After being very, very weak regarding the Soviet Union/Russia/Cuba from the late 70s till very recently, it has become suddenly extremely fashionable for Democrat Party leaders to effect very serious concerns about Russia, "strong men," dictators, and the like. 

And we won't really take issue with that—we can all agree that despotism and tyranny are not only bad things, they are truly horrible. What is somewhat disconcerting is the Democrat Party's obvious insincerity, manifested by its selective "outrage."

Mark this down: if Barack Obama had opened a dialog and personal diplomacy with Kim Jong-un, regardless of the degree of success it achieved, the Democrats and their media allies would be out of their minds with the tingles going up and down their legs driving them to ecstasy. 

REALITY: WE HAVE INTERESTS, the PRINCIPAL ONE BEING SAFETY and SECURITY of the AMERICAN PEOPLE

During World War II, the United States policy was to become ardent allies of the person who, by most historians' accounts, was the very worst totalitarian monster in the history of the world. His cynical penchant for deception and merciless addiction to outright murder are legendary. His name was Josef Stalin. 

Why did we do this? Stalin was fighting perhaps the second-most brutal dictator in history—and, crucially, one who had declared war on the American people.

What did we get out of it?

Answer: The Soviet Union defeated Germany and Hitler on our behalf. And on behalf of the British Empire.

DISTORTIONS of HISTORY THAT AMERICANS PARTICIPATE IN—UNKNOWINGLY

Don't get us wrong, we are patriotic Americans, thankful for and appreciative of the sacrifices of our men and women who have served our nation and given their lives in our nation's wars and military conflicts.

But our own America-centric views of history, especially military history, aided and abetted by numerous, almost ceaseless television shows and documentary features, gives us a distorted view of a number of events in world history.

World War II is perhaps most distorted of all.

Each year on D-Day, we — rightfully — acknowledge the bravery and sacrifice of American soldiers. We will participate in that again and again. But we are concerned with the perhaps "improper" images, perceptions, and beliefs that the American people are left with regarding our role in World War II.

D-Day Compared with the Eastern Front

It is true that D-Day was a great achievement in planning, logistics, and combat operations. Some 156,000 allied forces landed on five beaches—and beyond in Airborne operations.

However, we would bet $1,000 that fewer than 1 in 10 Americans realizes that three of the five beaches were assigned to and assaulted by troops of the British Empire.

The Americans fought bravely on Omaha and Utah beaches, but the British assaulted two other beaches and the Canadians landed on the other. 73,000 Americans landed on D-Day along with 83,000 British Empire soldiers. 

Combat deaths were 2,500 American and 1,900 British Empire. Another 5,600 allied troops were wounded, making a total of 10,000 casualties. 

Contrast those numbers with the Battle of Stalingrad alone, where the Soviet Union lost 1,129,000 casualties, inflicting 870,000 losses—killed, wounded, or captured—on the Axis forces.

In Normandy, the D-Day allies faced a grand total of 50,000 Germans. 

We Conspired with the British to let a Monstrous Dictator and Murderer Win the War for Us

At a bare minimum, the Soviet Union killed 85 of every 100 of the more than 5 million German soldiers killed in the war. Most historians put the figure at 90. That's right, the combined efforts of the Americans and British killed the other 10. We again would bet that fewer than 10% of Americans have even vague notion of these facts.

Again, though, we are not criticizing this. We are happy that our leadership did this. The United States lost 407,000 military deaths in the war, along with another 12,000 classified as civilians, most of whom were in the Merchant Marine. The British lost 383,000 dead, and their Dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa) lost another 110,000, and their colonies another 87,000.

The US wounded totaled 672,000, for a total of 1,079,000 casualties. Adding in the wounded, the total casualties in the British Empire counting civilian deaths (mainly bombing in Great Britain) numbered 1,122,000.

The Soviet Union lost 27,000,000 soldiers and civilians KILLED during the war. 27 million. Total casualties, which includes the wounded and maimed were 41.7 million, compared with 2.2 million American and British casualties combined.

What Americans Need to Know is that if D-Day had Never Happened:

The Soviet Union would have defeated Germany all by itself, and marched all the way to Normandy, if need be, to do it.

D-Day was not even close to being necessary. The only reason it was undertaken was to ensure that the Soviet Union did not dominate ALL of Europe, instead of dominating only half of it.

We could have prevented nearly a half-century of Soviet domination of much of Eastern Europe by launching a "D-Day" invasion through Greece or landing elsewhere on the Balkan Peninsula, but again that would have meant many more casualties for us, while the Russians were doing just fine churning through their own forces.

Operation Overlord, the D-Day invasion, was finally insisted upon by General George C. Marshall because he badly wanted the US Army to play at least some role in the conquest of Germany. But it certainly was not needed to win the war.

Again, we don't complain. US planners, strategists, and political leaders did the right thing by letting Stalin do most of the work. 

The Soviet Union lost 41 times the number killed and wounded that we did. 

All because we made an alliance with the most ruthless, murderous, psychopathic killer the world has ever known. 

Nations don't have "friends" per se. They have interests. And the American people would do well to remember that.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

House Bill 93 allows voters who are registered as independents or who have declined to state a party affiliation (DTS), and those who are affiliated with minor political parties, to vote in the primary elections of the Democratic and Republican Parties. In other words, it is to open up the two major parties' candidate nomination process to voters who are not members of those parties.

Meanwhile, Democrats and Republicans are prohibited from jumping over to participate in each other's primaries. This new privilege will extend only to the voters who don't appear to care for the Democrats or Republicans—either that, or they can't bring themselves to become members of those parties. 

This bill has already passed through two committees and heads to the House Judiciary Committee tomorrow. Thus far, Democrats in the two committees have unanimously supported the concept of "non-member" participation, and the Republicans have unanimously opposed the idea.

WHY ARE THE VOTES OF PEOPLE WITH NO POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY MORE IMPORTANT?

What is not understood is why Representative Damon Ely, Natalie Figueroa, Joy Garratt, Melanie A. Stansbury, and Dayan Hochman-Vigil believe that the votes of some 297,000 DTS/independent voters are so much more important than the 970,000 Democrats and Republicans.

Do these five legislators believe that the lack of a particular worldview, philosophy, or ideology is a stand-alone virtue that places them in a superior moral position over that of Democrats? Over the Republicans?

Why must people who don't really care for either major party be given extraordinary influence in each party, while the voters who have chosen membership in those same parties are not afforded opportunities to tinker with each other?

These five representatives clearly believe that DTS/independent voters possess some higher degree of virtue than major party voters— a virtue so highly valued and favored that it merits allowing them to decide who the major party nominees will be.

PRACTICAL PROBLEMS PRESENTED

An obvious potential problem with this new legislation is the opportunity by non-member voters to "game" the primary election processes in each party. That is to say, the non-members are being presented the opportunity to be decisive in the selection of Democratic or Republican Party candidates by voting heavily in favor of candidates who would otherwise be rejected by the actual party membership.  

Democrats currently make up 46% of the electorate or about 582,000 voters. Republicans account for 30% or about 387,000. Under this bill, about 297,000 voters who are currently not permitted to vote in primaries will suddenly be able to do so. That's the 23% of the voters who are either DTS, independent, or belong to minor parties.

(The Libertarians currently enjoy major party status and will have their own primary. Like the Democrats and Republicans, they would not be allowed to jump into other party primaries.)

OPPORTUNITIES FOR REPUBLICANS IN SANTA FE COUNTY (and Democrats elsewhere)

The opportunities for mischief on the part of voters who don't belong to either major party could certainly extend to major party members in counties where their parties have become irrelevant at the local level—where their parties no longer even bother to nominate candidates for county offices.

For example, in Santa Fe County, the Democratic Party primary decides the outcome of all county races, while the Republican Party usually does not even field a candidate for the general election. (In 2018, there were 13 local primary contests for districts wholly within the boundaries of Santa Fe County. The Democrats fielded 21 candidates in their primary while no one—zero candidates—filed in the Republican primary.)

Under this bill, it would be advantageous for all 15,000 Republicans in Santa Fe County to re-register as DTS so they could ask for a Democratic Party ballot. It would actually be the only way in which Republican Party participation is meaningful: after all, they have nothing else to do on primary election day.

HOUSE DISTRICT 46 EXAMPLE

Republicans re-registering DTS 28 days before the primary could then vote in the Democratic primary and could be the deciding factor in close races.

As an example, the 2018 House District 46 primary between Carl Trujillo and Andrea Romero, with the candidates separated by only 313 votes out of over 5,800 cast, would almost certainly have had its outcome altered if a substantial percentage of the District’s 2,600 Republicans suddenly had had a role to play on primary day. And this is without yet considering the nearly 4,000 voters in the district who are registered as DTS and who under this bill would not even need to re-register.

Looking ahead to 2020 in this disrict, if this bill becomes law there could well be an organized, concerted effort to get rid of Andrea Romero by way of the Democratic Primary.

Given the mountains of new information that emerged after Romero was elected—information that makes it appear that she may be a complete fraud, both with regard to her financial misfeasance as well as what many consider to be fraudulent charges against Trujillo—both the 4,000 DTS as well as the 2,600 Republicans could be worked hard by a Democratic candidate.

A Democratic challenger who could motivate and mobilize a sizable percentage of those 6,600 voters could perhaps—relatively easily—begin to make Romero's 3,076 primary votes look fairly small. Assuming the 2,763 votes against her remained against her, she might get beat by a wide margin.

OTHER SANTA FE DISTRICTS

It isn't just House District 46 where this scenario could play out. House Districts 45, 47, and 48 are all solidly Democratic districts in which the only possible way an incumbent Representative can be defeated is in the Democratic Primary. And few Democrats participate. 

As an example, in HD 45, unopposed incumbent Jim Trujillo received 3,588 votes in the primary, while 3,700 DTS/other voters stood idly by, not to mention the 2,500 Republicans who were twiddling their thumbs. Under this bill, if Republicans decided they wanted to play a role,

Trujillo, or his opponents, could be looking at 6,200 voters to "mine" for their own cause—and none of these voters would have the Democratic Party's interests at heart, or give a hoot in hell about Democrat Party ideology, goals, or objectives.

In HD 47, House Speaker Brian Egolf, who got fewer than 5,500 votes in his primary, could see 8,700 new voters become easily eligible.

If you are a Democrat dissatisfied with the performance of the Democratic House, or with Egolf's role in imposing dictatorial powers from the speaker's chair, or in guiding the Democratic Party in a direction you disapprove of, you could offer independent voters a new, decisive role

Even more telling, you might be able to motivate huge numbers of Republicans to temporarily re-register just to be able to have the satisfaction of "getting rid" of someone they disapprove of—albeit in favor of someone they disapprove of less ardently. The degree of satisfaction they might feel is a motivation that shouldn't be overlooked.

The same dynamic could exist for Linda Trujillo in HD 48, where she got fewer than 4,000 votes in the primary, but could see some 6,300 newly eligible voters under this bill. 

REPUBLICAN COUNTIES COULD SEE THE SAME PHENOMENON

The same dynamic would be true in Republican-dominated counties like Lincoln or Otero—where it would be advantageous for all of the Democrats to re-register DTS and ask for a Republican primary election ballot. Democrats filed no candidates at all in Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Lea Counties, and only one or two in Curry, Sierra, Chaves, and Otero, all of whom were beaten in the general election, all but one very badly beaten.

LOCAL AND STATEWIDE

Depending on the ideology of the Democrats or the philosophy of Republican candidates who file in March to run in their primaries, one could foresee concerted efforts by 3rd parties, Political Action Committees, or other special interest groups, perhaps using “voter education” campaigns through Independent Expenditure entities, to get voters to reregister between March and the close of registration (first week of May).

They would be asking voters who are registered with a major party to change to DTS so they could influence the outcome of a primary. If the Democratic Party had two primary candidates—with one being more conservative than the other—then the Republicans could be encouraged to reregister as DTS in order to push the vote to the more conservative candidate, or Democrats could be encouraged to reregister in order to push a Republican primary outcome to the more moderate or more liberal choice. 

A BETTER SOLUTION: An Independent Primary

As a matter of public policy, it would be much more preferable for independent or minor party voters and those who desire to be candidates to hold a primary for Independent/DTS voters.

Given the vast improvements in elections technology, including the ease with which ballots can be printed on demand, a separate independent primary would add a relatively minor additional cost to our elections. 

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

TRUMP SHOULD BE PRAISED for EFFORTS with NORTH KOREA

Dr. Gavin Clarkson is an announced candidate for the Republican nomination to take on newly-elected Democrat Congresswoman Xochitl Torres Small in her 2020 re-election bid. Small defeated Republican Yvette Herrell of Alamogordo in 2018 to take the Republican-leaning district for only the second time in the last 40 years.

BACKGROUND

Joe Skeen held the CD 2 seat from 1980 until 2002. Steve Pearce won it that year, but stepped down in 2008 to run for the US Senate. As a consequence, that same year the relatively conservative Hobbs Democrat Harry Teague defeated Republican Ed Tinsley of Santa Fe.

But in 2010, Teague immediately lost the district back Pearce, who once again held the seat until last year, when he again ran unsuccessfully for statewide office.

In the wake of Pearce's retirement from CD 2, Herrell won the wide-open GOP nomination fight last year, defeating three other Republicans in the primary, one of whom was Clarkson, who finished third in the four-person race.

But Herrell, who is wealthy, did not pour a great deal of her own resources into the general election campaign and ended up getting beat.

Meanwhile, when the GOP nominee for Secretary of State up and quit the race after the primary, Clarkson asked to be the replacement and the State Central Committee complied. He did not put much resources into that general election campaign and ended up losing to incumbent Maggie Toulouse Oliver by a wide margin. 

CLARKSON

Gavin Clarkson is a well-qualified candidate. He is intelligent, very articulate, and does well in interviews when he explains the numerous distortions and, unfortunately, outright lies told by Democrats on a number of issues.

He is currently focused on border issues where he very accurately outlines the lies told, apparently without conscience or a second thought, by New Mexico Governor Michelle Grisham. 

Clarkson also produces very good videos to support the points he is making. Here is one of those: https://goo.gl/j4ZQVc

PROBLEM

The problem with Clarkson, in our opinion, is that he has elected to dress himself in what could be described as a "uniform." Some might call it an "outfit" or even a "get-up." Everywhere he goes he is in a black leather outfit complete with what could be described as a black "cowboy hat," a leather duster, and black shirt, trousers, and boots.

We put cowboy hat in quotation marks because actual New Mexico cowboys don't really wear hats like that. Clarkson's is more of a stylistic, perhaps Santa Fe-ish interpretation of a cowboy hat. 

This is our opinion, but over the past several months we have bounced it off a number of political consultants and students of electoral politics: It doesn't come off as a "credible look" to the voters at large. It detracts from Clarkson's solid articulation and intelligent discussion of issues. 

Don't get us wrong: It is not the "cowboy" aspect of the get-up per se. New Mexico has cowboys, though they are very few in number relative to the population. And there's nothing wrong with western attire.

The problem occurs when one uses it as a prop, as a uniform, and is dressed up in it 24/7 as part and parcel of a political campaign. It simply won't sell.

It has the effect of influencing voters in a subconscious way, overpowering the effect of the candidate's intellect and argumentation, and leaving them with an image of something more or less strange, something they may not be able to put their finger on, but which nonetheless causes them to miss the message, unable to concentrate on it.

We believe Clarkson, armed with his talents, articulateness, and ability to produce graphic and convincing visual aids to persuade voters, would be a highly credible, very effective candidate, provided that he dressed in a normal way. But if he continues to be the "get-up" candidate, he has no real chance.

OTHER CANDIDATES in CD 2

Yvette Herrell has already announced her candidacy, aiming to take another shot at Small in 2020. We don't see that as working out for her. And we don't believe she cleared that announcement with Steve Pearce. In fact, we have it on record from a number of Republicans that she did not. 

Pearce is now indicating that he may very well have another go at CD2, and if he does he would almost certainly defeat Small. After all, the district is designed to elect a Republican.

Another potential candidate we have heard is mulling the race is Claire Chase of Roswell. She would be formidable. She would be able to do what the "most desired" candidates—from both major parties' points of view—are able to do: put a great deal of financial resources into a race.

Like Small, Chase is also attractive and articulate. If she were able to get the nomination (and she almost certainly could secure it—provided Pearce does not run) she would defeat Small in 2020.

And 2020 may very well be the Republicans' last chance in CD 2.

Here's why: If in 2020, Small is able to face a GOP candidate she can once again defeat, the national Democrat establishment is going to bring incredible pressure on the Democrat-controlled legislature to take favorable precincts or even counties from either Ben Ray Lujan or Deb Haaland, or from both, and put them into CD 2.

They would also take unfavorable precincts and counties out of CD 2 and put them in either Haaland's district or Lujan's.

They will have a chance of designing three solid Democrat congressional seats, and they won't pass up the opportunity.

On the other hand, if a Republican takes CD 2 back in 2020, it would affect the dynamics of the lobbying and maneuvering during the redistricting session which is likely to occur in September of 2021.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

Two competing minimum wage bills are heading to what could be a critical Senate committee vote.

On Saturday, two competing minimum wage bills were heard in the Senate Public Affairs Committee and were forwarded to the Senate Corporations and Transportation Committee for a key vote.

New Mexico Restaurant Association and other business groups are supporting a bill by Senator Clemente Sanchez (D-Grants) that, although it raises the minimum wage, isn’t as radical as the alternative. His bill, SB 437, simply raises the minimum wage to $10, while preserving a tip credit, and raises the tipped wage from $2.13 per hour to $3.00. 

Sanchez is the chair of the Senate Corporations and Transportation Committee. As committee chair, he has the power to decide on what gets heard.  

The competing bill, HB 31, which is opposed by business groups, would raise the minimum wage to $10 on July 1 of this year, to $11 in 2020, $12 in 2021, and tie future increases to the Consumer Price Index.

Furthermore, one component of HB 31, critical to the service industry, phases out a tip credit. Should the tip credit be removed, the labor cost of tipped employees—such as servers in restaurants—would increase by up to 400 percent.

Both bills would raise the statewide minimum wage, but would not stop local communities from creating their own, higher, minimum wages.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

The host guy comes on:

“Elizabeth, take a few moments, say your good-byes.”

House Democrats worked to support Santa Fe union interests and more expensive projects in a vote against New Mexico’s Right to Work counties on Friday.

Across the state, ten counties have passed Right to Work resolutions, which mean residents of those counties are not required to join or pay dues to a union in order to get a job.

In a 43-23 vote yesterday, House Democrats supported House Bill 85 (HB 85) which is an effort to overrule Right to Work resolutions already enacted across New Mexico.

Republican Minority Whip Rod Montoya (R-Farmington) had this to say:

“Our county leaders know their communities better than Santa Fe politicians. This is what happens when Democrats in Santa Fe overrule rural New Mexico.”

Democrat and Republican leaders all over New Mexico have supported Right to Work resolutions to help grow the economy. If HB 85 is signed into law, it would almost certainly lead to expensive lawsuits as counties would fight Democrat’s efforts to prop up their Santa Fe interests and overrule local elected leaders.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

Senate Bill 577

A bipartisan effort by New Mexico State Senators has resulted in a bill to allow the legalization of cannabis for adult use, while putting a special emphasis on the protection of children.

There is a growing bipartisan agreement that prohibition has not been effective in limiting and controlling the negative impact of cannabis in our state. But some senators want a responsible regulatory process that minimizes its negative impact and better protects children.

Senator Cliff Pirtle

Senator Cliff Pirtle (R-Roswell) stated that:

"It is apparent that legalization is coming. We feel that it is important that the state get ahead of the issue in a way that protects our children and doesn't hurt our communities. This bill represents a pragmatic compromise that achieves that safety while allowing New Mexicans the liberty to make a choice for themselves."

Senator Mark Moores (R-Albuquerque) added:

"Like alcohol, the excessive use of cannabis has significant negative personal, economic and societal impact. We want to do everything we can to ensure that cannabis is only used by adults in a safe and responsible manner."

The proposed bill creates the Cannabis Control Commission, a state government agency that will:

• Regulate the production of cannabis in NM
• Manage retail distribution similar to states like New Hampshire and Utah liquor agencies
• Protect the Medical Cannabis Program
• Set quality control and consumer protection standards
• Set product standards to protect children from candies and edibles
• Regulate packaging including child resistant packaging
• Tax retail sale and manufacturing 17% retail tax-shared revenue to city, county and state for law enforcement, behavioral health and substance abuse efforts
• Provide training for all law enforcement in recognizing whether drivers are under the influence.
• Protect employers' right to a Drug Free Workforce
• Address illegal market activity by increasing the severity of punishment for those that would engage in the illicit possession or trafficking of cannabis
• Provide local control and a revenue stream for local governments
• Ensure that kids will not have access to cannabis in their homes

The bill does not allow for citizens to personally grow cannabis. It allows for the sale of retail cannabis only through state-managed facilities.

Senator Craig Brandt (R-Rio Rancho) emphasized:

"The current system makes criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens and gives way too much power to the criminal elements in New Mexico. We hope that by bringing the use of cannabis into the sunlight and by increasing the penalties for those that would engage in criminal actions of a black market, we will be able to drive out the criminal element and protect the youth and the citizens of New Mexico."

Democrat Senator Jacob Candelaria of Albuquerque, as one of the five senators joining the effort, stated:

“I want to applaud my colleagues for coming together in bi-partisan fashion and recognizing that after years of living with the consequences of on drugs, it is finally time to legalize and regulate the adult use of cannabis.”

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

A crowd of some 800 Chaves County citizens gathered at the Joe Skeen County Administration Building yesterday to let their views be known regarding the Legislature's threats to infringe on the 2nd Amendment rights of New Mexico citizens.

The Commission Chamber, which has seating for only 64 members of the public, was packed to an estimated crowd of 125-150, with some 650 to 700 additional Chaves Countians in the hallways and entry-ways of the building. More than 300 cars filled not only the county facilities' parking lots but overflowed to surrounding businesses and streets, taking up all spaces within several hundred yards.

Within a few hours of the Jussie Smollett claim about being attacked by people wearing a MAGA* hat, New Mexico Political Journal rather matter-of-factly, stated forthrightly, with no hesitation and zero doubts at all, that Smollett and his story were absolutely unequivocally, and unquestionably a total and complete fake and fabrication.

How did we know that? The simple answer is the proven record of the Left on these kinds of events is so thorough and so consistent that it is a complete joke.

We can't confirm it yet, but it seems dead solid certain that Jussie Smollett is almost certain to get his own show on MSNBC, or as a fallback position, a late-night spot on CNN.

The reason is that fakes or frauds of the Left NEVER suffer ANY consequences. To the contrary, they get rewards----they become heroes, like Al Sharpton. He, and individual frauds like him, have NEVER had any consequences. They only grow in prestige, fame, and fundraising icons in the Democrat Party.

The Doña Ana County Federated Republican Women have announced that former State Senator Rod Adair will be the guest speaker at their noon luncheon on Friday, February 22.

The meeting is held at Trinity Lutheran Church, 2900 Elks Drive, in Las Las Cruces.

WHAT SAY YOU?

(We are reasonably confident Democrats will favor her return—as Islamists and radical Muslims strongly favor the Democrats—and Democrats consider public policy ONLY in terms of current votes, regardless of long-term consequences.)

In response to the aggressively anti-gun New Mexico Legislature, now completely controlled by the Left, a number of New Mexico counties are passing resolutions that declare themselves to be a "Second Amendment Sanctuary County."

This means they are announcing they will not enforce laws that unconstitutionally infringe on the right of the people in their counties to keep and bear arms.

From the Daily Signal: 

EXCLUSIVE: Audit Finds Signs of Fraud in New Mexico House Race

by Fred Lucas / @FredLucasWH

An audit of absentee ballots suggests fraud may have occurred in one of the closest House races in the country, The Daily Signal has learned.

Democrat Xochitl Torres Small squeaked by Republican Yvette Herrell in the final results of the Nov. 6 election.

On election night, Herrell declared victory in the race to represent New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District. But as more votes were counted, Torres Small secured the win. 

The roughly 3,500-vote victory for Torres Small–out of about 200,000 cast in the southern New Mexico district–relied heavily on absentee ballots from Doña Ana County, the largest county in the district, including the Las Cruces area. 

A new audit report: https://goo.gl/EtkWXA obtained by The Daily Signal alleges a “concerted effort” to push for absentee votes where New Mexico voter ID laws are not enforced. It also points to potential fraud in applying for absentee ballots, and says a significant number of absentee ballots were time-stamped after the 7 p.m. deadline election night. 

The report was prepared for the losing Herrell campaign by Full Compliance Consulting LLC and Herrell campaign lawyer Carter B. Harrison.

Herrell’s campaign is not contesting the outcome of the 2018 contest, but sought the review based on its concerns that extra votes appeared to pour in. 

Torres Small spokeswoman Jennifer Lee did not respond to phone and email inquiries from The Daily Signal for this story. 

Torres Small, 34, who was sworn in Jan. 3, replaced retiring Rep. Steve Pearce, a Republican who was re-elected by 26 points in 2016.

The House seat has been held by a Republican for all but one term since 1968. 

Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president, won the district by 10 points over Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016. 

The report says the consulting firm reviewed about 12,000 requests for absentee ballots, 8,577 outer envelopes for absentee ballots, and hundreds of rejected applications from Doña Ana County. 

“There were not enough irregularities in Dona Ana County alone to alter our race (though local races could have been altered),” Harrison, the Herrell campaign lawyer, told The Daily Signal in a written response. “But if other counties were to be found to have similar irregularities, the race certainly could have been altered by them.”

On election night, media outlets called the race for Herrell, 54, who has been a member of the New Mexico House of Representatives since 2011.  

But well after midnight, Harrison said, the office of New Mexico’s secretary of state informed the Herrell campaign of 4,000 absentee ballots in Dona Ana County still to be counted, which would not have flipped the race to Torres Small, who previously had not held elective office. 

However, the state informed the campaign of another 4,000 absentee votes that had been counted but not tabulated, which was enough to change the outcome.  

The report says nongovernmental groups “are almost certainly engaging in at best aggressive—and at worst fraudulent—procurement of absentee ballot applications.” 

This would have involved an outside group that requested a large quantity of absentee ballots on behalf of others, possibly without their knowledge. 

Thousands of Absentee Ballots were Mysteriously not Returned

Fully 25 percent of the people who purportedly requested absentee ballots from the Doña Ana County clerk didn’t mail them back, according to the report. 

That is more than twice the statewide average for unreturned absentee ballots. To receive an absentee ballot for mailing back, a voter first must send in an application providing a reason why he or she can’t vote in person on Election Day. 

“This is suggestive of the possibility that someone was submitting absentee ballot applications for Democrats and those deemed likely to vote for Democrats,” the report says, adding: 

Also consistent with potential absentee ballot-application fraud is the apparently high rate of applications rejected for incorrect Voter ID or for submitting duplicate applications, i.e., where the same voter purportedly applies twice for an absentee ballot.

In 2016, a presidential year, 17.5 percent who had absentee ballots from Doña Ana County didn’t mail in the ballots, a percentage almost identical to the statewide rate and slightly above the comparable counties of Bernalillo and Chaves.

(advertisement)

FULL COMPLIANCE CONSULTING, LLC — Research and Analysis of Elections-Related Issues in New Mexico

Assisting candidates, elected officials, committees, PACs, lobbyists, and law firms in navigating Campaign Finance Reporting, Campaign Practices, the Governmental Conduct Act, and the details of the New Mexico Election Code.

 ♦ Petitions ♦ Ballot Access ♦ Petition Challenges ♦ Recounts ♦ Contests ♦ Impoundments ♦ Research

Statewide Offices • Congressional Races • Legislative Races • Municipal Elections • School Board Elections • County Offices • Judicial & Regional Offices • Ballot Questions • Ballot Petitions and Signature Verification

Email: fccllc@terrcomm.net   Full Compliance Consulting, LLC    P.O. Box 2163 ♦ Santa Fe, NM 87504

(advertisement)

However, in 2018, the statewide rate of unreturned ballots was 12.1 percent, and comparable counties were below the statewide average.

“In the 2018 election, there was a concerted effort to encourage absentee voting,” the report says, adding: 

The numbers cited above, both with regard to the steep increase in total absentee votes cast as well as the high number of unreturned ballots, cannot be explained any other way. Much of this effort may have been perfectly lawful, but the 25 percent non-return rate indicates such a high rate of ‘unawareness’ on the part of those who supposedly requested the ballots that it is possible there may have been fraud in this area, as well.

Harvesting absentee ballots would be a fourth-degree felony under state law if applications were altered, Harrison said. 

The legal case against mass procurement of absentee ballot applications could depend on whether forgery occurred, said Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at The Heritage Foundation

“It depends on whether the organizations [filled out applications] themselves and forged the signatures of the voters, or did they go to the voters and say would you like an absentee ballot, and help them with that,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal. 

Sometimes, absentee voter fraud is easy to spot, he said. 

“If on Election Day, a candidate wins 60-40, but all the absentee ballots are 90 percent for the loser, that doesn’t make any sense,” said von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department lawyer. “Absentee ballots usually have the same proportion as votes on Election Day. If they don’t, that’s a possible clue that something may have been done.”

The report also found that 577 absentee ballots in the New Mexico race were time-stamped after the 7 p.m. deadline. 

“We do have strong concerns about those ballots. The statute is clear: No ballots may be accepted after the deadline,” Harrison said. 

The report cites some instances of unusual addresses for absentee voters, noting: 

—5 envelopes that provided a registration address that did not match the absentee register.

—25 envelopes that listed 845 N. Motel—the county clerk’s address—as the registration address. 

—49 envelopes with no registration address provided.  

— 23 envelopes with a P.O. Box provided instead of a registration address.  

New Mexico's Current Voter ID Law is Not Being Followed

Regarding the state’s voter ID law, the report contends that “there is no convincing basis … to exempt absentee ballots from the same requirements that are mandatory for all other methods of voting.” 

Previously, New Mexico required the signature of a witness as well as the voter on an absentee ballot. However, in 1993, the state Legislature passed a law removing that requirement. 

The report notes that as a result, absentee ballots need only the voter’s signature. 

“Today, however, the name, address, and year of birth fields are the Voter ID, and it makes no sense not to verify that information, as is required for every other type of voting,” the report says. “The removal of the second signature eliminated the crucial element in confirming the voter was who he or she claimed to be, but replaced it with the new ID standard.”

Neither the New Mexico Secretary of State’s Office, which oversees elections, nor the Doña Ana County Clerk’s Office responded to inquiries about the situation.

“We do not require photo ID in New Mexico, but we do require voters to provide their name, address, and year of birth,” Harrison said, adding:

This law was ignored with the absentee ballots in Doña Ana County. More generally, if absentee voting is going to be converted from a backstop form of voting for out-of-town or bedridden voters to something that independent groups try to promote through mail and on-the-ground canvassing, then there frankly needs to be more attention given to security–and more attention given to the operation of those groups.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

Pelosi speaking early this afternoon, appears to be threatening the American people with the specter of “a future Democratic President declaring a ‘national emergency’ because of gun violence” and using such a declaration to make some sort of move on 2nd Amendment protections.

We think she’s making a mistake implying this threat. And we believe this little speech will come back to haunt her.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

Yesterday, the Socorro County Commission voted to designate all of Socorro County as a “Second Amendment Sanctuary County.” Socorro joins Quay County which passed a similar resolution.

The moves are motivated by the ongoing 2019 Legislative Session in which House Democrats continue to pass numerous anti-2nd amendment bills—bills which are overwhelmingly opposed by New Mexico law enforcement officers, as well as thousands of New Mexicans.

A bipartisan group of 29 New Mexico Sheriffs, including the Sheriff from Socorro County, opposes many of the anti-2nd amendment bills which the New Mexico House Democrat Caucus is attempting to force on the state.

The Socorro County Resolution:

"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Socorro by the authority granted the Board by the laws of the State of New Mexico and people of Socorro County, New Mexico to stand and defend their rights and liberties, which are guaranteed by the United States and New Mexico Constitutions, we hereby declare this Resolution as follows:

Second Amendment Preservation Resolution Designating Socorro County a Second Amendment “Sanctuary County”

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board affirms its support for the duly elected Sheriff of Socorro County, New Mexico in the exercise of his sound discretion and affirms its resolve to support decisions by our Sheriff to not enforce any unconstitutional firearms law against any citizen.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board will not authorize or appropriate government funds, resources, employees, agencies, contractors, buildings, detention centers or offices for the purpose of enforcing law that unconstitutionally infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Socorro County State Representative Expressed Support for the “Sanctuary County” Designation

On Wednesday, Representative Gail Armstrong expressed support for the pro-2nd amendment resolution passed in Socorro County. 

“It’s clear these bills, which are an attack on our 2nd amendment rights, are not supported by people in Socorro County and all over New Mexico,” said Rep. Gail Armstrong (R-Magdalena).

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

Democrats are applying an ENTIRELY NEW set of “STANDARDS”— totally and incomprehensibly inconsistent — to Governor Northam, Lt. Gov. Fairfax, and Atty Gen. Herring.

NOTE: Republicans are being consistent—again discussing such unusual and innovative ideas as “due process.” Democrats, who just four months ago pretended they had not heard of such a refined and advanced legal concept, are now embracing it like it’s the Holy Grail—and referring to it as if they are on intimate terms with it.

House Bill 100, introduced by Representative Derrick J. Lente of  Sandia Pueblo and Representative Andrea Romero of Santa Fe, renames Columbus Day, designating it as "Indigenous Peoples' Day."

In presenting the bill on the floor of the House, Representative Romero, who became somewhat famous this past year for essentially stealing* from the expense accounts of the Regional Coalition of LANL Communities* (RCLC), made the following remarks:

"I am happily supporting this legislation as New Mexicans I believe we cherish our native and indigenous communities. Indigenous Peoples' Day reaffirms our support for our native communities that have truly made us the Land of Enchantment. This legislation is about honoring our rich and diverse cultural history and recognizing that native communities are core to our state's identity. Recognizing Columbus Day, um, someone [sic] who neither discovered America or treated native Americans with respect, has been an affront to Native communities who founded our country. Indigenous People's Day is a way to honor, recognize and celebrate the contribution native communities have made to our state. With that, we stand for questions."

First things first: Native communities did not "found" our country. Our "country" is the United States, and the founding of the United States is covered in all the history books—at least until all those courses were replaced with "Women's Studies," and a "Survey of LGBT Communities." 

Second, Native Americans all over what is now the United States (and the Americas) displaced peoples who were there before them. The Athabascan-speaking peoples (the Navajo and Apache) arrived in the Southwest at about the same time Columbus made his first voyage, though some scholars believe it may have been 40 to 50 years earlier.

In any case, they weren't "native" to the land until then. And they themselves supplanted other peoples in the Southwest when they moved south from what is now Canada. The Plains Indians did the same, populating a region stretching from the present-day Dakotas to Kansas.

Andrea Romero and the Columbian Exchange: Her Famous Burritos

The speech shown above is somewhat ironic, for Representative Romero at least, in that the expense account she abused for the RCLC, recorded her as guzzling burritos almost daily—as a "travel, per diem, and mileage expense," even though she didn't actually travel anywhere. She just ate burritos for lunch every day and charged them to a somewhat witless RCLC board. 

So why is it ironic, at least a little? Well, the "burrito" is a cross-cultural phenomenon, appearing in Mexico in the 19th Century.

It's made with a flour tortilla—something that was not possible until the occurrence of what is called the Columbian Exchange—a name given to the widespread transfer of plants, animals, technology, culture, populations, and ideas between Europe and the Americas—brought about by Columbus's explorations.

The Spanish brought wheat to the Americas. Unlike corn, it was one of the world's major grain crops which the local populations did not have. Thus it became possible to make a flour tortilla, an item for which Romero apparently charged RCLC hundreds of dollars per year.

The COLUMBIAN EXCHANGE to be REVERSED

If the proponents of the Indigenous Peoples' Day bill were sincere, they would have included a provision that rolls back all the changes brought about by the work that originated with Columbus. 

Simply put, they could have committed themselves to abandoning everything in New Mexico that isn't "Native American." Those items would include such things as:

The wheel. 

We would have more respect for Romero if she'd said something like:

"We actually think we will be better off, environmentally, dragging stuff on a blanket tied between two long poles, pulled by a dog, than to have trucks transporting everything and polluting the air and tearing up highways."

We would also have more respect for her if she had noted that we need to slowly, over time, get rid of such things as horses, cows, sheep (although a Navajo representative may have objected to this), hogs, chickens, goats, rabbits, and cats.

And don't forget coffee, sugarcane, bananas, apples, apricots, cucumbers, carrots, pomegranates, wheat, barley, rye, oats, sorghum, pistachios, spinach, watermelons (there could be an objection from Sandia Pueblo) olives, onions, peaches and scores of other plants and crops.

At least she enjoyed the "calabacita" burritos, which of course is something the Native populations gave to Europeans. (For the record, rye was also part of the European contribution to the Americas, making possible yet another Romero purchase.)

An Ugly Display—Designed to Divide, not to "Heal" or Do Anything Else

The whole scene in the state house was, well, rather silly. Don't get us wrong—we don't blame Romero or Lente. True, they have no idea what they are talking about, but that's not necessarily their fault, nor are they alone. Most Leftists today merely mimic and parrot popular memes they get from Leftist "community organizers" and such. 

As part of all the angry, resentful commentary about Columbus, this bill reinforces something that, oddly, English propagandizers—among others— created: The Black Legend.

The Black Legend is the term for the propaganda that asserted (and asserts today) that Spain, and the Spanish peoples who settled and inhabited much of the Americas were uniquely evil, and were uniquely and cruelly associated with slavery, exploitation, and genocide.

So it is also ironic that some 26 Hispanic members of the House voted to endorse the Black Legend—and therefore somewhat stupidly condemning their own forebears and betraying their own heritage. (Republicans David Gallegos and Rod Montoya were the only two representatives of Spanish descent to have the gumption to vote "No.") But we digress.

Uncivilized Conduct has Been the Norm: No Race or Ethnic Group has been Free from it

The reality is that the "indigenous peoples" are, like every other group in the history of anthropology, guilty of the very same "sins" that today's activists cite in attacking the Spanish (or the British, or the French, or Belgians, or anyone else).

In fact, Native American culture under the same microscope of anthropological, archeological, and historical examination, doesn't hold up terribly well.

Native American tribal groups practiced slavery long before the European introduction of African slavery into North America. Additionally, captured warriors, in particular, were often mutilated and tortured. Some Indians did the very thing Oñate is accused of: cutting a foot off their captives to keep them in bondage. Native Americans also sold their slaves to Europeans.

Human sacrifice was widespread in the Americas. In what is now the Eastern U.S., the Iroquois cut the fingers off their captives and forced them to set each other on fire. They dragged bodies of captives around their camps, carved them up, and ate parts of the body.

Cannibalism was fairly common in the New World. Aztecs, who are now revered—and claimed by many Leftist Mexican-American political "leaders" as their "true" ancestors (while they reject their Spanish heritage)—viewed their captives as "marching meat." The word "Mohawk" comes from the Algonquin family of languages as a term for "flesh eaters."

Native Americans were obsessed with the heads of their enemies. Scalping was very common. Deep in the jungles of the Americas, head-hunting and head-shrinking was a big scene. The Mayans famously played a kind of ball game, using a severed head as "the ball."

No More than a Maximum of One or Two People on the House Floor 

Sadly these days, there is not a lot of informed discussion taking place on very many issues in the state house or state senate. Regarding the debate on House Bill 100, if there was anyone at all on the House Floor who actually knew much at all about the subject being discussed it was certainly no more than one or two. 

So, now we are left to celebrate “Indigenous People’s Day”?

 

We are dumping Columbus Day because he led an evil onslaught from Spain? A violent and repressive crowd of Iberians who introduced slavery? To replace it with a day honoring other violent and repressive peoples who introduced slavery even earlier than the Spanish?

 

That notion would be laugh-out-loud funny if it weren't so serious.

 

It isn't funny because it is nothing more than the continued influence of the Left, trying to tear at American society, trying to divide a long-existing unity among the American people, and a sense of oneness and common purpose that had grown incrementally through the many decades of the American Experiment. At least until recent times.

 

The entire Columbus Day v. Indigenous Peoples' Day show is a phony issue—an invented controversy.

 

The history of the entire world, on every continent, is replete with the stories of one group of violent, aggressive peoples invading territory occupied by other violent, aggressive peoples who had previously displaced other human tribes who were themselves violent, aggressive displacers of their fellow human beings.

 

That was long-since true of the Americas eons before Columbus ever thought of coming this direction.

 

Violence, displacement, conquest, and yes, racism and bigotry have been part of EVERY group of human beings that has walked the earth. All these "sins," these original conditions mankind, are universal human frailties.

 

They are historic, anthropological facts—confirming the continuous flaws in the makeup of human beings. They are hardly unique to the Spanish, nor to the Italians (for the shrinking group of people who continue to believe Columbus was Italian).

Overlooking the Key Difference—Lost in All the Nonsense and Grandstanding  

Yes, there was greed, violence, subjugation, and exploitation in the post-Columbian New World. But there are many great things America has today which are gifts from our forebears—an actual inheritance from people like Columbus and many other Europeans.

In addition to their own peculiar flaws, the Europeans also brought literacy, and eventually brought The Enlightenment and classical liberalism.

All those things carried with them the powerful forces of political thought, economic theory, the scientific method, innovation, the power of ideas, and the technological transformation that has come with those additions to the human experience.

Those are all gifts, legacies, and inheritances we would not have, but for the Encounter of 1492. 

Do those who are so vehemently "anti-Columbus," or "anti-Spanish" really want to pretend they wish they lived in the same world that existed before those cultures encountered our native lands here in New Mexico, or in the United States?

Are they really in favor of a New Mexico without the wheel? Would they really be happier living in so-called "native" cultures, environments, and social mores left completely undisturbed for half a millennium?

We doubt it. But then again, we don't really believe they think much about any of these questions.

---

* We have no doubt that Romero's "excuse" would be: "Well, they approved it." Which of course is a strong indictment of the RCLC.

---

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

---

Intelligent Political Discourse—for the Thoughtful New Mexican

 

 

 

The Speaker of the New Mexico House of Representatives forced two controversial bills through late Friday evening by ignoring the rules which protect member’s right to debate. Reducing the 2nd amendment rights of law-abiding New Mexicans is the goal of the two bills passed by House Democrats.

“What happened tonight in the House is exactly why we don’t support these bills,” said Rod Montoya (R-Farmington). “The number of rules or laws don’t matter when there are those who are willing to break them. Only law-abiding citizens will be penalized by these new laws. The Speaker of the House over the last two weeks has routinely broken rules to ignore Republicans questions and to stifle debate."

