal or limit mayoral authority during a public health emergency. A second Lewis resolution introduced bars the city from mandating COVID-19 vaccines for the municipal government workforce.

3. Opposition to the Department of Justice mandated police reforms. One Lewis Resolution introduced directs the city administration to consider and “to the extent advisable” push to renegotiate the terms of the federal Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA).

4. Opposition to any mandatory sick leave ordinances for the private sector.

5. Repeal of the city’s immigration friendly policy that Lewis and Grout falsely label as sanctuary city.

6. Advocacy of late term abortion prohibitions as was placed on the 2013 municipal ballot and which failed. Should Roe v. Wade in fact be overturned by the United States Supreme Court, which is expected in June, it is more likely than not right wing Republicans Dan Lewis and Renee Grout will seek to have abortions outlawed within the city by declaring no licenses to do business within the city shall be issued to any health care provider corporation such as Planned Parenthood that offers late term abortions. Without a license to do business, the city planning department could order the closure of the business.

7. Opposition to or perhaps repeal of the city’s minimum wage ordinance.

8. Reduction in social service programs to help the homeless and the poor, including a scaling back of the Gateway Homeless shelter operations.

9. Advocate the reduction in the size of city government and eliminate new departments and programs created by Mayor Keller by denying funding for such Departments as the “Office of Equity and Inclusion” that deals with immigrant relations.

10. Advocacy of increased criminal penalties as part of the city’s legislative package and bail bond reform measures.

FINAL COMMENTARY

With the introduction of his fist 4 resolutions at the very first meeting of the newly elected city council, Dan Lewis has made it clear he intends to be as disruptive as possible on the city council. Only time will tell if the city council conservative 3 stooges of Lewis, Grout and Sanchez will call for the other predicted obstructionist’s resolutions. Dan Lewis is nothing more than a pathetic Republican Party political schill and operative with an axe to grins in an election year hell bent on being divisive on the city council as possible so he can run for Mayor again in 4 years.

Lewis with his words and conduct make it very clear he has no desire to work with Tim Keller, so why should Keller even bother to try. Keller should make it known that he will veto the four resolutions introduced to send a clear and unambiguous message to Lewis.