Among the bills passed on Monday is House Bill 8 (HB 8.) This bill would impose criminal penalties on law-abiding New Mexicans trying to sell or trade their firearms. HB 8 does nothing to address where most criminals receive a gun, which is through theft.

“When it comes to these bills, 29 out of our 33 Sheriffs stand against them because they can’t be enforced and infringe on the due process rights of law abiding New Mexicans,” said House Minority Leader Rep. Jim Townsend (R-Artesia).

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

Calls to House Republicans are 90% Opposed to House Bill 51

New Mexico House Republicans are calling on Governor Lujan Grisham to make public the numbers of New Mexicans who have called her office opposing House Bill 51. The radical, full term abortion bill passed out of the House despite bipartisan opposition late Wednesday evening. Since the vote, national media outlets have covered the radical “status quo” of abortion in New Mexico including the practice of allowing elective abortion up to the day of birth even if the child and mother are healthy.

Calls into members of the House Republicans continue to be overwhelmingly opposed to House Bill 51 with 994 total calls received of which 898, or over 90% are opposed.

Constituents are reporting calls to the Governor’s office are being combined into a similar tally. House Republicans are calling on the Governor to release the number of calls that have come to her office on House Bill 51 with a breakdown of how much support and how much opposition to the bill.

“As New Mexicans learn about how the practice of abortion is conducted in New Mexico, they’re outraged,” said Rep. Rachel Black (R-Alamogordo). “We were sent here to represent our constituents and that means we listen when they reach out.”

“Calls into my office overwhelmingly oppose this bill,” said Rep. David Gallegos (R-Eunice). “The people in my district, and all of New Mexico deserve to know if the Governor is listening.”

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

This week, New Mexico House Democrats voted to repeal existing New Mexico law on abortion, which they referred to as "antiquated." 

The debate on House Bill 51 was led by its sponsor, State Representative Joanne Ferrary of Las Cruces, and was purely scripted—the first we have seen.

Ferrary, who may or may not be articulate and informed (it was impossible to tell from the debate) was assisted by three "experts" on abortion, whom she introduced as Ellie Rushforth¹ of the ACLU, Lalita Moskowitz² of the ACLU, and Denicia Cadena³, who describes herself as "a queer Chicana born and raised in Mesilla." Cadena represents Young Women United, which says it is: 

"an organization that leads policy change, research, place-based community organizing, and culture shift by and for women and people of color in New Mexico. Denicia, YWU says, "leads the design and implementation of YWU’schange-making strategies. She works to make sure the voices and expertise of those most impacted by an issue are centered in decision-making spaces. Denicia has deep experience working on issues of reproductive justice, racial justice, and queer justice."*

Ferrary conducted her entire debate (all we have seen anyway) holding a script in her hand, and reading from it, usually haltingly, while stumbling over words, as if the experts had just now handed it to her. She began with a soliloquy, reading from the script about the importance of abortion and maintaining the "status quo" to ensure abortion is available everywhere all the time.

She then yielded to her co-sponsor, Representative Georgene Louis from Albuquerque, who immediately contradicted Ferrary: 

"This is not an aborton bill, but a decriminalization bill..."

After going on about that for a bit and the fact that she was raised in a rural community and that the US government had apparently forced all kinds of unwanted health care on native communities, she yielded the floor back to Ferrary, who immediately went back to talking about how the bill was about abortion, thus contradicting Louis. 

To be fair, Ferrary may not have paid any attention at all to Louis, because Ferrary constantly held a script in her hand and followed it religiously (so to speak). 

Armstrong Weighs In

At that point, the Speaker recognized Representative Deborah Armstrong of Albuquerque, who also had a script, and began reading from it: 

"Um, uh, gentlelady, I'd like to go into a little more uh detail to clear up some misconceptions about this, um, about uh, this uh bill, would uh, would repeal, uh, of this law, so uh, uh, would it leave abortion unregulated?"

Ferrary responded by leaning over her desk and picking up the script, pulling it up to her reading level, and began reading, haltingly:

"Mr. Speaker, um,  Gentlewoman from Bernalillo, uh, no it would not leave um it unregulated. Um, this bill does not change current health care practice. It simply removes antiquated law, um, that criminalizes health care."

Ferrary looked back to her experts and mumbled something, showing them the paper from which she read, apparently wanting to be sure she had referred to the correct portion of the script, or had nailed the answer. We couldn't tell. But it was clear she needed some sort of reassurance, which the women gave by nodding, indicating that she had read from the correct page. 

Meanwhile, the audience had learned that  "health care," which presumably we have all been receiving throughout our lives, has been a crime all this time. Who knew?

Armstrong, then read a question: "Are you aware of uh, um, medical guidelines related to abortion?"

This created confusion as Ferrary shuffled papers, scrambling to find the script, when finally one of the young women experts leaned forward and pointed out the correct answer, giving Ferrary the go-ahead. Thus bolstered, she began reading:

"Mr. Speaker and the gentlewoman from Bernalillo, um, yes, um, like all health care providers, abortion providers continuously work to improve safety in addition to rigorous and ongoing training. Abortion providers are already held to rigorous medical standards evaluation and guidelines based on standards from the New Mexico Medical Board, the New Mexico Nursing Board, the Department of Health, and the New Mexico Board of Pharmacy..."

Ferrary Goes off Script: Reined back In by Handlers Sitting Behind Her

We noted with some amusement that just before 6:31 PM, while reading from another script that had been handed to her, Ferrary apparently began going into parts of the script that the handlers didn't like.

Armstrong had asked about a "religious clause" that might allow healthcare providers to refuse to perform certain acts.

Ferrary began reading from another script: 

"The New Mexico Uniform Healthcare Decisions Act also allows providers and institutions to refuse to comply with a patient's chosen healthcare decisions for reasons of conscience and it applies to all healthcare decisions broadly defined. It is not restricted to those who are terminally ill or in an irreversible coma."  

But then as she got to this point: 

"But additionally, the New Mexico Medical Practices Act codifies the American Medical Association's Code of Ethics, which allows practitioners to refuse to participate in care they find objectionable. When pressed...

Suddenly (as seen in the photo at left) just as she said "When pressed," one of her handlers, Ellie Rushforth, reached up with her left hand and grabbed Ferrary by the behind. As Ferrary turned around, another expert, Denicia Cadena, shook her head and also with her left hand gave the "throat slash" international cut sign—with the hand moving across the throat.

"You're done," she seemed to be saying, "Stop talking."

Ferrary, immediately terminated her remarks, saying "Thank you, Mr. Speaker and gentlelady from Bernalillo."

Back to Armstrong: Would this bill allow Abortion at any Point in the Pregnancy?

So then, Armstrong popped this question:

Would this bill allow abortion at any point in the pregnancy? 

Ferrary responded with this grammatically challenging response. 

"Mr. Speaker and Gentlelady from Bernalillo, abortion is a healthcare and healthcare is not a crime."

Abortion is a healthcare? That sounds like a construct from a non-native speaker of English. But despite its grammatical oddness, it is consistent with the world of euphemism which now dominates all political discourse from the Left.

¹ Elinor Rushforth worked for the Southwest Women’s Law Center, and as an attorney with OneJustice, a California nonprofit that develops policies in response to the needs of vulnerable, targeted communities. She says she works on developing innovative collaborations that will have the effect of transforming communities.

²Lalita Moskowitz is a Staff Attorney and Equal Justice Works Fellow working to expand reproductive health access and family services for incarcerated women in New Mexico. Before she graduated from the University of New Mexico School of Law in 2018, Lalita worked at the ACLU of New Mexico as a legal intern for reproductive rights. Before joining the ACLU, Lalita was a summer law clerk for the McGinn, Carpenter, Montoya, and Love law firm in Albuquerque. During law school, Lalita also taught high school students about civil liberties in her role as a Marshall-Brennan Constitutional Literacy Project Fellow. Before law school, Lalita was a field organizer for Planned Parenthood of New Mexico and served as team leader for AmeriCorps NCCC. Lalita received her Bachelor of Arts from Connecticut College in 2012. 

³ A proud sister, aunt, daughter, and friend–Denicia couldn’t imagine herself without all the strong women and folks that have shaped her. As a former welder and sculptor, Denicia knows that some ways of knowing and understanding can only be expressed through art. Denicia holds a BA in History with a concentration in Diaspora Studies from Amherst College.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

Democrat women wearing white? Wrong, wrong, wrong! Here’s why that is SO wrong, so VERY wrong:

We found out that the Democrats’ explanation for the white outfits at the State of the Union address Tuesday night is that they were doing it to represent or commemorate women’s suffrage. Now that is incredibly rich—even for the Democrat Party!

NEVER BE A SOCIALIST NATION?

During the State of the Union Address, when President Trump said:

“Tonight we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country,”

“The road to the Democratic Presidential nomination runs through Venezuela.”

                                                                                            — Senator Lindsey Graham, 5 February 2019

The Pope Gets to Speak in the United Arab Emirates

We refuse to join in heaping lavishing bedazzling, effulgent, over-the-top praise on the United Arab Emirates or any other Muslim country for merely allowing the Pope to speak—in other words for doing what any NORMAL country would do.

No one and no nation needs to be praised for merely reaching the absolute minimum level of tolerance.

It is kind of an insult to Muslims that solely because it’s an Islamic country, meeting a minimal level of civilization is viewed as “remarkable."

Seriously? Such an appraisal is the very definition of backwardness.

Democrats Again Limit Public Testimony, Including Testimony from New Mexico Sheriffs

House Democrats on the Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to move forward bills which will strip law-abiding New Mexicans of their 2nd Amendment rights on Monday.

Before voting to advance the bills, House Democrats limited public testimony by requiring everyone to testify on all the bills at once as opposed to listening to the public on each individual bill. The move allowed for less time to hear from the public but allowed House Democrats to pass the bills more quickly.

“When 85% of the Sheriffs across New Mexico say these bills aren’t good for their counties, I believe them,” said Rep. Jim Townsend (R-Artesia).

Among the bills passed on Monday is House Bill 8 (HB 8.) This bill would impose criminal penalties on law-abiding New Mexicans who want to sell or give their firearm to friends or family without a background check.

“We shouldn’t be punishing law-abiding gun owners by passing laws we know criminals won’t follow,” said Rep. Bill Rehm (R-Albuquerque). “Even the expert witness for the Democrats, an Albuquerque Police Detective, stated felons who posses firearms either obtain them by theft or purchase stolen firearms from other criminals,” he continued.

Also passed was House Bill 83 which would allow for the confiscation of a legal gun owner’s firearms when someone in the home, even if it isn’t the gun owner, is designated an emergency risk.

Similar to a previous hearing, a large and bipartisan group of New Mexico Sheriffs testified against the bills.

The bills now head to the House floor.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

Democrats Again Limit Public Testimony, Including Testimony from New Mexico Sheriffs

House Democrats on the Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to move forward bills which will strip law-abiding New Mexicans of their 2nd Amendment rights on Monday.

Before voting to advance the bills, House Democrats limited public testimony by requiring everyone to testify on all the bills at once as opposed to listening to the public on each individual bill. The move allowed for less time to hear from the public but allowed House Democrats to pass the bills more quickly.

“When 85% of the Sheriffs across New Mexico say these bills aren’t good for their counties, I believe them,” said Rep. Jim Townsend (R-Artesia).

Among the bills passed on Monday is House Bill 8 (HB 8.) This bill would impose criminal penalties on law-abiding New Mexicans who want to sell or give their firearm to friends or family without a background check.

“We shouldn’t be punishing law-abiding gun owners by passing laws we know criminals won’t follow,” said Rep. Bill Rehm (R-Albuquerque). “Even the expert witness for the Democrats, an Albuquerque Police Detective, stated felons who posses firearms either obtain them by theft or purchase stolen firearms from other criminals,” he continued.

Also passed was House Bill 83 which would allow for the confiscation of a legal gun owner’s firearms when someone in the home, even if it isn’t the gun owner, is designated an emergency risk.

Similar to a previous hearing, a large and bipartisan group of New Mexico Sheriffs testified against the bills.

The bills now head to the House floor.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

Denying textbooks to all students, disenfranchising voters and prohibiting pro-life New Mexicans from testifying were all part of a barrage of actions from House Democrats on Friday.  Taking votes late into the evening, House Democrats are hoping New Mexicans will forget their efforts to push unpopular laws upon the state with little public input.

“House Democrats may be forcing these bills on New Mexicans so quickly because they hope a few years down the road, we’ll forget,” said Rep. Jim Townsend (R-Artesia) “they couldn’t be more wrong.”

House Democrats Pass Law Subjecting New Mexico’s Voters to the National Vote

Late Friday evening House Democrats voted to pass House Bill 55 (HB 55) which would require New Mexico’s presidential electoral votes to be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of the will of the voters in the state.

Despite bipartisan opposition, House Democrats waited until nearly 10pm on Friday to pass the measure by a vote of 41-27. Under HB 55, even if New Mexico’s voters choose a different candidate, the state’s electoral votes would be required to go to the winner of the national popular vote.

“Under this bill, the East and West coast will determine the President and it diminishes the impact of votes and our state on a national stage,” said Rep. Bill Rehm (R-Albuquerque). “We shouldn’t let out-of-state interests dictate what out voters want.”

House Democrats Fight Against School Books for All New Mexico Children

House Democrats fought for three hours to deny schoolbooks for thousands of New Mexico’s private school students. In a 43-23 vote cast late Friday evening, House Democrats voted unanimously to pass House 45 (HB 45) which excludes private school students from receiving textbooks even though their families pay taxes and books may sit unused in a repository.

In December, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled private school children are allowed to receive textbooks, yet House Democrats passed HB 45 in order to take them back.

“This bill discriminates against religious schools in New Mexico, plain and simple,” said Rep. Rod Montoya (R-Farmington). “Every student in New Mexico deserves a textbook to help them learn regardless of their religion.”

“It is abhorrent that Democrats feel there’s enough money to give $300 million to Hollywood yet thousands of New Mexico students don’t deserve books,” said Rep. Alonzo Baldonado (R-Los Lunas.)

“Every child in New Mexico deserves to have a text book,” said Rep. Rebecca Dow (R-Truth or Consequences). “My amendment fought to fully fund textbooks for all New Mexico students and House Democrats considered it ‘unfriendly.’ Who are they really fighting for?”

House Democrats Deny Pro-Life New Mexicans the Opportunity to Speak—Then they Pass Radical Abortion Bill

House Democrats shut out dozens of Pro-Life New Mexicans from speaking against the pro-abortion House Bill 51 (HB 51). Democrats then voted unanimously to move HB 51 forward, which will take away critical protections for medical workers and patients when it comes to abortion.

“A life of a child is a life worth protecting,” said Rep. Jim Townsend (R-Artesia). “In New Mexico we allow a process for aborting a child that would be illegal if it were performed on an animal. It’s not about health care, it’s about life.”

HB 51 takes away protections for medical personnel who do not want to participate in an abortion. A recent poll of New Mexicans found over 72% oppose forcing medical professionals to perform abortions against their conscience or faith.

The bill now heads to the floor of the House of Representatives.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

On Thursday afternoon, a publication called "Roswell Today" contacted us, asking us to publicize what they called a "Breaking News" story involving a "criminal complaint" against former State Senator Timothy Z. Jennings of Roswell. 

We read their story and the so-called criminal complaint and decided it was a story that some might describe as "horse shit," though we at NMPJ don't use that kind of language. We immediately told them we had no intention of publicizing their breaking news. (See our statement below.)

Jennings had allegedly had a single-car auto accident, from which he then walked home. His accident harmed no one, and harmed no property other than his own. 

A sheriff's deputy then went to his house knocked on the door, but no one responded. He then supposedly contacted "family members," who showed up and apparently let him in—where he video-taped Mr. Jennings, standing in his underwear in the privacy of his home.

An Albuquerque TV station later played the video, with Jennings wearing nothing but a pair of boxer shorts. It was a completely pointless story about which both the TV station and the Chaves County Sheriff's office should be ashamed.

In answer to the request that we publicize this "story," we issued the following statement:

This notice was sent to our page. We will not publish it. For the record, we at New Mexico Political Journal do not believe that a single-car accident involving only an individual and his or her own car, and harming no one and damaging no property, needs to be reported to anyone. Nor do we believe law enforcement needs to invade anyone’s home. Such an incident is between the individual and his or her private insurance company.

After scores of their readers acknowledged that they agreed with us that this "story," if it can be called that, is abusive and invasive, "Roswell Today" took down our comments, probably because more people agreed with us than agreed with them and their claim that this was some kind of big story.

This is truly a phenomenon of the social media era, where too many people who are cowards in real life tend to act like an a-hole in the relative anonymity of the internet. 

The outpouring of hateful comments directed at Mr. Jennings and at us is really something to behold. People have no idea whether Jennings was drinking or not, yet they assert he was. For all anyone knows, he could have walked home and had a beer after he got there.

There is also a tendency to want to hate anyone who has ever been an elected official. Mr. Jennings has not been that for more than six years. There would never have been a story at all if he were just a regular citizen who had never been in politics. That's a fact.

There is nothing to the story. People should treat others the way they themselves would want to be treated under the same circumstances. It is worth repeating that the Chaves County Sheriff's office, Roswell Today, and KRQE should all be ashamed of themselves.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

The idea of “LITERACY by 4th GRADE” was promoted in an expensive Super Bowl commercial for all to see. The NFL was the sponsor.

But over the past eight consecutive years, New Mexico Democrats opposed the very same idea every single year of Governor Susana Martinez's administration. They were very happy to promote illiteracy and so-called "social promotion" for those children who could not read after the third grade.

New Mexico House Democrats and New Mexico Senate Democrats killed the idea every single year, and killed the millions of dollars that would have been dedicated to reading programs beginning in Kindergarten and extending through 3rd Grade. Why? Because it is a Republican idea.

Each time they killed the proposal, Democrats whooped and hollered as if they had saved the planet from a deadly asteroid. They were always EXTREMELY PROUD every time they did so.

The NFL is smarter than the Democratic Party of New Mexico

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

Ever since all-pro fake Al Sharpton perpetrated the Tawana Brawley fake attack over 30 years ago, the Left has claimed string of nearly a hundred “attacks” on either minorities, Gays, liberals, Leftists, Democrats, and all manner of identity politics labels.

They’ve all turned out to be fakes. Looks like Smollett fits the pattern. Big surprise. We suspected it from minute one.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

If you wonder how National Popular Vote — the California plan to get rid of the Electoral College — is being sold by lobbyists to both political parties, the answer is with the same exact spiel! (No. We are not making this up!) 

The Democrats are not exactly a hard sell—ever since Hillary lost the Electoral College, "National Popular Vote" became a vital part of each Democrat's personal platform. Their buzzword?

"We must nationalize elections with a message that resonates with the popular majority."

But guess what New Mexico Republican legislators are being told? National Popular Vote's paid spokesman, Ray Haynes, is running around Santa Fe telling Republicans:

"You're going to have to nationalize presidential elections with a message that resonates with the popular majority."

Whoa. A word! A word! My kingdom for one word of originality!

In all seriousness, the approach cannot be true for both parties. Sadly, it reflects a level of contempt and disrespect for Republican legislators that we simply did not expect. It is a reflection of what a 24 to 46 deficit in the House of Representatives will get you: We won't even try to tell you anything persuasive. You just don't merit it.

NONE of THOSE KINDS of ARGUMENTS are EVEN RELEVANT ANYWAY 

In any case, for a principled legislator or thinking citizen, grounded in our history, these kinds of arguments—get your message right, turn out the vote, and so on—are of no importance at all. Those dynamics have come and gone over scores of election cycles. They will come and go again.

The "What's in it for you?" or "How many times will candidates visit New Mexico?" pitches, while interesting as far as they go, are nothing compared to the fundamental importance of our the system of government that sustains us as a nation.

The central fact is that the United States is a federal republic, not a direct democracy. What keeps our nation intact and protects the sheep from being outvoted by the wolves is our federal system—for which the Electoral College is an exact replica.

This same system, that combines protections for individual rights with safeguards for the states in which those individuals choose to live, is a system of government that protects minorities—whether those minorities are the individual citizens themselves or whether they are actual culturally, demographically, and historically distinct states.

Because we have a representative government (with a "non-democratic" Senate)  some 30 small states enjoy a chance for protection against a half dozen population centers, possibly flooded with illegal voters, who could very well simply decide to take advantage of them. The Electoral College merely reflects that same structure.

A republic—if we can keep it—protects us all against the tyrannies and abuses that can come with raw, unrestrained power. Moving the one national election we have from one that mirrors republican principles to one that is based on direct democracy begins the process of tearing down that framework.

NPV's Hired Gun is a Johnny Come Lately on the Issue

Ray Haynes is a former California Assemblyman and former State Senator. When he was in the California legislature he opposed National Popular Vote. Here is one of his speeches in opposition: https://goo.gl/GiZsz1 . 

However, something happened on his way to New Mexico. He became a paid consultant for National Popular Vote. 

A report from Oklahoma Republican legislators has surfaced which shows his skill:

"... former California Assemblyman and State Senator Ray Haynes is meeting with activists and asking for introductions to others. Haynes, now a paid consultant for National Popular Vote, met with them at a local chain restaurant. They said he seemed quite sincere and even prayed with them at the beginning of their meeting. Haynes had a conservative voting record in California, which gives him some credibility with conservatives that someone like Saul Anuzis didn't have. NPV backers were smart to hire someone like him..."

But it turns out that when Haynes was a candidate for Congress:

"his top contributor, maxing out at $2,600, was John Koza, the Chairman of National Popular Vote. Koza, a generous political donor and an elector for Al Gore in 2000, normally gives his money to the likes of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Al Franken, and Bernie Sanders, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ($32,400 this cycle), the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ($30,800 this cycle), and "super PACs" supporting Democrats (e.g., $50,000 to the Senate Majority PAC). About a month before his contribution to Haynes, Koza gave $5,000 to EMILY's List, the pro-abortion PAC. In fact, an OpenSecrets.org search seems to show that Haynes is the only Republican federal candidate in over 20 years that Koza has supported with a donation."

Democrats Have this Sewed Up in States they Control

National Popular Vote is now a vital part of every Democrat's playbook. As the far-Left takes a strangehold on what was once the party of John F. Kennedy, there is now an unbreakable ideological litany for anyone who wants to survive in the New Democrat Party:

• Single-payer healthcare—and the end to private insurance
• Strict gun control
• 70% tax rates on all income over $250,000
• 90% tax rates on income over $1,000,000
• Open Borders—Adoption of Sanctuary States as an interim step
• Massive increases in immigration, with emphasis on chain migration
• Restrictions on religious expression — with the exception of Islam
• Forcing all faith-based organizations to promote homosexuality, or any other politically-"favored" lifestyle, or face sanctions
• Abortion on demand—through the 4th Trimester
• "Correct" the electoral process, through automatic voter registration, same-day registration, felon voting, prison voting, non-citizen voting, and the elimination of all verification processes, gradual moving to all-mail-in voting with massive mailouts of ballots
• National Popular Vote to replace the Electoral College
• Limit free speech on college campuses, disalow conservative speakers
• Endorse BDS, Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions aimed against Israel
• Free College Tuition at all state schools
• Federal minimum wage of $15/hour, $20 by 2023

We could see a move in the next few years to return to all electronic voting with no paper trails. That movement would likely start in states under total Democrat control. 

One of the motivating factors behind making the national popular vote for president decisive is the huge margins that can be achieved in states that have eliminated any and all elections safeguards, including verification of address, residency confirmation, or any means of voter identification.

Now we are finding more and more votes cast not only by non-citizens, but by illegal immigrants. But these are moves favored by the ascendant wing, soon to be 80% or more of the Democrat Party.

Bottom Line: Any Democrat who opposes NPV is likely to be run out of the party on the spot. Any Republican who supports NPV is likely to get thrown out by an increasingly in-tune Republican Primary electorate that is also increasingly upset about every single component of the Left's plan to take over the country.

To diminish even that check on Republican legislators, Leftists may push for "Open Primaries," which they can argue will save conservative Republicans who decide to vote with them: "Don't worry, vote with us and we'll flood your primary and outvote any conservatives that get angry with you."

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

The greatest ally of the California shysters who are promoting the National Popular Vote (NPV) scheme that will put an end to the Electoral College is the abject ignorance and lack of civics education of the typical American voter.

Sadly, John Koza and Barry Fadem (both of whom have been cited numerous times for misrepresenting information and misleading statements) enjoy this same advantage when lobbying a very large number of legislators.

Surprisingly, a relative few state senators and state representatives are well-read or well-grounded in American government and American history.

Most Americans seem unaware that our nation was formed with the conscious decision to create and guarantee a "republican" form of government. That is to say a representative democracy as opposed to a direct democracy.

At every level of government, from school boards to municipal councils to county commissions to state legislatures and, finally, to Congress, Americans elect representatives. 

Furthermore, our national government is based on a combination of two representative concepts—representation for people themselves through the House of Representatives, and representation of the individual states through the US Senate.

Because of their much larger population, California has a bigger say in the House than New Mexico by a margin of 53 to 3. But New Mexico and California are equal in the Senate, 2 to 2.

The Electoral College is nothing more than a reflection of that combined dynamic that makes up the federal government. It has been that way since day one—since the ratification of the US Constitution in 1787.

THE NPV's MAIN MANTRA IS: "THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS NOT DEMOCRATIC"

Duh. Tell us something we don't know.

We are not a pure democracy. We are not supposed to be. If the rationale for ending the Electoral College is that it does not reflect pure democracy then those who want to end it must, logically, also want to put an end to the US Senate. How democratic is it that Wyoming with 500,000 people has the same representation in the Senate as California with 39,000,000?

The answer is that the compromise that binds us as a nation is that a pure democracy—ten wolves and five sheep voting on what the dinner menu will be—will never protect each individual or the state in which each individual resides.

When we adopt pure democracy there is nothing to stop California and New York and the relatively few large population centers in the country from voting with their superior net numbers to impose taxes or other burdens on smaller states. The US Senate prevents that. 

The red and blue wolves represent the powers the large population centers would have over the white sheep (NM, WY, KS, NE, SD, ND, ID, UT, MT, IA, OK and many other states) if the US Senate and the Electoral College did not exist.

That's why we elect our national legislative branch in the manner we do. To this point, we have also elected the national executive branch in the same representative manner—a manner that serves very well to protect the sheep from the wolves.

As one of the smaller states in population, 36th out of 50, New Mexico would be particularly foolish if it chose to reject the very protections our federal governmental structure provides and which the Electoral College reinforces.

But NPV has now become a central component of the "progressive" agenda and like all hard-Left governmental goals and objectives, reason, reflection, historical perspective, and analysis take a back seat to slogans, chants, demonstrations, threats, and intimidation. 

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

It was 30 hours after our second article calling Raúl Torrez out for disparate treatment of Republicans and Democrats, and only 12 hours after lampooning the claims he makes on his website about his office. 

It was five days after our first article titled "THE TWO FACES of NEW MEXICO—The Continuing Saga," that Albuquerque District Attorney Raúl Torrez finally released the video of Democrat Judge Deborah Davis Walker. Walker was arrested for drunk driving. 

Torrez and the Albuquerque Police Department thought no one would notice that they were hiding the video of Walker's arrest—after immediately releasing the video of a Republican official last year. 

We noticed. Then others noticed. We noticed again. And again.

Last night on KRQE-TV, Channel 13 in Albuquerque, the police video showed the arrest of Judge Walker following a car wreck she had caused. 

TREATMENT STILL DISPARATE

The treatment by the arresting officers is still quite disparate. Last May, former State Representative Monica Youngblood was stopped at a "checkpoint" and showed no signs at all of inebriation, but was given a lengthy "examination" (all of which she clearly passed) only because the arresting officer, Facebook bodybuilder Joshua Montaño, spotted her legislative license tag in the console of her car.

Completely confused by the officer's intense interest in trying to get her to fail a sobriety test, she was finally arrested only because she initially refusing to take a breathalyzer. Anyone passing test after test, as she did, would have been confused by the intensity of the determination to arrest her. But Montaño's excitement following the tag discovery was palpable.

It was no coincidence the video was edited and leaked almost immediately.

Youngblood should never have been arrested—and it is 100% certain she would not have been, but for her name, position, and party. She certainly should never have been prosecuted—Torrez took keen interest in the case, reassigning the case from Jason Greenlee in the DWI unit to John Duran in the "major crimes" unit.

Totally political. And also unethical. And also, well, dishonest as hell: citizens have a right to uniform and non-discriminatory application of the law. Torrez did not follow that path. What does his example teach other attorneys working for him? What do the actions of Montaño and Kyle Curtis encourage other, perhaps younger and less experienced, officers to do? What kind of arrest gets recognition and reward?

Is this how we get LA Confidential? Dirty DA's? Dirty Cops? We don't know. But we are concerned. And every New Mexican should be.

Judge Walker

Meanwhile, Walker had just caused a wreck and could easily have killed someone. The video showed her to be almost comically falling down drunk. She could have been hauled in on a "citizen's arrest" by any person over 8-years-old. If she had not had the wreck she would never have been caught by APD. They definitely would not have singled her out at any of their checkpoints.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

I will be RELENTLESS in my pursuit of Republicans and moderate Democrats…and in securing the rights of Progressives and the good of the Left-wing agenda for our community.

     — Raúl Torrez, Bernalillo County District Attorney

Bernalillo County District Attorney Raúl Torrez breaks his reasons for selective leaking of videos and information on Republican elected officials and moderate Democrats he doesn’t like.

Our Mission

To improve the quality of life of my political friends and allies in Bernalillo County by reducing any and all charges that might be brought against them, and by selective enforcement of the law against those whose political views I don’t agree with.  

Who We Are

The Bernalillo County District Attorney's Office is the largest law firm in New Mexico. Unlike other law firms, the Bernalillo County District Attorney's Office only has one client: the Democratic Party of New Mexico and those whom they’ve designated for personal protection for their Leftist, progressive views.

We are a team of attorneys, paralegals, investigators, victim advocates and legal support staff who are all dedicated to this mission.

What We Do

This dedicated team of professionals evaluates the approximately 25,000 cases a year that are referred to the Bernalillo County District Attorney's Office by law enforcement partners in the Albuquerque Police Department. We leak stories to the media about those people who aren’t politically connected with us, and we cover up stories about those who are. The Office brings criminal cases on approximately 18,000 of the referrals per year. Despite the staggering volume of cases, our team works hard every day to represent the Democrat Party in prosecutions.

Where We Are Located

Lomas Blvd NW
Albuquerque, NM 87102

Main Phone: (505) 222-1099

Contact us here.

“ The moral arc of Albuquerque is long, but bends toward selective law enforcement”

           — The Reverend Dr. Raúl Torrez

District Attorney Raúl Torrez was elected on Nov. 7, 2016.  

He is committed to helping himself, his friends, and making our community more corrupt. 

To the corruption at the top of law enforcement in Albuquerque—to District Attorney Raúl Torrez, the partisan politician in charge of selective prosecutions—you ordered the leak of one video, so

When are you going to release the video of District Judge Deborah Davis Walker?

District Attorney Raul Torrez, Deputy District Attorney John Duran, Arresting officer Joshua Montano, and Officer Kyle Curtis engaged in corrupt partisan politics in deciding to immediately release the video of a Republican State Representative last year at a traffic stop---in which Montaño only decided to make an arrest after he saw a legislative tag inside her car. (The video was also heavily edited.)

Now, where is the video of Democrat Judge Walker?

Duran and Torrez also pushed for an aggravated DWI on the first offense---why? You never do that to anyone else.

They don't do that to other people? (If she had been a Democrat, the ACLU would have filed suit on her behalf.)

"Greater love hath no one than he leak an edited video to the media."

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

Democrats cannot be happy with NATO.  In what has to be a devastating rebuke to Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and the Democratic Party in general, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told American media Sunday that Trump's critics are full of it. .

Reporters showed clips of Congressman Jimmy Panetta (D-CA) spouting off about how Trump was hurting the 70-year-old alliance. They showed New York Congressman Eliot Engle whining about "mixed signals" on our commitment to NATO, and Nancy Pelosi tweeting the same talking points.

But here is what the NATO Secretary General said:

President Trump has been very clear. He is committed to NATO. He has stated that clearly just a few days ago, and also at the summit in July. But at the same time, he has clearly stated that NATO allies need to invest more.

And therefore at the summit in July last year we agreed to do more, to step up and now we see the results: by the end of next year, NATO allies will add 100,000,000 billion extra US dollars for defense. So we see some real money, real results, and we see that a clear message from President Trump is having an impact. NATO allies have heard the president loud and clear, and now NATO allies are stepping up. 

Pelosi and Schumer had to be cringing in the corner. Here is the head of NATO telling the whole world that Trump's statements, and "clear messages" got real results. Positive ones. 

So reporters went on, pressing Stoltenberg, telling him that Trump is getting roundly criticized over NATO, Stoltenberg wouldn't fall for it or take the bait. He responded:

"There is no doubt that his very clear message is having an impact. The message on the summit last summer was very clear with all the leaders sitting around the table. And the message was that the US and President Trump is committed to NATO, but we need fair burden sharing." 

Again, the reporter pushed back. "So are you happy with what he is saying?"

Stoltenberg:

I'm happy with the fact that he has helped us now move on the question of burden-sharing within the alliance. And this is important for European allies for a strong Europe, but it's also good for the United States.

Trump Admimistration pulling out of NATO. 

Is Trump helping Putin 

What he is doing is to help us adapt the alliance. Which is what we need because we live in a more unpredictable world...and therefore NATO has to adapt. We are investing more. The increase you now see in spending comes after years of declines. Before, they were cutting billions now they are actually spending much more.

Yet again, the reporter tried to get the NATO chief to condemn Trump:  "You're not concerned that Trump is helping Putin?"

And again Stoltenberg wouldn't budge: 

What I see is that actually NATO united because we are able to adapt to deliver. North America and Europe are doing more together than before. We are doing more exercises than before. European allies are stepping up, and this is a clear message to Russia and I think they see that. We are therefore in the midst of the biggest reinforcement of NATO since the end of the Cold War. 

The bottom line is that while we at NMPJ are not Trumpistas, who never believe he is anything but perfect and angry at any criticism of him, neither are we the Democrats who hate everything that Trump says just because it is Trump who says it.

Nor are we the Republican "Never Trumpers," who try to pick at him just because of his flaws. 

We are in the middle, reflecting orthodox conservatism. That allows us to be objective.

That objectivity enables us to state that Trump has done a magnificent job with NATO, making it stronger, more aware of the dangers and realities at hand, and overcoming the deficiencies that developed during the neglect of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama years. 

Denying those truths is just anti-Trump bias.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

Have you ever wondered about the quality of "debate" or discussion of important topics that may affect how your state is governed? Or maybe even affect your job, profession, or way of life? From time to time, we will try to publish some examples from the New Mexico Legislature. Today's transcripts come from the House Judiciary Committee meeting on Friday, January 25. The subject is the National Popular Vote scheme. 

First of all, What is NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE

National Popular Vote is a proposed scheme for allocating a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes nationwide, regardless of the individual state's preference. Here is what the Californians who invented this plan say about their own plan:

"The National Popular Vote interstate compact would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia."

If the New Mexico Legislature approves House Bill 55, and all the remaining 50 states and DC do the same, here is an example of how the new National Popular Vote law would play out.

Just for illustration's sake, let's say Trump doesn't run again and the 2020 field is wide open for both parties. The Democrats nominate Kamala Harris of California and the Republicans nominate Nikki Haley of South Carolina.

Harris's extreme Leftist views and identity politics has broad appeal in heavily Democrat states, while Haley's demeanor and principled conservatism have equally broad appeal in Republican and closely-divided states. 

Let's say that the final nationwide and New Mexico result is something like this:

Nikki Haley narrowly wins the popular vote by 100,000 votes, nationwide, but loses under the existing Electoral College system, by the narrowest of margins 268 to 270. Without NPV, Harris would become president.

However, let's say the NPV scheme has been adopted everywhere, and passes all (numerous) legal hurdles, and is the law of the land. Here is the new final Electoral College result: Nikki Haley 538 Kamala Harris 0.

Every state, including New Mexico (which has to ignore its own result and go with the nationwide popular vote winner) has to cast its electoral votes for Haley. If you believe Democrats would sit by and let this happen without a nationwide tantrum and violence, demanding that their electoral votes be counted, individually, as the states cast them, you are hopelessly naive.

MEANWHILE, HERE IS SOME ACTUAL PUBLIC INPUT, GIVEN LAST FRIDAY in HOUSE JUDICIARY

This is a pro-NPV citizen, Liz Copeland, from Albuquerque. If any reader can make heads or tails out of this, or even one head or one tail, please Email us at nmpj@dfn.com, (see below for link) and tell us how this is relevant to the debate, or makes sense.

"Madam Chair and members of the committee, I am Liz Copeland from Albuquerque

"While I vote in Bernalillo County, I want to remind those of you from smaller counties that you represent constituents who may be conscripted to serve in the US military should a draft be instituted as well as some raised in poverty in your counties who voluntarily join the US military in order to improve their education and future livelihood.

"Please keep these constituents in mind as you listen. I am here to challenge anyone in this committee considering a vote against HB 55 to weigh the morality of voting against legislation which corrects a present discrimination inherent in the electoral system of electing our president and commander-in-chief. I refer to the discrimination embodied in the Electoral College against an unknown number of citizens who may be conscripted if the draft is reinstated or who choose to join the military as a way out of poverty.

"Already we have the Senate which involves an electoral process giving individuals from small states proportionately far greater representation in Washington than individuals from large states. I am able to leave an Excel sheet populating the number of citizens from each state potentially conscripted into the military compared to each Wyoming citizen potentially conscripted into the military.

"Wyoming is chosen because it is the state with the smallest population. The data shows [sic] something obvious, that states with the smallest populations have the fewest citizens potentially conscripted into the military. It also shows the state with the largest population, California, is calculated to have 69 citizens potentially conscripted for every one citizen potentially conscripted from Wyoming. New Mexico is calculated to have 4 citizens potentially conscripted into the military for every citizen potentially conscripted from Wyoming.

"This discrimination is a function of the way the Senate is elected. And I am not suggesting that US Senators be elected in the same manner as members of the House. However the data shows (sic) that maintaining the Electoral College discriminates against some potential military conscripts and some citizens entering the military as a way out of poverty. How? By not treating every vote for commander-in-chief as equal. You owe it to prospective military conscripts and those entering the military as a way out of poverty to vote for HB 55. To vote against this bill is to endorse an inherently discriminatory process.

"Electing our commander-in-chief should not be a process for which the statement “all of us are equal, but some are more equal than others” applies.

"And I am happy to leave my data sheet."

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

One thing that has become clear after the first week of committee hearings in the New Mexico House of Representatives is that few, if any, committee chairs have any concept of how a representative government should function. But, to be fair, perhaps there's no reason for them to know.

Even if they knew much about the role of the legislative branch, or had read even a paragraph of any one of the Federalist Papers, which none of them have, it really doesn't much matter. When the  Democrats go from a 38 to 32 advantage with a Republican governor to a 46 to 24 margin and a Democrat governor urging everyone to dispense with debate, well, the situation actually simply becomes more or less pathetic. 

At 38-32, depending on the issue and the circumstances, there was a need for at least a modicum of cooperation in the day to day operation of the House. Throw in a principled Republican governor and there was even greater need to try to work together, or forge something of a compromise if anyone seriously wanted a bill to be passed into law.

The destruction of the Republican Party, however, has made all those requirements, modest as they were, a thing of the past. Now Democrats are not only free to run roughshod over their Republican counterparts, they can also do the same to the general public.

A Committee to Watch, for Laughs—and for High School Civics Classes on How NOT to Behave

The House of Representatives' committee on State Government, Elections & Indian Affairs is one of several committees where the main talking point used by the committees' Democrats' 6 to 3 majority is, well, more or less, "shut up." Committee Chair Georgene Louis actually kind of lets her emotions get away from her if a lowly Republican asks more than one question.

The power of the gavel and an overwhelming majority has clearly gone to her head. "I'll tell you what I'll allow you to do," she said at Friday's meeting in response to a question from a noticeably cowed Republican. 

Her nerves tighten up and she reminds these minority dogs that "we are here to get work done, not ask questions." Keep the line moving, if you will. Nothing to see here. We have bills to pass. 

Corrales lawyer Damon Ely, a fellow Democrat, isn't shy about weighing in to let it be known he's not that fond of debate either, unless he's the talker.  

Anger Observable Among Rank and File New Mexico Voters

Now we observe many average voters—conservatives, moderates, libertarians alike—demonstrating their anger and frustration on social media and in correspondence with legislators. How is this happening? Why do we have no say with regard to serious public policy questions? They want their gun rights left unmolested. They don't want higher taxes or wild spending. They don't want abortion on demand or Dr. Kervorkian to take over nursing homes or retirement communities.

They want a say, and they don't have one anymore. 

Guess what? That's how representative democracy works. When one party is run into the ground by incompetents you just might be left with no opposition capable of providing alternative debate.

Some New Mexicans are Lucky it Isn't 1789

From what we read and hear, the Republican State Central Committee, and the fruit of its womb—Harvey Yates, his Sancho Panza, Ryan Cangiolosi, Steve Pearce and his entourage—are all very fortunate that 95% of the 350,000 to 400,000 voters in this state whose policy views are centrist, center-right, or conservative, have very little idea how politics work, or how the parties who are supposed to represent their views are organized and run.

Otherwise, the disgruntled thousands—more or less equivalent to the sans-culottes of the French Revolution—would be forming their own "Committee of Public Safety," and the architects of 2018 Republican "effort," together with the State Central Committee that foolishly put them in power, would be, well, in some distress, shall we say.

Pearce himself, rather than blithely put back "in charge" would be in the Palais des Tuileries, and Yates, Cangiolosi, and their 300 accomplices, well, you know, guillotine city.

Of course, we are happy we don't live in such uncivilized times. But it would be nice if more people got involved in politics, more people with common sense and more people who are focused on what's best for the state and the nation, rather than those who are motivated only by personal goals and personal ego-centric interests.

Unfortunately, it was the latter crowd which took over the Republican Party and destroyed it. 

Now New Mexico is left with a one-party state. All we can do is watch what that party is doing and let you know when to duck.

COMING UP—AT NOON SUNDAY—ACTUAL "DEBATE" from the NM Legislature.

What do "witnesses" and legislators actually say? (It's Entertaining.)

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

The big-bucks, highly-paid Californian lobbyists are back in New Mexico roaming the hallways of the legislature buttonholing legislators to adopt a scheme concocted in Los Altos, California* in 2006, to get rid of the Electoral College. Their scheme is called National Popular Vote (NPV).

This overarching goal of NPV, a direct democracy-styled election, reveals one of its many problems, which is that the US Constitution requires not only that the national government be a "republican" form of government, but that the national government "guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government." (Article IV)

Currently, the national election for President of the United States is conducted in a manner that is republican # — which means the process is that of a "representative" democracy as opposed to "direct" democracy. As a republic, the national government functions through representatives and senators from each state—as opposed to a direct democracy which would have perhaps 200,000,000 eligible adults voting on each bill, treaty, or other congressional action that is introduced.

The Electoral College is an Institution of a Republic

The national election for the nation's chief executive is currently conducted in the manner that a republic requires. Through the Electoral College, each state expresses its own individual opinion about how and by whom the national government shall be governed—just as senators and representatives now express individual states' interests on every single issue. 

NPV Creates a Direct Democracy and Requires a "Compact of the States"

NPV converts the entire United States presidential election into a gigantic New England town hall meeting. Such a provision is not in the Constitution. To try to get around the Constitution, NPV asks for a compact among states to create a new system for presidential elections. The problem is that the Constitution says: 

“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress...enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State..."

The California lobby repeatedly lies to legislators around the country, telling them that "congressional approval is not required." But that's only one of many falsehoods they have spread. 

The California Lobby

The lobbyists have followed a consistent pattern for the past 13 years: 1) tell Democrat legislators that they are Democrats, and "liberals" or "progressives," (whichever is suited to the situation); and 2) tell Republican legislators that they are Republicans, and "conservatives," or maybe "libertarians" (again, whichever is right for the buttonhole moment).

The fact is the entire scheme is a Leftist idea, dreamed up by people who have now donated over $2,000,000 to politicians, and overwhelmingly to Democrats (though they have given a pittance to a few, fairly dim-bulb, Republicans).

The braggadocio "founders" of the movement (real founder is Akhil Amar) John Koza, and Barry Fadem, have maxed out their donations to Hillary Clinton, Keith Ellison, a radical Muslim anti-Semite and racist from Minnesota, Al Franken, Chuck Schumer, Heidi Heitkamp, Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill, and virtually every single Democrat member of the Senate.

In New Mexico, they have given only to State Representative Mimi Stewart, newly-elected Congresswoman Xochitl Torres Small, and Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham.

Yet, they tell everyone they are "bi-partisan" and lay on the thickest of hard-sell tactics, festooned with lies and manipulative "data." We have had a copy of their 1,038-page tome since 2006, have thoroughly examined it, and can report that it consists of nothing but anti-intellectual misrepresentations, partial truths, and outright prevarications.

SPECIAL DANGER for REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS: CLUES TO PICK UP ON

As NPV is being led and touted by progressives and people on the hard Left of American politics, there is not too much danger for Democrats who vote for the scheme—provided of course that they don't take the Constitution, American polity, or republican government very seriously.

(And there are some Democrats, State Senator Peter Wirth and new Senator Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, who have, at least in the past, expressed some doubt about the NPV. But both are lawyers and perhaps more reflective than the garden variety New Mexico legislator.)

For Republicans, however, voting for NPV will increasingly become a dead weight around their necks in a primary election—most likely a fatal one. After all, with a vote in favor, you're not showing that you've thought very deeply about the Constitution.

Nor do you understand, or give much credence to the fact that the United States is not like Venezuela, Russia, France, or numerous other countries which do not have "states" in the sense that we have, but rather only administrative subdivisions.

We are a federal republic in which states have very real, substantive powers, and very real differences: cultural, demographic, historical, and political. And each state expresses those differences—and the different interests that proceed from them—in their own individual ways. 

New Mexico is not like Vermont in very many ways. It isn't even like Texas, which is next door. Yet NPV asks for our state's individuality to no longer exist—telling us that we only need to fold our 800,000 votes in with Texas's 9,000,000 and Arizona's 2,600,000, and Colorado's 2,800,000. Never mind that we may vote differently from the surrounding states. When we do that we lose our ability to put our 5 electoral votes up on the scoreboard, so to speak.

(And this does not even contemplate how much our small margins of victory by one candidate or another—be it 6,000 votes or 66,000 votes—is overwhelmed by margins of 4 million from California, or 1 million from Texas.)

The people leading the charge are the most extreme Leftists in the New Mexico legislature, and the newly-elected hard Left Democrat governor is tooting the horn of NPV as well. When a Republican legislator looks around and finds himself or herself in a parade led by Lujan Grisham, Mimi Stewart, and Gail Chasey, it ought to be a clue to him or her that he or she might have wandered out of the mainstream.

But Here's the Worst Thing Lobbyists are Asking New Mexico Legislators to Do

The heart of NPV is its requirement to make our electors vote the way other states vote, NOT the way New Mexicans vote. Imagine if Joe Biden beat Trump in New Mexico, but lost to him in the popular vote nationwide.

Democrat legislators who vote for this scheme would be on record as telling our own electors to go to the Electoral College meeting a month later and vote the way Texas, or Alabama voted. Never mind New Mexico.

What if Nikki Haley were to win the Electoral College, 290 to 248, and carry New Mexico by 3,000 votes, but lose the national popular vote to Kamala Harris 66,700,000 to 66,600,000?

Republican legislators who support NPV would be on record as instructing our electors to vote for Kamala Harris—to vote for someone because other people voted for her, NOT because New Mexicans did. That's not only against everything we stand for as a people, it's just plain stupid.

Neither the Republican or the Democrat legislators would ever hear the end of it. And they would deserve not to.

*The inventors of NPV actually stole the idea from a couple of Democrat college professors, Akhil and Vikram Amar.  **Article I, Section 10, clause 3. # The term "republican" has nothing to do with the Republican Party, just as "democrat" is unrelated to the "Democratic Party." The parties have to be capitalized, while the generic terms—which have unrelated definitions—are spelled in the lower case.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

MOTHER of MURDER VICTIM ADDRESSES LEGISLATURE

In response to the news about House Bill 57, giving felons the "right to vote," we received the following letter from the mother of a murder victim:

Dear New Mexico Legislators:

Driving home I heard on the radio new bills are being introduced today by Left-wing politicians in New Mexico.

A 10-cent tax increase on gas... that irritates me, I think ... "and here we go, "progressive" legislators set to rob the middle class of their hard earned money again.

The next sentence was like a hard punch to the stomach. So hard I got tears in my eyes ...

"The Democrats are putting through a bill to give Felons the right to vote from jail."  

After recoiling from that punch, I was overcome with anger and anxiety.  My son's dead body flashes through my mind.  I see his killer grabbing Gary by the t-shirt and shooting him through the top of the head twice and attempting to shoot him 3 times more in the body. I hear the voice of the DA telling me that she has a statement that reveals that the killer, Shawn Paul Loyd, took a friend to the murder scene and told that friend how he had watched my child stumble after being shot and that Gary was making grunting noises as he died.  He explained the dying process to his friend like it was a football game and he got to watch.  Shawn Loyd thought it was amusing.

Next, I see the movie in my head of this evil killer running off, leaving my baby to die.  Then 3 years of hell to arrest and convict him. Once again I feel that sandpaper on my soul.

I am suddenly back in the present ... so Far-Left Legislators want to give the man who killed my baby—who took ALL his voting rights away—the right to vote?  Not just after probation and parole (which is bad enough) they want Shawn Paul Loyd and all other murderers, rapists and pedophiles to vote from the comfort of their cushy cells, the cells that all victims’ families have to pay for.

Gary's killer got life in prison, which in New Mexico means only 30 years before eligibility for parole. I have been paying for him in prison with my taxes, waiting with dread for those 30 years to run out. I am tired. So very tired of this story. But it is my baby's life, so I must continue to survive, to protect his memory to see justice carried out. 

As a victim advocate, some 10+ years ago, along with a group of Survivors, we tried to fight the heartless legislators who wanted to go easy on crime. We were treated with contempt. They said we should not have a say in what happens as we are lost in our grief and anger. We became 2nd class citizens in their eyes. That was the ultimate insult from the people who were voted in to represent and protect us.  We, more than anyone, understood the evil they were trying to protect. We wanted to help future victims, and we lost.

I contemplate this now; maybe I could talk to the legislators again?  Who would want to see justice denied?  Who would think to put this kind of nasty bill through? I research and I find out it is the Champion of criminal lovers in New Mexico, none other than Gail Beam Chasey who fought long and hard to repeal the death penalty here.

The anti-death penalty campaign implied a promise to the public: When the death penalty is repealed it will be replaced with "life means life."

They lied.  They misled. They said to the public: “This is good for us and the most moral thing to do.“

I understand there is another bill that essentially allows the felons automatic parole, which not only compounds that earlier lie, but finds a way to free these murderers early. These legislators want to see my son's killer walking the streets again. They want to victimize survivors. There is no logical reason for this.

When did they stop caring about constituents?  Why do we even vote if they can just lie and spin on serious matters and get away with it for years like Gail Beam Chasey has done.

Sincerely,

Patti March
6039 Black Ridge NW
Albuquerque, NM 87120

email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

•  If you are a Democrat, you're in good shape. 

•  Woe be unto you if you are a Republican.

The corruption mindset rules not only the partisan elected officials, but administrative "non-political" officials as well.

Yesterday, after a car wreck no less, Democrat District Court Judge Deborah Davis Walker was arrested for DWI. The story is in the paper. But think back to Republican State Representative Monica Youngblood—just moments after her arrest (which was triggered only after the cop saw her legislative license plate in her car) the Albuquerque Police Department leaked the video of her arrest.

Where is the video of Judge Walker?

This is only one in a series of more than 200 side-by-side comparable events over the past 20 years in which news coverage and decisions by authorities are predicated on partisan political considerations.

email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

State Representative Gail Chasey's bill, House Bill 57, stops New Mexico county clerks from removing the names of convicts from the voter rolls. But there's more. In addition to prisoners beginning to vote in mass, the Democrats' next goal is the formation of Political Action Committees on the model developed by Massachusetts Democrats, beginning in the 70s.

HERE IS THEIR MODEL: MASSACHUSETTS, from 1976 to 2000

After Massachusetts permitted prisoners to vote, by 1976, those prisoners had begun to run for office.

• On January 23, 1976, the office of Massachusetts Director of Elections issued a ruling that stated: “Prisoners may register to vote in the community in which the prison is located if they swear on the affidavit of registration that they consider that residence to be their home." [NOTE: We can definitely expect Chasey's fellow Leftist, Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, to issue such a declaration very soon after Chasey's bill becomes law.]

• On February 1, 1976, around  300 men incarcerated in Concord prison registered to vote in Concord, Massachusetts. A Concord resident filed a complaint, but it is stayed, and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ultimately decides in favor of the prisoners in 1978, Dane v. Board of Registrars of Concord. [NOTE: Is there any doubt about how the highly-partisan New Mexico courts would rule?]

• On April 21, 1976, Concord holds an election for selectman. Prisoner Carl Velleca receives 599 votes total – including 500 from people outside of the prison.

• On September 29, 1976, prisoners at the Norfolk facility file an action to compel the Norfolk Board of Registrars to hold a voter registration session at their prison. The Norfolk County Court orders the registrar to comply, and in October registrars hold a voter registration session inside the prison. 621 men attempt to register to vote, listing the prison as their address. Ultimately the MA courts rule that they have to claim their former residence as their address, but the "right" to register is nonetheless established.       

By August 1983, Massachusetts courts, dominated by Democrats, had ruled that "the legislature must create a way for incarcerated people to register to vote through absentee ballot in the district where they lived prior to incarceration."

• On January 30, 1988, the Boston Globe reported that prisoners incarcerated on life sentences at Norfolk prison were launching a “vigorous voter registration drive” to oppose a bill to ban prison furloughs—a program that had been established by Governor Michael Dukakis. Dukakis even insisted that the furloughs be given to prisoners serving life without parole—people with NO incentive at all to come back from a weekend furlough. [Editor's NOTE: This is probably the stupidest public policy ever enacted by any politician.]

Meanwhile, the Willie Horton Issue Surfaces

On September 21, 1988, the National Security Political Action Committee (NSPAC) runs a television ad called “Weekend Passes” endorsing vice president George H.W. Bush over Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential election. The ad featured a prisoner—serving life without parole—who, despite having NO INCENTIVE TO RETURN FROM FURLOUGH, was nonetheless given a weekend furlough. This same prisoner, quite naturally, committed new crimes while out on furlough.

The point of the entire message was the abject stupidity of Michael Dukakis and his inability to logically reason through the process of figuring out that certain prisoners—those who would have no reason and no incentive to return—should not be included in the furlough program. Most Americans can see that this is a question of common sense and public policy reasoning: the point being that Dukakis did not have the judgment to serve as a school board member, city councilor, or county commissioner, let alone President of the United States.

However, because the prisoner was black, the Democrats immediately said that the issue was not one of logic or judgment, but was strictly about race. The PAC had developed an ad only because Willie Horton was African-American. The Bush campaign subsequently developed their own ad on the same issue, one that did not mention or show Willie Horton, but the Democrats persisted in saying the issue was merely race. [NOTE: The myths about this ad have been perpetuated through the last 30 years by the Democrat Party and the mainstream media—to the extent that many people have no idea what the ad was actually about.] 

MEANWHILE, SOME LEGISLATORS WANTED REFORM

On January 1, 1997, State Representative Francis L. Marini, one of only 29 Republicans in the House (there were 129 Democrats) introduced a bill to amend the state constitution, to remove voting privileges from those "convicted of murder, rape, or sex-related offenses..."

In response, on August 11, Norfolk a prison inmate organization, called the "Norfolk Lifers Group," filed paperwork to form the first-ever prisoners' Political Action Committee (PAC). It was called the "Massachusetts Prisoners Association Political Action Committee (MPAPAC). Its statement of organization read:

"For the purpose of providing educational material to prisoners of the Commonwealth and their family members dealing with the voting records of elected officials as it pertains to prisons…[to] encourage all prisoners and family members to register to vote, as well as to participate in the electoral process, [and contribute money to political candidates with] a track record of being fair and open minded on prisoner issues."

Meanwhile, some officials had had enough. On August 12, 1997, Governor Paul Celluci, a Republican, announced that he had filed a constitutional amendment to disenfranchise people in Massachusetts prisons. Cellucci said:

Criminals behind bars have no business deciding who should govern the law-abiding citizens of the Commonwealth. This proposed amendment will ensure that criminals pay their debt to society before they regain their right to participate in the political process.

Cellucci also signed Executive Order 399 barring prisoners from forming PACs, and directs the Department of Correction “to enforce an absolute prohibition on prisoners engaging in any form of solicitation of money or other things of value for political purposes.” Cellucci instructs the Department of Correction to enforce the law vigorously, “using punishments such as isolation, restriction and loss of privileges.”

Celucci continued to lead the efffort to correct the situation, working the amendment through the Massachusetts legislature, and finally to the peoplein 2000. By popular referendum, the people of Massachusetts by a margin of 60% to 34% (with 6% abstaining) ended voting by prisoners.

Does anyone believe that the current "progressive" Governor of New Mexico, whose record is replete with support of every single Leftist platform plank, would even contemplate taking such a common-sense approach? (To ask the question is to answer it.)

ENTER CHASEY, STAGE LEFT

Democrats, more specifically those in the hard-Left element which now dominates the Democrat Party, have been heavily influenced by the publication titled Felon Disenfranchisement: Why Perverts, Pedophiles, Larsonists and Arsonists Should All Be Allowed to Vote, by Eliot Thompson. 

Unlike the late Paul Celucci, today's Democrats, like Gail Chasey, make the case that individuals convicted of the most heinous crimes should be able to vote, influence legislation, lobby, form PACs, and enjoy all the privileges of the franchise—essentially paying no price in terms of governing the country or in terms of governing the lives of the very people they have victimized.

This may seem odd to a lot of voters. But apparently, it is not. After all, this is the legislature and this is the governor New Mexicans willfully put in office.

This is not Chasey's first rodeo. In the late 90's and early 2000's she led the charge to repeal the death penalty, finally succeeding in 2007. Along the way she had a number of mean-spirited confrontations with victims—mothers and fathers, husbands, wives, and siblings of New Mexicans who had been violently and brutally murdered in New Mexico—people who believe it's a moral responsibility for society to hold the most evil among us responsible for their actions. 

We can say this about Chasey: her contempt for victims is legendary, and well-remembered by many mothers and fathers who lobbied to keep the death penalty in place. They grew to suspect her motives and her veracity and, finally, strongly dislike her—and her hatred for them was, and is, palpable. (Veterans of these battles have told us that she is "the consummate liar who will twist any set of "facts" to make a point—if it helps her impose her legislation.")

Now, with overwhelming majorities in both houses, and a governor who will sign anything that comes down the pike, after an 8-year sabbatical from pushing child molester and domestic abuser "rights," Chasey has returned to her first love—prisoners—with demonic fervor. She is especially enamored with those incarcerated for life without parole.

Yesterday's initial hearing (which was not able to finish and will resume Friday) was a comic-tragic show of misinformation and misplaced enthusiasm—with a number of young people having been rounded up and urged to direct all their "compassion" for the "right to vote" for New Mexico felons. These are the people educating and leading New Mexico's youth. 

email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

Here is a partial list of the bills the New Mexico Democrat Party is going to use to achieve their goal of permanently fixing elections in New Mexico and establishing total control of every aspect of the lives of New Mexicans:

House Bill 84: Automatic Voter Registration

House Bill 86: Same day Voter Registration at Election Day and Early Voting Sites

House Bill 57: Felons remain on Voting Rolls—No loss of the Voting Privilege for the Commission of any Crime

House Bill 55: Make New Mexico's Electoral Votes Determined by Other States

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

With their overwhelming victory in the 2018 election, Democrats announced their intent to impose their hard-Left ideology on all New Mexicans, taking control of every aspect of life in the Land of Enchantment. Governor Lujan Grisham has signaled that she and her fellow ideologues plan to enact legislation quickly and with little debate or reflection. They don't need that. They have overwhelming majorities in both houses of the legislature.

FIRST THINGS FIRST: FIX ELECTIONS

Today, hearings begin on some of the Democrats' first assaults on representative democracy. First up, at 8:00 AM this morning is House Bill 57, sponsored by State Representative Gail Chasey of Albuquerque. The Legislative Council Service has titled the bill online as "Restore Felon Voting Rights." This is very misleading (and it is actually against the Council Service protocols which prohibit misleading titles for bills). 

Chasey will not be "restoring" anything at all. She will be creating voting rights for convicted felons. New Mexico has NEVER provided voting rights for felons. Felons have been presumed not to have voting rights since the enactment of the New Mexico Constitution, written in 1910 and approved by the voters as a prelude to statehood in 1912.

Withholding the privilege of voting from people convicted of felonies or infamous crimes has a very long history in English, European, and even Roman law. The rationale for such a sanction is straightforward and simple: disfranchisement serves as retribution for committing crimes and as a deterrent to future criminal behavior.

States began to incorporate such provisions in their constitutions in the late 18th Century. Shortly after the United States became a constitutional republic, 11 of the 13 states had disfranchised felons or those convicted of "infamous crimes," sometimes specifying certain disqualifying convictions, such as perjury, bribery, or gambling on elections. By the Civil War, over 25 states had such provisions, and by the end of the 19th Century, every state did. 

NEW MEXICO WILL NOT BE "RESTORING" VOTING RIGHTS for FELONS

Though it has been amended a number of times since 1912, Article VII of the New Mexico Constitution still provides in Section 1:

Sec. 1. A. Every person who is a qualified elector pursuant to the constitution and laws of the United States and a citizen thereof shall be qualified to vote in all elections in New Mexico, subject to residency and registration requirements provided by law, except as restricted by statute either by reason of criminal conviction for a felony..."

Yes, it is implied that the legislature may provide by statute to make sure that there is no penalty at all for committing the most heinous of crimes. In fact, that is what Chasey is doing. 

Since convicted felons in New Mexico have never enjoyed the privilege of the franchise, the Santa Fe Gang of election thieves are not in the process of "restoring" anything at all. Instead, they are imposing on their fellow citizens a new standard: to the family whose son or daughter was murdered, guess what? You may be at the kiosk, the voting booth, right next to their killer at some future election.

To the woman who was beaten up by an abusive husband, guess what? You may be signing in to receive your ballot right behind your previously convicted ex. Guess what kind of legislator or other public officials he'll be ready to vote for. Answer: those legislators who extend generous rights and privileges to convicted felons — those who see no reason to recognize that New Mexicans should live by the standards of prevailing social norms.

What norms? Who needs norms? Winning elections is much more important than any of these considerations.

HOW DO WE KNOW THIS IS ALL ABOUT WINNING ELECTIONS? AND NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GENERAL WELFARE

A 2014 study published in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science stated outright that most convicts register Democrat. That's why Leftist lawmakers and governors are eager for them to swarm the voting booths.

“Democrats would benefit from additional ex-felon participation..."

said the study.

The authors, professors from the University of Pennsylvania and Stanford University, found that in some states, felons register Democratic by more than six-to-one. In New York, for example, 61.5% of convicts are Democrats, just 9 percent Republican. They also cited a study that found 73 percent of convicts who turn out for presidential elections would vote Democrat.

• New York: 61.5% register Democratic, 9% register Republican
• New Mexico: 51.9% register Democratic, 10.2% Republican
• North Carolina: 54.6% register Democratic, 10.2% Republican

Overall, said the study, there are 5.8 million eligible voters in jail, about 2.5 percent of the voting age population. 

QUESTION: IF FELONS VOTED OVERWHELMINGLY REPUBLICAN, WOULD CHASEY BE BRINGING THE BILL?

To ask that question is to answer it. Immediately. People in the hallways of the legislature would break out in belly laughs if you posed that question to them. (The photo of Representative Zach Cook — reacting to Chasey's "sincerity" — says it all. Cook is a Republican from Ruidoso.)

Like Chuck Schumer and a number of other overtly histrionic Democrats at the national level, Chasey is among a passel within the hard-core Leftist gang in Santa Fe willing to put on a show every year, complete with tears, and big, dramatic shoulder-heaving outbursts of emotion and "compassion" (till the moment passes, when the vote is taken).

She will no doubt make the same kind of plea today. But it would be good at least for victims' families to show up and register their objections. Democrats won't care—that's not our point—but eventually someone will. 

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

Over the weekend we saw yet another bizarre story totally made up by Leftists in the media: a bald allegation that some young kids from a Catholic school in Covington, Kentucky did some awful things to some black demonstrators in Washington, D.C. and then showed “disrespect” to a “peace-making” American Indian “Vietnam veteran.”*

Millions of people, including a few normally intelligent friends and readers of NMPJ, rushed to judgment, apparently concluding that the incredibly accurate and scrupulously truthful American news media had nailed yet another story—with total veracity and utmost sincerity.

Alas, it was Hoax City from alpha to omega. The black demonstrators were nothing short of virulent racists. (Who can be surprised by this? With BLM types shutting down free speech everywhere and a couple of dozen Democrat congresspersons constantly spewing the vilest race hatred nowadays, what else is new?)

As for the Native American, he turned out to be nothing more than a well-known re-tread, tiresome politician, and non-stop agitator who has done little other than to stir up hatred for most of his adult life. On this particular day, he again acted like an idiot.

He marched over to a bunch of young kids who were merely minding their own business and he beat a drum senselessly and pointlessly, yelling and staring at them like a total dunce.

(He later made up yet another vicious lie, claiming he was trying to get through the students and they "blocked" his path. This was after he had claimed that he had tried to position himself between the school kids and the black hate group. One of his two tales would have to be false, but in reality, both were complete lies.)

In sharp contrast, the kids behaved with amazing discipline and calm. They acted like mature adults. The “adults” acted like total fools.

HOW DID THE MEDIA REPORT IT?

So what did the media say? Naturally, in the Jim Acosta Era, they painted a narrative of the exact opposite of what actually happened.

Worse, however, was the inane Roman Catholic Diocese of Covington, which condemned the blameless kids and apologized for them—again rushing to judgment with nothing more than a Jim Acosta-styled media report to go on.

VATICAN STRUGGLES; AMERICAN BISHOPS VERY WEAK

This is yet another danger sign within the Roman Catholic Church—one that many Catholics believe practically calls for the laity to overthrow the clergy. Millions of Catholics the world over are increasingly expressing disgust with the seemingly terminally weak church authorities—led by a Pope many find bewildering and others believe to be almost totally confused theologically and spiritually.

Recently revealed falsehoods and coverups of massive child molestations worldwide have not helped his standing, nor that of the numerous dioceses involved in the bankruptcy-invoking scandals.

Still, there is no reason for the utter weakness on so many levels with regard to political and moral stances. There is no reason at all to be so afraid of media opinion as to abandon your own students and fall into line with every single Left-wing meme that comes down the pike.

Everyone at the Diocese of Covington—bishops, archbishops, staff, acolytes, the whole shebang—should be fired. Yesterday.

* Whether he is an actual Vietnam veteran is in some dispute. Some accounts list him as a Vietnam Era veteran—which is something quite different.

We don’t know if it’s true, but the US media are representing all federal employees as completely impoverished, with no means of survival, and many on the verge of starvation—all just a few days after the first paychecks were missed.

These representations seem improbable in that federal workers average about $70,000 per year (about $17,000 more than the average American) and some top out right at $130,000.

The last of the true college football playoff games took place a couple of days ago and was shown on ESPN2. The FCS (Football Championship Series) aka Division 1-AA Championship game was played in Frisco, Texas. Defending champion North Dakota State defeated Eastern Washington 38-24 to claim their seventh FCS title in eight years.

No. 1 North Dakota State finished 15-0 with the win as QB Easton Stick passed for 198 yards and rushed for more than 100 yards while accounting for five touchdowns. Eastern Washington finishes 12-3.

A fake championship for the FBS* “championship” will take place Tonight

A Guest Column by former State Senator Rod Adair, Editor Emeritus

HAPPY NEW MEXICO DAY!

On this date 107 years ago, Republican President William Howard Taft signed the New Mexico Statehood Proclamation.

On Saturday, January 6, 1912, at 1:35 p.m. in Washington D.C., President William H. Taft signed the proclamation making New Mexico the 47th state of the United States of America. More than 61 years had passed since the first statehood convention had been held in New Mexico on June 20, 1850. After signing the proclamation the President remarked: "Well, it is all over." Turning to Delegate Andrews and Congressman Curry, he continued, "I am glad to give you life, I hope that you will be healthy."

Chicago (AP) —Thousands of American women went online today pledging to “change genders” if Senator Elizabeth Warren becomes the first female president.

“She’s just not representative of my sex,”

said Susan Rodriguez Martin, of Oak Park, Illinois,

“I’ll totally switch over if she is presented to the world as a typical American woman. I may not do the surgery thing, but I’ll definitely stop identifying.”

A number of Cherokees from Oklahoma were among the first 17,000 women to make the pledge. A spokesperson said they expect to hit a million pledges by year’s end. 

(Parody)

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

The Democrats take over the House today. Will Republican women activists (or men) now behave like their Democrat counterparts, roaming the hallways, accosting congressmen and women, shouting obscenities, or interrupt proceedings by screaming at the top of their lungs and acting like fools?

We took an online poll on our Facebook page and the result was that:

• 33% of the 128 participants responded "YES, the Republicans will do that." 
• 67% said "NO, that's what Democrats do."

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

There has been a good deal of commentary today from PETA folks and other talking heads on TV, discussing PETA’s proposed ban on live animal mascots for sports teams.

All this comes in the wake of the Texas Longhorn’s mild swipe at the diminutive Georgia Bulldog during the Sugar Bowl.

However, the pundits, news presenters and other talkers are all calling Bevo the Longhorn “bull” from Texas.

Chowderheads! Bevo is a steer—something knowable and, well, observable, even by total amateurs.

Sometimes we wonder if these TV folks (or even PETA folks) are aware of the difference.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

Abraham Lincoln, in the late afternoon on this date in 1863, signed The Emancipation Proclamation*.

Some three months earlier, on September 22, he had announced he would sign it on this date if the states in rebellion had not returned to the Union. Most of the day went by as Lincoln waited for a clerical error to be corrected. Meanwhile, following a long-standing presidential tradition, Lincoln met and shook hands with many hundreds of well-wishers at the annual New Year's Day reception at the President's House.

THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION in PROPER PERSPECTIVE

Over the past decade or two, it has become very fashionable for an array of what might be called "Lincoln Loathers" to attack the Emancipation Proclamation. The critics include libertarians, Libertarians, Democrats, and neo-Confederates. Most of the critics merely repeat a few things they have seen on social media.

Here are some of the most popular things that are parroted by Lincoln critics:

? "the Emancipation Proclamation freed no one"

? "it was toothless"

? "it applied only to a region over which Lincoln had no say"

We can be amused by folks who excitedly offer these "insights," sounding as if they have just read the document for the first time—and also presuming that we have never seen it. However:

HERE ARE SOME POINTS YOU NEED TO THINK ABOUT:

? The truth is, the Emancipation Proclamation IMMEDIATELY freed* some 50,000 enslaved people in Confederate territory, most of whom were living along the coast of the Carolinas, or what South Carolinians call the "sea islands." But in addition to those in the Palmetto State, thousands more were freed in southern Louisiana, and thousands of others were immediately freed throughout much of Tennessee.

? And in the months to come, Union troops, armed with copies of the proclamation printed for distribution wherever they went, especially to slave owners, liberated tens of thousands more wherever they marched.

? Additionally, tens of thousands of slaves, emboldened by word-of-mouth news of the Proclamation, bravely abandoned their bondage on their own, and moved toward federal lines wherever they could locate them, offering their services to the Union in any capacity they could.

? Ineffective? Think again. Just four months after it was signed, the slaves that Confederate President Jefferson Davis had left behind at his Mississippi plantation used the news of the Proclamation as a motivation and even a means of escape—soon after Ulysses S. Grant’s forces began their great roundabout approach toward nearby Vicksburg.

? What better proof of the Proclamation’s impact could there be than its ability to deprive its author’s counterpart of his own enslaved property?

? Of course it is true that it applied only to states still in rebellion, we all know that—it says so right in the document. It is mind-boggling that some people treat this fact as a wickedly clever "discovery" on their part. One of the reasons for that was crystal clear to everyone, then and now: Four slave states were still loyal to the Union and as a statesman and intelligent leader, Lincoln had to do what he could to ensure that Union forces were not facing 15 states in rebellion instead of 11.

LEGACY

? Most important of all, beginning on that unforgettable New Year’s Day, the Proclamation forever transformed the Civil War from a struggle merely to restore the Union as it was, to a titanic battle to create a new Union altogether—in which all men and women everywhere in American territory, would ultimately be free.

? Of course the Emancipation Proclamation did not with one stroke of a pen bring about the immediate end of slavery. Lincoln did not allege that it did. No one did. (It is only today's critics who even perceive that it was supposed to.) What it did do, however, was to plainly proclaim the beginning of the end of slavery in the United States and its territories. And there is no doubt that it hastened its ultimate extinction which was to be brought about by the Republicans' 13th Amendment less than three years later.

COMPARED to the DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE

Think about the Declaration of Independence for a moment: Does anyone make the claim that it "freed no one"? After all, critics could truthfully say that. They could point out that merely declaring independence did not truly make any colony a state, and did not actually transform any British subject into an American citizen. And they would be telling the truth. Yet no one ridicules Thomas Jefferson or the Founders who signed the document for "freeing no one," or for writing a "toothless" declaration, or for "applying it to a region over which they had no control."

The reason they don't do that is simple: Everyone knew at the time that the Declaration, just like the Emancipation Proclamation, would have to be validated by the American people.

The Declaration of Independence, to which the Emancipation Proclamation is often compared, did not alone create a free United States in 1776. Of course not. It required enforcement on the battlefield before its promise could be kept. Washington and thousands of brave soldiers ended up redeeming it.

The same is true of the Emancipation Proclamation—the “second declaration of independence” four score and seven years later. American soldiers and citizens in support of those soldiers went forth and validated it and enforced it on the field of battle.

Think about all these things next time you see one of those "internet historians" waxing all-knowing about what the Emancipation Proclamation "did not do."

There is no real excuse for Americans not to know better.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

A plain and obvious fact is that the US Border Patrol did not endanger—and never has endangered—any children’s lives on our southern border. On the contrary, the children’s own parents have done so. And with the encouragement—indeed the egging on—of the Democratic Party, irresponsible or uncaring parents are continuing to put their own children at risk. And the Left loves it.

If the Democrats and their mouthpieces in the media were honest they would call the recent events what they actually are: child abuse—by the parents. And they would insist on jailing the guilty parents for actions that would, in fact, result in child abuse charges IF the parents were AMERICANS and the acts were committed IN THIS COUNTRY.

But because both the media and the Democrats support open borders, the deaths of innocent children are used as props—phony stories to buttress their arguments that “policies” or “Trump” or “the immorality of Americans” were the cause of children’s deaths. They weren’t. The kids’ parents acted irresponsibly. If they remain in the US (and they shouldn’t) they should be charged, tried, convicted, jailed, and then repatriated after their parole.

THE LEFT IS VERY CONSISTENT IN THIS

Hundreds of lives and 14,000 homes were destroyed in California because of political machinations and “activism” that prevent forest thinning and other responsible environmental measures from being taken. Never mind the property losses in the billions, the Left doesn’t even care about the human lives that were lost. What matters to them is posturing, making ideological points—whether for the Spotted Owl or for some other supposed cause du jour which they claim, falsely, to be an “environmental” concern.

The same approach was taken with WIPP, the Waste Isolation Pilot Project. The Left, led by such politicians as Richardson, Udall, and other Democrats worked to block the opening of WIPP for more than 20 years. It didn’t matter to any of them that nuclear waste was currently exposed and represented a danger to life and long-term health where it was—or that it would be thousands of times safer to have that waste stored at the WIPP site. No, lives didn’t matter. The Left only cared about making the ideological point that they opposed nuclear energy. Being able to chant “no nukes” thousands of times easily trumped human life.

Bottom Line: The Left, the Open-Border Democrats, and the American media don’t give a hoot in hell about the two children who died recently at the hands of their illegal immigrant parents. What they care about is any event—however tragic—that they can convert to a political talking point, no matter how illogical or counter-factual it may be.

email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

On Friday, Governor-elect Michelle Lujan Grisham named Ken Ortiz to be the new Secretary of the New Mexico General Services Department. It is an excellent appointment.

Ortiz, as a career state employee, is likely to be quite different from the routine Grisham appointees, who will most likely be highly partisanly-motivated activistas and progressive "movement" operatives. Ortiz's case, at least as best we have been able to determine, is quite different. He brings solid credentials as a thoroughly competent manager and supervisor.

Though a lifelong Democrat, Ortiz has never, to our knowledge, let partisan politics get in the way of his approach to his duties. On the contrary, he has a reputation for both providing leadership as well as skillful management of state employees—not the easiest task around, and one that most government managers don't really succeed in.

VAST EXPERIENCE

Additionally, Ortiz oversaw the transformation of the system from a stubby pencil to a fully-automated on-line process. The Journal included this quote from Duran:

“Our online filings in November grew to almost 1,100 compared with only 240 a year ago, an increase of 350 percent,” Secretary Dianna Duran said in a statement.

Again, it was Ortiz, together with consultants and specialists hired by Duran, who oversaw this remarkable transformation. 

Loyal and Principled

During his tenure at the Secretary of State's office, Ortiz was heavily recruited by the Public Regulation Commission to become its Chief of Staff. He interviewed and was offered the position. Ultimately, however, he turned it down, even though the position offered a $27,000 per year raise. The Office of the Secretary of State had, in 2013 at his request, made him a classified employee, thus giving him total job security. Whether it was out of loyalty based on the goodwill from the Secretary of State or concern in taking an at-will position, Ortiz elected to stay on at the SOS.

Appointment to a cabinet position makes him once again a Gov-Ex employee. However, with his proven record it is hard to see that as an issue. He will of course also receive a considerable raise in salary.

Ortiz is Popular, Possibly Because he is Not Overtly Political

Ken Ortiz has proved popular with both Republicans and Democrats largely because he is principally focused on administration and competent management rather than political activism. At least this is our best assessment. (Who knows what people do behind the scenes?) 

As a 6' 5" center, Ortiz was a first-team all-state basketball star for the McCurdy Mission Bobcats in the late 80s, and scored 46 points in one game against Santa Fe Prep, along with 40 more in the same week against St. Catherine. He spends a lot of his time coaching his two boys, both of whom are outstanding basketball players themselves. 

We believe Ken Ortiz is an outstanding appointee. We hope selections based on his model will be the norm for Michelle Lujan Grisham, but on that point some may not be that optimistic. 

mail us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

Can't Get the Story Straight

It may be a brilliant hire: Grisham creates McCamley's first job in many years. Now he can use himself as an excellent example of "workforce solutions." That is to say, he wanted to be part of the workforce, and Grisham made that happen for him. Now he can turn around and make other unemployed New Mexicans part of the workforce as well. (It may not be that easy, statistically, since the state is at its lowest unemployment rate in many years, but that is another story.)

McCamley May have Altered his Reports

We are not sure, but last spring it appeared that all of McCamley's financial disclosures showed no sources of income, now they do appear to do so. Whether they have been "updated" or not, we cannot say. We also note that another story showed that he claimed to have inherited quite a bit of money. But if he is a trust fund baby or has inherited a fortune, well, THAT would be his "source of income."

Not claiming anything is the same as saying you're a pauper, or you support yourself by standing at intersections with cardboard signs—but wait, you'd have to report THAT as your means of support.

ONE POSSIBLE EXPLANATION

The Campaign Finance Report filed last April did not actually say that the bulk of his loans—$40,000—came from his own funds. Instead, it appears to indicate it is from, perhaps, an "alter ego." He lists the source as one "William McCambley," with a "b."

Is that who supports him? A wealthier individual with a slightly different name, but who lives at the same address. Maybe. But the same Campaign Report contains yet another potential alter-ego: page 1 of the report says McCamley's campaign committee was actually known as "Bill McClamley for State Auditor.”  (Yeah, as in "clam.") 

Frankly, we’re just confused.   Did Bill McCamley’s alter-ego William McCambley loan money to the committee to elect Bill McClamley?

BOTTOM LINE: McCamley is Believed by Grisham to be the Best for this Position

In any case, none of this matters now. Michelle Lujan Grisham has looked the state over, reflected on the situation, and has decided that McCamley is the very best person she can find to lead the state to greater job opportunities, greater employment, and a dynamic, ever-expanding workforce.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

First, it was a False, yet Breathless, Headline from the Albuquerque Journal

“Herrell’s inspection of absentee ballots completed,” blared the Journal on Wednesday, going on to report that “Republican congressional candidate Yvette Herrell’s legal team completed its inspection of absentee ballot materials in Doña Ana County.”

This is untrue, or at the very best completely misleading. “Inspection” in this context is nothing more than Herrell’s team finally having “access” to tens of thousands of pages of election materials—not just ballots, but the absentee ballot applications (both on paper, as well as the specious electronic ones that we’ve discussed here before) and the absentee ballot envelopes. The completion of the copying (or scanning as the case may be) in no way implies—as the stories do—that Herrell has been able to review those thousands of documents and concluded that everything "looks good," or reach any other conclusion either.

We suspect that having undergone the onerous process—unprecedented in New Mexico history—set out by the courts, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General and the county clerk herself, and having spent a week and a half gathering documents, the Herrell team will take a couple of weeks to review them and draw conclusions. 

The stories have correctly noted that Herrell has until January 6th to contest the election and we would expect to see a report on Herrell’s findings sometime between now and then—and in reality, closer to now than to then, but it may still be quite a while yet. The fact is they are definitely in a time crunch—a time crunch illegally created by Judge Arrieta from Las Cruces.    

UNLAWFUL RULINGS CAUSE PROBLEMS

Voters need to understand that there were a couple of unlawful rulings coming out of the Doña Ana County-based court, both of them egged on by the Secretary of State and the Attorney General.

First, they unlawfully delayed the process by 17 days by insisting that the judge go ahead and explicitly ignore the plainly written state law that required him to impound the election returns on 16 November. As a result, the Herrell team was not even allowed to view anything at all until Monday, December 3. But reporters, ignorant of post-election procedures and the law, have hounded Herrell for asking for nothing more than what the law requires, and what she is plainly entitled to see. 

As a result, they have encouraged both themselves and Democrat activists to unnecessarily and inaccurately label Herrell as a "sore loser," and to call her names. Again, all of this for no reason at all. The reporters just don't know what they're talking about—and it also reveals a markedly different attitude from that exhibited in the North Carolina case, where the apparent winner is a Republican and the apparent loser is a Democrat.) 

(People wonder where all the rancor and vituperative, uncivil political discourse comes from. The answer many times is from inaccurate and sensational "reporting.")

Second, at the urging of the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, the court ordered that the impoundment process be as slow and as time-consuming as possible.  Apparently, the Herrell team didn’t even get to view all of the documents they asked for, since the order provided that the county clerk had to redact information from documents that contained things like full birth dates, even though none of the documents requested required any confidential information at all.

All of this put the Herrell team at the mercy of the county clerk for a significant portion of the documentation.

There's Been No Actual Inspection (Review & Analysis) so Far—the Documents had to be Assembled First

But all the above is only part of the misleading reporting: It has to be understood that all of the scanning and copying had to be completed just in order to provide all the documents needed for an actual inspection to take place. The court-ordered difficulties in obtaining the documents took some seven business days over a nine-day period to complete.

Only at that point could the painstaking process of reviewing some 20,000 pieces of paper and scanned images begin. We don’t know exactly what their approach is, but having taken the time to apparently copy the entire record, we suspect they’ll be looking at the accounting of the ballots, ballot requests, electronic ballot requests, returned ballots, entries on the Absent Voter Register, and many other details.

It is almost a certainty that not one of the reporters, who believe they are “covering” this story, has ever looked at an absentee ballot return envelope, or a ballot application, or any of the other documents involved. Yet, they mislead the public into believing that a process that takes many days to complete should already be over.

HOUNDING HERRELL

The Albuquerque Journal has certainly wanted to let its readers know that they are pestering Herrell at every turn for instant answers about thousands of documents she has just barely received.

"Herrell’s legal team did not respond to repeated requests for an interview and did not offer any comment about the inspection process or any results after reviewing the ballot materials.”

Of course they did not respond. They could not respond.

If the Albuquerque Journal faced a situation in which they just now received 20,000 documents, each of which has to be examined for up to as many as seven or eight component parts and cross-checked in the same manner with several other documents, they would not be ready to “offer any comment” either. Because they would not have “any results,” precisely because the “reviewing” would just be getting under way.

So the kind of reporting done by these New Mexico newspapers is dangerous for the public. It leads to social media and other kinds of attacks on Herrell because the public believes the newspapers must know something, and they must be telling the truth. In some cases this is true, we grant that. But in many subject matter areas it simply is not the case. 

In any case, the public has now been led to believe that Herrell received everything she needed in a timely manner and has had time to look at it all, and therefore she’s now just stalling. But of course this is 180° out from the actual truth.

Newspapers and “journalists” wonder why there is so much anger and “attacking” and “incivility” in social media and political discourse? The answer is that many times it’s because the media mislead average voters into believing nonsense.

It is also interesting that no one questions the actions taken in North Carolina. Is that because the winner there is a Republican? And the apparent winner here is a Democrat? We don’t know. But we note it.

ONE THING WE DO KNOW: THE DOÑA ANA COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE SAYS IT ISSUED 577 BALLOTS AFTER THE POLLS CLOSED

One thing that any of the misleading newspapers could report on if they weren’t just satisfied to hound, would be something they could find from a review of the public document that anyone can look at: The Absent Voter Register.

When we examined that spreadsheet, it shows that 577 ballots are reported as having been received AFTER 7:00 PM on election night. In fact, the Clerk reports—as shown on her very own register—they came in on Wednesday, November 7. That’s in direct conflict with New Mexico election law.

Equally Ignorant or Equally Misleading Lawyers?

“To our knowledge, they’ve scanned everything and made copies of everything they requested to see,” said Kate Girard, a legal representative for Torres Small. “To date, they haven’t pointed to anything specific,” she said.”

We have to give the benefit of the doubt to Girard: she may not know any better. But if she does, then she deliberately misled the Journal—part of the bad sort of public discourse political activists engage in.

Carlsbad Current-Argus and Las Cruces Sun-News Chime In

The Carlsbad-Current Argus tweeted “No anomalies reported following Doña County absentee ballot inspection..”

They have no idea whether there are any or not. No one does. No one has had a chance to reach such a conclusion.

(Though we have to say there already have been quite a few “anomalies” reported already—by New Mexico Political Journal—many of them in Eddy County. But then the paper would have to have a measure of intellectual curiosity to read about those, understand them, and then pursue the story journalistically. But that takes effort.)

It’s easier just to quote people who also have a stake in not doing anything beyond sitting around and making pronouncements:

“Alex Curtas, spokesman for the New Mexico Secretary of State's Office, told the Sun-News on Wednesday that no issues or additional questions had been raised at that office either.

“The Sun-News, like other news organizations, has reached out to parties to the inspection, but have received no response.”

Bottom Line: Everyone Needs to Chill

There may or may not be a story with regard to the 2nd Congressional District. We don’t know. But one thing we do know is that, given what anyone can see so far—the time required to get the documents, the court-ordered delay, the court-ordered slow-down of the process—Yvette Herrell is just now in possession of the required documents.

It is going to take her quite a bit of time to go through them.

Continuing harassment, by members of the press who know nothing at all about the process, is not going to do anything other than mislead the public. We hope that is not their actual objective. But we have to recognize that it may be.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

Prominent Republican Holm O. Bursum, III passed away on Tuesday, December 4, at his home in Socorro. He was a third-generation New Mexican whose grandfather, Holm Olaf Bursum, was an Iowa-born Norwegian-American who had come to New Mexico Territory from the Hawkeye State as a 14-year-old in 1881. His story is in the next paragraph. (The Holm O. Bursum III story is below.)

HOLM OLAF BURSUM, 1867-1953 (Pictured at right)

Holm Olaf Bursum, a 14-year-old with his family from Iowa, settled near Socorro in 1881 and engaged in ranching and other business interests. The pioneer Bursum was elected Socorro County Sheriff, a member of the Territorial Senate, Mayor of Socorro, and Chairman of the Territorial Republican Central Committee. He was also a prominent member of the New Mexico Constitutional Convention of 1910.

Bursum was a four-time delegate to the Republican National Convention, and at the 1908 convention he was largely responsible for the Republican platform plank advocating statehood for New Mexico. He was appointed, then subsequently elected, to the United States Senate, succeeding fellow Republican Albert B. Fall.

Senator Bursum died in 1953, when his grandson, Holm O. Bursum III (shown below) was 19 years old. 

Holm O. Bursum, III, 1934-2018

Holm III was born in Roswell, NM on August 24, 1934, to Holm Jr. and Elizabeth Puckett Bursum. Holm was raised on a ranch 30 miles East of Socorro in an area known as Jornada del Muerto Basin. His father went into banking in the late 1940s, as a co-founder of First State Bank, and Holm III succeeded him as bank president.

Holm graduated from Socorro High School and attended New Mexico State University where he studied agriculture and received a Bachelor of Science degree in animal husbandry. While at NMSU, Holm received a commission in the college's ROTC program which led him to the United States Air Force. He served three years in the Air Force with the Strategic Air Command. 

During his time in the Air Force, on a trip home between transfers, Holm was introduced to his future wife Earle by a cousin. Earle agreed to meet Holm and have a "coffee ONLY" date with him. Fortunately for both, their coffee date turned into 56 years of marriage, four wonderful children, ten beautiful grandchildren and one great-grandchild.

Sadly, Earle passed away in November of 2014. In 1959, Holm went to work for Albuquerque National Bank and remained with them until April 1, 1966, when he chose to return to Socorro and go to work for his father at First State Bank. Holm became President and CEO of FSB in December 1987 and remained so until his death.  His son, Holm Bursum IV (Cuatro), proudly served alongside his father as Vice President and Chief Operating Officer.  

First State Bank

First State Bank was founded and opened for business on July 1, 1947.  Shortly after that, in the early 1950's, the bank began offering scholarships to Socorro and Catron County students wishing to attend the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

Holm has supported New Mexico Tech through the years, promoting an ongoing and cohesive working relationship between NM Tech and the Socorro Community.  One of Holm's many accomplishments that he is most proud of is being confirmed twice by the New Mexico State Senate as a member of the New Mexico State Highway Commission.

He served over eight years on that prestigious board, from 1995 to 2003, becoming its longest-serving chairman in New Mexico State history. During this 8-year period, the New Mexico State Highway Department constructed a record 653 miles of new four-lane highway mileage, more than in the previous 83-year history of the State Highway Department.  

That achievement, when combined with the upgrades to four lanes of approximately 500 miles of two-lane highway, meant that New Mexico had added a total of over 1,100 miles of four-lane highway by the end of his term as Chairman.  

Looking back on his tenure as Chairman of the Commission, Holm noted:

“When we started the four-lane highway project, every community in New Mexico with a population of 25,000 or more was connected to a four-lane highway. When we finished the 653 miles, every community (with the exception of Silver City) with a population of 8,000 or more was connected to a four-lane highway.  This was true economic development.” 

Holm was preceded in death by his parents; wife Earle Bursum; brother Michael F. Bursum and his beloved dog, Oscar.  

Survivors

Holm is survived by children, Holm O. Bursum IV, Elizabeth Spencer and her husband Ben, Julia J. Bursum, and Michael Bursum and his wife Lori Keleher Bursum. He also is survived by ten grandchildren, Holm O. Bursum V, Bruno Aguilar, Andrea Smith and her husband Harrison, Caroline J. Bernitsky and her husband Alex, Anne E. Spencer, Ben F. Spencer Jr., Matthew S. McNaney, Jack B. McNaney, Katherine Bursum, and Samantha Bursum.

Additionally, he has a great-granddaughter, Maya G. Smith. He also leaves behind his dog, Par.

Funeral Services

Funeral Services will be held on Tuesday, December 11, 2018, at 10:00 AM, at The Garcia Opera House, 110 Abeyta Street, Socorro, NM with Pastor Ted Mattie officiating.  

A private interment will be held at the Socorro Cemetery.  

Pallbearers will be Holm O. "Cuatro" Bursum IV, Michael Bursum, Ben F. Spencer Sr., Ben F. Spencer Jr., Matthew S. McNaney and Joe Estrada.

Honorary Pallbearers are Fred Robinson, Jerry Armijo, Don Tripp and John Howard.  In lieu of flowers, memorial donations may be given in Holm's honor to the First Presbyterian Church of Socorro or to the Socorro County Fair Board.  Donation accounts have been opened at First State Bank, PO Box Z, Socorro, NM 87801.

To view information or leave a condolence, please visit www.danielsfuneral.com. 

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST CLINTON

THE KEY MOMENT for TRUMP, MUELLER, CLINTON, and AMERICA

For Mueller, and for the legitimacy of the US Government itself, the key point came when Hillary Clinton and her staff attorneys—all of whom were and are officers of the court—decided openly and without any thought or consideration of conscience, to violate the law by not only the use of unsecured communications systems, but by also deciding to try to cover up what they had done by destroying over 30,000 emails.

In addition to using a program called BleachBit, they also used hammers to destroy all of their cell phones.

According to FBI documents, 13 devices that they had requested be turned over for investigation were destroyed by the use of a hammer.

In all of these acts, Hillary Clinton and her team violated a fundamental precept of law by destroying evidence under subpoena. Destruction of evidence in this manner is a felony, punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

What did the FBI do? Nothing. They “say” they carried out an “investigation,” but admitted that they did not record any questioning, that they allowed all subjects to refuse to answer, and that in any case none of the questioning was conducted with anyone under oath. The “cost” of such an exercise was probably about $150—if it cost anything. It is, in effect, a joke, and a very bad one.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST TRUMP

IT IS TRUE THAT MUELLER’S INVESTIGATION COMES AFTER THE NON-INVESTIGATION OF CLINTON. BUT HE IS SCARRED AND RESTRICTED NONETHELESS: IT IS A FAILURE TO ADHERE TO PRINCIPLES OF LEGITIMACY

The Mueller appointment as special investigator was for the purpose of looking into allegations that Trump supposedly colluded with “the Russians” to win the 2016 presidential election. Significantly, these claims came from Clinton appointees while they were leaving office in January 2017. Almost all of the accusers have been shown to be among the biggest liars in US government history and among the most biased Trump-haters in the entire country.

Over the course of more than 18 months, the Mueller investigation has spent some $25 million and has changed its focus numerous times. It is fair to say that the entire effort no longer has anything to do with the original charges. Now it has shifted into trying to discover any and all kinds of financial transactions, people lying to the FBI or misleading investigators.  

There could not be a sharper contrast in the conduct of the United States government’s own investigators actions than in comparing the actions of investigators who looked at Clinton and the investigators who are looking at Trump.

There is no comparison at all.

Clinton, whose actions were clearly illegal—and which would have resulted in prosecution and conviction had they been carried out by any other citizen—was not investigated at all.

Trump, on the other hand, has had allegations made against him with no evidence whatsoever. The investigation quickly hit a dead end, and has been changed numerous times to adjust to the ever-changing circumstances involved.

WHAT IS LEGITIMACY? WHY IS IT VITAL TO ANY FUNCTIONING GOVERNMENT?

The essential undergirding foundation of the American Experiment is what political scientists call “legitimacy.” It is a concept thoroughly discussed by John Locke, whose writing was the greatest single influence on our Founders.

Locke analyzed and described legitimacy from many angles in his Second Treatise of Government. But at the heart of the concept is how a people come to an understanding of the acceptance of authority—whether that authority is manifested in a particular law or in an entire system of government.

Government cannot have a right—or any kind of justification at all—to exercise power unless it is seen as something worthy of having the consent of the governed—the acceptance of the people themselves. And that worthiness comes from demonstrable proof that a system of government is justly constituted, its principles are applied over and over again in consistent form, and that a general societal understanding exists that such a government is equitable, just, and fair in all of its functions.

Locke notes that political legitimacy is considered a basic condition for governing, without which a government will suffer deadlock and collapse. The American Experiment has seen its own revisiting and revising in the ongoing efforts to retain and sustain legitimacy.

THE 14th AMENDMENT, TRUMP, CLINTON, and MUELLER

One of the most important milestones in the continuing effort to maintain and sustain legitimacy in government was the Republican Party's passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868. Though opposed at the time by Democrats—who actually continued to oppose it for the next full century—it stands today as a guidepost that announces what we are about as a people.

The 14th Amendment consists of four sections and over 400 words, but Section 1 holds the key section for this discussion, and the key phrases are here—especially the last one which we have capitalized:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS."

There absolutely NOTHING in the Clinton and Trump investigations which even remotely attempts to achieve the goal of a uniform and non-discriminatory approach to law enforcement. Trump, as compared to Clinton, has in no way enjoyed “equal protection of the laws.”

All the power of the United States government has been employed to seek out every possible charge that can possibly be conjured up against not only Trump, but to seek out everyone who has ever known Trump and try to get them to admit to any charge possible.

With Clinton—who had committed crimes already known to the government—the US government simply decided they would not do anything.

The contrast in actions violates the entire spirit of the 14th Amendment, and because of that, it simultaneously causes the US government to become illegitimate.

This is why Democratic Party governments in the post-Reconstruction South became illegitimate.

This is exactly the kind of approach that Southern juries used to take with regard to acts of violence or murder committed by the Ku Klux Klan or other Democrat Party operatives, while vigorously prosecuting blacks for “vagrancy” or Republicans for “disturbing the peace,” simply because they were trying to register African-Americans to vote.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

New Mexico Republicans meeting in Albuquerque Saturday afternoon, December 8, gave their state chairmanship to congressman Steve Pearce, following his 100,000-vote loss in the gubernatorial election.

That loss carried with it a catastrophic loss of 15 statewide and congressional district races as well as the loss of nine state house seats.

Pottery Barn’s slogan is “You break, you buy.” And by a margin of 276 to 101, the GOP State Central Committee essentially delivered that same message to Pearce. 

So Pearce inherits a job with the party in shambles. Only time will tell if he can put the massive breakage back together again.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

We knew absolutely that Joe Monahan would not be able to resist. Exactly as we predicted, anti-Republican blogger Joe Monahan issued a glowing endorsement of Steve Pearce for Republican Party chair this morning.

How did we predict this? How did we know beyond any doubt that this would happen? As we pointed out on several occasions, Monahan wants his SOURCES — the Republicans who are willing to steal emails, publish them (so he can publish them), attack any Republican who is having success (Susana Martinez), and help him in his never-ending quest to continually divide the Republican Party. 

Pearce and his team are not only supportive of Monahan's efforts, Pearce actually HIRES people who steal emails from Republicans. He HIRES people who campaign against Republicans.

NOTE: We are not saying that Pearce is not a conservative. He is. And we objectively admit he may be just as good a choice as anyone to lead the New Mexico Republican Party (he has worked to destroy).

We are simply saying that he adheres to no standards whatsoever when it comes to hiring people who will do his bidding and help him pursue his goals. And Monahan benefits greatly from leaks and gossip from Republicans. It shores up his Democrat base of readers. 

(Though it merits pointing out, regarding Pearce, that he has never won an election outside CD2, a district that is actually one point better than the state of Texas in GOP performance. The two times he has been a statewide Republican nominee, Pearce has not only lost in landslides, he has taken every single other statewide and congressional Republican candidate with him—all 15 statewide contests, all 6 congressional races and a total of 15 losses in legislative seats. That's a total of 36 races lost in the two times he headed the GOP ticket. Pretty sobering stuff.)

What are the Facts that Monahan has Distorted on Behalf of the Pearce-Yates-Billingsley Cabal?

Underlined below are claims made by Monahan in his blog, followed by our corrections of his claims:

References to "The Martinez Machine" in state GOP politics.

“The Martinez machine” hasn’t been involved in state GOP politics since 2013, when Pearce best friend and disciple John Billingsley was elected chair—with the stated mission of running Martinez out of the party. Martinez supporters did oppose Billingsley at that time, and lost.

People wearing Cat-in-the-Hat outfits or walking around with goofy vests festooned with 300 souvenir pins, or moaning about gasoline being 3¢ cheaper in the next town over, all voted for Billingsley in droves. (He and his associates do great among the bitch and moan crowd—that's right in their wheelhouse.) 

Billingsley of course promptly ran the party into the ground. He was the first of what might be called "The Fifteen-hundred Dollar Chairmen," a tradition Ryan Cangiolosi has fought hard to preserve. ($1,503 on hand on November 1. Amazing. But we digress.)

"The machine candidate is ABQ businessman John Rockwell"

This is just plain dumb. Martinez has 25 days left in office. She has no "machine," she has no candidate and is doing nothing, nor his her political team. Her political team does far more work in other states than they do in New Mexico and actually could not care less about who leads the state GOP. (With the Yates-Cangiolosi-Billingsley-Pearce "triumphalism" and "run Martinez out" attitude, the Martinez team was left with no role to play in the state party.) 

It also appears that Rockwell, who is a nice man, is also doing nothing. He seems hardly to be aware of a campaign in general, much less running one himself. It's beyond absurd to claim that Martinez has a candidate. 

"The Martinez faction had former NM GOP House Speaker Don Tripp issue an endorsement of Rockwell over Pearce."

This is sheer chutzpah on the part of Monahan (and presumably his Pearce-Yates-Billingsley associated allies): No one has ever "had" Don Tripp do anything. The wealthy, independent Socorro businessman has always operated on his own.

It has to be remembered that Tripp endorsed Yvette Herrell in the CD2 Republican Primary, while Martinez supported Monty Newman. To claim Martinez told Tripp to do anything is just plain ignorant—or an attempt to deceive uninformed Central Committee members.

It's highly unlikely that pushing this story to Monahan will endear the Pearce crowd to Tripp, but he is also very composed, even aloof in many ways, so we doubt he will react at all. 

NOTE: We just checked with Tripp via text. Here is what he wrote: "John asked me to [endorse him]. Only John."

In addition to his fabrication, Monahan then goes on to try to launch another anti-Tripp narrative that tries to blame Tripp for the Republican situation:

"But Tripp served only one term as speaker during which he did little to advance the GOP's chances of holding on to the majority in the chamber. They promptly lost to the Dems after only one term under Tripp."

That's just stupid. And it certainly appears such a suggestive narrative could only come from a very devious source, very likely one of Monahan's numerous sources in the Pearce camp.

"Pearce has secured the endorsement of incoming state House Minority Leader James Townsend of Artesia and State Rep. Yvette Herrell of Alamogordo"

Why name only those two? We published the names of the numerous politicians who have endorsed Pearce. 

"It will be interesting to see how many votes will go against Pearce."

Not that many, we suspect.

"Another argument against him is that he has not sworn off any 2020 run for the southern congressional seat he gave up to run for Guv."

We are not sure who is making that argument. We have published the fact that Pearce could certainly easily win that seat back from Xochitl Torres Small. But this particular issue may be an important consideration for any thinking Republican activist—is Pearce truly concerned about rebuilding the state GOP, or left without a position as he now is, is he simply seeking a position from which he can concentrate on putting himself back in Congress?

"But Pearce brings to the table money--lots of it--and he has enough of his own so he won't be forced to kneel before the altar of Martinez acolytes like former GOP National Committeeman Pat Rogers who was ousted by much of the same central committee that will pick the new chair."

Again, a dumb comment on many fronts (but if you're wearing a Cat-in-the-hat outfit, you're probably impressed). "Having" money, and "spending" and "raising" it are two entirely different things—or maybe three entirely different things. No one doubts that Pearce is vastly more wealthy than Michelle Lujan Grisham (unless investigations of Delta Consulting reveal even more skimming than has been published already, but we digress). But she certainly raised and spent more. (And she didn't pay her fundraiser $306,000 even as they vastly outraised Pearce's.)

Which, incidentally, highlights more absurdity from Monahan:

Remember all the Monahan posts about how much money the Martinez team was “raking in” from her campaigns and PACs? This line—very suspiciously coincidentally—was precisely the argument John Billingsley and Harvey Yates used starting in 2013 and then repeatedly trotted out in their campaigns for state party positions

So why is it that Monahan has not virtually lost his mind about Andrea Goff being paid an absurd $306,000 to be Pearce's finance director? After all, that's a figure way outside the industry standard for a gubernatorial campaign. Why hasn’t Monahan asserted that Pearce’s media consultant was “paid” $2.6 million from Pearce’s campaign?

Here's why:

Monahan ignores the $306,000 issue because Goff has been a good source for him—leaks and gossip are all good for Monahan.

Monahan ignores the $2.6 million issue because he well knows that the vast majority of the $2.6 million Pearce “paid” his media consultant actually went to pay for airtime at TV stations and that commission for media consultants—in New Mexico and elsewhere—are identical. He knew those same facts were true with Martinez and McCleskey as well. But making the sensational claim that Jay McCleskey “made” millions helped his principal goal: inflaming poorly informed Republicans (who know little of the technical ins and outs of media expenses) and therefore providing fodder for division within the GOP.

"The Machine appears to have flipped one R who has become prominent in recent months--Michelle Garcia Holmes."

Really? Where does he get that? As we have pointed out, there is no machine. So we are sure no one with Martinez "flipped" her. Has Michelle Garcia Holmes even had one word with the “Martinez machine”?  We highly doubt it.

NOTE: We reached out to Garcia Holmes, as we did with Tripp, but received no reply.

In any case, why put down yet another female Hispanic Republican, as Monahan always does (and some in the Pearce-Yates crowd do)? What's with that? She is perfectly capable of making independent decisions. Why attack? 

Answer: It serves the Pearce cause and the cause of all those who leak information to Monahan.

So the putdowns must be inserted, as these are:

"She was an unsuccessful independent ABQ mayoral candidate in 2017 ...She has now turned on Pearce...and announced her support of Rockwell. But she is a newcomer to the party and has little influence with the central committee."

How does he know she "turned on" Pearce? How close were they to start with? Does Monahan even have a clue? We doubt it.

"Ultimately it is that change that most insider Republicans hunger for and which Pearce represents."

Claiming Pearce is somehow "change" is downright laughable. Cangiolosi was his hand-picked candidate. For all intents and purposes, Pearce and his anti-Martinez crowd around him ran everything in the Party throughout the last cycle. The only change anyone will get is from the name "Cangiolosi" to the name "Pearce." No other changes will be made. 

Bottom Line

Monahan knows that every significant allegation in his endorsement today is a fabrication. But he also knows that Pearce and his people will help him with leaks and in his never-ending quest to divide the party. The Democrats love what Monahan does. That's why he does it. They also appear to love the idea of Steve Pearce as GOP State Chair.

The Democrat Party of New Mexico published yet another tweet today along the same lines as Monahan, but bragging that they are "preparing to govern." Republicans may be wise to consider how convenient it is that the Democrats and their mouthpiece (Monahan) are both encouraging the election of Steve Pearce.  

And this should also serve as an important reminder for journalists—Monahan is always pushing an agenda. His posts are not just the latest leaks and gossip of the day. They’re his efforts to push one side or another of his agenda. And he’s willing to be breathtakingly dishonest about it.  

And again, we have never said that Rockwell or Pearce is the better choice. We actually don't believe either of them has a plan or a vision for how to maneuver the party through the difficult waters ahead — difficulties engendered by the Pearce-Yates-Billingsley cabal.

But just because Rockwell played no role in the catastrophe, while his opponents directed the entire thing, doesn't mean he has a plan for how to recover.

And we have always been willing to publish articles or opinions on either side. We do believe that everyone participating in the process needs to have as much relevant information, history, and background as can be provided.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

New Mexico Political Journal has now received complaints from members of the New Mexico Republican State Central Committee, citing "irregularities" as Saturday's State Central Committee meeting approaches.

[NOTE: We are not taking sides in this dispute or the election itself, we are merely reporting what has been sent to us.]

Here's what has Happened

Steve Pearce sent out a letter yesterday, Tuesday, December 4, at 1:14 PM, stating that in order to get to vote for State Republican Party Chair, either by being present or by voting by proxy, you had to register by 5:00 PM that very day. In other words, just 3 hours and 46 minutes after his letter went out.

A number of Central Committee members have cried foul, stating that there's no such provision in the by-laws. We checked with the Rockwell campaign and they knew nothing about this alleged deadline. 

Rockwell partisans are claiming that under such an artificial, suddenly-invented "rule," the Pearce forces may have arranged to have all their supporters register by the deadline they themselves are announcing, while leaving the Rockwell backers unawares and perhaps not registering until Wednesday, Thursday, or even Friday. 

We don't know what is or is not true about this, or whether it is in fact a trick, as some Rockwell supporters are claiming.

Editorially, we would question why such an extraordinary early deadline would be necessary. Logistically, with such a small number of voters—there are only about 400 members—there is no reason at all why central committee members (just like convention delegates at much larger state convention gatherings) could not register on the day of the meeting. This is not rocket science. 

However, it would appear that both sides have something of a point, possibly attributable to the incompetence of the Republican Party of New Mexico. In the party's official call for the State Central Committee meeting, emailed on November 19, the instructions contain two separate contradicting dates for the deadline for eligibility. Shown below, one passage says the deadline is Tuesday, December 4, while another inset schedule clearly says the deadline is December 6. 

HERE IS WHAT IT SAYS IN THE RPNM'S CALL for the CENTRAL COMMITTEE MEETING

If payment for the State Central Committee Meeting is not paid prior to 5:00 pm on Tuesday, December 4th, 2018, for any State Central Committee members, State Central Committee proxies, self-nominees, and/or guests, you will be considered unregistered and therefore not eligible for participation in the State Central Committee Meeting.

All of this Looks Bad for the RPNM

Republicans are falsely accused of "suppressing the vote," just because they have always favored no-brainer, common sense laws like Voter ID. The Democrats of course want everyone to vote, including non-citizens and other ineligible voters (as their officials in Georgia and Florida recently admitted to). 

But there is no reason, other than sheer incompetence, for Republicans to try to keep their own state central committee members from voting. No legitimate reason that is. Unlike non-citizens and unregistered or other ineligibles that Democrats always want see vote, the SCC members meet all the criteria for voting. 

One central committee member told us:

"The NM GOP secretary said that registration closed yesterday at 5 p.m. because they can't be prepared with too many people coming. They claim that they communicated in every way, but people that I know did not receive any emails with them with the deadline, nor is it on their website."

Nor is anything on their website. Throughout the year, we received scores of complaints about there being "nothing" on the RPNM website. No candidate listings, no events, no updated information. A couple of readers told us "The only thing they have on their website is their employees' names."

So, we have no idea what will happen Saturday, but it looks as though the RPNM is vulnerable to charges of trying to play games with the process. There could be a showdown over credentials. Certainly the Rockwell forces appear to have a case. (But then again, the call for the convention was so incompetently prepared that the Pearce forces could make a case as well.)

Solution? Let all legitimate central committee members vote and let all those who send proxies have those count as well.

Steve Pearce's Letter Claiming that Central Committee Voters Had to be Registered Four Days Prior to the Vote. Also, Here are the Names of a Dozen Republicans Who have Endorsed Steve Pearce

From: Steve Pearce
Date: Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 1:14 PM
Subject: Standing Together for New Mexico
To: 

Lea County Deep Pocket Republicans Very Unhappy with Pearce

We are hearing a lot of grumbling coming out of Lea County these days, and we heard it almost as strong in the months leading up to the general election. It seems a lot of former Pearce backers were more than a little upset at what they consider to be Pearce's virtual sponsorship (if not invention) of Yvette Herrell as his heir apparent.

His decision to do so came at the expense of popular Hobbs Republican Monty Newman—again, supposedly just because Newman had been a cooperative state chair who worked very effectively with Governor Martinez.

Pearce's hand-picked selection did defeat Newman, but the whole affair left a sour taste in Lea County—not to mention the fact that Herrell turned out to be a very weak candidate. 

Many angry Lea County Republicans believe that Monty Newman was far and away the stronger candidate and a solid conservative.

They believe Monty would have easily defeated the Democrat in the general election and believe that Pearce’s intervention—and specifically the hundreds of thousands of dollars that Pearce Finance Chair Mark Murphy spent against Monty in the primary—ultimately backfired in that it ended up costing the GOP the congressional seat.

After all, Trump carried CD 2 by 10 points—one point better than he did in the entire state of Texas. Does anyone believe the GOP cannot win Texas? The loss of CD2 is devastating, and many Republicans lay it at the feet of Pearce.

Payoff for Pearce Operatives?  

Pearce's run for GOP Chair surprised a lot of people, but many see it as a means of providing a payoff for Pearce operatives. Will Andrea Goff retain her unusually lucrative sinecure as the Pearce machine fundraiser. (See below for how much she cost the campaign, compared to the exact same position in the Martinez organization.) Also, what kind of roles will disastrous administrators like John Billingsley, Harvey Yates, Cangiolosi, and Murphy have? These are just some of the questions being raised.

It is true that the Pearce political machine has established that it can assemble on short notice the usual Pearce supporters, paid and volunteer, to push his personal ambitions to success, at least within the party structure. However, it is also true that Pearce ’s traditional flops in his three efforts at statewide office (he also ran for US Senate in 2000) are also attributable to these same paid and not-paid supporters and his traditional focus on the existing party insiders. 

Pearce’s "inside-baseball" appeal, in large part, has been based on his team’s attack on what may be the last Republican Governor for a generation or more. That kind of stuff has played well with the kinds of easily disgruntled and constantly griping central committee members who wear goofy Cat-in-the-Hat hats, or dress in vests festooned with 350 pins from places they've been or Kiwanis Club chapters they've visited. In some conventions, those kinds of "activists" have actually held a majority.

(We are not picking on the GOP. Democrats tell us their Central Committee has similar kinds of members.)

Pearce's tactics have also played well with some disappointed job seekers and favor merchants, but there are time limits for these kinds of games, and—as Pearce has proven time and again—they are not springboards to actual success where it counts: in general elections against the Democrat Party. 

A Major Difference in Fundraising Between the Pearce Camp and the Martinez Party Operation

It has been pointed out to us that Pearce's long-time fundraiser Andrea Goff made $306,000 off the Pearce campaign this year. That's an awful lot of TV and other media. In sharp contrast, Governor Martinez's fundraiser earned $7,000 per month—but raised more than twice as much money!

It certainly appears that Goff found the proverbial "bird's nest on the ground" when she signed on with Pearce.

Another Interesting Fact to Consider: Pearce has run for Statewide Office Twice 

We are also hearing from soon-to-be former legislators who are thinking about trying to win their seats back. What has disturbed many legislators and those hoping Republicans can make a comeback next cycle is Pearce’s track record when leading the party. 

Pearce has run statewide twice, in 2008 and 2018. In both elections, Republicans got destroyed in key swing counties and in swing legislative districts. Here's what worries them: 

• In 2008, Pearce set the all-time record for votes against a statewide Republican candidate, as his Democrat opponent Tom Udall racked up just over a half million votes (505,128) winning 61.3% to 38.7%.
• With Pearce at the top of the state ticket, Republicans lost three House seats and three Senate seats, for a total of six legislative seats. 
• In Pearce's second run for statewide office, with his team in full control of every aspect of the state party, Republicans lost an astounding nine House seats.
• That's 15 legislative seats lost in just two cycles when Pearce has headed the ticket. Sobering.

Whether meant to be a joke or not, it's not surprising that the Democrat party of New Mexico sent out a tweet endorsing Pearce’s candidacy for state chair. 

What they probably mean they plan to do is to make Pearce the actual symbol of the Republican Party in New Mexico. As someone with such a high profile, Pearce will not be like other party chairs who did work behind the scenes and let various candidates be the face of the Republican Party.

Pearce can't do that: he will be the face of the Party. And unlike lower profile chairs, each time Pearce attempts to critique the Lujan Grisham Administration, the Democrats will simply say "sour grapes." That's the difference between being a chair with a low profile and one with a huge profile.

Former Speaker Don Tripp Endorses John Rockwell

Former Speaker of the House Don Tripp has now weighed in on the New Mexico GOP Chairman's race. Tripp sent out an endorsement letter (shown below) in favor of John Rockwell, rather conspicuously breaking with Steve Pearce, albeit in highly diplomatic language that emphasizes his friendship with all candidates. 

Tripp's opinion is significant, not just because he was the first Republican Speaker of the House in 60 years, but because he was positioned to observe the maneuvering by the "Anti-Martinez" Clique that drove the Governor's team out of its leadership role in Republican campaigns AND cost them the House, and cost Tripp the speakership. (Of course Pearce was and is a central player in that clique.)

Tripp is also married to Rosie Tripp, the Republican National Committeewoman for New Mexico who is probably the most popular Republican in the state among the GOP faithful. With Pearce ally, Harvey Yates, serving as Republican National Committeeman, both Tripps have been able to observe the Pearce-Yates shenanigans up close and personal for years.

They haven't said so of course—and  it's important to point out that Rosie Tripp has said nothing and has taken no position on the upcoming contest—but the couple have certainly seen the Pearce-Yates-Billingsley hands at the levers, and it would certainly appear that they surely have not been impressed, at least not favorably.

Pearce is Probably Very Strong—In the Narrow Universe of the GOP Central Committee

Whether Tripp's endorsement will make a bit of difference we are not sure. It would appear that Pearce — at least within the narrow confines and the limited universe of the 400 people on the state central committee—has as strong a machine as any Republican in the state. In that small group of people we would probably have to guess that he wins the upcoming contest.

In a nutshell, this is the difference: Pearce's letter promises to keep his “experienced”’ team together (without any suggestion the team is 3rd or 4th rate), while Rockwell suggests it’s time to roll out the welcome mat to new and particularly young voters. The problem for Rockwell is that the State Central Committee is not made of “new and particularly young voters.” Advantage Pearce. 

And again, the task before the new chairman is so massive we are not sure anyone can meet the challenge, or that anyone even has an actual plan to do so. 

The Tripp Letter

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

So Eddy County's absentee voters favored Democrat Xochitl Torres Small over Yvette Herrell by a margin of 875 to 725, 55% to 45%? 

That's what the official returns say. Why would that be unusual? All the other Eddy County voters—those who voted at early voting sites and those waiting to vote till election day—supported Herrell overwhelmingly, 9,688 to 4,323, or 69% to 31%. 

Is such a wide disparity unusual? It is. Very.

In fact, it's a difference of 77%. In other words, the Eddy County absentee voters were suddenly 77% more likely to support Torres Small than all other voters in the county. Explained another way, only 309 voters out of 1,000 early and election day voters supported Small, but when they voted absentee, Small's totals soared to 547 out of every 1,000 of those voters. That's a bump of 77% just by voting absentee.

Otero County Absentee Voters Turn on Hometown Herrell—That's What the Results Say

You read that right. After election day and early voters supported Alamogordo's Yvette Herrell by a margin of 61.3% to 38.7%, and a margin of 3,483 votes (9,441 to 5,958) the absentee results showed up with an opposite result: Democrat Torres Small carried the absent voter precinct by a landslide, 56-44. 915 Otero County voters chose Small compared with 735 voting for Herrell. That represented a surge of 43.4%, going from 387 Democrat votes per every thousand voters to 555 votes for Small provided they voted by absentee ballot.  

Sierra County Follows the Same Pattern

In the area surrounding Truth or Consequences, the consistently Republican voters supported Herrell by a margin of 2,389 to 1,752 (58-42) until it came to the absentee votes. They went for Small, and it wasn't close. The final count was 300 to 222 — 58% to 42% in the opposite direction. It was the first time Sierra County has had such an occurrence.

Doña Ana County

In the troubled and controversial ballot handling that took place in the greater Las Cruces area, Torres Small did win the election day and early voting by a 25-point margin. So that's to her credit. But that was nothing compared to her 56-point margin among the record 8,425 absentee votes cast. Those were only a tiny part of the reasons Republicans asked for the ballots to be impounded. 

A Las Cruces judge denied the request for impoundment—without explaining why—even though New Mexico statutes essentially commanded him to do so. We have no idea why. Finally, after 17 days went by, the judge relented and reluctantly obeyed New Mexico law yesterday, permitting a review of whatever records may or may not remain. 

In the intervening time period, the Doña Ana County Clerk made wholesale changes to the Absent Voter Register, changing headings, and filling in information that was not shown at the time the impoundment was requested. The "new" Absent Voter Register is now "pristine," having been heavily edited during the 17-day gap provided them by District Court Judge Manuel Arrieta, an active Democrat in the county party.

[NOTE: We are not implying the judge did anything to aid in any kind of deception, or in any effort at all to alter the results or help anyone hide or obscure actual results. As far as we know the judge is honest and above-board in every respect. However, we do maintain with total certainty, that the judge did act unlawfully, and made rulings that clearly contradicted black-letter law. And he did so without explanation. That is on him.]

Here is what the first 15 lines of the Register (from columns S through Z) looked like at the time the impoundment was requested: Here is What the "Same" document Looks Like Today

Unnecessary Restrictions and Impediments to the Process

Meanwhile, in addition to his earlier orders outside the law, the public record reveals that Judge Arrieta ordered an additional number of unusual restrictions and redactions, including requiring the Herrell campaign to make copies of all documents. We cannot say if these additional extralegal requirements are for the purpose of attempting to hamper a comprehensive review of the returns or not. We can only note them.

As a result, based on what has been publicly reported, and based on what we would anticipate might need to be examined (absentee ballot applications, absentee ballot outer envelopes, electronic applications, and redacted voter registration documents) we can see that many thousands of copies might have to be produced.

Given the judge's ruling and the "rules" set forth, we would not be surprised if the process takes the full ten days allowed for in Article 1-14-11 of the Election Code. We are concerned that there may not be enough time for a thorough examination of the process to take place.

But it has to be noted that much unnecessary delay has been inflicted by an unlawful ruling by a New Mexico court, egged on by the Secretary of State and the Attorney General. So much for standing for transparency and openness.

Stay tuned.   

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

First things first: We don't have a dog in the fight for the Chairmanship of the Republican Party of New Mexico, to be decided this coming Saturday, December 8. We have described the situation faced by Republicans as akin to having a driver pop the steering wheel loose from the steering column as the car is headed over a cliff and handing it to his passenger while saying "Here, you take the wheel."

We are not sure there are any candidates who have a plan equal to the task before them. To have a say, to have a seat at the table, the Republican Party of New Mexico has to capture a net 12 seats in the State House of Representatives in an election that is only 23 months away.

Whoever the new driver might be, he or she is still facing a catastrophic situation, as we have described the calamity that hit New Mexico Republicans on November 6. The Party arguably faced its most devastating defeat since 1930. They lost everything, every single statewide office, all congressional offices, and an astonishing nine seats in the legislature. 

Such a remarkably thorough defeat of course took very careful planning. We described that exact planning in our November 8 and November 19 issues, as well as the small clique that carried it out, led by Harvey Yates, John Billingsley, Mark Murphy, and their hired help.

What we did not reveal, because we felt the pain and the raw feelings that we knew were present in the wake of such disappointment, was who it was who inspired the ridiculous effort to shove Governor Martinez aside, and to shove aside the three SuperPACs that had led to unprecedented GOP success.

A month has gone by now, and Republicans have had time to face reality. So we can go ahead and reveal the fact that the individual who is seen as inspiring that party division was in fact Steve Pearce. Ten years ago, Pearce, quite irrationally, blamed future Martinez associate Jay McCleskey for his landslide loss to Tom Udall in the 2008 US Senate race. Never mind that the election featured an Obama landslide over McCain and that no Republican could have won the senate seat that year.

[It has to be noted that the McCain landslide loss was far less overwhelming than Pearce's. In fact, Pearce holds the all-time New Mexico record for having the most votes cast against him in a contested statewide race: Udall received an astounding 505,128 votes to Pearce's 318,522.]

Pearce is among those candidate types who look for outside reasons for failure rather than engaging in introspection. And as such he was the perfect kind to inspire resentful types like the folks whose activities we have chronicled in great detail.

Now Pearce Wants to be Party Chair: Here are Some Questions That Should be Asked 

1. In the modern campaign era—the post-Citizens United era—what are you going to do to build the kind of SuperPACs through which Governor Martinez poured some $4 million in support of New Mexico Republicans, including the legislative candidates in 2012 and 2014?

2. What were you thinking when you backed a group of people who wanted to get Governor Martinez's team out of the way, and install a state Republican Party team that had no plan?

3. If your new team at the RPNM did not want Martinez's SuperPACs, why did they not replace them with their own SuperPACs?

4. What was your team thinking when they left incumbent Republican state representatives and other state representative candidates naked, exposed, and defenseless against the Democrat SuperPACs and their multi-million dollar onslaught of negative mail, radio, and TV?

5. Why should anyone have confidence that your same assortment of personal cronies will do any better in 2020 than they did in 2018? 

Of Course, Some of These Same Questions Must be Asked of All Candidates for Party Chair

Again, we don't have a horse in the race, and we would urge central committee members to ask every candidate these same questions. We are not sure any candidate has an understanding of the role of SuperPACs or independent expenditure committees in the modern era. Nor do we believe any candidate has a plan to re-establish what Governor Martinez had—what we described as the goose that was laying the golden eggs for New Mexico Republicans, but which a small cabal sought to kill.

Steve Pearce's Letter

Yesterday we got Pearce's letter which he sent to the RPNM Central Committee. It has some odd passages, including these:

"...I am asking you to share a new vision for our Party with me…”

This seems an odd request in that his team has always included the current RPNM leadership, including Yates and Cangiolosi. So replacing Cangiolosi with himself will result in a "new vision"? Maybe so, but it seems an odd thing to assert.

“…this year’s election was a disappointment…”

This is something approaching the understatement of the century thus far.

“I know there are others who will  want to run for leadership of the party but the big question is, how long will it take for them to develop the people and talent in every county?”

This is the first of several statements which makes it appear that Pearce's main goal is to perhaps go after his old seat in CD2—we are not criticizing that idea, Pearce could almost certainly defeat Torres Small in 2020, it's just that it seems he is saying he would use his organization as state chair to plan his comeback.

“I have been constantly "on the ground" in this state for the past 2 years and in the 2nd District for the last 16 years and have personally established a network of supporters and workers in every county. We have built a great organization and, yes — we are going to keep it going.”

This is the second statement that makes it appear his goal of becoming state party chair is to lay the groundwork for a comeback election to Congress.

"Looking at the raw numbers, I received more votes, with a total of nearly 300,000, than the winning candidate received to be elected Governor in 2014.”

This may be the most bizarre statement contained in the letter. Yes, Pearce got 298,091 votes this year, more than any candidate got in the 2014 election cycle which had a record low turnout. So what? Two Republican candidates for Court of Appeals, Steven G. French and Daniel Jose Gallegos, both got even more votes this year than Pearce got. Does that make them more viable statewide candidates than Pearce?

In 2016, Nora Espinoza, Judith Nakamura, and French all got more votes than the "winning candidate for Governor in 2014," (and much much more than Pearce got this year). What does that mean?

Pearce's reference to these figures borders on sounding kind of dumb. What is a candidate for State Chairman of a major political party doing picking random vote totals from random election years and trying to make some point with them? Anyone who knows anything about elections knows that what matters is how you do against your opponent in the year, and in the turnout universe you are running in. No one gets elected to office by saying "Oh, well, I got more votes than this guy who ran six years ago." People would look at such a candidate as if he had lost his mind. It's just not how elections work. 

The letter goes on with some boilerplate phrases, including all kinds of goals and objectives that make you wonder: if he couldn't accomplish these things he's talking about in the letter with the $5,000,000 he had this year, how is he going to do it with the $1,500 the state party had a month ago?

We don't know. And to be sure, for all we know Steve Pearce may be the best candidate for state party chair. Again, we're not picking sides. But we do believe the voters need to ask some tough questions, especially about fundraising—of Pearce and all the other candidates as well.

Finally, Some Other Moral Concerns People have Raised

We have heard from a number of Republicans and moderate Democrats who expressed concern about Pearce's "moral" approach to politics. A Doña Ana County voter told us, "Those Republican staffers who hated Martinez and who got involved in the stolen email scandals, actively worked down here to defeat Republican Party nominee for District Attorney Amy Orlando, just because she was a close friend of Governor Martinez. And Steve Pearce hires them? Hires them to be on his staff? That's wrong. It's immoral. That's why I couldn't vote for Steve."

Another Republican told us, "He deliberately hired people who leaked stolen emails and worked against Republicans just because he also personally dislikes Martinez. What kind of man does that?"

The names Anissa Ford and Andrea Goff have come up over and over again—from folks in Lea County, as well as Otero County. 

Readers also don't like the fact that there is extreme coziness between the Pearce team and anti-Republican blogger Joe Monahan. "All of that just looks like the national scene where there's a big swamp," said one Republican, "New Mexico has a swamp too, and Monahan, the Democrats, and Republicans who work with both of them are all part of our own swamp."

Our Take on Some of This

It has not gone unnoticed that Steve Pearce affects (and we are not in any way questioning his sincerity on this) some degree of piety in his speeches and in his communications with voters and fellow New Mexicans. In other words, he does openly and actively express the idea that he is someone of deep Christian faith. (Again, we don't question that, or his sincerity. In fact, where genuine, it is seen as a very positive thing.)

What is incongruent is not only the toleration of the immoral—but the active promotion of it. Several people have pointed out the extreme inconsistency involved in outward expressions of Christian morality on the one hand, while on the other hand aggressively pursuing people to hire who have willfully engaged in the most heinous crimes—including efforts to personally destroy people and destroy careers—just for the sake of political revenge or out of hatred. 

"A sincere, honest Christian just does not do those kinds of things," said one voter, "I just couldn't support that."

Whether these views are shared by very many Republicans, or whether they matter to them, or whether such actions will hurt Pearce, we have no idea. But these things have long been, and still are in the ether. We report. You decide.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

This week we noticed fairly interesting threads on social media that help explain a lot of our studies of the American educational system, and the familiarity the average voter has or does not have with the American Experience.

We know that many everyday voters mean well, or at least we presume they do, and to the extent they say things that are misleading or untrue, they do so out of an innocent ignorance and not out of a willful malice. We also recognize the power and influence of the incessant drumbeat of 85% of all media being to the tune of “Republicans as racist, misogynists, bigots, and the like.

That is part of what might be called the Jim Acosta view of America. So the fact that people are moved by all of this no longer surprises us at all. We recognize the past 50 years of the dumbing down of America as one of the great tragedies of our history, and perhaps our biggest threat.

While Cynthia Hyde-White may not be the brightest bulb in the refrigerator, her comment about a "public hanging" — as ALL COMMENTS of REPUBLICANS TODAY are treated—was immediately “transformed” by talking head “scholars” into something that it was not.

Her turn of phrase is an ancient one and comes from times gone by when LAWFUL executions were conducted in public in the United States as a follow-on custom we inherited from Great Britain. Of course, this custom slowly fell out of favor over the years and is now seen as a gruesome requirement for the public to sit through. All legal executions are now conducted in relatively private settings, though members of the public may be permitted to witness them if they apply through proper channels. 

Nonetheless, the phrase Hyde-White used comes from that tradition. It did NOT come from the Southern Democratic Party’s tradition of lynchings—which were usually carried out by the Ku Klux Klan, the Knights of the White Camelia, or other groups that Professor Eric Foner of Columbia University refers to as the “paramilitary wing of the Democratic Party.”

The overwhelming majority of those Democrat-driven lynchings were never “public executions.” They were carried out by hooded or disguised people, often at night, and often on the spur of the moment or in the course of general rioting or bursts of violence. They were nothing like the customs followed as late as the early 20th Century in places like Fort Smith, Arkansas, where legally-ordered public executions were scheduled and carried out as if part of a county fair or festival.

HERE’S THE IRONY

Despite the facts of the matter, the Jim Acostas, and the modern-day Democrats, and TV talking heads insist on turning the phrase into a reference to lynchings. Guess what? That’s also really really dumb. Democrats should NEVER talk about lynchings. In an educated electorate, Democrats talking about lynchings would by like Rap stars talking about how bad profanity is. An educated populace would laugh at them. We are no longer an educated populace. 

Yes, Mississippi had its pro-rata share of lynchings through the years, but they were carried out by Democrats, never by Republicans. From 1866 to the 1930s, some 4,700 lynchings occurred in the South, most of them between 1866-1900. Almost all of them were related, at least peripherally if not directly, to politics. The Democrats were determined to end all efforts by Republicans to make the South a competitive political field. Some 700 of those lynched were white Republicans—called “carpetbaggers” if they were from the north, or “scalawags” if they were southerners. 

Additionally, Republicans attempted some two dozen times to outlaw lynching by federal legislation. Democrats—including Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt—joined in blocking the legislation every single time. How many people in these social media threads know that? (Our best guess would be: A Big Fat Zero.) Democrats and their presidents blocked anti-lynching legislation because they valued the “unity of the Democratic Party” over any kind of humanitarian value.

The 2016 movie Free State of Jones is actually a very accurate picture of what Democrats did in using murder and intimidation to stop Republicans, especially black Republicans, from registering to vote. It ought to be required viewing, especially for Mississippians. Especially for Democrats.

So all of this hand-wringing on social media about how “embarrassing” the election was is in fact embarrassing, but for all the wrong reasons.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

A Guest Column by Editor Emeritus, former State Senator Rod Adair

A More Realistic Way to Look at Central American Migrants

I lived in Honduras for three years, got to know the country fairly well, traveling to 17 of its 18 departments. I also got to experience the other four Central American countries, plus Panama, Belize, and Mexico. It’s been a good while, but it certainly appears that in many aspects little has changed.

As most Americans fully understand, all eight of these countries have strata of classes of people, which—to varying degrees—are vastly different from our own economic layers of income and lifestyles. In other words, the lowest echelon of the very poor down there represents a vastly higher percentage of people than anything remotely correspondent in the US. In fact, they have cohorts of income/education so low that they don’t even exist here.

WHY ARE DEMOCRATS HOLLERING AT TRUMP BECAUSE RUSSIA ATTACKED UKRAINE’s SHIPS?

Obama was President when Russia just up and invaded Ukraine, killed hundreds of Ukrainians and stole the entire Crimean Peninsula and wouldn’t give it back.

Obama didn’t make one peep.

The Secretary of State says 2,823 “electronic” absentee ballot requests ultimately ended up boiling down as actual ballots cast in the Yvette Herrell-Xochitl Torres Small race. Only 968 of the 2,823 were cast in Doña Ana County. Torres-Small won the CD2 race by 3,722.

However, that still leaves some 7,500 other absentee ballots in Doña Ana County—ballots obtained by traditional paper application with actual signatures. So quite apart from the electronic absentee ballot application issue, Herrell has quite a number of possible irregularities to examine once the ballot impoundment finally begins.

 Why so many absentee ballots cast in Doña Ana County in an off-year?  8,500 compared to only 3,400 in the last presidential year, 2016?

Bottom line: Herrell should definitely continue her efforts to be able to finally review the mysterious absentee ballots, applications, and other returns that the SOS and the judge have not wanted her to see. There may be nothing there, but there may be something—irregularities that while perhaps not decisive, nonetheless need to be rectified. And there could be a significant finding that benefits the overall goal of elections integrity.

Secretary of State Acted Without Legal Authority—Just as She did with Her Attempt to Impose Straight-Party Ballots

One thing that did come from the State Canvassing Board meeting is the fact that the Office of the Secretary of State did in fact create an on-line electronic absentee ballot application system without authorization in statute and with procedures that do not comply with current statutes regarding the processing and validation of absentee ballot applications.

 Yes, they make the argument that they have “greater” security because they’re asking for more data (driver’s license number, date of birth, etc.) but there’s three things about that: 1) there is no guarantee at all that those additional data points create any greater guarantee that the person making the request is the registered voter; or that 2) wherever they ask the ballot to be sent will be where that voter resides; and 3) regardless of everything else, none of what Maggie has added as additional data to be collected is authorized in statute. It’s all just made up.

The county clerks only got a printed form that says “Electronic Signature Validated.” But there was no accompanying data or other information provided. No one actually validated it.

Whenever there is fraud in an election, it is almost always absentee balloting that represents that element of the elections system that is most susceptible to manipulation.

2014 Democratic Primary Stolen in Doña Ana County

In the 2014 primary case in Dona Ana County, State Representative Mary Helen Garcia was able to show numerous absentee ballot applications which were filled out to have them sent to the same address. She also had testimony from a Sunland Park voter who said that most of the ballots were being voted by one person—and that witness was indicating on the stand that he was the one who was doing it.

The judge, in an unusual move, almost immediately stopped the testimony. Instead of focusing on the relevant evidence the voter's testimony provided in support of Garcia’s claim of fraud, the judge decided to focus on the self-incriminating aspect of that witness’s testimony and essentially ordered him to stop testifying.

A Democratic Party attorney who was present in Las Cruces the day after this year's general election made this statement:  “I hope this is not the Sunland Park thing again, the Democrats only do these things in primaries.”

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

A Guest Column by Editor Emeritus, former State Senator Rod Adair

LOSING HOPE: The American People are Becoming Dumber, More Easily Swayed by Emotional Appeals and a Biased Media

Incarceration of Mothers (and Fathers) in America is Nothing New

—Nor is Family Separation "New": Just Ask any Soldier, Marine, Sailor, or Airman

Sunday night's 60 Minutes program presented a real tear-jerker of a story, replete with moral outrage and tons of virtue-signaling by "psychological experts" trotted out to tell people how tragic it is that illegal immigrant children are sometimes separated from their parents (typically a couple of weeks).

These are kids who have been separated from their mothers (or fathers) because these very same parents were arrested for illegally entering the United States. And by the way, these parents deliberately placed their own children in harm's way in order to sneak into the country—jumping the line in front of their own law-abiding countrymen from Mexico and Central America.

60 Minutes, very scientifically (that's a joke, btw, they attempted one anecdote, probably falsely) presented one little boy as the example of the supposed ”irreparable damage” that occurs with even a few weeks' separation from a parent. All observers and talking heads swooned.

Oh really? So the United States Armed Forces have been causing "irreparable damage" to the children of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines for centuries, and no one happened onto this discovery until the phenomenon of illegal immigration came along? Really? American families have never been "worthy"  of analysis, but people trying to sneak into the country fills us with brand new, previously undiscovered psychological "facts"?

All of this immediately begs the question: What on earth are we doing Allowing Mothers to Deploy in the US Armed Forces?

By Editor Emeritus and some-time, infrequent contributor, former State Senator Rod Adair

THE TRUE STORY of THANKSGIVING, November 22, 1621

After a harrowing, challenging year in which the total number of passengers on the Mayflower had been reduced from 102 to 53 by the numerous deaths in the terrible winter of 1620-21, the congregation (which was made up of Separatists, not Puritans) decided that a Thanksgiving celebration should be held for them and for their fellow travelers (who may or may not, in their view, have been saved because they were most likely members of the Church of England).

The true Pilgrims lovingly and affectionately referred their fellow Englishmen as "strangers." (The names of all are provided below.**)

Exactly 397 years ago today at exactly 2:00 PM (EST—though it was then known locally as Wampanoag Time*) our Calvinist forebears gathered for the very first Thanksgiving Dinner with their Indian neighbors whom they had invited out of Christian charity and some concern that they were not eating properly.

(*The Wampanoag's time measurement system had been selected by a vote of surrounding tribes at a standardized time gathering in 1602, with delegates from the Narragansett, Nauset, Pocomtuc, Pennacook, Nipmuc, Mahican, and Massachuset tribes recognizing that their own systems were more primitive, and much less accurate.)

Indians Not on Time

The Indians showed up quite late, perhaps 30 minutes late to an hour behind schedule. But the Pilgrims being a tolerant and non-judgmental people, carried on as if nothing had happened. Far be it from Calvinists to point out failings in others.

The Indians brought five deers (a correct rendering, as the Pilgrims were still speaking a good deal of Middle English) which they still had to dress out and prepare—and unpleasant task as we all know, which considerably delayed the proceedings even further.

But a ball was produced for the youths to pass the time—which they did. And it is from this first Thanksgiving Day ball game which we get the current tradition of football on Thanksgiving Day (largely because the owner of the Detroit Lions was a descendant of the Mayflower expedition and had long wanted to revive the tradition, which he did 83 years ago).

Beginning of the Feast

At last, when all was in readiness, a prayer of blessings was offered up—for all in attendance, both those among the Calvinists who and for the Anglicans and Catholics (both of whom the Pilgrims loved with all their heart, though they believed them to be lost, most likely) back home across the sea. From that prayer, emanating from these most ecumenical and forward-thinking Calvinists, we get the American tradition of religious tolerance, to be enshrined in the First Amendment only 170 years later.

The entire crowd of 143 included the 53 surviving Pilgrims and 90 Wampanoag warriors (yes, they’d only brought 5 deers with them, but of course the Pilgrims didn’t even bat an eye, didn’t whine about it — all in the Christian spirit of Thanksgiving). It was fortunate the Pilgrims had shot more than 50 geese, turkey, and ducks.

The record shows they also served shellfish. (NOTE: This was a “tradition” that was most fortunately abandoned later as it can result in violent vomiting caused by such things as raw oysters — resulting in a scene that could easily ruin an idyllic, Norman Rockwell setting).

The Pilgrims provided a vast array of vegetables, including onions (largely abandoned today); carrots (ditto); beans (if the chroniclers mean “green,” well, okay, but if “kidney” or “pinto,” well, largely abandoned today); pumpkins—more on that below; spinach, lettuce, cabbage, peas (all pretty much gone the way of the buffalo on T-day).

There was also corn — and this was a big deal because until a year earlier the Pilgrims had never even seen it before. (It was also very weird because the English called virtually every grain “corn,” especially wheat, but then they actually were introduced to corn by the extremely famous Squanto, who oddly enough called it “maize,” (something the University of Michigan later, inexplicably, adopted as a “color.”) But at last the English had an actual foodstuff that linked up with a word they had been using all this time. Who knew?

But perhaps the biggest surprise of all was that over the course of the year the Pilgrims had produced corn syrup — and that allowed them to take the pumpkin and turn it into pie — a concept totally unknown to the Indians. They also added spices such as cinnamon and nutmeg — which was remarkably generous since they cost approximately £1 per ounce—which in today’s currency is about $100,000.

No Potatoes, But Native Cranberries in Abundance

There were no potatoes — even though they were native to America and the Indians had tons of them — as the Pilgrims were suspicious of them. The Irish and Germanics later became enamored of them. And of course the Russians and Finns used them exclusively to produce vodka (which the Pilgrims would have condemned), so much so that usage of potatoes as actual food in Russia and Finland is of course virtually unheard of today.

As for fruit, the Pilgrims did use the locally-found, brand new (to them) cranberry, confecting a sauce for the turkey. This led to an outcry from both Indians and Pilgrims alike about the “tartness,” which in turn caused a massive demand for importation of sugar — thus the beginnings of British plantations in the West Indies and an industry and sweet tooth that afflicts millions of Americans to this day with its accompanying obesity and derivative illnesses.

Pilgrim Tolerance

In any case, it was a successful meal, lasting some five hours into night, the Indians famously being overcome with the effects of tryptophan, and becoming increasingly listless and drowsy, finally falling asleep to a man. But the Pilgrims were careful to cover them with blankets (after all it was Massachusetts in late November) and to not touch their arms at all.

This same schedule and the same sequence occurred for three consecutive days.

This kind of openly demonstrated trust and humanity touched the hearts of both the Indians and Pilgrims alike and ushered in nearly 400 years of peaceful coexistence and mutual respect between settlers and the native peoples of the First Nations — only to be marred in very recent times by demonstrations and clashes in North Dakota over a proposed pipeline.

Thus occurred the very First Thanksgiving, November 22, 1621. Happy Thanksgiving to all, and may God bless us, everyone!

** FAMILY GROUPS REMAINING ALIVE for the FIRST THANKSGIVING:

(On the voyage over, there had been 28 adults, 16 children, for a total of 44 True Pilgrims.)

THE CONGREGATION REMAINING: 21 True Pilgrims, plus 3 servants/wards (most likely not congregants)

ALLERTON: Isaac with children Bartholomew, Mary, Remember; and the Allerton servant William Latham • BRADFORD: William • BREWSTER: William & Mary with sons Love, and Wrestling; and their ward Richard More • CHILTON: Mary (13) • COOKE: Francis with son John • CRACKSTON: John (18) • FULLER: Samuel with nephew Samuel 2d • ROGERS: Joseph (17) • TILLEY: Elizabeth (15) • WINSLOW: Edward & Susanna with her sons Resolved White & Peregrine White; Winslow servant George Soule

STRANGERS REMAINING

Strangers: 23, plus 7 servants/wards

ALDEN: John • BILLINGTON: John & Eleanor with sons Francis and John Jr. • BROWNE Peter • CARVER: The Carver ward Desire Minter; the Carver servant John Howland; the Carver maidservant Dorothy. • EATON: Francis with son Samuel • ELY: Unknown adult man • GARDINER: Richard • GOODMAN: John • HOPKINS: Stephen & Elizabeth with Giles, Constance, Damaris, Oceanus; their servants Edward Doty and Edward Leister. • MULLINS: Priscilla • STANDISH: Myles • TILLEY: Tilley wards Humility Cooper and Henry Samson • TREVOR: William • WARREN: Richard • WINSLOW: Gilbert

EDWARD & SUSANNA WHITE: An Object Lesson in Today's "Gay Marriage" Debate

(Also, the following true story provides a history lesson which can be instructive to both libertarians and conservatives alike with regard to the considerable mess which has ensued in the wake of the so-called "Gay Marriage" uproar.)

Listed above among the true Pilgrims are the Winslow family, Edward & Susanna with her sons Resolved White & Peregrine White as having survived the first year. (Susanna, by the way, was one of only four adult women to have survived.)

Susanna's first husband, William White, had died almost exactly nine months earlier and Elizabeth Winslow, Edward's first wife, had died almost exactly eight months earlier, on February 21 and March 24, 1621, respectively. The surviving spouses Edward and Susanna then experienced something of a whirlwind romance (perhaps suitable for a fairly racy HBO Miniseries), somehow fell in love, and ended up marrying on May 12, 1621, 49 days and 81 days after the deaths of their spouses.

(The congregants, naturally, wanted to be able to help the newlyweds off on a two-week honeymoon — perhaps to the Caribbean, or a ski vacation in Vermont — but neither had been invented yet, plus no one had any money or transport. So, by all accounts they honeymooned right on site.)

HOW WAS THIS MARRIAGE POSSIBLE?

You may be thinking this was practically impossible because of the requirement of the reading of the Banns (for three consecutive Sundays) in front of the congregation as well as the publication of the same in the marketplace or local municipality. 

However, keep in mind that the Pilgrims at Plymouth were "Separatists" unlike those arriving in the follow-on landings within the next decade at present-day Boston, about 40 miles to the north. The newer arrivals were "Puritans," technically still affiliated with the Church of England, with hopes of finishing off its purification by eliminating the last of its more ghastly Romish habits.* (Pilgrims held out no such hope.)

The Pilgrims, therefore, viewed marriage as strictly a legal contract in the civil realm rather than a religious rite. This is because Puritans and other Protestants saw no biblical foundation for church control over marriage. Marriage was only established as a sacrament in the Roman Catholic Church in the 12th century, and Separatists viewed that phenomenon as a vain and un-biblical invention. So the marriage ceremony was performed by Governor William Bradford.
________________________________________
* It must be noted that when royal government control was firmly asserted in the Massachusetts Bay Colony (1630), marriage came under the purview of the state church (Anglican). This may be seen by libertarians and conservatives alike as a classic example of how the entanglement of church and state leads to coercion in the area of religious belief.

For the Pilgrims, because marriage was a civil contract, questions of inheritance were handled by the state rather than the Church. Edward Winslow who became a prominent leader within the colony, later paid the price for his civil marriage when he was thrown into a Fleet Street prison in London for 17 weeks for not following the church/state law.

** Plenary NOTE: While much of this account was true, it must be said that there is some embellishment, strictly for the purposes of adding color to the story. But any and all additions are well within the standards adopted by Hollywood when a movie provides the opening statement: "Based on a True Story." For example, all the embellishments are just as true as virtually anything contained in any Oliver Stone production, but also as true as the work of many other directors/producers, including those who have labeled their finished products "documentaries."

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

Day before yesterday, an AP article appeared in several media outlets in New Mexico which attributed slightly inaccurate quotes to the editor of New Mexico Political Journal, former State Senator Rod Adair.

[NOTE: We are not criticizing the writer, he stated that his interview was ”on background” and he was trying to get a “sense” of the current state of the Republican Party in New Mexico, and that he was not taking notes.)

Here is one quote from the article:

“Republicans may not have until 2030 to have a real seat at the table,” Republican former state senator and blogger Rod Adair said. “That’s how long it may take to rebuild.”

Comment: This is a somewhat ungrammatical recounting of the statement and therefore confusing. What Adair said, as he has stated before on a number of occasions something more along these lines: :

"Republicans may not have a chance to have a seat at the table for the September 2031 redistricting session until the 2030 General Election —provided they win the governor's race in 2030."

NOTE about the meaning of this quote: The catastrophic losses in the House this year, coupled with the loss of the governorship, mean that the GOP has no serious chance of having a say in the September 2021 redistricting session that will draw the legislative districts and the congressional districts in the manner they will be contested throughout the next decade to come. This means the GOP will have to wait 13 years to have the kind of chance that Governor Martinez gave the party when she was leading the state GOP efforts.

Here is another passage that was not attributed to Adair—or to anyone else—but which contains an accurate narrative that Adair has did provide to the author:

"It’s a dramatic turn from 2014, when Gov. Susana Martinez won re-election by a record margin and the GOP won the majority in the state House of Representatives for the first time since President Dwight D. Eisenhower was president in the 1950s. The party (under Martinez’s leadership) was viewed by some in the GOP as a national model because of its recruitment of up-and-coming Latina and Native American elected officials in Democratic areas.”

Here is are some somewhat jumbled statements that are attributed to Adair (with explanations of the accuracy and precision for each):

"Internal squabbling between Martinez and others in the party also contributed to defeats, Adair said."

Comment: What Adair said is that certain people in the party wanted to run the party and the campaigns and did not want Martinez and her team involved anymore. By 2016, there was no "squabbling," the people who wanted to run the party by themselves were doing so. And everyone else let them. The same was true for 2018. No squabbling.

"Super PACs started by Martinez previously helped with get-out-the-vote operations and fundraising, he (Adair) said."

Comment: What Adair said was that Martinez established three SuperPACs, and was influential in encouraging the formation of another voter education/registration organization and that these political assets produced some $4 million in all manner of campaign support. They didn't just "help" with "get-out-the-vote operations," they WERE the GOTV operations and they were much more than that—they WERE DECISIVE in providing the GOP message.

“That was mostly gone this time around,” Adair said.

Comment: Not really correct. The fact was, as far as Adair said he has been able to tell, that was ALL gone this time around. The "leaders" of the GOP effort did nothing to save the legislature. They were focused solely on the governor's race and the CD 2 race, both of which they lost.

“It (the Martinez-built campaign infrastructure) is needed to fight the structural advance the Democrats have in this state.”

Comment: What Adair said was that "It is needed to fight the structural ADVANTAGES the Democrats have in this state." NOTE: The word "advance" makes no sense in this context, and he insists he did not say that.

"Adair said the party should recruit young members and diverse candidates to appeal to the growing segment of voters who identify as independents."

COMMENT: What Adair said that the future leaders of the party are probably not visible or identifiable right now. He gave examples by asking the questioner if he knew in 2016 that Xochitl Torress Small would be a leader or the CD2 Congresswoman in 2018?

The questioner responded by saying "no," that he would not have heard of her at that point. Adair then said that his response was: "There it is, leaders are out there waiting to come forth."

Adair said he then posed to the reporter the same question about Susana Martinez—would he (the reporter) have known in 2008 that she might emerge as governor in 2010? Again, the reporter while stating he knew at that point in time that Martinez was a district attorney, nonetheless admitted he would not have foreseen that she would be governor. Again, Adair says, he made the same point was with the Torres Small example.

Adair is also quick to point out that he does not "generally speak in terms of 'diversity' because the way the term is always used by the MSM and the Democratic Party is a way that reduces Americans to the Democrat Party's Balkanized view of politics and life itself—that people are nothing more than their immutable demographic characteristics.

Republicans, who are much closer to the NMPJ philosophy, think in terms of peoples' ideas, hopes, philosophies, goals, objectives, and dreams. They don't say, as Democrats do, that people ARE merely their immutable characteristics and a should VOTE based on such unchangeable characteristics as race, ethnicity, skin color, sex, the way they live their sex lives, or anything of the kind. 

“And who will lead the resurgence? That person is out there,” Adair said. “He or she hasn’t shown his or her face yet.”

COMMENT: Adair acknowledges that he did in fact say something very close to this or exactly like this report captures it.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

This is truly a remarkable story. Lyons has Barker dead to rights—lying outright—no question whatsoever. Barker simply lied to the people of New Mexico in a report he ran last week on KRQE-TV.

What was Barker's motive? We have no idea. He certainly has in previous shows, done some accurate reporting. We are not vouching for everything he has ever done, but he has done some valuable reporting. But in this instance, he just flat lies.

See the video here: https://goo.gl/XJHYE7

Although we generally avoid taking seriously most rants from the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Party of New Mexico, and Joe Monahan, a number of long-time readers have urged us to review Monahan’s latest serving of disinformation—which he provided today.

Today gives us a great opportunity to educate our readers about how the Lefty blogger spin cycle works. In short, Monahan’s anti-Republican blog puts forth fact-free commentary in an effort to encourage the media and activists to adopt his line of anti-GOP thinking.

These fake narratives find their way into mainstream media outlets (and the minds of reporters who share the same Leftish views or can’t think critically). Unfortunately, these rantings and “insights” also serve to influence political insiders or even some honest conservatives and loyal Republicans who read these blogs. 

The Martinez Haters and Monahan: A Relationship that Goes Back a Long Way

For years, the Martinez haters have been very close to Joe Monahan. They leak to him, pay him off by purchasing ads on his blog, and otherwise help him attack Republicans. In turn, Monahan seems to imply he is quoting Yates directly, while Yates appears to provide Monahan with straight-up pro-Democrat, anti-Martinez narratives while Monahan tries to shield the Yates crowd from criticism. 

(This isn't hard to understand when you remember that Yates, Murphy, and Monahan wildly enthusiastic supporters of Democratic Senator Tim Jennings and strongly opposed Republican Senator Cliff Pirtle in his successful effort to end Jenning's 34-year reign. Murphy and Yates didn't think that was long enough.)

For this reason, most of the mainstream media have stopped using him as a political analyst—because he’s neither independent nor an ethical analyst. A review of any portion of his history makes it clear the only fair conclusion is that he’s a paid Democrat operative who distorts facts and spins in order to push the anti-Republican narrative.

Monahan Channeling his “Republican” Leakers in 2012

We will get into what he spun this morning, but to understand the proper context, we must look back to what he said in 2012 when Barack Obama had been re-elected in a landslide. Despite that terrible environment for the GOP, New Mexico Republicans picked up a net gain of 2 seats in the legislature, including defeating Senate President pro-tem Tim Jennings and Senate Majority Whip Mary Jane Garcia. 

Republicans held 32 seats in the state House—the highest number of seats Republicans have ever held following a presidential election in modern history, including even those presidential elections in which the Republican won the White House.

So, what was Monahan’s spin in 2012? He put forth the Democrat/anti-Martinez case that the Republicans got “wiped out,” that they had “lost everything,” and that Martinez and her team were terrible and they needed to be sidelined and pushed out of the party.

Here’s what he said about the 2012 election outcome:

“The party's poor election night performance has prompted the reappraisal of the campaign in which the Martinez Super-PAC spent millions in an effort to change the make-up of the New Mexico Legislature, but got hardly any bang for its buck.” 

But for anyone who knows anything at all about politics, this so-called “analysis” (it really can’t be called that) was ridiculous.

No bang for the buck?  Monahan wished that to be the case—he likes it much better when there is no Martinez (or any other) SuperPAC spending “millions.”

More precisely, Monahan has no problem will SuperPAC’s spending “millions” if that money goes to Democrats—like this year for example.

But what was the reality? Despite Monahan’s putting them down, Republicans actually had a net gain in legislative seats and, just as important, Martinez’s PAC successfully assisted moderate Democrats in primaries against progressives. 

The net positive effect of that entire effort became clear just a couple of months later during the 2013 session when Martinez passed a big tax reform package with the votes of the legislators she had gained together with the votes of the moderate Democrats she had helped resist “progressive” primary challenges.

Of course, all of this was actually crystal clear immediately following the 2012 election—but that was apparently not what the Yates-Billingsley-Murphy crowd was urging Monahan to say. And keep in mind, Monahan values his “alligators”— both the Democrat ones who are his natural constituency, as well as the “Republicans” who are key to his efforts at sowing discord and achieving his goals.

The Murphy-Yates-Billingsley crowd were and are his bread and butter, so Monahan went to work trying to paint an anti-Martinez narrative. 

Monahan then went on to promote a key Martinez-hater, John Billingsley, fashioning this blurb:

“Billingsley served as campaign manager for conservative southern Congressman Steve Pearce's 2008 US Senate run. In an op-ed piece he signals his split with (Martinez consultant) McCleskey and says the party needs to run more of the show--not Jay (and Martinez)”

Monahan then goes on to reprint an anonymous email that was sent to Republicans trashing Martinez and her team.

But who had written the “anonymous” mail? Guess who? The anti-Martinez crowd.

It was later revealed that the author of the anonymous email was Jamie Estrada, a man who later went to prison for stealing Martinez’s emails, and (with the help of future Steve Pearce confidant and employee Anissa Ford and Democrat Party chair Sam Bregman) leaking them to Democrats and the media. 

So, fast-forward to 2018

Republicans lose an unprecedented and astounding 9 seats in the legislature (8 net losses), all 12 statewide races, and the southern Congressional District, and fail to even put forth an independent expenditure effort or any kind of ground game, turnout effort, or even the most rudimentary form of campaign plan or organization.

(Meanwhile, in other states, Republicans were not suffering the same fate—precisely because they had competent state party organizations.)

But what is Monahan’s very creative take? (Or perhaps, more importantly, Harvey Yates’s, Billingsley’s and Murphy’s?)

Here it is—Monahan’s spin this morning:

“While the GOP's Martinez/McCleskey faction argue that the party's devastating losses were solely the fault of Cangiolosi and his mentor, former GOP chairman Harvey Yates, more mainstream political thinking sees the disaster as a natural offshoot of the declining fortunes of ABQ and New Mexico under the eight-year reign of Martinez and Mayor Richard Berry. They failed and thus the party failed at the polls. That's what happened in 2010 when Martinez came in by riding a wave of anger against Dem Bill Richardson.”

Mainstream? Monahan couldn't get further out of the mainstream if he tried to take an ocean liner down the Rio Grande.

Mainstream thinking? Who is doing all this "thinking"? This is true only if the “mainstream” just fell off a turnip truck—you’d have to be extremely ignorant of politics, campaign operations, and elections to reach this kind of a conclusion.

You can't Compare Richardson to Martinez and Reach the Monahan-Yates Conclusion. Here's Why:

In 2010 there were tons of ads, mail, and TV directed against the failed policies and failed administration of Bill Richardson—it weighed the Denish campaign down like an anvil tied to a rowboat.

Did you see any such advertising this year aimed at Susana Martinez? No? That's okay. We didn't either. 

Neither did Harvey Yates, John Billingsley, Mark Murphy, or Joe Monahan. But they want you to imagine that it existed. 

There was no evidence of any "wave of anger" imagined by the Monahan Boys, or Harvey and the gang. So it was just made it up. After all, it's easier than manning up and taking responsibility for incompetence.

There is so much to dissect in such an absurd spin it’s hard to know where to start. But at least we can say that Monahan stays on message: He is very consistent—whatever happens in New Mexico, if it’s bad: it’s always Martinez’s fault.

HERE ARE THE FACTS REGARDING WHAT REALLY HAS TRANSPIRED

1) It is not a point up for debate that the Martinez-haters ran Martinez out of the party.

2) After doing so, they had 100% total, complete control of the party to run it how they saw fit. 

3) It is crystal clear that once they achieved that goal that they were satisfied with gaining their only true objective — to be “in charge.”

4) It is also clear they had no idea what to do at that point, or how to build a plan for a statewide effort in the modern campaign era.

5) Consequently, they got crushed. Due to their own ineptitude. There is no one else to blame.

6) To blame Martinez is absurd.

Despite Monahan’s best efforts, this was not a run-of-the-mill mid-term loss for Republicans that can be shrugged off, let alone attributed to some stupid notion of “voter fatigue.” This was a butt-kicking of historic proportions.

Here is what the Yates-Murphy-Billingsley team produced:

• Republicans are left with 24 members of the House. 24! 
• They lost every statewide race. All 12!
• Neither the state GOP nor the Yates-led cabal succeeded in creating or funding a single effective independent expenditure committee to assist legislative campaigns.
• The state party left Republican legislative candidates and incumbents completely defenseless—letting the Democrat committees overwhelm them with mail, radio, and TV
• The state GOP did not fulfill its most basic duty to run a field and turnout operation – they had less than $1,500 in the bank in October!

Included here are some examples of anti-Republican mail attacking Martin Zamora and Lisa Shin.

The mail has scurrilous charges that have no basis in fact whatsoever. But legislative candidates were left defenseless. The Cangiolosi-Billingsley-Yates-Murphy team appears to have provided them nothing to fight back with. 

ON THAT NOTE: Yates even spent some $70,000 on a video that was distributed in northern New Mexico that had no effect whatsoever on any race, anywhere. What would $70,000 of good media have done in Jim Dines race? In Sharon Clahchischilliage's? In Brad Winter's? Answer: That amount of money would probably have saved three or four seats. But the people who pushed Martinez out simply did not know what they were doing. They destroyed the GOP's entire election effort.

So it becomes laughable when you consider that back in 2012, when the GOP: 1) had a net gain in legislative seats, 2) defeated the Democrat Senate President and Whip, and 3) achieved an historic high of 32 GOP House members, that Monahan (with input from Yates and Billingsley it appears) opined that Republicans suffered a humiliating defeat and Martinez and her team should be pushed out of the party.

Compared to their analysis about this election, when Republicans literally lost everything and ended the election with a historic low in 24 House seats…..and Monahan and his "alligators" dismiss the losses as a “natural offshoot,” not the fault of those in charge of the campaigns, and—get this—Monahan amazingly manages to insert his standard view that it was what? That it was Martinez’s fault anyway. Of course. That’s his standard default comment. Wow!

It’s a stunning display of intellectual dishonesty that serves but one purpose—to protect the incompetent Martinez haters who serve Monahan's needs with constant input to his blog, which in turn ensures that the Republican Party remains irrelevant for a generation in New Mexico.

But hey, Yates, Billingsley, and Murphy got to be in charge!

MORE EXAMPLES of NEGATIVE DEMOCRAT MAIL That the Cangiolosi-Billingsley-Yates crowd apparently did nothing to defend against—And these were Baseless Attacks, but GOP Candidates had no Comparable Effort to Defend Themselves as they had When Martinez was Allowed to Lead the Effort

NMPJ, of course, encourages anyone’s expression of contrary opinions. That’s why we always provide our email address.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

Earlier this week, Republican congressional candidate Yvette Herrell filed a petition to impound the ballots in Doña Ana County. On this particular question, New Mexico election law is pretty plain. It says in Article 14, paragraph 9:

”Any candidate in an election may petition the district court for an order impounding ballots in one or more precincts within which he is a candidate. The action shall be brought in the district court for the county in which the precincts are located. The petition shall state what specific items of ballots are requested to be impounded. Upon receipt of the petition, along with a cash deposit of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per precinct, the court shall issue an order of impoundment.”

Note that it doesn’t say “may,” “might,” or “a judge can think about it and make stuff up as he goes along.” It says “shall” issue an order of impoundment.

Oddly enough, the Secretary of State and the Attorney General both tried to block the impoundment for good. “Don’t let anyone see anything, ever,” was the position of Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver and Attorney General Hector Balderas. So much for transparency. Both of those elected officials continue to pile onto their already substantial records of opposing open government and transparency.

Did the Democrat Secretary of State Break the Law? 

One thing discovered in this whole process is the existence of a new way to make an Absentee Ballot Request. This year, the Secretary of State—without any rulemaking or public notice—created an on-line electronic absentee ballot request that does not require the voter's signature.

Come again? An absentee ballot request without a signature at all? Let’s go back to New Mexico law:

Article 6, paragraph 4, in subparagraph B states:

“Each application for an absentee ballot shall be signed by the applicant and shall require the applicant's printed name, registration address and year of birth to be supplied by the applicant, which shall constitute the required form of identification…”

Again, the word “shall” appears. It does not say, “may sign,” or that signing the form is “optional.” It says definitively that the application shall be signed by the voter. Below is an application for an absentee ballot that has no signature.

Apparently, Secretary Oliver decided to have voters submit their New Mexico driver’s license number instead. It seems like the Secretary may try to argue that she kinda/sorta tried to follow the statute for online voter registration applications, but in doing so, she totally broke the law.

First, both the statute and her own administrative rule say that the application must be signed.  Her absentee ballot application program, unlike the online voter registration program, didn’t import the voter’s signature from the MVD database.  So, apparently, NONE of the electronic voter registration applications have signatures of the voters applying to vote. 

Instead, they all say they are "electronically authenticated." 

That leads to the second big ole problem with Maggie’s new forms.  It is not the Secretary of State’s job to authenticate absentee ballot applications.  By statute, that’s the job of the county clerks.

What is the significance of that part of the law?

It is this: If a voter had submitted a paper absentee ballot application with no signature, but decided to include his or her driver’s license number, it would have been rejected by every county clerk in New Mexico, following the statute. 

But Maggie submitted who knows how many of her "electronic" applications—with no signature at all—to the county clerks electronically, and they were accepted.  How many people got to vote without providing their signature on their ballot request?

There is no statute and no rule that authorizes this new double standard for absentee ballot applications in New Mexico.  Just a secret decree from Queen Maggie. 

So after years and years of debates in the legislature about voter ID, the Secretary has simply created her own new ID requirement for electronic absentee applications—a New Mexico driver’s license number. No debate needed. No statute. No rule. Did the Democrats know this? They’d have almost certainly opposed it if it were ever proposed by a Republican in the state legislature. But in the end it wasn't proposed by anyone in the state legislature. Maggie just did it.

Maggie Toulouse Oliver took a beating from the Supreme Court on her effort to single-handedly invent the straight-party ballot without any input from the legisature or any law to authorize her edict.  As for this additional power grab, she appears to have kept her "no-signature-required" idea under wraps and away from public scrutiny.

Here's what a real application for an absentee ballot looks like: 

You can see the gigantic X by the blank where it says "SIGNATURE of registered voter."

An Additional Point on the Absentee Ballot Law

The statute (1-6-4) on absentee ballot applications also says:

"A person who willfully and with knowledge and intent to deceive or mislead any voter, precinct board, canvassing board, county clerk or other election official and who falsifies any information on an absentee ballot request form or who affixes a signature or mark other than the person’s own on an absentee ballot request form is guilty of a fourth degree felony."

Oddly enough, it is the Secretary of State herself who, without statutory or administrative authority, has affixed something other than the voter’s signature to all of the electronic absentee ballot applications statewide. 

How many?  Who knows? But we hope the other members of the State Canvassing Board will be asking that question on November 27. 

The reason for the signature requirement is obvious. The integrity of elections depends on ensuring that one person gets one vote, and one vote only, and that that vote is actually his or hers. The key to that principle is centered on the individual, his or her personal identity, and the signature (especially in the absence of Voter ID in New Mexico) is the only remaining lynchpin in that process.

Just How Lawful was the Voting Process in Doña Ana County?

What we do know is that some 11,995 absentee ballots were requested in this year's mid-term election, with some 8,579 being returned. Two years ago, in a presidential election, 3,456 absentee ballots were cast. That's an increase of 148%.

Is everything on the up and up?

We don’t know. Maybe it was all fair and square. But we have to wonder why a Democrat District Court Judge does not want the state police to be guarding the ballots right now. Why not?

Why does a Las Cruces judge want the ballots to be solely in the possession and under the “supervision” of the very people who have arguably mishandled the ballots to this point?

Why did the Secretary of State and the Attorney General take the position that the ballots absentee ballot requests, and all other documents should NEVER be examined?

These questions also remain unanswered.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

We have thus far received over 220 comments on our issue dealing with the Post Mortem and those who Destroyed the Republican Party.

BELOW is a SAMPLING of the RESPONSES WE HAVE RECEIVED—TOGETHER WITH OUR COMMENTS

Paul Gonzales: No leadership!

Marie Ryan: Read & share. This article explains a lot! 

Linda Aaron: Every 'conservative' NM voter who is concerned about politics in this State should consider reading this post.

Gail Tansey: 'The dirty half dozen' -sad but true behind the Republican party's demise. They bit off the hand that fed them! Now we are doomed to be even worse than californication because unlike them we have always been poor as a state. Without the brain doesnt work people -we will see this play  out...

Laurel Tisler: I read the article and was taken by surprise. We seem to like destroying our selves. Every party has morons. New Mexico Republicans need to find better leadership! Our morons have out done themselves! 

Kevin Massey: How a handful of corrupt, self-serving political hacks could wield so much influence is sickening. 'Power corrupts - absolute power corrupts absolutely'. While they've handed total control over to the dems, sadly there will be little or no repercussions for them or the liberal left regarding New Mexico's dismal future. Our totally blue state will remain last in economics and education...and with the volatile, cyclical nature of the oil and gas industry, our budget surpluses will be quickly spent, leaving dire shortfalls in the next downturn. I love my state, but am disgusted by the sick, selfish, petty politics we must endure. The leadership of the Republican party is a big part of the problem.

Gail D. Goodman: Based on the election results, because I know for a fact we had some great candidates, the leadership isn't doing much.....

 

Greg Carlisle: Very good article, explains a lot of what happened. The same thing is going on nationally, disgruntled swamp rats siding with the opposition because their candidate lost, instead of moving a positive agenda forward. In the end, Yates will feel it in his wallet with the upcoming administration.

Manage

 

 

To NMPJ: Good analysis of Republican condition. Extremely disappointing. I do hope you are wrong that we are lost into the 2030s. Dems will screw up enough so that we can come back. Martinez won by about 40,000 which tells me NM voters are capable of switching. Forty thousand margin is unheard of for a Republican.  NMPJ Comment: We hope we are wrong about the 2030s too, though we outline why we believe that is the case. And yes, Martinez won by big margins—which makes you wonder why these haters decided to turn on her.

You are right about left wing bloggers, Monahan, getting stuff from R discontents. NMPJ Comment: Very perceptive. One of the dumbest things Republicans do is to try to curry favor/suck up to folks like Monahan. The Democrats are much smarter in that regard. They would never do the equivalent. 

Gerry Maestas

BARBARA SEEGER

To NMPJ:  Please contact me personally as I am a big Martinez supporter and we need a Republican Party overhaul immediately in time for the December 8 party vote. NMPJ Comment: Will do.

Barbara 

KEITH DOTSON

To NMPJ: Your analysis of the 2018 Republican disaster and what lead up to it is extremely interesting. I would be interested to know who the major contributors were to this analysis. NMPJ Comment: Our staff drew on a number of sources, but mainly the considerable archives of electoral data, campaign records, and the commentary by the naysayers and the records of their internally destructive tactics.

I did seem to me, patently obvious, that the Pearce campaign was not, in any way, trying to leverage any of the successes of the Martinez administration. NMPJ Comment: Your observation is accurate. Pearce even attacked, either by directly, or by inference, a number of Martinez reform efforts.? Can you help me understand more about why the people you identified as the Martinez haters became so selfishly engrossed in destroying the Republican Party. NMPJ Comment: We wish we could. Some of them have a record that is based purely on division, stretching back quite a number of years. Others wanted to be able to dictate policy and did not get to do so. Normal adult Republicans would not react by deciding to make the governor an "enemy." But we are at a loss to describe a rationale for much of it.

Thank you!  Keith Dotson

CYNTHIA BLACK

NMPJ Editor:

I’m responding to the article that trashes six people who have worked within the NM Republican Party...I'm a relative newcomer to NM Republican party, and in fact to the Republican Party at all.  I am a conservative who looked for and found a home in the Republican Party of Lincoln County.  For the past two years I’ve worked as 2nd Vice Chair with a primary responsibility for maximizing the vote in our county.  We had a record turnout, 15% higher than a typical midterm election. NMPJ Comment: Not true. The turnout in 2010 was one point higher  than 2018. 

Obviously, I’m very disappointed in the election results...when  I read this article, I felt physically ill.  The author does nothing to heal divides within our party, but rather relishes augmenting the wounds, and to what purpose?  ?NMPJ Comment: The writer has apparently not read the article (this letter appears dictated) otherwise she would have read that the wounds were inflicted over a period of years, with predictable results. We have simply pointed out the individuals who inflicted them, and [implicitly] recommend to Republicans not to follow them in future. When leadership is lacking, expect the vacuum to be filled, and not always to your liking. NMPJ Comment: Again, the writer appears not to have read the article, but merely to have signed on behalf of another author. Otherwise she would know that the party had great leadership, with excellent results—capturing the House and winning 4 of 8 statewide elections. That was not in any sense of the word a "vacuum." Those identified in the article worked to undermine the leadership that achieved those results, then they had nothing on their own to provide in its place. They became, in effect, "the vacuum" the writer describes.

I’m perfectly willing to give credit to Governor Martinez for her accomplishments, especially blocking many bad bills coming out of the Democrat-controlled legislature and the severely gerrymandered map that came from the Democrat leadership.  I applaud her for doing so.  Yet I would’ve hoped she could’ve provided proactive leadership on issues so needed in our state especially with regard the economy and education.  She had eight years to do something, yet her tenure has largely been marked by personalizing politics, attacking potential allies on both sides of the aisle, and being unwilling to learn in areas where she had no experience.  There’s a reason why her popularity plummeted this past few years. NMPJ Comment: The writer is repeating the attacks (not surprising in a dictated letter) of those who caused the Party's destruction. Being "perfectly willing" to give credit to Governor Martinez is a pretty empty statement when one 1) just won't actually do so, or 2) is ignorant of what has transpired.

-----Governor Martinez not only proposed huge numbers of educational reforms—battling public employee unions for 8 years. The high school graduation rate has increased to an all-time high. More students than ever have reached "proficiency" in reading and math. Graduation rates for Hispanic and low-income students are growing fastest of all.

----She also sought to diversify the economy she inherited (one very dependent on government—the same kind of economy all governors have inherited). She cut taxes 61 times—something the writer is unaware of because the letter's dictator has always focused on tearing down the governor rather than promoting her accomplishments. Our unemployment rate has fallen 42%, from 7.8% to 4.6%, and our economy has added 60,000 private sector jobs. Companies like Facebook, Safelite, Union Pacific, and Netflix have responded. 

----The Cato Institute just named her the best fiscal governor in the country, one reason being that she even though she inherited a state-record deficit, she leaves office with a $2 billion surplus.

Why has the state party not promoted these accomplishments? Show us where the state party has done anything to promote these positive accomplishments. 

"Likewise, I have nothing against Monty Newman, in fact he seems nice enough on a personal level.  During the primary, we invited all the CD2 candidates to debate the issues and answer questions from county Republicans.  Mr. Newman simply didn’t come off well, particularly when he refused to say how he’d align in the US House..." NMPJ Comment: We are not sure what this means—surely he didn't say he would "align" with the Democrats, as the individuals we have called out have done so many times "then bragged that he had the big money (Jay McCluskey, Gov. Martinez) behind him and that’s all that was needed to win in the general election."  NMPJ Comment: He actually said that? (That sounds exactly like something John Billingsley repeated several times to our readers.) We somehow doubt he said that.  Furthermore, it is hardly a positive attitude. (Again, we suspect the signer unwittingly translated the vitriolic attitude of Mr. Billingsley without stopping to consider how they did not exactly fit with her ostensible appeal to a "positive vision."

"... I do know John Billingsley.  Without a doubt John has strong opinions, and it’s based on his vast experience and long track record of tireless work as party chair, fundraiser, and a host of other chores."  NMPJ Comment: Fundraising? Billingsley raised almost no money as state party chair, and left the party in dire straits. And Billingsley went on record attacking the governor for her victories—gratuitous attacks. 

"...Perhaps the NM Republican Party needs burning down so we can build anew.  When we do, I sincerely hope we have a new team of fresh, energetic patriots with a positive vision for the future rather than party hacks with a long list of grievances from the past..." NMPJ Comment: We actually do agree with this. The people ("hacks" in Ms. Black's words) who nursed groundless grudges and drove Governor Martinez from her party leadership role—after she had led New Mexico Republicans to a 60-year electoral high—do in fact need to go the way of the buffalo. And if Ms. Black really read their history and concluded that they "done good," then she needs to go too.  

Respectfully submitted,

Cynthia Black, 2nd Vice Chair, RPLC, Secretary, FRWLC, Constitutional Conservatives of Lincoln County, principal

NMPJ Comment: Not a single word of Ms. Black's letter refutes, or even attempts to refute a single point we made in our article she is responding to. Instead she just kind of drifts in and out of ad hominem attacks—pretty much in the same style as Billingsley and others in the column we posted last week.

WE WERE SENT THESE COMMENTS BY A "Bob Cornelius"

"Those blogs are a bunch of revisionist history and CYA. Can’t believe such a one sided story. Plenty of blame to go around for losses in NM." NMPJ Comment: We would be glad to know any part of our story which is revisionist, or which can be shown to be false, in any respect. 

---

 

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

The British newspaper The Guardian and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) have been mouthing off about the impropriety of some innocent off-hand comments by a Republican candidate for the US Senate in Mississippi. They have both, unwittingly, droned on and on about the history of lynchings in the South, and how awful it was for this candidate to make even an innocent reference to a "public hanging," even if it was a simple cliche that meant nothing at all. 

But both organizations, like most Americans (and British) are ignorant of American history.

The 4,700 Lynchings and murders in the South that the two organizations referred to were perpetrated by Democrats—most of them against black Republicans who were trying to vote—700 of them were against white Republicans for the “crime” of trying to bring a 2-party system to the South.

Both The Guardian and the NAACP attacked Republican US Senate nominee Cindy Hyde-White for remarking about accepting in invitation from a supporter.

“If he invited me to a public hanging, I’d be on the front row,”

It’s now been revealed that all five of the terrorists Obama stupidly traded for the deserter Bo Bergdahl have returned to Al-Qaeda and are back to murdering people. It perfectly illustrates the crucial difference between Trump’s lies and the Democrats’ lies.

Obama engaged in lies to actually try to cover up stupid policy decisions he was making which actually put the American people at risk. As an example, he lied about “NEVER allowing” these “totally innocent” or “totally rehabbed” Islamoterrorists to go back into the terrorism field. And he lied about Bergdahl being a “hero.”

The Tuesday Night Catastrophe

The worst fears anyone in the GOP could have had were realized for New Mexico Republicans Tuesday night. They were wiped out. In the state House of Representatives, they lost a staggering 9 seats—with a staggering net loss of 8 seats. They started the evening at a 32-38 disadvantage and ended up in the position of a pretty much irrelevant minority holding a paltry 24 seats compared to the Democrats’ 46. It is the lowest point for Republicans since 1996.

This result seemed imminently predictable, as we suggested strongly in our November 2nd issue. There appeared to be on glaring reason—the sheer incompetence of the Republican Party of New Mexico, as it has operated since early 2016.  This has been obvious to anyone who understands how state party organizations should operate—and how they should not. 

Last Friday’s issue discussed the exceptional political and campaign record of Susana Martinez—the only New Mexico Governor (or US Senator) in history to use her office to help elect Republican legislators, and others.

Ironically, the catastrophic nature of this Republican defeat does more to highlight how much Martinez was worth to New Mexico Republicans than even a full listing of her successes could do. Like many things in life, you don’t appreciate what you got until it’s gone…

How We Got Here: The Blame for the Disaster? NMPJ’s Informed Opinion

This political catastrophe did not happen overnight. It was the culmination of a sustained effort—a tremendous amount of dedicated, persistent work by a

group of people who virulently opposed Governor Martinez. Those people included Harvey Yates, Mark Murphy, Andrea Goff, Anissa Ford, Jamie Estrada, John Billingsley, and Ryan Cangiolosi.

This group of half a dozen people worked tirelessly to divide the party and organize party members against the Governor, regardless of how hard she

was working to help Republicans—and regardless of the electoral successes she was achieving.

They relentlessly used their political chips, their time, and their titles as Republican officials and insiders supposedly “in the know” to feed and encourage the media to disparage the Governor and anyone supporting her.  They all had their own reasons – some of which we will get into – and those reasons were almost always petty and personal:  Anissa Ford and Jamie Estrada, for example, were not given jobs in the administration (for good reasons) and became determined to exact revenge.      

These ruffled feathers are not unusual—not everyone gets everything they want in a new administration. But what was unusual is the lengths to which these individuals went to attack and undermine the Governor, and the safe harbor they were given by many so-called party leaders and elected officials.

But this group—the Martinez haters—engaged in foolish and divisive behavior—like helping lure Republicans into the trap of feeding off liberal bloggers who demonize any and all effective Republicans. Instead of pushing back against those attacks, these Republicans encouraged the attacks. They leaked their own petty grievances. They committed crimes. They undermined Republicans who would not join their jihad.

Most of all, they carped and sniped incessantly to undermine this nation’s first Latina Governor—first Republican Latina Governor. Of course, those Republicans who unthinkingly accepted the gripes and ax-grinding of these people are also to blame. Republicans, more than other political actors, have to think critically lest they be taken in by the unscrupulous.

Some of these bloggers are regularly read by voters around the state, so these Republicans were helping liberal bloggers create false images, false spins on political issues, and stories, and worst of all helping marginalize conservative Republicans and divide a party that is already very much a minority party. 

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished: Redistricting—the Key to the Legislature

In 2011, New Mexico underwent redistricting. Then-Speaker of the House Ben Lujan had the Legislature pass an extremely gerrymandered set of maps which would have installed a permanent 47-23 Democrat House majority (and a permanent 29-13 Democrat Senate majority). Governor Susana Martinez promptly vetoed it as being grossly unfair.

Speaker Lujan promptly took the case to Court, trying to get a district court judge to adopt his overtly partisan Democrat maps. At the same time, Lujan gathered round him a platoon of Democrat law firms, demographers, expert witnesses and the like. They were leaving nothing to chance. They were determined to persuade a court to adopt a ridiculously unfair plan—the same plan they could not slip past Martinez’s veto pen.

At that point, Martinez became determined not to let a court impose Lujan’s plan without a fight. She enlisted the aid of then-GOP State Chairman Monty Newman to devise a strategy for beating Lujan in court—trying to achieve a plan that would give New Mexico voters at least a chance of a 35-35 House (and a 21-21 Senate).

Working as a team, Martinez and Newman raised the funds needed to build a team that could match the Democrats’ team. They hired their own lawyers and experts to propose districts that would be fair to all New Mexicans.

Martinez Haters Attack the GOP Efforts

Instead of praising these efforts, the Martinez haters unexpectedly attacked the state GOP chairman for spending money on lawyers. They actually called him a “puppet” for the Governor.  Imagine that. This would be like the Chairman of the Republican National Committee being attacked as a “puppet” for President Trump.

(Interestingly enough, for those who know politics, there were no Democrats complaining about what Lujan was doing—the Democrats understand redistricting and fighting in court to impose overwhelmingly Democrat districts. Many Republicans can’t seem to grasp the concept.)

Redistricting was the Biggest GOP Success EVER

Following a Herculean effort, the Republican Party of New Mexico, under Monty Newman and Governor Martinez, won a major victory in court. The district court, upheld by the Supreme Court, adopted a plan that gave both parties a chance to achieve a majority. The Republican ceiling was about 39 seats and the Democrats’ upper limit was about 44, but both parties had at least a chance for the magic number of 36. (The Senate result was less promising, with a ceiling of probably a 21-21 tie or maybe a 22-20 lead, but it still left the GOP in the best shape in history.)

Here's what the Albuquerque Journal reported:

Rep. Brian Egolf, D-Santa Fe, a plaintiff in the redistricting case, contended the map “maintains an extreme partisan bias that shifts the playing field unfairly toward the Republican Party for the next decade.” 

and

Hall’s plan has 15 “swing” districts in which either party could conceivably win. Eight are Republican-majority districts, and seven are Democrat majority districts. 

In other words, it is hard to overstate the significance of the redistricting effort led by Martinez. It was not only an unqualified success, without it it would have been impossible to ever win the House (or the Senate).

Yet, "the dirty half-dozen" did nothing but criticize Martinez and Newman, carping over legal fees—perfectly willing to see the Democrats pay lawyers to keep New Mexico a permanent Democrat stronghold, but angry—genuinely angry—that Republicans had fought and won, and that it had cost money to do it.

Billingsley, for one, preyed on county activists, telling them that "money spent on legal costs meant they would get less support." It was, of course, a false narrative. But then the haters were only interested in advancing themselves, not growing the party or the party's opportunities.

Talk about zero perspective!

But when someone's only motivation is hatred, he or she loses sight of all the good that is taking place around them. But, mind-bogglingly, the Martinez haters actually dismissed the victories, put them down, and said they were not worth pursuing.

Nonetheless, armed with maps that made a House majority very reachable (and a Senate majority potentially possible), Governor Martinez and Chairman Newman set about to prepare the Republican Party of New Mexico for the next two upcoming cycles of 2012 and 2014.

2012

Going into 2012, Martinez and Newman braced for another Obama landslide and laid the groundwork for preventing losses in the Legislature—something they knew they had to forestall if Republicans were to be prepared to seize any opportunity the 2014 Midterm elections might offer. The first Obama landslide had seen the loss of 6 legislative seats—3 in the House and 3 in the Senate.

As we previously reported, Martinez-led efforts in 2012 were critical to setting the table for a Republican takeover in 2014.  While they didn’t win the majority, they strategically targeted and won races in those districts they had to hold moving forward.

The 2012 cooperative effort between the Governor and the RPNM led to New Mexico being one of only five Obama-won states that saw a net Republican gain in legislative seats, even as Obama was winning the state by more than 10 points and by some 80,000 votes. 

After being down to 25 House seats and 15 in the Senate, even after another Obama landslide in 2012, those numbers stood at 32 and 18 respectively. New Mexico Republicans had weathered the national storms and preparing for opportunities in the midterms.     

So What Happened Then?

Instead of objectively recognizing what had just happened, and the bullet New Mexico Republicans had successfully dodged, the anti-Martinez forces actually went on the attack. Keep in mind that Republicans had gained 3 net Senate seats, and lost 1 net House seat, for a net gain of two legislative seats, despite the overall trend.

In the wake of that triumph, John Billingsley and Harvey Yates actually wrote op-eds in the Albuquerque Journal attacking Martinez and her team, demanding that the party cut all ties.  Billingsley wrote that,

 “The Republican Party frankly got wiped out.”

But the reality was the Republicans had finished election night in 2012 with 32 Republicans in the state House—an all-time high in modern history following a presidential election year (Republicans now have 24 members after this week). But Billingsley and Yates were not concerned with facts or New Mexico—they were 100% focused on THEIR spin, THEIR story, trying to turn the grassroots delegates against Martinez, so they could seize control of the state party.

Naturally, eager Lefty bloggers (and of course Democrats) parroted this fairly sick anti-Martinez narrative and some lazy members of the mainstream media even picked it up and reported this fake narrative as if it were a valid assessment of political reality—as if it were true.

Emails and Xerox copies of letters were sent out under the pseudonym of “John Fremont” (which they sometimes misspelled “John Freemont”) attacking Governor Martinez’s political consultant, accusing him of using the Martinez PACs for his own benefit and accusing the Governor of ignoring certain Republican candidates. The letter told donors not to contribute to any of the Martinez organizations and demanded that Martinez fire her consultant. 

(Think about that. The funds being raised by the governor, and her framing of issues in a favorable manner for Republicans were the only things that held the line for the party—and even allowed it to have a net gain during the Obama landslide.)

It was later discovered that the sender of that anonymous email was Jamie Estrada, who was subsequently indicted and convicted of stealing Governor Martinez’s emails.

Assisting Estrada in the theft of those emails was Anissa Ford. The pair worked in conjunction with Democrat PACs, lawyers, and leaders, including the former Chairman of the Democratic Party of New Mexico, to disseminate those stolen emails in an attempt to destroy Martinez.

As planned, the stolen emails were picked up by liberal bloggers and other media, who were more than happy to help Estrada and Ford divide the party.  And they were used by the other Martinez haters to mislead and misinform party activists into believing that Governor Martinez was somehow an enemy of the grassroots voters, and someone who needed to be put in her place (wherever they thought that was).    

Meanwhile, Ford and Estrada went to work on campaigns against Republicans who supported Governor Martinez, using their “insider” status to get campaign strategy information to help the Democrats.

Oddly enough, despite this record, Congressman Steve Pearce later hired Ford, something even Michelle Lujan Grisham perceived as grossly unethical and dishonest, as she pointed out in her campaign:

“Anti-Corruption” & “Anti-Crime” Steve Pearce Worked to get Felon Jamie Estrada’s Sentence Commuted; Bankrolls FBI-Investigated Anissa Ford"

(Estrada went to prison. Ford’s deal with the Government to testify against Estrada and others she had teamed up with to harm Martinez and others, allowed her to avoid similar criminal charges.)

Post-2012: Attack Martinez and Her Team At Every Turn

The “stolen email” caper became a central organizing tool for the anti-Martinez group within the Republican Party. Never mind that this put them in league with the Democrat Party of New Mexico, Left-wing bloggers, and everyone else who wanted to see Republicans fail—the Martinez haters put their antipathy toward her above all other considerations.

And never mind that it was IMMORAL— something even Michelle Lujan Grisham would use to shame Steve Pearce years later.

This dynamic led to the election of John Billingsley, a close buddy of Steve Pearce and Harvey Yates, who actually ran on a platform “to shut Martinez out of the party organization.” Martinez and most other active Republicans were sad to see Newman go because he was someone who saw that the state’s highest-ranking elected official could work in tandem with the party to achieve great success. And she knew that Billingsley was simply part of a petty and pointless clique.

Nevertheless, because of campaign finance laws, Billingsley’s “shutting her out of the party,” which he did, did not stop her from plowing right ahead to try to turn New Mexico into a Republican state.

If shut out from the state party by some petty people, she would go ahead and set up her own political operation. She began raising money to do the work for New Mexico Republicans that the state party either did not want to do or was incapable of doing. It wasn’t the ideal situation, but there was nothing Martinez could do about that.

(Billingsley, for his part, inherited a huge surplus from Monty Newman, then proceeded to run the party into the ground and leave it with a significant deficit. Meanwhile neither striving to accomplish anything, nor succeeding in doing anything.)

2013: The Albuquerque Mayor’s Race and New Mexico Competes

The big race in 2013 was the Albuquerque mayor’s race. In 2009, R. J. Berry had been the first Republican to be elected in Albuquerque in 25 years and he was up for re-election. Democrats believed they could defeat Berry and set the stage to defeat Martinez the next year.  

The anti-Martinez “Republicans” encouraged R. J. Berry to distance himself from Martinez and to dump her consultant, who had run his 2009 campaign. That effort failed and Berry won a record-setting re-election landslide, garnering 68% of the vote in heavily-Democrat Albuquerque. Even the most bitter partisan left wing bloggers acknowledged the outstanding effort by Martinez’ team.

New Mexico Competes

Another amazing example of needless backbiting and attacks from within the party (actually they were only attacks from the Martinez haters) was in 2013.

Democrats and Leftist organization had been blanketing New Mexico with hundreds of workers hired by “non-profits” to register Left-leaning voters and promote Leftist ideology.  Martinez believed that Republicans had to fight back and that not doing so was political suicide. So her supporters formed a non-profit group to raise money to register conservative voters and engage in promoting conservative issues—that group was called New Mexico Competes.

That effort should have received nothing but praise from Republicans—they should have been cheering like crazy. And those who cared about capturing the House did cheer the effort. But not the half-dozen Martinez haters.

The Martinez haters actually attacked the effort. (No, they weren’t registering voters themselves, they just wanted to oppose anything Martinez did.) Andrea Goff even went to a national reporter and attacked Governor Martinez and her consultant by accusing them of being involved with New Mexico Competes.

Keep in mind, there would be nothing improper at all with Martinez or any consultant being involved with a non-profit group. This was because NMC was not involved in any elections, so there would be no coordination issue.  In fact, Goff did the exact same thing with Steve Pearce, as he organized a non-profit group called GOAL. And therein lies the real issue—Goff wanted donors to give money to GOAL instead of New Mexico Competes.

In the minds of the anti-Martinez crowd, no degree of pettiness or infighting was too low—and it was always their first option to attack Martinez instead of doing what’s right for Republicans.

Goff Hates Martinez. But Why?

What had led to Andrea Goff to leading attacks on Martinez?  Again, it certainly looks like it was sheer pettiness. Goff had split off from her business partner, Jessica Perez, and the two had become competitors. Martinez chose to hire Perez, whom she had a relationship with going back years and years, as her fundraiser.

This deeply upset Goff and she used every opportunity to publicly attack Martinez and anyone supporting the Governor and leader of the Republican party in New Mexico.  (If you’re wondering what happens with other political professionals in other states, it isn’t’ this—only in New Mexico do we have such absurd levels of infighting within the GOP ranks.)

But this aside about New Mexico Competes highlights a couple of issues. First, it demonstrates how thorough the Martinez-allied operation was at doing everything that was necessary to help Republicans prepare to succeed in upcoming elections. Second, it’s yet another example of the lengths the Martinez haters would go to oppose all of her efforts, no matter how sound they were, and no matter how fundamental they were to Republican success.

2014: Republicans Capture the House of Representatives

The 2014 election cycle was an historic moment for New Mexico Republicans. Governor Martinez won re-election by the largest margin for a Republican candidate since 1926. In the process, she won control of the Republican state house for the first time in 60 years.

How did that Happen?

While the state party was slowly having its entire lifeblood drained out of it by Billingsley, as he hardly raised enough money to pay the light bill, Governor Martinez, left “cut out” of the RPNM, nonetheless on her own decided to marshal an unprecedented array of campaign assets—including Susana PAC, Reform New Mexico Now, and Advance New Mexico Now—melding them with a comprehensive strategy that incorporated winning messages on winning issues. Her efforts overwhelmed the Democrats.

Martinez’s efforts led to millions of dollars being poured into legislative races. She brought in big-names to hold turnout rallies which she strategically placed in competitive districts. And her independent expenditure committees additionally sent about 15 pieces of mail in each district in support of Republican candidates—and sometimes as many as 25 to 30.

She also geared her own advertising to messages that were seen as decisive in a number of Republican races. As an example, she left her "drivers' licenses" ads up for the last three weeks of the campaign, precisely because the issue was helping Republican legislative campaigns. 

Martinez also had a turnout effort that was unprecedented. It included hundreds of volunteers carrying out neighbor-to-neighbor and peer to peer, door-to-door, phone call and personal contact campaigns. She mailed hundreds of thousands of absentee ballot applications and launched the same numbers of personal phone calls. 

The result was spectacular, the capture of the House for the first time since the 1952 election.

Her operation was so successful that the Republican National Committee adopted much of what was called the "Martinez Model" for the 2016 effort headed up by Reince Priebus that turned out to be the keys to Trump victories in Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, North Carolina, and Arizona. 

Martinez carved out Unique Role for herself in New Mexico History

It must be noted that no governor in New Mexico history—in either party—had ever raised money for a team effort, trying to sweep other party members into office. Neither had extremely powerful and influential senators.

But Martinez proved the adage—Sharing is Caring! She also knew that politics is a team sport.

Like most politicians, popular governors like Gary Johnson and Bill Richardson, and popular senators like Jeff Bingaman and Pete Domenici, raised money for themselves and spent it on their own races. Martinez was cut from a different cloth. 

Post-2014

Republicans were in a great position after election night in 2014. There was an amazing opportunity to take this great victory and transform it into permanent political success for Republicans. But that would have required uniting and that’s not something the Martinez Haters, even after what she had just pulled off, were willing to do.

Instead, the anti-Martinez group immediately moved to maintain control of the state party apparatus (broke as it was) and to further push Martinez away. They went to Republican legislators and encouraged them to operate separately from Martinez. Some legislators chose to pursue that fool’s errand and accelerated their own demise.

Meanwhile, Harvey Yates, perhaps the leading Martinez hater, recruited himself to run against a Martinez supporter, Republican National Committeeman Pat Rogers.  Yates convinced a host of marginally-involved delegates to defeat Pat Rogers as RNC National Committeeman.

These people even complained to the FBI that Martinez’s consultant, Jay McCleskey, was improperly using PACs and instigated a year-long investigation. So instead of trying to be a part of a team, the anti-Martinez crowd worked hard not only against the Republican Party but against her team in a very personal way.

When it was becoming clear that the secret FBI investigation was going to end without finding any wrongdoing, the Martinez haters leaked the existence of the investigation to the media in order to harm Martinez and McCleskey. Cangiolosi inadvertently outed himself as the unnamed source confirming the investigation for a Santa Fe New Mexican article that broke the evening of November 6, 2015.

When the New Mexican article was posted with only a single unnamed source, Cangiolosi realized that he had fingered himself with his earlier tweet and quickly deleted it.   

In any case, when the allegations against McCleskey were proven false and the Obama Justice Department closed the investigation after finding no wrongdoing, Andrea Goff, Steve Pearce’s fundraiser, again went public to attack Martinez and McCleskey. This played right into the Democrats’ hands.

2016: Martinez Pushed to the Sidelines

Using ceaseless political and personal attacks, including a ginned-up FBI investigation, and sowing constant discord among legislators, some of whom must not have been very bright (after all, they had just witnessed themselves becoming a majority for the first time in six decades) the Martinez haters finally convinced enough people to shove the governor to the sidelines.

For us, it appears ironic that while the Martinez Model was so effective in New Mexico that it was used nationally, certain Republican leaders like Harvey Yates and those running the SuperPAC called "GOAL" decided they did not want to use it anymore. Yates was convinced that he and Ryan Cangiolosi could run a more comprehensive and effective statewide effort. They didn't however. 

As neutral observers, we see that as tragic. We would be of the same opinion if a similar dynamic had occurred in the Democrat Party

The Martinez haters promised that they had things under control and, as always, they emphasized that they didn’t need the governor, instead continuing to employ personal and petty attacks—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified petty personal attacks.

What did they accomplish?

They hardly raised a relative dime. And they promptly lost the House in a grotesquely and laughably incompetent manner. In the wake of the disaster, neither Harvey Yates, nor Cangiolosi, nor Murphy, nor Goff, or Ford, or Billingsley stepped forward to take pride in their “accomplishment.”

The anti-Martinez crowd looked like the proverbial clown car. Instead of having Martinez's Republican-supporting PACs which had had the ability to raise and spend some $4 million to help elect Republicans in New Mexico, they raised a relative pittance.

All that they had accomplished was to kill the goose that had been laying the golden eggs. All because a half dozen people "didn't like" the governor. 

Martinez Meanwhile

While the Martinez haters were losing the state House, the Martinez operation defeated Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez.

Martinez meanwhile had been elected Chair of the Republican Governors Association in 2015.  As chair, she and her political team oversaw the  governor’s races in the country during the 2016 cycle with great success. After the 2016, Republicans held 34 governorships—an all-time historic high-water mark.  

So while the Martinez team was achieving great success in 2016, it stood in stark contrast to what her haters had accomplished.

Still, they learned nothing. While the Martinez team was winning races across the country, the haters were continuing to work overtime to denigrate, damage, and undercut the Martinez team so  she would continue to have no meaningful role in New Mexico in 2018. And now we all know how that movie ends.

2017-18

Following their disastrous 2016, the Martinez haters just forged ahead—apparently bent on permanently destroying the Republican Party of New Mexico—and moved to install Ryan Cangiolosi as state chairman.

Cangiolosi was seen by many as not much more than an errand-boy for Harvey Yates. Cangiolosi was something of an easy mark for the Martinez haters because he had been ostracized by Martinez—she believed that while he had been on her staff, he had used his position to push for the new UNM hospital in exchange for UNM authorities hiring him in a cushy position with not too many responsibilities and a fat government-funded salary.

Cangiolosi was heavily lobbying Martinez and others in the Governor’s office to support the new hospital without disclosing that he was simultaneously lining up the job with UNM. That discovery outraged Martinez.  In any event, Cangiolosi got the job and still maintains it as his current job at UNM. Martinez saw this as remarkably unethical and broke off all contact with Cangiolosi.

Despite claims to the contrary, Cangiolosi had very little experience running campaigns. After Martinez won the primary in 2010, Cangiolosi was installed as the office manager for the Martinez campaign. Prior to that, it appears largest organizational experience was serving as his church’s music director.  

This lack of experience became painfully clear in 2017. The Albuquerque mayor’s race was up and Democrats wanted to do what Republicans had done in 2009—win the mayor’s race and set the table for a victory in the governor’s race the following year.

Cangiolosi did a remarkably inept job in that election and Republicans were obliterated in the Albuquerque mayor’s race.

Campaigns and parties are going to lose some races, and sometimes several races. That’s part of politics—it’s just the way it is. But smart political operatives learn from mistakes. What’s most troubling about how Cangiolosi operated is that he apparently learned nothing from the 2017 debacle and did nothing to correct the plethora of failures as he headed in to 2018.

In the Albuquerque Mayor’s race there had been no credible turnout operation. In 2018, he followed suit—there was no Republican turnout effort statewide and the legislative effort was nothing short of pathetic.

While Martinez PACs had previously matched the leftwing groups in advertising in legislative districts across the state, Cangiolosi and the party didn’t even show up in many of these races in 2018. 

Similarly, others among the Martinez haters who had worked so hard to discourage donors from giving to Martinez PACs and created their own PACs to siphon that money away—people like Mark Murphy—simply packed up and walked away from legislative races.

It was as if their only goal in life had been to “get rid of Martinez” and “push her out of the state party apparatus,” and, once that had been accomplished, they seemed to have nothing else to live for.

It as if the Yates-Murphy-Billingsley-Goff-Ford crowd had had had no real thoughts of building up anything or building a legislative majority, but instead had always focused all their energy on tearing down Martinez. Once they did that, they stopped and had a beer. Nothing more to do.

Meanwhile, their sidelining of the very efficient Martinez political operation meant that House Republicans were left totally exposed, getting hit with dozens of attack mailers and radio ads while the state party did nothing to match it. When you understand how lopsided the advertising was in these races, the results should not be a surprise.

But it gets even worse.

After our last article, former House Speaker Don Tripp commented that our analysis was “spot-on” and added that “the polling Martinez had done was also very helpful for Republicans.”

This was an important component of the Martinez operation and went largely unnoticed.  Martinez approached legislative races in the same manner the NRCC approaches congressional races across the country. They would conduct surveys to help legislators develop effective messages and also monitor all the races to ensure Republicans were not in trouble.  If the race was competitive, the PAC would engage.  If the race was safe, they would shift resources elsewhere. That’s standard for how credible Independent Expenditure committees operate, whether it is the NRCC, the NRSC, the RGA, or their Democrat counterparts.

So in 2018, to the extent they polled at all, the RPNM used what looks like fly-by-night pollsters, implemented an absurd strategy, and consequently ended up losing all 12 statewide contested races—an historic all-time record for losing; nine Republican House seats—which is a 64-year record; and scores of local seats with good incumbents and candidates, seats that have never been in trouble before.  

That’s the difference between a competent and an incompetent political organization.

The sad part for New Mexicans is that all of this proves that this election did not have to be a disaster for Republicans. We lost this election, because a group of Martinez haters finally succeeded in completely dumbing down the Republican Party in New Mexico. 

They not only destroyed the party, the poured salt into the plowed fields so as to ensure the Republican Party is doomed for the foreseeable future.

Future Hopes, Redistricting?

To have hope of ever having a Republican legislature, the Republican Party has to have a seat at the table: 1) control of one of the legislative houses; or 2) the governorship., Gary Johnson and Susana Martinez gave Republicans a seat at the table, the ability to force a compromise.

Thanks to the hater crowd, that seat is gone. The Democrats can now impose permanent super-majorities in both houses of the legislature. The next time the Republicans might have a chance of achieving anything will be the redistricting session to be held in September of 2031. And they will only have even that chance provided they win the 2030 governor’s election.

So if you are a Republican, next time you see Harvey Yates, Mark Murphy, Ryan Cangiolosi, Andrea Goff, Anissa Ford, Jamie Estrada, or John Billingsley, be sure to thank them for destroying your party.

The Path Forward

It’s not clear that Republicans in New Mexico will be able to find the path forward. Republicans will need to build a credible and effective political operation. They will need to make winning elections the primary focus of the party, rather than settling petty political scores. They will need to be smart and strategic.  In short, the Republican Party organization will need to be the exact opposite of what it was not only on Tuesday, but in the two years leading up to that fateful date.

As always, NMPJ welcomes any contrary opinions. 

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

Some Doña Ana County elections observers and possible officials now indicate that reports or rumors that were started last night came from a misunderstanding about what happened when the absentee precinct judge and clerks got tired after a day of processing ballots.

#CD2 Absentee Vote in Doña Ana County:

Xochitl Torres Small 6,411 (77.6%)

Yvette Herrell 1,847 (22.4%)

Current Totals by Our calculation (Unofficial)

Xochitl Torres Small (D) 99,435

Yvette Herrell (R)            96,711

This would be a huge upset.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

(Las Cruces) Our sources report that the Doña Ana County Clerk's office is still processing 7,700 absentee ballots. Apparently, lawyers from both the Democratic and Republican Parties are flooding in to Las Cruces to watch the situation very closely. 

(Additionally, there is said to be approximately 1,000 provisional ballots, but that is another story. See below.)

THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE UNCOUNTED ABSENTEE BALLOTS

This story is weird because no county is supposed to have absentee ballots "left over" from yesterday. The county clerks are authorized to begin processing absentee ballots five days before the election. And they should begin feeding ballots into tabulators on election day so that at 7:00 PM they can simply have the tabulator produce a tape with complete returns from the Absent Voter Precinct.

And the New Mexico Election Code requires that "The county clerk shall report to the secretary of state the vote totals of each precinct on election night." (§ 1-12-70) In other words, the Absent Voter Precinct board should not have gone home before counting all the votes. 

And reports from Las Cruces say that "the precinct board took the ballots home with them."

CURRENT VOTE COUNT in CD 2

The current vote count in CD 2 shows Republican Yvette Herrell clinging to a lead of 1,967 votes, 94,456 to 92,489, over Democrat Xochitl Torres Small. 

Based on information we have received, the "uncounted ballots" story appears to be true. Assuming that is the case, the math for Torres Small is as follows:

• to make up her deficit she has to beat Herrell by 1,968 votes in the remaining absentee ballots
• if 7,700 is the real number, then that would mean, 4,834 to 2,866
• that would mean getting 62.78% of the uncounted absentee ballots 

HOWEVER, NOT ALL ABSENTEE BALLOTS QUALIFY (or show votes in each race)

The reality is, however, that not all the absentee ballots may be qualified—that is they may lack a signature, or they may have some other irregularity that requires that they be placed in a "rejected ballot" envelope and secured in a ballot box. Perhaps 1% of absentee vote attempts may end up rejected. If that were the case it would reduce the number of ballots to 7,623.

On top of that, it is possible that 1% of the qualified ballots will not have the CD 2 race marked. That would leave 7,547 ballots, and the percentage of the vote that Xochitl would have to capture would go up to 63.0%. But you get the idea—the fewer qualified ballots, the higher the percentage of the vote the trailing candidate has to capture.

PROVISIONAL BALLOTS

Regarding the 1,000 alleged provisional ballots in Doña Ana County, that is a very high number. But, generally speaking, somewhere between 60 and 90% of provisional ballots rejected. Many people mistakenly believe they don't have to register to vote, and therefore don't appear on the voter rolls. Or they believe they registered, but didn't'. Or they moved to a different county and forgot to register. And there are numerous other reasons that provisional ballots have a fairly low chance of being "qualified" as a valid ballot.

But, that said, however many there may be, they do give Xochitl Torres Small one more bite at the apple. Those provisional ballots are probably being reviewed by the county clerk now, and a report on how many are qualified will probably be given to the county commission by the end of the week. At that point, those qualifying ballots will be counted in an open meeting. But in the end there will probably be no more than 250 of those, if that many.

Reports out of Las Cruces say that one reason the county had so many provisionals is that an outfit called the Center for Voter Information (located in Santa Fe) was actively encouraging non-citizens to vote by provisional ballot.

STAY TUNED TO NEW MEXICO POLITICAL JOURNAL FOR UPDATES ON THE ABSENTEE VOTE COUNT

 Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

In Roswell Saturday, 45 door-to-door canvassers were hard at work for Xochitl Torres Small. At $15 an hour, armed with clipboards and the names of all Democrats who had not yet voted, these workers were in the process of ferreting out every last Democrat voter in the county.

They had a script, answers to certain possible questions, and strict instructions not to "spend more than three minutes at any door." They have votes to get out.

And unlike Bernalillo County, there's no taxpayer-sponsored "ice cream truck" trolling for votes throughout the neighborhoods. In the rest of New Mexico, GOTV ("Getting out the Vote") is a job that falls to political parties and candidates. Only in Albuquerque does the government fill that role.

Then there were the volunteers, at least one busload of 40 more Democrats from Albuquerque doing the same thing—not for money, but because they believe in the cause. That bus left Roswell at 6:30 PM. The paid canvassers told us they are going to be on the job through Tuesday afternoon.

What does all this mean? Does Xochitl have a Chance? (If she were Harry Teague in a dress, Yes.)

Members of the volunteer bus told an NMPJ correspondent that:

"...we were told we were headed to Las Cruces, then this morning they said 'we aren't needed in Cruces, they've got that blanketed with canvassers,' you're headed to Roswell."

All this is what happens when a campaign—and perhaps a state party apparatus—is flush with money. The paid canvassers are doing six hours a day in Roswell from Friday through Tuesday. That's a little over $20,000. That's on the dime of the Democratic Party of New Mexico. Then there are the volunteers, whose bus they said was sponsored by "New Mexico for All." 

Of course there is no chance of carrying Chaves County, but that is not the objective. Instead, their goal can be described as concluding something like "it's better to get beat 13,000 to 7,000 than 13,000 to 6,000."

But the bottom line is the Democrats have done everything they can to win Congressional District 2. We have to give them credit: they've done it all. Given the reality of the modern-day Democrat Party, and the fact that there are no "Harry Teagues" left—in fact the price of membership is that one must be heavily invested in Leftist ideology—the Democrats have done everything they can possibly do to take control of this seat. 

Here's what they've done:

• Raised tons of money—it appears the Small campaign may have outraised Herrell 3 to 1
• Gotten the national party really interested in this seat—it has not been "targeted" in recent years
• Secured millions of dollars of IE—Independent Expenditure organizations have trashed Herrell non-stop 
• Nominated an attractive, charismatic candidate who is something of a looker 
• Made a real play for the male vote—several female readers have asked us "Why do her shotgun ads zone in on her butt?"
• Portrayed Xochitl as a "moderate"—while she's just as much a "movement Leftist" as anyone can find anywhere  
• Buried Yvette Herrell with negative mail—there have to have been 30 pieces of all-out attacks on Herrell in every mailbox
• Developed one central issue and stuck to it—their principal allegation is that Herrell has enriched herself at taxpayer expense
• Used every conceivable tactic and operational device to Get Out the Vote—no stone unturned in even the most Republican areas

They're Still Going to Get Beat

Despite all of the above, we still don't see how they overcome the structural Republican advantages of Congressional District 2. There are 12 counties in the district that steadily return comfortable margins for Republican candidates in federal races. Sure there is Doña Ana County, along with Guadalupe, Grant, and Cibola, but Pearce carried all of those except Doña Ana, and Trump ran fairly strong everywhere except Las Cruces.

Herrell has closed out her campaign, or maybe more accurately the IEs and the National Republican Congressional Committee have closed it out for her, by zeroing in on Xochitl's Leftist agenda—making every effort to overcome the very strong "likeability" effort by Torres Small that included every conceivable approach to homespun, New Mexico, one-of-us imagery.

In fact, if anything, Xochitl's entire campaign has been imagery. Perhaps nothing but that. It has been a good one, but we just don't see how she pulls it off. If she does, then it would be because she really burned-in their storyline of "Yvette Herrell as a crook," and they made that so strong for so long that "Xochitl as a Leftist" was overridden. 

2020, 2021, 2022, and Redistricting

Again, Xochitl is just not likely to win. If that prediction comes true it means that the Democrats cannot win in 2020 either. They won't win the district until after it's redrawn in 2021, following the 2020 Census. At that point, it appears the Democrats will likely be in complete control of the process. If so, they'll weaken CDs 3 and 1 somewhat by lopping off Republican voting areas and adding a lot of Democrat precincts to CD 2. They will have the ability to secure three Democrat congressmen for New Mexico through 2030.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

Will Stephanie Garcia-Richard Continue Double-dipping at Pojoaque Schools if she's elected Land Commissioner?

Documents sent to NMPJ appear to show that Democrat Land Commissioner candidate Stephanie Garcia-Richard had a no-show job with the Pojoaque School District. The calendar we received appears to show meetings—for which she was paid—occurred while Garcia-Richard was simultaneously supposedly attending the annual legislative session. 

Whether she was there, or at the Pojoaque schools, one thing for certain is that she was only at one of them. She couldn't have been at both.

Here are the documents which indicate the no show.

 /uploads/files/Garcia%20Richard%2C%20No%20Show%20Job%2C%20Lawyer's%20response.pdf

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

Over the past 10 days, the 80% of Americans who get their news from the mainstream media have been told repeatedly that Donald J. Trump:

1. manufactured pipe bombs in his spare time and sent them to Democrats; and
2. personally shot and killed 10 people in a synagogue in Pittsburgh

First, Let's Look at the Lay of the Land

Democrats hold a 38-32 advantage coming into this General Election. In 2016, they knocked off five Republicans to re-capture the House only two years after the Republicans ended 60 years of Democrat control.

In 2014 the Republicans had turned a 31-39 deficit in the state House of Representatives into a 37-33 majority by capturing six seats. This was a huge feat because there are only about 16 competitive seats in the whole state. The other 54 are fairly solidly Democrat or Republican.

A Little bit of Background

The Crucial Role of Redistricting

One major reason Republicans won control of the legislature in 2014 was the multi-cycle effort by Governor Martinez to assist legislative candidates. In 2011, she vetoed Democrat gerrymander redistricting plans, forcing the Democrats to take her to court. By hiring competent lawyers, and with the assistance of then-party chairman Monty Newman, the judge adopted the Governor’s proposed map for the State House.

2012

Then in 2012, she raised and spent over $2 million helping GOP legislative candidates. She defeated Democrat Senate President Tim Jennings, despite Jennings being supported by future GOP Committeeman Harvey Yates and other Republicans. While Republicans did not win control of the House that year, they protected enough close GOP seats that it set the table for 2014.

Incidentally, those legislative victories achieved by the Martinez Super-PAC — including the defeat of a few progressives in Democrat primaries — led to the passage of the 2013 Tax Reform package that cut corporate income tax rates and led to companies like Facebook coming to New Mexico, as well as the expansion of Intel and now the arrival of Netflix.

2014

Moving to 2014, a major reason the GOP won control of the state House was a turnout operation created and driven by Governor Susana Martinez's re-election campaign and its legislative Super-PAC.  We all know Democrats hold a voter registration edge in New Mexico and in most of the competitive House seats. The key to success for Republicans is to turnout Republican voters at a greater rate than their share of the registration.

In 2014 Republicans not only turned out Republicans at a level considerably above their registration share, they coupled that turnout operation with strong persuasive messaging targeted at independents and moderate Democrats. The result was not only a landslide victory for Martinez, but a net gain of those six House seats. 

Martinez Decided to Adopt a Unique Role in New Mexico History

I must be noted that no governor in New Mexico history—in either party—had ever raised money for a team effort, trying to sweep other party members into office. Neither had extremely powerful and influential senators. Like most politicians, popular governors like Gary Johnson and Bill Richardson, and popular senators like Jeff Bingaman and Pete Domenici, raised money for themselves and spent it on their own races. Martinez was cut from a different cloth. 

Martinez, through her work to raise money for super-PACs like Reform New Mexico Now, Advance New Mexico Now, and Susana PAC, along with her own campaign, not only poured several million dollars into legislative races, she brought in big-names to hold turnout rallies which she strategically placed in competitive districts. Mitt Romney appearing in Conrad James's district is but one example. Chris Christie in Sharon Clahchischiliage's district is another.

Martinez SuperPACs

Martinez's independent expenditure committees additionally sent about 15 pieces of mail in each district in support of Republican candidates—and sometimes as many as 25 to 30. She also geared her own advertising to messages that were seen as decisive in a number of Republican races. As an example, she left her "drivers' licenses" ads up for the last three weeks of the campaign, precisely because the issue was helping Republican legislative campaigns. 

Martinez Turnout Operations

Martinez also had a turnout effort that was unprecedented. It included hundreds of volunteers carrying out neighbor-to-neighbor and peer to peer, door-to-door, phone call and personal contact campaigns. She mailed hundreds of thousands of absentee ballot applications and launched the same numbers of personal phone calls. 

Her operation was so successful that the Republican National Committee adopted much of what was called the "Martinez Model" for the 2016 effort headed up by Reince Priebus that turned out to be the keys to Trump victories in Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, North Carolina, and Arizona. 

2016

For us, it appears ironic that while the Martinez Model was so effective in New Mexico that it was used nationally, certain Republican leaders like Harvey Yates and those running the SuperPAC called "GOAL" decided they did not want to use it anymore. Yates was convinced that he and Ryan Cangiolosi could run a more comprehensive and effective statewide effort. They didn't however. 

Martinez Pushed to the Sidelines

Convincing House Majority Leader Nate Gentry and his assistants Representatives Rod Montoya and Kelly Fajardo that Martinez should be forced to the sidelines, Yates, Cangiolosi and the legislative leaders took charge, apparently more happy to "be in control" than to "develop a plan."

What followed was a disaster of Hindenburg-like proportions—at least to New Mexico Republicans who had waited 60 years—60 years!—to capture the House, only to see it handed back because certain people wanted to be in charge. This has left a number of Republicans angry, but more importantly perhaps, demoralized. 60 years of work.

Martinez's Republican-supporting PACs had raised and spent over $4 million to help elect Republicans in New Mexico. That’s a jaw-dropping figure that we don’t believe that many New Mexico Republicans fully appreciate. $4 million in fundraising—to be spent on others, not herself—the only effort of its kind in New Mexico history. All of it thrown away because three or four people "didn't like" the governor. 

As neutral observers, we see that as tragic. We would be of the same opinion if a similar dynamic had occurred in the Democrat Party.

2018

As for this coming Tuesday, we will see if the Republican Party of New Mexico has it in them to get out the vote. We were concerned that there was only a little over $1,500 on hand a few days ago, and that it appeared that neither Yates, nor any of his partners, had done anything at all to replace Governor Martinez's three PACs. 

Meanwhile, the main Democrat SuperPAC operating in New Mexico, "Patriot Majority," has spent nearly $2 million attacking Republicans. The secondary SuperPAC, run by the teachers' union, has spent almost $500,000 attacking Republicans. 

This SuperPAC advantage has led to what we have seen in post offices around the state: Republican legislative candidates being beaten to death with daily negative mail in support of their Democrat opponents. The ratios are running 5 or 6 to 1 in favor of the Democrats. Republican candidates may survive, but the silence of the Republican Party of New Mexico, and the absence of independent expenditures on behalf of the GOP make it difficult to go on with political life.

In any case, let's take a look at the political landscape of the New Mexico House of Representatives going into Tuesday's election.

KEY DISTRICTS

The following districts have changed hands frequently over the past decade, some of them four times, some have switched back and forth three times. Most remain a part of the battleground districts.

House District 15 OPEN SEAT (Albuquerque's North Valley)

Republican Brad Winter v. Democrat Hayan Hochman

This is the old Raymond Sanchez district, won by John Sanchez in 2000, then held by Teresa Zanetti in 2002 when Sanchez stepped down to run for governor, then taken back in the Obama landslide by Democrat Bill O'Neill (now state senator), held by Emily Kane, then recaptured by Republican Sarah Maestas Barnes in 2014. Maestas Barnes won it again in 2016, but is stepping down. 

The Republicans have put up Brad Winter, former Albuquerque School Superintendent, and current City Council member. As of 8 October, Winter had $18,436 on hand compared to his Democrat opponent Dayan Hochman's $51,564. As of yesterday, Hochman had outraised Winter $133k to $84k, and had outspent his Republican opponent during October $55k to $25k. He also had more cash on hand than Winter, $45k to $22k.

Two years ago, Clinton beat Trump in the district 6,904 to 5,537, with Gary Johnson getting 1,535. Trump's 38.84% was below his statewide showing of 40.04%. All observers we have spoken with believe Winter will win, based on his very high name recognition. But this could be a sleeper.

House District 23 (Part of NW Albuquerque and part of Sandoval County)

Incumbent Democrat Damon Ely v. Republican Brenda Boatman

This seat was held by the late Republican Eric Youngberg, but was captured by Democrat Ben Rodefer in 2008, retaken by Republican Dave Doyle in 2010, held by Paul Pacheco in 2012 and 2014, until 2016, when he lost it to Ely, 7,127 to 7,022. Hillary ran more weakly here, and Trump slightly stronger than in District 15. Yet it seems Republicans may not have viewed the 105-vote loss as a key return target. On October 8, Ely had over $70k to Boatman's $11,000. And Ely has outspent Boatman $166k to $63k. 

House District 24 (Albuquerque's mid-NE Heights)

Incumbent Democrat Liz Thomson v. Republican Trey Stephen Morris

Republican congressional nominee Janice Arnold-Jones once held this seat. She was succeeded by Conrad James in 2010, but he lost it to Thomson in 2012, recapturing it in 2014, only to see it go back to Thomson in 2016 when James elected not to run again. Thomson defeated Christina Marie Hall by 600 votes while Hillary Clinton was trouncing Trump by 1,412. Thomson has outspent Morris $128k to $52k. It appears Republicans may have given up hope here. 

In 2014, the Martinez effort held the Democrat turnout advantage to only 8 percentage points (47% to 39%) and James won the seat. That wasn't matched in 2016. And under today's RPNM turnout operation, the Democrats hold an almost 20 percentage point advantage in early voting (52% to 33%).

House District 36 (Las Cruces, and northern villages including Hatch)

Democrat incumbent Nathan Small v. Republican David Tofsted

This was once a heavily competitive seat and in fact it has changed hands the last three consecutive elections. But with Doña Ana County's strong leftward migration it appears the days of competitive elections are gone. The Republican nominee has raised only $15,000 and the Democrat, whose wife Xochitl is running for Congress, has spent $79,000 in this district where Hillary beat Trump by 1,000 votes and over 10 percentage points. In any case, the GOP candidate is getting little help.

House District 37 (Las Cruces)

Incumbent Democrat Joanne Ferrary v. Republican Bev Courtney

This is another district that reflects the strong organizing (some say cheating and violations of election law) in Doña Ana County by the hard Left of the Democratic Party. In 2010, Dr. Terry McMillan captured this seat for the GOP from Jeff Steinborn, and held it in 2012 and 2014 against furious onslaughts by Ferrary who lost twice, by 8 votes and 409 votes respectively. But Ferrary came roaring back for a third bite at the apple in 2016. It proved the charm, with the Democrat winning by 723 votes while Clinton was pounding Trump by 1,400. This year the Republican candidate has spent only $3,600 to Ferrary's $98,000. Enough said.

House District 39 (Silver City, part of Grant County pt. Doña Ana County)

Incumbent Democrat Rodolpho Martinez v. Republican Lee S. Cotter

Rodolpho "Rudy" Martinez has held this district since taking over from the late Manuel Herrera in 2007. But he lost it in 2014 to Republican John Zimmerman, who, in 2016, lost it back to Rudy by 2.2 points while Trump was getting beat by 7 points. Zimmerman opted to run for the Doña Ana County Commission, and Republicans nominated former State Senator Lee Cotter. But as of yesterday, Cotter has spent only 11 grand compared to the more than $90,000 Martinez has raised. 

House District 53 (East Doña Ana County, Chaparral, one Pct in Otero County)

Incumbent Republican Rick Little v. Democrat Willie Madrid

This is a rematch of the 2016 contest. Little captured the seat from Democrat Nate Cote in 2010, lost it back to him in 2012, and retook the seat in 2014. This is closely contested again, although reports have surfaced of a massive (again, possibly illegal) voter registration effort by Democrats in the fast-growing, unincorporated town of Chaparral, which stretches across the Doña Ana-Otero border. Clinton beat Trump here by 6½ points, although for Trump that was a better showing than average. Little has raised almost $72,000 and Madrid almost $79,000

OTHER DISTRICTS of NOTE

House District 28 (Albuquerque NE Heights)

Democrats have told NMPJ they are going to take this seat from incumbent Republican Jimmie Hall. This seems implausible to us, with Hall having held the seat for 14 years and running mostly unopposed during that time. He beat activist Democrat Cornelia Lange in 2010 with 61% of the vote, but the district has changed since then, and the NE Heights have become increasingly less friendly to Republicans over the past generation.

Clinton beat Trump here by only one point, with Gary Johnson getting 12%, so we're still from Missouri on this one. But Democrats point to their attractive candidate Melanie Ann Stansbury, and point out that she has raised $176,113, while Hall has received $95,313. They also claim she has run an exceptional campaign, working tirelessly, knocking on every door, and has a host of volunteers. We'll see.

House District 29 (NW Albuquerque)

Incumbent Republican David Adkins won re-election two years ago by only 9 votes, 6,977 to 6,968, in a district Clinton carried by 550 votes. But our reporters/readers (Democrats and Republicans) tell us Adkins is taking the race seriously this time and is working hard, something he apparently did not do last time. He has raised almost $140,000, but his Democrat challenger, Joy Garratt has raised almost $125,000. So both are running vigorous campaigns. 

In House District 29, Democrats only had a 1 percentage point advantage over Republicans in 2014. That was greatly reduced in 2016. Today, the Democrats have a 15 percentage point advantage (50% to 35%).

House District 30 (Albuquerque, near NE Heights)

This seat was held by Republican Justine Fox-Young who captured the seat in 2004, but was swept out in the Obama landslide of 2008. Two years later Nate Gentry recaptured the seat and held it against furious attacks and hundreds of thousands of dollars of spending, which he matched. He is retiring, and the Republicans have nominated John Jones, husband of Congressional candidate Janice Arnold-Jones (something close to a mirror image of the HD 36 situation). 

Democrats have re-nominated Natalie Figueroa, who ran a competitive race against Gentry two years ago, while Hillary was pounding Trump by nearly 11 points. She has outraised Jones $126,000 to 70 grand. 

House District 32 (Luna County, plus Hidaldo, and one Pct in Grant)

This district has been a continuously missed opportunity for the Republicans for close to 20 years. In 2016, Hillary lost the district by 300 votes, with 43.9%. An excellent Republican candidate lost the district to Democrat Candie Sweetser because the losing primary candidate ran a non-stop negative campaign against her in the fall, dividing the Republican vote. This year Sweetser faces Republican Laura Boyd. But it appears the RPNM has placed little emphasis on this eminently winnable district. Boyd has spent only $26,000. Sweetser has raised $61,000. Is it yet another opportunity lost?

House District 63 (East Central NM, Santa Rosa to Clovis)

This district is unique in the state in that it is the only house district held by a Democrat where Trump actually won. Not only did he win, Trump won an absolute majority, beating Clinton 3,779 to 2,706, capturing 51.3% to Clinton's 36.7%. Trump carried only 25 house districts to Clinton's 45, and of those he won majorities in only 15. This is one of them.

It is truly a strange anomaly for the Democrats to hold one of the 15 strongest Republican districts in the state. Still, incumbent George Dodge of Santa Rosa works the district hard, and he has the biggest base in the Guadalupe County seat. Martin Zamora, however, is perhaps the first truly serious Republican challenger in possibly the past 20 years or so. He is widely respected and has raised over $101,000. Dodge has raised $144,000.

An upset is possible.

House District 68 (NW Albuquerque)

Incumbent Monica Youngblood has been treated very unfairly, both in media as well as in court, in the wake of her dubious arrest for alleged drunk driving last May. (See our comprehensive coverage of the story in our May 25 issue.) Still, emotionalism and sensationalism often triumph in politics, so we are reasonably sure she is facing a tough re-election challenge.

Clinton carried this district by 190 votes in 2016, beating Trump by about one-half percent. Fundraising has been highly competitive: Democrat Karen Bash has raised $86,000 to Youngblood's $101,000. Bash is said to be a Christian minister, something increasingly rare in the Democratic Party, which over the past quarter century has become steadily more hostile to people of faith (except to Muslims, whom they unquestioningly embrace). Bash's website is a study in vagueness, so we are left unsure of where she stands on much. 

We would guess that she is not what might be called a confessional evangelical, but perhaps ordained in one of the "social gospel" denominations that supports all of the Left-leaning positions taken by the Democratic Party. However, we cannot say definitively due to her muzzy website and non-responses to a number of questionnaires. 

Voters may buy a pig in a poke on this race, due to sensationalism. But we believe that tack, as always, would be a mistake.

DISTRICTS DEMOCRATS TALK ABOUT, BUT WE DON'T BUY

Some Democrats have claimed that Tim Lewis in HD 60 is vulnerable. We don't give it a second thought, and haven't even covered it. Likewise, Democrats are always trying to knock off Diné Republican Sharon Clahchischilliage, claiming they can beat her every year. We have never believed them—even when she was running as the challenger. We don't believe them again this year. 

DISTRICTS THAT HAVE MIGRATED PERMANENTLY

Just like all of Los Alamos County, House District 43, especially after the growth in the Santa Fe County portion of the district, is no longer competitive. 

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

In a story that took several minutes Oprah Winfrey absolutely trashed Democrat elections officials by describing in great detail the evil racist extremes those Democrats resorted to, in years past, to prevent her family members from voting. It was an amazing and moving story.

We commend her for ripping them to shreds for their past misdeeds! Her speech was in Marietta, Georgia.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This article was drafted in early July, and should have been published then. But it is still relevant right now.]

In June, Albuquerque TV stations and the Albuquerque Journal ran stories about a "mobile voting unit" under construction by the Bernalillo County Clerk, Linda Stover. 

On video and in print, Stover gave a number of reasons for wanting to have a mobile voting unit. At one point she told the county commissioners that she would "place the mobile voting unit at or near a different senior facility each day during the early voting period." (Emphasizing, however, that "all Bernalillo County voters are welcome to use the unit to cast their vote.")

To underscore her reasons for spending what must be a considerable amount of taxpayer money for this fairly elaborate van, Stover said on camera

 "Seniors somehow seem to get disenfranchised through no fault of their own.”

But this is not true at all.

The truth is seniors are not "disenfranchised." They are in fact the most "enfranchised" age group there is. Seniors vote at a turnout rate of above 70%—much higher than any other age group. The youngest age group of voters (18-24) actually has a turnout rate of only 38%, and those aged 25-44, vote at a 50% rate. It's 63% for those between 45 and 64.

And for those who are in nursing homes or for young people in hospital, or anyone bedridden, absentee ballots have been around for at least 150 years in this country. 

Getting Out the Vote: But is that the Job of Elected Officials?

Stover went on to say a number of other things about the unit: 

 “...the main mission is to help get out the vote. The mission for having a mobile voter unit is to have higher participation and higher voter turnout.” 

Taking a cue from Secretary of State Maggie Oliver, Stover has also begun to push the idea that "getting out the vote" or what political activists call "GOTV," is the role of elected officials who actually administer elections. In other words, Oliver and Stover believe it is the county clerks and the Secretary of State whose job it is to try to get voters to the polls.

But that has never been the law or the tradition in this country. The phone calls, personal contacts, and canvassing that takes place have always been the responsibility of political candidates, parties, and special interest groups, using volunteers or paid workers. It's called "campaigning."

The Reason Elections Officials Should not Assume the Role of Political Parties and Candidates

Getting out the vote (GOTV) or trying to increase turnout is uniquely the job of political candidates and their allies. One of the reasons that is true is that getting out the vote is inherently a partisan activity: In this instance, where will the mobile van go? Who decides? What streets will it patrol? There is absolutely no way that it can be driven around in a neutral way—regardless of the motives or goals of those directing it. 

In performing this same GOTV role, political candidates, candidates, and interest groups target their voters. They try to get their vote out. They know the neighborhoods and characteristics of their voters. 

But there are a number of problems with the so-called mobile unit—problems that voters, concerned citizens, commissioners, law makers, and the media should question.

Where in the Law is the Authority to Create a Mobile Voting Unit?

“To my knowledge, this is the first mobile voting unit of this kind offered in the Southwest,” Stover said. ” I hope it grows to be offered to all throughout New Mexico after its introduction during the general election.”

In June, Stover told commissioners a schedule is yet to be determined:

"We’ll advertise it,” she said. “We’ll make it very well known that it’s available to all citizens who want to come and vote.” Funding for the unit will come out of the county clerk’s budget, Stover said.

But the determination of polling locations is finalized the November preceding an election year—not on whims of people driving around in October, a few days before an election.

New Mexico Law Provides for Alternate Voting Locations—for EARLY VOTING

We do have provisions in relatively rare cases, in a very few counties, to provide for alternate voting locations. But they are for counties that have populations or precincts that are located in remote areas—a very long way from the county seat, or locations where early voting is taking place.

The idea of a "mobile" location provided by law is a station that may be set up temporarily in specific locations—advertised 90 days in advance, with specific opening and closing times and dates. They can operate from that location for at least eight consecutive hours.

Nowhere in New Mexico law is there any authorization for a vehicle to be tooling around scarfing up random voters.

EXAMPLES of MOBILE EARLY VOTING

Rural areas that are a great distance from the county clerk's office or other early voting locations.

• Chaparral to Alamogordo 73 miles

• Datil to Reserve, 67 miles

• Pie Town to Reserve, 76 miles.  

What is the maximum distance from the clerk’s office to any precinct in Bernalillo County?

Chilili, 36 miles;  Sandia Park 25 miles; Tohajilee, 30 miles.

But a vote center is already used at Tohajillee, and one is used in Tijeras—9 miles from Sandia Park and 19 miles from Chilili.

So there are no actual outlying rural areas in Bernalillo County, so isolated so as to meet the criteria previously established in law and previously used by clerks with distant rural locations in their counties.

So what is the turnout among seniors compared to other age groups? It is much higher.

Where is the evidence they are disfranchised?  There is none. The opposite is true.

If someone truly is bedridden or in a nursing home, it seems dubious that a mobile van will somehow be more “accessible” than the absentee ballot that will arrive right at the bed, and which has been used for many decades.

County Clerk Linda Stover 

Stover adds,

“To my knowledge, this is the first mobile voting unit of this kind offered in the southwest. I hope it grows to be offered to all throughout New Mexico after its introduction during the general election.”

She also has said that this van is going to be driven around for voter registration.  

But her office is charged with making voting registration simple and easy to complete. It isn't charged with driving around looking for people to register, Again, registration drives, or pushes to increase registration are the province of partisan political actors—they often even pay to get more registrants.

Where in the law is a county clerk or secretary of state authorized to conduct voter registration drives? You can't find it.

Registration drives are the job of political organizations, candidates, parties, and special interest groups.

HOW CAN ELECTIONS OFFICIALS—GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS—PERFORM PARTISAN ROLES?

Is it really is the job of a county clerk to search out people to register, or to round up people to vote?

If so, how is this done in a uniform and non-discriminatory manner so that every unregistered voter has an equal chance to register and everyone who hasn't voted has an equal chance to vote. 

What parts of town will the van be in?

For all the criticism former Secretary of State Dianna Duran received for improperly using her own campaign funds (she did not take taxpayer funds) she put an end to the practice—probably since revived—of having the Secretary of State's office participate in registration drives in Santa Fe County, in Las Vegas, in Española, and in the South Valley of Albuquerque. Those drives inevitably registered Democrats at about a 4 to 1 ratio. 

She asked — rhetorically, to make the point — if such drives were carried out in Hobbs, or Alamogordo, or in Reserve? Of course they were not. But the point she made immediately is that such drives can never meet the equal protection criterion of being uniform and non-discriminatory.

She had no interest in having someone who is charged with fairly administering elections, and ensuring an accurate vote count, being involved in an obviously partisan activity. 

What if your goal is to increase voter turnout?

Join a political party and go to work in their GOTV programs. Candidates and volunteers spend hours manning or womanning the phones to do that. They spend hours going door-to-door to do that. 

It simply is not the job of an elections official. 

How does the county clerk’s office get right in the middle of that effort?

Is that what the voters of Bernalillo County elected the county clerk to do? To help special interest groups?

HERE IS THE ACTUAL ROLE of the BERNALILLO COUNTY CLERK

• Provide places for people to vote voluntarily without your rounding them up.
• Ensure the vote is secret, that there’s no electioneering.
• Have voters sign-in correctly.
• Have voters' votes recorded correctly, and tabulated correctly.

The County Clerk counts the votes. She does not try to make people vote.

PROFESSOR GABRIEL SANCHEZ

We’ve already seen on Channel 13, a smiling, very excited college professor Gabriel Sanchez, point out that the moble van is not going to benefit seniors the most. 

He said:

“If any demographic group is going to benefit the most by being able to just walk outside and see the mobile unit, it will be young voters who typically do not vote at high rates.”

Sanchez added that it benefits the Democratic Party

Francesca Washington of Channel 13 said: “Sanchez also says when voting actually increases, one party benefits.”

Sanchez then went on:

“The question is always which party, if any, will this benefit more? Well, I tell you, not just in New Mexico, but nationally, anytime you see an increase in voter turnout that tends to favor Democrats.”

So is that what this is all about? The local expert says it’s not going to benefit seniors—he already knows what everyone already knows: seniors already vote at the highest turnout levels of any group.

Again, how is any of this the actual statutory role of the county clerk? Final Questions:

Did the adoption of Vote Centers in Bernalillo County eliminate on-site, community-based polling place at Chilili? Or any other places?

New Mexico statute states that you publicly “fix” the hours of “locations” 90 days before a general election.

But in Stover's words, “we’ll move it all over the county."

That being the case, how do you fix a location for a van that has been presented as driving around like an ice cream truck looking for customers?

How much did this van cost? Where was it in the budget that was submitted in late 2016?

Are other services being short-changed because of the cost of this van, which the college professor expert says will benefit one particular political party?

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

Considering the circumstances and the environment of the campaigns, including the solid financial shape state government is in, an unemployment rate that has been falling for 26 consecutive months, the booming oil and gas industry, and the relative quality of both the Democrat and Republican candidates, the 2018 cycle has had all the hallmarks consistent with producing a number of Republican victories in New Mexico.

However, at this stage, with a week to go till Election Day, there is a great deal of nervousness on all sides, and everything still appears to be up in the air. We will look at the contests coming up next Tuesday. We start with the governor’s race.

GOVERNOR:  Republican Steve Pearce v. Democrat Michelle Lujan Grisham

New Mexico Political Journal endorsed Steve Pearce long ago, and by all rights Steve Pearce should be the favorite to win the governor’s race.

One big reason is the huge advantage he started out with. Sitting out the primary season allowed Pearce to begin the general election campaign with almost $2 million on hand ($1.94 million) compared with only $873 thousand that Lujan Grisham was left with after enduring a bruising Democratic primary. (She had had to spend $3.9 million fending off two opponents.)

So as the two nominees squared off in early July, Pearce enjoyed a 2.2 to 1 advantage in cash on hand. However, that advantage could easily have been 4 to 1, had Pearce not blown through more than $1.23 million during a “primary campaign” in which he was unopposed.

Looking back—if Pearce does not prevail—that profligacy could be something his team may regret. (In fact, they’re almost certainly thinking they could use that $1¼ million right now.)

Additionally, Pearce was now facing a Michelle Lujan Grisham whose image had sustained some pretty big body blows, having been roughed up very badly by her Democrat primary opponents, especially Jeff Apodaca. Apodaca had very pointedly raised the specter of corruption regarding what he said was Lujan Grisham’s pocketing of hundreds of thousands of dollars, or perhaps millions of excess charges from her firm, Delta Consulting—funds that could have gone to take care of needy healthcare patients.

Apodaca had made Lujan Grisham look very bad in a number of media outlets. And all those stories were out there like low-hanging fruit. We expected Pearce would take full advantage of the gifts the Democrat opponents had given him.

FUNDRAISING: Lujan-Grisham Overwhelms Pearce

What we did not expect was the stunning fundraising turnaround by Lujan Grisham and the simultaneously sluggish fundraising by Pearce. Since the primary ended, Lujan Grisham has raised $3,045,556 while Pearce has only added another $1,167,018 to his war chest. This despite paying a private fundraiser over $205,000—a stunning amount of money (and stunning in percentage terms) that could have purchased a considerable number of ads.

And the spending has been on a similar plane, with Lujan Grisham spending $3.14 million to Pearce’s $1.86 million. That amazing advantage is what explains why we are seeing so many more of her ads than his.

But in reality, Michelle’s campaign has been somewhat lackluster and uninspiring, failing thus far to close the deal with the state’s majority party. This is perhaps partly explained by her disjointed media efforts that have lurched from one theme to another, failing to find an overarching message. But despite all his initial fundraising edge—that could have been vastly greater—and Michelle’s theme-less campaign, Pearce has failed to take advantage of his circumstances.

A focused campaign would long ago have made a smooth transition from the Apodaca messaging and kept Grisham on the defensive for four months.

But that didn’t happen. Instead, she began with the very same corruption theme against Pearce immediately after the primary, perhaps to blow up that entire subject matter so as to inoculate herself, she reasoned, if Pearce ever got around to riding the Apodaca gift horse.

IN THE FINAL WEEK

Where are we now? As we entered the final month, Pearce was nursing a cash balance advantage of $1.25 million to $782 thousand for Grisham. But for whatever reason, the last month has continued to see her dominate the airwaves.

For her part, Governor Susana Martinez has weighed in heavily for Pearce, using her prominent position in the Republican Governor’s Association to pour in a million dollars for a campaign that, left by itself, was just not raising enough money to stay competitive.

RAPPROCHEMENT: MARTINEZ EXTENDS the HAND

Martinez also reached out to Pearce with a very public extended hand of fellowship, followed by an actual hand-shake and embrace at the Bernalillo Republican Party dinner two weeks ago. It was an extremely magnanimous gesture on the part of a woman who had been continuously maligned by Pearce and his staff for the better part of a decade. Pearce, for his part, accepted Martinez’s extremely graciously offer of rapprochement.

WHERE ARE ANY INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES? WHERE IS THE STATE PARTY?

Still, there’s a lot for Republicans to be worried about as the end approaches. Missing from the Pearce cause has been any sign of an independent expenditure effort. And the Republican Party of New Mexico, oddly, has only $1,534 on hand. That’s not a misprint. The state party has far less funding than even a well-organized small county party operation. Why? We have no idea.

We fear a repeat of what we previously warned about after what happened in the Albuquerque mayor’s race when the Republican Party of New Mexico was simply blown away by the Democrats and Tim Keller. We have pointed out that running an effective state party operation is not an easy task—and everywhere we’ve gone, observing door-to-door campaigning, we see a massive turnout campaign by the Democrats that appears to be unmatched by the RPNM.

And where is GOAL? GOAL is the sometime Republican-backed committee that has dabbled in a number of races (albeit some against Republicans). If they had re-appeared this fall they could have been of considerable help—especially with the RPNM mucking around with only a few hundred dollars in the bank.  

(And it isn’t just Pearce we are worried about. As we sift through the mail bins around the state, and as we watch TV ads and listen to radio commercials, our other Republican statewide candidates and our legislative candidates are taking a beating. They are paying the price for a lack of cohesive planning, and fundraising. We see this in the attacks from pro-Democrat groups and in the lopsided early voting numbers we are seeing around the state.)  

THERE’S HOPE

Pearce is still in the ballgame, and may yet pull it out. We hope so as he’s the only conservative choice—the only candidate who would even make an attempt to honor the achievements of Martinez’s tenure. But we are very worried that Republicans may be overwhelmed this year because of an extremely weak state party apparatus.

But who knows, they may have plans to drive GOP turnout this week, and this weekend. We certainly hope that is the case.

As we said a year ago, and again throughout this year, Pearce is the only choice for New Mexico. 

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

No matter what cosmetic features a modern Democrat candidate may bring to a campaign — whether it’s Jon Tester’s “conservative” crewcut, a brief stint in military service, or a fake Hispanic-sounding name like “Beto” — when they get to DC or anywhere in office, they all vote exactly the same as Pelosi and Schumer, and serve the same goals and objectives shown in this video:

https://youtu.be/PeVC5Kp5N4A

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

In our view, Elizabeth Warren is the first casualty of the upcoming presidential sweepstakes.

It is sort of bad news for #Republicans, in that Warren's articulate ability to deliver a comprehensive narrative exposition of what the modern #DemocraticParty stands for actually works to the benefit of the #GOP. However, Warren's ill-considered #DNA test, combined with her inexplicable decision to actually publish its results, constitutes the first fatality of the 2020 contest and it was by means of a self-inflicted wound.

NMPJ covered the Steve Bannon event in Roswell, New Mexico at The Hi-Q Venue in Roswell from 4:00 to 7:00 PM, Thursday, October 18.

As our readership knows, NMPJ reflects the orthodox conservative Republican political philosophy, so we are not in agreement with Bannon. We regarded the event — which is part of Bannon's nationwide tour to his new movie Trump@War— as a politico-cultural curiosity. Accordingly, we had a correspondent present to see what goes on.

We take allegations of sexual assault or domestic violence very seriously. False claims of assault undermine true victims. Because of the damage false claims have on true victims, those people who make such claims should face prison sentences.

Here's why there should be continuing intense interest in everything about Christine Blasey Ford:

??Will corroborating evidence ever turn up for Ford?
??Will she end up like OJ—forever searching for the "real" evidence?

Leslie Stahl is very thinly read on virtually everything. (We are not picking on her—she is not markedly different from 95% of American journalists: they are trained in “broadcasting,” or in journalism, or they’re “English majors.” They have very little ability to delve much beyond pre-determined questions or points they’ve decided they want to make.)

She sat there oblivious to her references to “gulags” in her questions about Trump being “friends” with Kim Jong Un. If she had any background in history, she would know that FDR was best buddies with the King of Gulags, Joseph Stalin. Why? It was in America’s interest.

Everyone should see this video:  https://vimeo.com/293632714

THE GOOD is the obvious: for the first time in decades, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to operate with a majority of justices who practice and respect true jurisprudence. Providing none of them weaken under public pressure (as Kennedy and O’Connor did) there are five justices who will read the facts and applicable law of each case, apply the statutes and Constitution, and make rulings based on the law.

Four justices of course, will continue very actively trying to make the court function as a miniature legislature.

(Of course it is always possible that Kavanaugh may be a disappointment—we had urged a more consistently textualist nominee in the form of Amy Coney Barrett—but our hopes remain that he will live up to his hype.)

We believe Kavanaugh will be confirmed 52-48.

How will that happen? 51 Republicans plus Manchin.

Why will that happen?

The three flaky REPUBLICANS:

Susan Collins: The most intellectually honest of the three, she plans to stay in the Senate and she knows Kavanaugh is qualified; and that the Democrats have disgraced themselves and have treated Kavanaugh and the American people dishonestly. She votes yes.

Lisa Murkowski: She wants a future in the Senate and knows that a “no” vote will put an end to her ambitions—she would not be able to make her remarkable 2014 soufflé rise a second time. She votes yes.

Jeff Flake: The stupidest Republican in the Senate—and goating it out with Mazie Hirono for stupidest in the entire chamber. There’s literally nothing for him to lose—his own lack of brainpower has cost him his political career. However, he now realizes that Sen. Coons made a fool of him and the whole world knows it. He doesn’t want to go out as a total, unmitigated idiot, but with at least a fig leaf of dignity, if not respectability. He votes yes.

DEMOCRATS:

Joe Manchin: Phony as the day is long, but savvy. He knows a “no” vote will tighten his Senate race and could very well cost him the seat. Phony as he is, if he lived next door in 4 of the 5 neighboring states, he would vote “no.” But savvy as he is, he will vote yes. Republicans should be hoping he votes no—it would probably tip his seat to the GOP. But if he votes “yes,” he holds on to the WV seat.

Joe Donnelly: Will vote “no,” and lose the Indiana seat by a 55-45 margin or worse.

Heidi Heitkamp: Has announced her “no” vote precisely because she’s already 12 points down and that has freed her up to be honest about her Leftist views. She wants to keep alive a potential role for herself in national Democrat politics. Gets beat by at least 20 points.

Claire McCaskill: Played it clever by announcing a “no” vote for a completely phony reason unrelated to the fake charges against Kavanaugh. It won’t help her. She gets beat, by about 7 points.

Jon Tester: Will vote “no” because he’s always been a lefty who has always tried to hide behind cosmetic disguises like his folksiness and his crew cut. No more. He is exposed for what he really is. He gets beat by 4 points.

Bill Nelson: The Florida race is being overlooked by the media, but Nelson will vote “no” because he is a judicial lefty. It will tilt the race to the GOP and the Dems will lose a seat they didn’t believe was in trouble at the beginning of the year.

Tammy Baldwin: Will vote no, but the WI Senate race will get tighter. She’ll still be the favorite, but her seat is still potentially within the GOP grasp.

Robert Menéndez: Will vote no, but because he’s believed to be a crook he is in some trouble. The GOP could pick up this seat yet.

OTHER RACES:

The GOP holds the open seats in Arizona (McSally beats Sinema by 1) and Tennessee (Blackburn beats Bredesen by 8 )
In Texas, Cruz keeps his seat by 9 points over O’Rourke.

Republicans are in trouble in only one race: Nevada. Heller may get beat by 2 points. But don’t count him out yet.

BOTTOM LINE: Republicans experience a net gain of 5 or 6 seats and end up with either a 56-44 or 57-43 advantage in the US Senate.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

A few days ago we published an article outlining the successes of the Trump Administration while pointing out that Trump himself is frequently his administration’s worst enemy. He is much better off letting his presidency achieve—without crippling his own accomplishments with nonsensical tweets and off-the-cuff remarks.

DON’T MISUNDERSTAND: IT ISN’T ABOUT TRUTH

[NOTE: First of all, the FBI investigation this week should include a very thorough array of investigations into Ford as well as a seventh background check on Kavanaugh.]

We also note that the Democrats have changed their charges against Kavanaugh from his being guilty of sexual assault to his being unqualified because he drank a lot in high school and college. (As an aside, we wonder what happened to the mantra of "young people's brains are not fully developed until age 25—but that's for another day.)

Our Initial Take on the Ford Testimony: Much Like Many Others’

Like millions of Americans, our first take on the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford was one of great sympathy, empathy, and yes, belief and acceptance. Acceptance that what she was saying was sincere—that it was not only true, in the sense that she believed what she was saying, but in the sense that she had actually been a victim of a sexual assault—perhaps not by Brett Kavanaugh, but by someone, sometime in her life.

To be sure, there were some parts that made us uncomfortable—the obvious lies about fear of flying, about not knowing who paid for the lie detector test, about not knowing when it took place, or whether it was filmed or recorded, about claiming not to know anything about the offer of investigators coming to her. The lies were many and not even convincingly delivered.

But in our sympathy and in our emotional empathy we passed over those, and quickly forgot about them in the tsunami of the definitive, absolute, over-the-top endorsements from mainstream media all the rest of the day. It wasn’t just the mainstream media, Fox News joined everyone else in what became an absolutely obligatory preface or preparatory statement to every single comment at about Ford: That is to say, prior to saying anything about the hearing, each commentator was required by law to drone on for 20 or 30 seconds gushing about how “believable” heart-rending, “heart-breaking” or “obviously sincere” Ford was.

We joined in that mantra. For a while.

Pushback from Readers and NMPJ Team Members

Then we started getting some pushback from readers and from within the NMPJ team. Three women, two men weighed in, each urging that New Mexico Political Journal take a step back. The admonition was this: “Watch the testimony again.” So we all did. And it was a different experience. We quickly remembered Richard Blumenthal’s butchering of his attempt to say the words falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (meaning if you lie about one thing, you’ll lie about everything).

Things just don’t add up

First, there is the voice. A second (and now a third) time through it comes across fake as hell. The scratchy, little voice with periodic little breaks and sighs sounds more like a six- or seven-year-old than a 51-year-old woman. And no, the mousy little put-on does not occur at “emotional” junctures in the tale she weaves, it just kind of drones throughout.

Whose idea was the polygraph? Scratchy, mousy little voice looking around to see who did, before saying she doesn’t know.

When was the polygraph? Scratchy, mousy little voice looking around to see who did, before saying she doesn’t know.

Where was it? More of the same. Was it on the same day as your grandmother’s funeral? Doesn’t know. This seems completely implausible. It was about seven weeks ago. Not 36 years ago—for which she has some (highly selective) “memories.”

No matter what question was posed—whether it had to do with the alleged incident or was merely an administrative question about her letter, the polygraph, or whether she needed a drink of water or a break, the little girl, scratchy voice was employed throughout.

Question: Is there any existing video of her talking to a college class? Or any other recordings? Is that her real voice? Does she talk like that all the time? We doubt it very seriously.

No Crying

Despite unanimous media characterization as tearful and emotional, Ford did not actually shed a tear throughout her sensational tale of a near-death and near-rape experience. Not at all. Compare her “emotion” (which was actually only consisted of the little 6-year-old voice) to real emotion, and the real tears of Kavanaugh.

His face was flushed. Hers? Never.

His eyes were filled with tears. Hers? Dry as a bone—a lot like the scratchy, little girl voice.

There was pain in his eyes? Hers? Hard to see (her glasses were filthy as hell) but in reality none.

Yes, he was very passionate. Ford? Not at all. Mousy. Whimpering without tears, but no passion.

Why Lie like Hell?

What was the need to concoct a ridiculous lie that you refused to submit to an investigation because you have a “fear of flying”? This makes no sense. She was bound to be found out on this. With frequent flights to extremely remote parts of the world and routine cross country flights, Ford may have something approaching a million frequent flyer miles. There is no explanation for lying like that. “Falsus in uno….”

Does she really have no idea how the polygraph came about? Who paid for it? Whether she was looking at a camera or not? Whether it was recorded or not? Seriously.

The polygraph consisted of two questions and has not been released for public review.

She testified that she and her husband went to a therapist in 2012 while remodeling their home. She said the need for the therapy was an argument they were having about installing a second front door, which she stated she wanted as an “escape route.”

But the Palo Alto city records show the second front door had been installed four years earlier because the couple was developing a separate rental unit in the home.

Surely she had to know that such a lie could be exposed.

Other Questions

She and her defenders say she has nothing to gain. Why did she establish GoFundMe accounts that now have more than $1 million?

Why did she delete all of her Facebook posts? All of her Tweets?

She went to the house where she was “assaulted” straight from swimming and spent the rest of the day in a wet swim suit? Pretty uncomfortable.

She has no idea where the house was—but her own description places it 8 miles from her home, and remembers Kavanaugh was there.

She doesn’t know how she got home, but says she was driven. But has no idea by whom. And no one has emerged who remembers driving her.

She has given multiple accounts of how many people were present.

She says she ran out of a house in which her close friend was left behind alone to face the prospect of rape.

Kavanaugh has preserved all records about his life, his whereabouts, his yearbooks, and everything. She has either destroyed everything about her life contemporaneous with the alleged events, or she has hidden them.

Kavanaugh was supported at the hearings and in testimonials by his family and friends. No one showed up to show support for Ford. Not her husband. Not her parents. No one.

BOTTOM LINE: WE DON’T BELIEVE A WORD of IT

We know we are now alone in this. Everyone says they either 1) believe her, period, and don’t believe him; 2) believe both, believing each is being honest about their actual memories; 3) believe that she was assaulted, but not by Kavanaugh.

We don’t believe any of that. Not a word.

We believe she has published professional papers and done work for organizations that support Ru-486 and other abortifacients and that she is a very strong, highly motivated supporter of open-ended abortion on demand laws. And that she—incorrectly—believes that Kavanaugh will, somehow “overturn” Roe v. Wade.

She is definitely a committed, pussy-hat-wearing political activist who strongly opposes the appointment of a textualist to the Supreme Court.

She agreed to come forward after the failure of all the other Democrat Party efforts to stop Kavanaugh.

None of the explanations offered by Senator Feinstein—who unquestionably leaked Ford’s letter—make any sense at all.

We could be in for a Huge Surprise, But Here’s what we Expect

It could be that the FBI this week finds enormous lies and reprehensible actions carried out by Kavanaugh, exposing him to be unfit for the court. We are open-minded enough to allow that that is possible.

What we expect however is that nothing substantive will emerge. But despite that, we expect the Democrats will show continued bad faith by inventing new reasons to delay the confirmation vote.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

Cory “second-base” Booker, was extremely angry about being outshone in the “Chutzpah” competition by fraudulent “Vietnam Vet” Senator Richard Blumenthal, who dazzled the committee with his lecture yesterday about “telling the truth.”

“I am greatly offended,” said Cory Booker, that the media gave all its first-place votes to Richard. I believe I can make a strong claim and I intend to do so.”

With absolutely no sense of irony, let alone self-reflection, Senator Dianne Feinstein had the tone deafness this morning to say “The Republicans had their minds made up before one word was uttered.” 

This is yet another lie from a woman who has now begun to lie in every appearance (because she is facing a serious Election Day challenge from the Left, as we pointed out in an earlier article).

FEINSTEIN MAINTAINING an AMAZING PACE of 5.7 LIES PER MINUTE of INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Senator Charles Grassley, using very polite, senatorial terms, points out that the criminal sleazebag and government-funds-bag-woman for her husband’s companies, Senator Dianne Feinstein, leaked #ChristineBlaseyFord’s complaint. Feinstein is now posturing disgustingly.

CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD CAUGHT in a BIG LIE

Rachel Mitchell has uncovered one big lie, by #ChristinaBlaseyFord: Ford refused to go to DC to be investigated, claiming a “fear of flying.” Mitchell showed that was a huge lie—Ford flies all the time—everywhere. Lie. Big one. Ford just smiled wanly.

BLUMENTHAL WEIGHS IN—SPARE US, PLEASE!

The most disturbing event thus far today was the notorious liar, Senator Richard Blumenthal, holding forth like a big authority on “truth,” as an expert on testimony, and an arbiter of what is “believable.”

Blumenthal lied for years about being a Vietnam Veteran—using his #stolenvalor in his campaigns. 
Only when exposed as a bald-faced liar did he finally stop lying about himself. Blumenthal is NOT and expert on the truth or falsity of ANY testimony.

WHAT WE WISH KAVANAUGH WOULD SAY to SENATOR RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

(In fact, all of us would take money out of our individual savings in order to PAY to see it happen.)

A 1979 movie, Being There, is about an extreme simpleton named Chance, who was almost certainly severely mentally-disabled as a child and then given no education or exposure to the outside world. In the movie, his simple-minded phrases and uninformed utterances are, incredibly, taken by powerful people to be profound. He ends up on TV and becomes nationally known as an "adviser."

Louise, an African-American housekeeper, is watching TV and sees him being interviewed. She is astounded. Exasperated, she says:

"It's for sure a white man's world in America. Look here: I raised that boy since he was the size of a piss-ant. And I'll say right now, he never learned to read and write. No, sir. Had no brains at all. Was stuffed with rice pudding between th' ears. Shortchanged by the Lord, and dumb as a jackass. Look at him now! Yes, sir, all you've gotta be is white in America, to get whatever you want. Gobbledy-gook!"

Louise's response to watching Chance the gardener, who had been transformed by the elites into Chauncey Gardner, is an exact metaphor for the way the Democrats, the Democratic Party, and the American Left are all treated by the national television networks and leading newspapers.

The most bogus pronouncements by completely phony Democrats — known liars like fake "Vietnam Vet" Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, or senators like Diane Feinstein who voted for millions of dollars to go to her husband's companies—are treated with a degree of reverence that used to be reserved for Washington or Lincoln. It is hard to fathom. 

Likewise, any single errant thing that is said by or against Republicans is met by the mainstream media with extremely grave overtones, as if nothing of the kind has ever happened before. 

The same thing happens in state and local politics: O'Rourke v. Youngblood

In Texas, Beto O'Rourke is running for the United States Senate, and leads in some polls. Yet, a number of years ago he not only drove drunk and had a car wreck, with a BAC of 0.136, he compounded it by trying to flee the scene of the accident. And he is a very serious candidate for the US Senate. Because he's a Democrat he is treated as a hero by the American mainstream media.

In New Mexico, State Representative Monica Youngblood was arrested AFTER a cop at a checkpoint became very excited upon finding a license plate in her car and realized that she was a legislator. At no point did she even come close to driving erratically, nor did she come close to failing any so-called "sobriety test." The cop tried, over and over, to make her fail something, anything, and she did not. But he finally just decided to arrest her because he was very excited about finding the license plate.

She ended up being denied a jury trial, and was convicted by a judge, almost solely because she refused to take the breathalyzer test. Even though she was not even given five seconds to decide on that before being arrested.

How does the New Mexico press treat her? With "Pearl Harbor" or "Kennedy Assassination" headlines. After all, she's a Republican. Never mind that State Representative Mimi Stewart was caught actually DRIVING drunk—something Youngblood never did—and Beto O'Rourke not only did that, but tried to flee the scene. Stewart was promoted—to State Senator.

But, hey, they're both Democrats. And you know, that's different.

Women have to be believed. No matter what. Unless they are Republican women.

Democrats have to be believed. No matter what.

What if a Republican had held onto a Story about a Democrat Nominee?

What if Senator Lindsey Graham, or Senator Grassley, or any other Republican had held on someone's story about a Democrat nominee for the Supreme Court? And had done so for seven weeks? And only decided to leak the story the day before the hearings were supposed to conclude?

If you say anything other than the media would be apoplectic, and would call it a "constitutional crisis," and would be unable to contain its collective anger and outrage...if you say anything other than that, you are lying to yourself and to others. 

But let Diane Feinstein do that, and it's all okay. In fact, it's treated as routine and unexceptional. As Louise would say:

"It's for sure a Democrat's world in America."

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

As unexpected as Trump's victory was to him and his entire team, they all quickly recovered and to their credit—and Trump's—put together an impressive array of top-notch thinkers—a cabinet and leadership team as strong as any administration in modern times.

The Trump Administration was eventually led by retired General John Kelly with such outstanding key players as Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, and National Security Advisor John Bolton

Everywhere you turn there are people of high quality and exceptional competence and skill. People like Kirstjen Nielsen at Homeland Security, Dan Coats as Director of National Intelligence, Mick Mulvaney as the Director of the Office of Managment and Budget, Robert Lighthizer as the Trade Representative, and many, many others who are exceptionally talented people, all doing an excellent job.

The Trump Administration is Successful: So Why are Republicans Going to Lose in November? 

The Trump Administration under the skilled hands of so many talented people has been an unqualified success on so many fronts—the economy, national security, homeland security, reductions in crippling regulations, court appointments, tax reductions, border security, the repeal of the stupid and dangerous Iran deal, moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and many other notable achievements. 

No administration has been this successful in real, verifiable, concrete achievements in living memory. So, mid-terms or no mid-terms, regardless of the history, the American people should be poised to reward this president and the GOP in the same way that both Bush and Clinton were rewarded at least once each in mid-term elections.

But the Republicans Are Headed for a Massive Defeat. Why?

The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll shows that Democrats lead Republicans by a whopping 12 points on the Generic Ballot, 52-40. While the generic ballot always favors Democrats to some degree, the break-even point for the GOP is usually considered somewhere around a 5-6 point deficit. (One of America's most celebrated pollsters, Lance Tarrance, believes the Republicans' break-even point to be 7.) Meaning even if they trail, say, 51-46 or 51-45, they still might do okay. 

Why do they trail by 12? Trump. The American people actually approve of the accomplishments of the Administration. They admire the work of the key cabinet officers and those who are shaping policy. (We have long-believed that Nikki Haley, as just one example, has a great chance to be the next Republican president, or maybe even the next nominee in 2020, and very possibly the first woman president.)

Trump just talks too much and tweets too much. And too much of it—perhaps 60-70% of is either nonsensical, false, poor taste, bad grammar, poor spelling, or just plain offensive on all counts. 

Things Could Have Been so Very Different

Yes, we know all the arguments: Trump has been attacked constantly and relentlessly opposed by a combination of Democratic Party forces allied very closely with practically every single media outlet in the country. Unfairly. Without merit in most cases. We get that. It's all true.

But so was Bush, not as much, but he was hit hard, very hard. Called Hitler. (Democrats have called all Republicans Hitler ever since Eisenhower left office in January 1961, 57 years ago.) But Trump's personality, his penchant for simply not telling the truth and for concocting tweets and inarticulate verbal statements have been a lethal cocktail. No one could get him to shut up.

Just this week, KellyAnne Conway, the same person who persuaded him to shut up during the final three weeks of the 2016 campaign—heeded advice without which he would not have been able to squeak through—got him to shut up again for a crucial period during hte Kavanaugh hearings.

Then, suddenly, and without warning, the massive ego blew its top. Stupid, needlessly offensive tweets start exploding from nowhere. Kavanaugh's numbers fall. Trump's fall. The Republicans' generic numbers fall. 

Bottom Line for November

The Republican Party faces a mass defeat. And it is all at the hand of Trump. The policies are not only successful, they are also POPULAR. It's Trump himself who ruins the show. In 20 months, Mitch McConnell has guided more federal district court judges and appeals court judges to confirmation than any other majority leader in history in a comparable period of time. 

Trump responds to the triumphs of his Administration in a way that insecure people react. He is so afraid that HE, PERSONALLY, will somehow not get credit, that he steps in and says the exact wrong thing at the exact wrong time. When he does so he doesn't necessarily wipe out the achievement that has taken months of Administration hard work to achieve, but he does kill the psychological and emotional triumph—the uplifting part of the equation for the American people.

Trumpistas will argue with all of this. But Trumpistas—perhaps 30% of the electorate don't really count. Why? Because they will vote for Trump and his allies regardless of what he does. Likewise, this publication, New Mexico Political Journal, which expresses orthodox conservative Republican thought and policy, will continue to support Republican candidates, but folks such as ourselves only constitute about another 12% or so of the electorate. 

The people that Trump has turned off are the 8-10% in the middle of the voting public, those exact people who actually decide elections. He got about 4% of that 8 or 10% in 2016. By listening to Conway and other voices in the Administration, he could have gotten them all, or almost all of them. All he had to do was be quiet, and then when he did speak, speak in measured, reasoned, logical tones and terms. 

He could not do that. And that is a shame.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

It is a serious question. We have become beyond disillusioned with the responses of not only United States Senators, but much of the American public at large.

As if anyone needed any evidence that the United States is well past being what some sociologists have termed a "post-Christian" nation, recent events have removed all doubt. Forty years of cultural rot have taken a severe, perhaps mortal toll on the soul of the nation.

What is shocking and disturbing is the extremely stark contrast between the things being said on the one hand by people like Senators Mazie Hirono, Kirsten Gillibrand, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Richard Blumenthal and on the other hand by Brett and Ashley Kavanaugh.

Hirono, Gillibrand, Whitehouse, and Blumenthal and practically all the Democratic senators continue a steady drumbeat of the most outrageous pronouncements---things with no basis in facts or evidence. The shrill raised-voice tones, the looks, and facial expressions reveal nothing but sheer, unadulterated hate. Hatred motivated by an all-consuming desire to prevent a constitutionalist-textualist from being appointed to the Supreme Court. Sadly, as a number of Democrats have admitted: "We will do anything---whatever it takes---to stop this nomination."

We take them at their word. (And they don't mean just Kavanaugh, they mean anyone---including NMPJ's recommended choice, Amy Coney Barrett, and any other Republican nominee.)

THE KAVANAUGHs

In the interview shown tonight, it was obvious that both Brett and Ashley Kavanaugh were in a lot of pain, tremendous pain inflicted by people with apparently no conscience, no sense of fairness, and absolutely no inclination to carry out a duty to be judicious and thoughtful.

Yet, what did they do? In amazing contrast with the Democratic senators, the Kavanaughs simply answered the most hurtful and personal questions with a humble demeanor. Over and over they spoke calmly, never even coming close to questioning the motives of those who have said the most hateful things about Kavanaugh, or those who have leveled the (as yet) totally uncorroborated charges.

AND WHAT DO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SAY?

If the polls are to be believed, the American people are siding with the Hironos and Blumenthals of the world---Blumenthal, as an aside, a known liar who claimed to have fought in Vietnam, only to be discovered as a bald-faced liar. (The people of Connecticut still elected him. Enough said about
Connecticut.)

The American people can watch and hear someone like Hirono, who is---let's admit it---either a moron or just one or two IQ points above being a moron, in all her hysterical screaming about Kavanaugh and her shouts of "shut up." Then they can listen to the Kavanaughs---who are the polar opposite in demeanor and humility to all these senators.

Only in a nation that has completely lost any semblance of spiritual underpinnings can even a plurality of voters say the things they are saying to the pollsters.

NO RESPECT for TRUTH

We have had one reader, someone named Sonnenfeld, actually post the following poll:

According to some Republicans, trying to rape a girl in high school is normal behavior. So I thought I'd post a poll:

“Have you ever tried to rape a girl in high 
school?”

No.____  
Yes, doesn't everyone? ____

Can you imagine? Where do we get such citizens? Who would post stuff like this?

We are not picking on Sonnenfeld---the Democrats in the Senate have lied no less. No Republican has ever said that trying to rape ANYONE is normal behavior. But statements like this are not unusual. People on the Left today are unconstrained by any conscience--let alone that still, small voice that says to them "this is not true."

We have no idea how this will play out this week. But whatever remnant of an America that still has a conscience have to realize they have been put on notice the past several weeks: millions of their fellow Americans are operating with no anchor of conscience.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

The overarching theme of the Wednesday evening gubernatorial debate between Democrat nominee Michelle Lujan Grisham and Republican Steve Pearce strongly reflected the differing visions that have increasingly divided the nation's two major parties over the past thirty years or so. 

Lujan Grisham Went all-in with the Growing Movement within the Democrat Party—The Themes That Excite and Attract all their Voters' Energy and Enthusiasm 

In all of her responses, Lujan Grisham continuously pressed ahead with answers and economic arguments that closely adhered to those of the attractive New York congressional nominee Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Democrats' Florida governor nominee Andrew Gillum. 

No matter what question was posed, Lujan Grisham essentially turned each segment into the closing line of the song "Big Rock Candy Mountains" — "I'll see you all this coming Fall in the Big Rock Candy Mountains." Meaning, in essence:

I'm going to win on this coming autumn day, Tuesday, November 6, because I am outlining a "vision" of New Mexico, and for New Mexico voters that corresponds to the (fairly limited) hopes and dreams of the bottom half of the population."

At every turn, Grisham's "vision" was the equivalent of a land filled with "lemonade springs," where "the hens lay soft-boiled eggs," and the trees are "full of fruit" and there's a "lake of stew" — all of which is simply provided — there to be taken by everyone who wants them. (We are left to suppose that for those among the able-bodied on public assistance who may be burdened with unfortunate habits, her vision includes "cigarette trees" and "little streams of alcohol.")

Pearce talked Economics 101 and the American Dream

Steve Pearce's approach more resembled the Brooks & Dunn song "Only in America."

Over and over he doggedly referred to what might be called "Economics for Dummies," patiently explaining that the vision for America is not now and never can be one in which Grisham's "Big Rock Candy Mountains" exist. They aren't economically feasible, regardless of what Bernie Sanders and his disciples Ocasio-Cortez and Gillum preach.

Pearce continuously led the discussion back to what the American Dream really is. Like the country duo, he kept "lookin' at the (real) promise of the Promised Land," where young folks are working to "help pay the rent," in a land "where we dream as big as we want to," and where "we all get a chance." And where if you work hard and keep at it, you may be the kid who "just might be President." 

When asked about the Economy?

Pearce: 1) Invest in high-tech industries, 2) Focus on Apprenticeship programs, invest more in vocational training, 3) Stop over-regulating business; 4) encourage oil and gas and other industries, don't discourage investment in New Mexico

Lujan Grisham: 1) Raise the minimum wage to $12 per hour. Everyone gets richer when the government controls wages, 2) Change the "procurement code" so that it's easier for state government to give people contracts, 3) Spend more on universities. 4) Show hostility to the industry that provides the bulk of our education funding—stop fracking. (Though she showed she had no idea what fracking actually is—describing it ignorantly as "horizontal drilling." It was more or less a pathetic moment for Lujan Grisham, someone who has had 30 years of opportunity to learn about New Mexico's industries, but did not.)

In short, Pearce talked about the private sector while Lujan Grisham reinforced her ideological commitment in the belief that government is the source of wealth. 

Lujan Grisham was Having None of It—Perhaps She's Studied New Mexico More Closely

Lujan Grisham says: "I have all this to give you."

Pearce says: "All this is there for you—but you have to work for it."

Which promise, which "vision" has more appeal? 

We are afraid everyone knows the answer to that question.

It's why we are $20 trillion in debt, and exactly why Obama doubled the national debt.

New Mexico is increasingly identified with what the popular media call the "Blue States." ** The nation is fundamentally divided on a number of basic ideas. Those ideas are normally discussed in the course of rudimentary civics and economic education, but educational institutions have failed to teach either.

Thus, advantage Lujan Grisham.  

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

Of course Diane Feinstein has acted irresponsibly and with extreme phoniness by holding on to her secret about the allegation against Judge Kavanaugh for three months. We all know that if she were actually sincere about any concerns she might have had she would have brought the issue to the forefront long ago. She could have ensured that the allegations would be thoroughly investigated and Kavanaugh fully vetted.

SO WHY DID SHE DO NOTHING?

WHY DID SHE WAIT TILL THE LAST SECOND?

On August 6 and September 4, New Mexico Political Journal was interviewed by a national news service correspondent and by a journalist working on a story for The New Yorker magazine. Our assessment of the New Mexico general election is included in the conversations below.

Questioner: Last fall when we posed the question about the governor's race, you thought it appeared the Democratic nominee would be a shoo-in, how do you view the governor's race today?

NMPJ: Things are very different. Pearce has a very real chance to win. There are a number of reasons for that: 1) He has created and produced an excellent TV advertising campaign, 2) He has more money than Lujan-Grisham 3) He may have some real support within both the Navajo and Apache nations and among a number of Pueblos. While they represent a small portion of the voting universe, any inroads he makes with them are very valuable and serve to turn around several thousand votes. 4) There are serious ethics and perhaps legal issues that have cropped up with regard to Michelle. They may turn out badly for her.

Questioner: What about CD 2, we know the race is not classified as a toss-up, but we believe it's one of those that could be a sleeper, moving from lean Republican to a potential upset, your thoughts?

NMPJ: We don't see how that can happen. 

Questioner: Why not?

NMPJ: The district simply favors the Republican nominee. Pearce has built up his advantage to some 28 points. While Herrell can't be expected to perform in the way someone with 16 years of familiarity in the district has done, she certainly has an advantage. We can't see this race being closer than 55-45. It should not be a nail-biter by any means. 

Questioner: That's surprising. We've been told she's really making inroads in the district, that she has considerably more money, and that she's positioning herself toward the center. Did you know she's recently made a number of very moderate statements, criticized the BLM, has talked sympathetically about Southern New Mexico water issues and the attention that needs to be paid to Southeastern New Mexico because of it generates so much state revenue, and she's made favorable comments about fracking, for example? Do you think these moves will appeal to voters in Chaves, Eddy, and Lea Counties?

NMPJ: We were not aware of her move to the center, but frankly we don't believe Southeastern New Mexico voters will be all that impressed. They already know about all these issues, and don't really need Xóchitl to validate their views on them. Besides, we are reasonably sure that Herrell has competent polling and should her campaign see some kind of surge by Torres, they can just show what Xóchitl said last year on all these issues—and many more besides—rather than something she came up with just last week. The reality is that she's pretty far Left, and this just should not be a winnable district for her.

Questioner: That's really surprising. We know the district has been won by a Democrat, and many feel that with Trump's numbers the way they are and the enthusiasm of the Democrats, the district is primed for an upset.

NMPJ: We just don't see it that way. The district was won in 2008 by a candidate with a profile that the Democrats always shun, mainly because—except for Harry Teague—they don't really exist in their party. It was so weird it was the equivalent of a 100-year flood—Republicans nominated a candidate from Santa Fe, and Harry Teague came within a hundred votes of carrying Lea County, his home. That's just not going to happen again. Lea County should go for Herrell by close to 10,000 votes. The same can be said for Chaves, Otero, Eddy, and there will be overwhelming GOP wins in Lincoln, DeBaca, Sierra, and Catron Counties. Roosevelt has been added—the district was made stronger for the GOP in 2011. Valencia is voting Republican now, so are Luna and Hidalgo in federal elections. The only places favorable to Xóchitl are Grant County, Socorro County, and of course Las Cruces. Herrell probably won't carry Cibola as Pearce did, or McKinley or Guadalupe, but those are relatively small populations. We just don't see how Xóchitl gets from here to there. Show us the pathway and we'll discuss. We just don't know where it is. 

Questioner: There's apparently a lot of organizing in Doña Ana County and a real reaction to Trump that has a lot of voters really motivated.

NMPJ: Granted, Las Cruces is a growing, surging area for Democrat votes in the state. No question. But it's going to take a lot more than the 12,000-vote margin Clinton won by to give Xóchitl a chance. Even if she were to come out of there with a margin of 20,000 votes, which is highly unlikely, that could be almost offset by just a couple of counties in the Southeast, and the Republicans would still have ten favorable counties left over. As long as Herrell runs a sensible campaign, talking about her own ideas—running a general election campaign—she should win fairly easily. We just don't see a path for Xóchitl Torres.

Questioner: So should she be talking about Trump?

NMPJ: No. Of course not. Many Republicans all over the country are misreading and misunderstanding the role of Trump. Trump has been helpful to Republicans only in primaries, and then only in primaries in heavily Republican districts and states. It is true that Yvette did out-Trump Monty Newman in the Republican Primary this past spring, but that has to be understood as the limit of its effectiveness. Beginning the day after the primary it is important that Yvette begin making the case for herself, and only herself. Republicans will vote for her because she is the only conservative in the race. Strong Democrats will vote for Xóchitl because she represents their left-of-center views. In a district like this, Trump turns off the soft Democrats and the independents, so there's no need to bring him up anymore. She should know that.

Questioner: Well she (Herrell) is not doing that. She talks Trump non-stop. It's virtually the only thing she says on the campaign trail. 

NMPJ: We did not know that. That's a mistake. Yvette should be talking about herself, exclusively. And how and where she contrasts with the Leftish views of her opponent. That's her message. It goes without saying that she will get the hard-core Trump voters. Acting like you have to woo them to your side is a fundamental mistake and in our view a misread of the district. 

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

.. the ballot shall be designed to allow the voter to vote for all of a qualified party's slate of candidates on the ballot by marking a single straight party option ...." 

"The Supreme Court will come down in the center, with a lean toward Republican view, that it certainly was a "rule" that needed to go through rule-making procedures, but could even be a constitutional violation, but that question will be left unanswered."

Two years ago, we were the first to report that Maggie Toulouse Oliver was bragging to Democrat Party bosses and activists all over the state that she was going to ignore the law and institute straight-party voting. She made no bones about it, she would "just do it."

To paraphrase the famous line from The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Maggie essentially said, "Law, what law? I don't need no stinking law!"

Our editor was able to place an op-ed in the Albuquerque Journal on April 2 of this year, predicting that it would come, and come late in the campaign.

We have therefore provided everyone who has written or opined on this issue the complete story:

• In 2001, House Bill 931 specifically repealed Section 1-9-4 of the Election Code, which read: “it permits each voter…to vote a straight party ticket in one operation…” (That was the only provision in New Mexico law that made any reference at all to straight-party voting). It was signed into law by Gov. Gary Johnson. 

Toulouse Oliver's Claim of Absolute Power is Half-Baked

SOS Toulouse Oliver has written in op-ed pieces that she can unilaterally institute the straight-party ballot because, she says:

"New Mexico law gives the secretary of state the explicit authority to decide the format of the paper ballots..."

But she is leaving out the most important part: She can only format the ballot with items, names, parties, and questions that are authorized in law. She can't make things up to put on the ballot.

So yes, the SOS "shall determine...the position of the parties, constitutional amendments, questions and the names of nominees..." but she cannot make up names of people who have not been nominated. She cannot add parties that have not qualified according to statute. She cannot place questions on the ballot that have not been submitted according to law.

Using Maggie's "logic," the purely ministerial power to "format" the ballot order gives her the authority to add whatever she wants to the ballot. If she were correct in asserting that the clerical role of formatting the names of nominees actually allows her to go beyond that and make up a "straight-party option" at the top of the ballot, then that same phantom authority would allow her to institute the Nevada provision allowing voters to choose "None of these Candidates." 

That would be very popular with a lot of voters. And it would also satisfy one of Toulouse Oliver's supposed objectives: save time.

Oliver Claims it's all about “Saving Time”—While Implying Many Voters are Unqualified to make Independent Judgments about each Contest 

Here are a number of False Claims Oliver wrote in both the Albuquerque Journal and the Santa Fe New Mexican **

Toulouse Oliver made the following claims about her "straight-party" power grab: 

"Just last month, a federal judge ruled that without Michigan’s simple and easy-to-use straight-party voting option, voters would face long lines at the polls, which would effectively discriminate against African-American voters."

If no law is needed to prescribe how ballots are to be arranged, why do we even have Article 10 of New Mexico Statutes? Why do we have § 1-10-8 setting forth what the Secretary of State is to do? Maggie Oliver says there's no need for the Legislature to trouble its little head about it. She can simply do everything on her own—with no need for a written law.

That being the case, why did she not inform then-State Senator Michael Sanchez, the Majority Leader? She let him try to enact a straight-party ballot option, not just once, but three times. She let him debate it and bring it to the floor for votes. Twice.

Why was the Legislative Council Service asleep at the wheel? Why didn't Raúl Burciaga, or any of perhaps two dozen expert bill drafters and supervisors in the Legislative Council Service catch this? Why would they deliberately allow Senator Sanchez to waste the legislature's time and money on something they could very well see was unnecessary?

Answer: It never occurred to them that it was unnecessary. It never occurred to Senator Sanchez. The only person who held the keys to the kingdom on this issue was Maggie Toulouse Oliver. She was the only person in the state who secretly knew that she could have the authority to institute straight-party voting all by herself. All she needed to do was get elected.

The Secretary's Authoritarian Attitude Should Worry New Mexico Voters

The Secretary of State is New Mexico's chief elections officer. She is supposed to be even-handed and impartial. Her office could be called on at any time to play a supervisory role in a statewide recount, providing detailed instructions and guidance for how recounts, or even rechecks, and aspects of challenges should be carried out.

By bending to pressure from Democrat Party bosses and acting unilaterally to institute a law without legislation, Maggie Toulouse Oliver has shown that her thumb is on the scale, so to speak. She comes from a self-described background in political activism, with roles working for PACs and special interest groups, and she openly advertises for a number of highly partisan organizations, such as Emily's List, and many many others.

She is by far the most partisan Secretary of State in living memory, certainly the most overtly partisan and activist occupant in the past 50 years.

Such an authoritarian approach to the office and the arrogation of unwarranted power to herself can and should raise questions about the fairness with which elections might be conducted.

New Mexicans have every right to favor or oppose straight party voting. But those who favor it should urge their legislators to adopt it, not have an authoritarian administrator do so on a personal whim.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

The Lawyers Suing State Auditor Johnson Made Contributions to their Own Client—the High-Risk Pool

A Santa Fe law firm, Cuddy & McCarthy—which includes prominent TV lawyer Ms. Laura Sanchez-Rivet—is suing State Auditor Wayne Johnson on behalf of the New Mexico Medical Insurance Pool (NMMIP), which is also commonly known as the High-Risk Pool.

The purpose of the suit is to keep from being publicly audited by the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) and to therefore essentially hide the High-Risk Pool's records from public view.

But it turns out that members of the law firm are campaign contributors to the Pool's executive director's former CEO, Congressperson Michelle Lujan Grisham, and her partner and campaign manager, State Representative Deborah Armstrong.  Cuddy & McCarthy's attorneys and family members have thus far contributed nearly $30,000 to both politicians' campaigns, including some $5,900 in 2010, 2015, and 2016, before their same firm was awarded a contract by the High-Risk Pool.

The contracted executive director of the High-Risk Pool is Delta Consulting, and Lujan-Grisham was serving as its CEO at the time the contract was awarded in October of 2016. This is important because the legal services contract with Cuddy & McCarthy appears to have at least three procurement violations. 

• First, the request for proposals (RFP) was published only once (according to NMPress.org). The law says it must be published three times.

• Second, the responses to the RFP appear to have been due back in only 5 calendar days, instead of the legally-required 10 calendar days.

• Third, according to the firm's own pleadings, the RFP did not include a Campaign Contribution Disclosure Form, something that is also required by the Procurement Code. [Note: You can read the Disclosure Form at the bottom of this page.]

Why Did the High-Risk Pool's RFP not comply with the law?

Why did the RFP Leave Out the Campaign Contribution Disclosure Form?

Here are the most likely reasons the form was left out, and the most likely reasons for non-compliance with the Procurement Act:

1) The High-Risk Pool Knew which Law Firm they were Directing their Contract to: Cuddy & McCarthy ("The Firm")

2) The High-Risk Pool was arranging for The Firm to have a quick 3-working day turnaround, so no one else could bid on the RFP, even though this short response timeframe violated state law, which requires 10 days. Presumably, the Firm would be watching for the RFP and be ready to go with their bid.

3) The High-Risk Pool published the RFP only once, even though the law requires it to be published three times. Presumably, again, The Firm only needed to be assured that it was published. Who else would be looking to catch it?

4) And this is perhaps the most important potential reason: The High-Risk Pool knew that Tthe Firm had made contributions to Lujan-Grisham and to Armstrong, and did not want those contributions disclosed for fear that they would disqualify their hand-picked law firm.

NMPJ's own review of Michelle Lujan Grisham's campaign contributions shows that, in fact, the law firm should have disclosed at least $5,900 in contributions for both Lujan-Grisham and her assistant/associate/partner/campaign manager Deborah Armstrong, who is also a politician asking for donations. Why? Those donations were made prior to the RFP.

In fact, Ms. Sanchez-Rivet made a contribution to Deborah Armstrong just two weeks before the RFP was issued. 

This is not only the exact kind of conduct that's required to be disclosed on the form, it is the exact reason the form is required to be filled out and published as part of the RFP. The Firm must know this. So must The Pool. 

THE LAWSUIT MEANS: WE JUST DON'T WANT DISCLOSURE

These violations of the Procurement Code and other state laws were actually discovered under State Auditor Tim Keller, who for reasons unknown to NMPJ failed to include these findings in his own October, 2017 published procurement audit. 

IT'S TOO LATE FOR THE HIGH-RISK POOL TO CLAIM IT CAN'T BE AUDITED BY OSA 

The High-Risk Pool in its own lawsuit, a copy of which NMPJ has obtained from the courts, stated that the High-Risk Pool "was asked to provide certain information to the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) regarding its procurement practices," and goes on to state that it "provided the requested information to the OSA on or about April 14, 2017." 

Those are two very important disclosures. Why? Because they step on the High-Risk Pool's own arguments, and the arguments Cuddy & McCarthy make in the very same set of pleadings: The arguments both are making that no one is entitled to see their records—that they are not required to be transparent with the voting public.

But how can they now make this argument when they already acknowledged the OSA's authority to review its records? In their own filing, Cuddy & McCarthy state that the High-Risk Pool "provided the requested information to the OSA on or about April 14, 2017."

The Pool and The Firm can't have it both Ways

The High-Risk Pool and its law firm are now claiming The Pool is not subject to the State Auditor's jurisdiction. But when did they reach that conclusion? It certainly wasn't while Tim Keller was the State Auditor. No way. When he asked them to turn over documents, they did. And we find no record of any pushback, disagreement, or argument about their obligation to disclose anywhere in that transaction.

But now, having complied, unquestioningly, with State Auditor Tim Keller's request for documents, the High-Risk Pool suddenly decides that under State Auditor Johnson it isn't going to comply with the law, and this at a time when their law firm puts into the public record the fact that The Pool seems to have a lot to hide. (We wouldn't know about the Pool's non-compliance with the law without reading Cuddy & McCarthy's own "Exhibit A" which they themselves filed in court.) I other words, The Pool suddenly decided to say "don't look any deeper."

HIGH-RISK POOL GOES INTO HIDING AFTER KELLER'S FINDINGS

It certainly appears that the High-Risk Pool, and perhaps Cuddy & McCarthy, did not expect Keller to make any findings—that he would be a "friendly" audience. And in fact, he was—to a certain extent. That is to say, Keller did not publish his own findings of The Pool's deficiencies in his procurement report. However, in March of 2018, the Office of the State Auditor sent a letter to The Pool that detailed its findings.

OTHER VIOLATIONS?

State Auditor Wayne Johnson has recently made news for uncovering big spending that violates the Mileage and Per Diem Act.  The statute says that the High-Risk Pool Board members are subject to that statute as well. 

The question we have is: Is the High-Risk Pool scoring as well on compliance with the Mileage and Per Diem Act as they are with the Procurement Code? (And on the latter they're getting perhaps a "D" at the very best.)

In any case, we are curious about how well The Pool is doing on its other expenses and compliance. We would like to know. And it appears the Pool and The Firm would not like us to know. In our view, State Auditor Johnson would be derelict in his own constitutional duties if he were not asking. 

Unbelievably, THE HIGH-RISK POOL (OR THEIR LAWYERS) TURN THEMSELVES IN, OVER and OVER

One of the admissions made by lawyers for the High-Risk Pool is that no State Auditor has ever required the Pool to "comply with the State Audit Act," and that this is "the first time in the NMMIP's over 30 years of existence" that any state auditor has followed the law in requiring them to comply.  Johnson seems to have a track record in his 8 and 1/2 months in office of bringing entities, like the Regional Coalition of LANL Communities and the REDI Net Broadband Board, into compliance by following the law.  And the light that he has shined on those long hidden entities has not been flattering.   

More Unbelievable, the High-Risk Pool Claims that People Will "Die" If the Pool is Exposed to the Sunshine

While this firm got this sweetheart deal ($100,000) to provide legal services to the Pool, this same law firm has now had the audacity to conjure up the ridiculous and insulting argument that claims that "New Mexicans could become more ill or die," if the Pool is required to comply with the Audit Act. 

This is one of the stupidest and most insulting legal arguments — or even political argument — we have ever heard of. Now, we suppose, all entities using taxpayer dollars will resist being audited by claiming "people will die" if we have to have our records looked at.

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION DISCLOSURE FORM 

Pursuant to NMSA 1978, § 13-1-191.1 (2006), any person seeking to enter into a contract with any state agency or local public body for professional services, a design and build project delivery system, or the design and installation of measures the primary purpose of which is to conserve natural resources must file this form with that state agency or local public body. 

Furthermore, the state agency or local public body shall void an executed contract or cancel a solicitation or proposed award for a proposed contract if:

1) a prospective contractor, a family member of the prospective contractor, or a representative of the prospective contractor gives a campaign contribution or other thing of value to an applicable public official or the applicable public official’s employees during the pendency of the procurement process; or

2) a prospective contractor fails to submit a fully completed disclosure statement pursuant to the law.

THIS FORM MUST BE FILED BY ANY PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR WHETHER OR NOT THEY, THEIR FAMILY MEMBER, OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE HAS MADE ANY CONTRIBUTIONS SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE. 

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

On August 15, Andrew Cuomo said this: 

“We’re not going to make America great again; it was never that great.”

This probably gets first place so far. After all, he is telling 320,000,000 Americans that we've just never been all that great a country. No matter what we've done.

Liberating Western Europe in World War II, or much of the Pacific rim nations during that same war? Not that big a deal.

Fighting a Civil War that ended up turning on the question of slavery—and sacrificing 750,000 American lives to do that—something no other country did to rid itself of slavery? Not that big a deal for Cuomo.

Create the only written Constitution in the world continuously in use for more than 230 years? Not so great, according to Cuomo. 

Provide more financial, medical, and humanitarian aid to every country in the world than all the rest of the world combined? Not so great, according to Cuomo. 

Serve as the beacon of hope for 7.7 billion people in the world—the one country to which people want to immigrate more than any other place? Not that great, according to Cuomo.

But then on August 29th, Cuomo came close to topping his earlier gaffe (or maybe this was even dumber):

In a contentious back-and-forth debate with his Democrat Primary opponent Cynthia Nixon, an exasperated Cuomo blurted out:

“Can you stop interrupting?”

To which Nixon responded:

“Can you stop lying?”

It was at that point that Cuomo, without even thinking about it, instinctively responded:

“Yeah, as soon as you do."

In other words: Yeah, I'm lying, just like you are, and I'll stop lying if and when you stop lying. Not before.

It was downright hilarious. A sitting governor telling everyone in his state he is in fact a liar, is lying to them on the stage, and won't stop lying until his opponent stops lying. Amazing. This could be first place. Tell us what you think. 

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

New Mexico Political Journal has long-since taken the lead on the issue of Straight-Party Voting, going back several years, with numerous stories about how Maggie Toulouse Oliver is bound and determined to ignore state law and implement "Straight-Party" voting in New Mexico, of her own volition. 

Never mind that it's not authorized in statute. Anywhere.

Never mind that even her fellow Democrats have openly acknowledged that—and that she has no authority to implement it.

Never mind that Democrat legislators have openly acknowledged she has no such authority—and have tried to create such authority in statute.

Never mind that three attempts have been made by Democrat legislators to bring back "Straight-Party" ballots. All of which failed. 

Maggie just says: "I'll bring it back." "All by myself."

If Toulouse-Oliver already had such authority, why did the Democrats think they had to pass a law to get it back?

The Bernalillo County GOP Central Committee is said to meet Sunday at 1:00 PM to select a replacement for long-time Republican State Representative Lorenzo A. Larrañaga, who represents House District 27, located in Albuquerque's near Northeast Heights. (More on the district below.)

Just two days ago, Larrañaga announced his withdrawal from the general election race. The Republican Party has until Tuesday to name a replacement nominee. According to reports received by New Mexico Political Journal, those who have supposedly "indicated interest" in seeking the nomination include:

• Jason Barker

• Bryan Williams

• Gary Oppedahl

• Lisa Torraco

• Roxanne Rivera-Wiest

• Rob Doughty

• Greg Zanetti

• Robert Godshall

We have received reports that both Oppedahl and Rivera-Wiest have followed up by saying that they were withdrawing from the contest. If true, this would leave six candidates. Although we have not contacted each of those named on the list to confirm their interest in the race. We are surprised to see the names of Zanetti and Doughty on the list, and we reemphasize that this is information that has come to us. We have not done interviews with each alleged candidate to confirm any of them.

House District 27

Larrañaga, known by everyone as "Larry," has represented HD 27 in the near Northeast Heights for almost 24 years, since his election in 1994. The district is almost 70% Anglo, and only about 22% Hispanic. The latest Census Bureau estimates for Bernalillo County show the greater Albuquerque area to be about 50% Hispanic and 39% Anglo. 

Larrañaga has run unopposed a number of times, but Democrat Ronald H. Krise challenged him in 2016. Larrañaga defeated Krise by 17 points, winning 9,110 to 6,457 (58.5% - 41.5%). However, Hillary Clinton did carry the district, very narrowly, defeating Trump by a little over one percentage point, 43.9% to 42.6%, or 7,153 to 6,952.

Gary Johnson had a better-than-average showing in the district, garnering 1,813 votes, or 11.1% of the vote. Jill Stein did not do well in the district, getting less than 1% in the district, far behind even Evan McMullin.

REPUBLICANS DO NOT NEED ETHNIC OR RACIALLY-GERRYMANDERED DISTRICTS

Larrañaga, like almost all Hispanic Republicans and Republicans from other minority groups, has had no trouble winning election. Unlike Democrats who belong to minority groups, Republican Hispanics and minorities do not have to draw districts that have overwhelming minority populations in order to win.

Anglo Republicans continue to elect Republican Hispanics from districts with very small minority populations. Ethnic or racial gerrymandering simply isn't necessary for GOP Hispanics to prevail.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

When news of arrests of illegal entrants into the United States came to the forefront a couple of months ago, we suddenly heard from lots of Democrats nationwide. We heard from everyone in America. All of us even heard from close friends re-posting coordinated and mimicked themes on their Facebook pages.

It was a coordinated theme and meme, written by the Democratic Party and the national media: "Children have been separated from their parents," — "This is an incredible issue of compassion and basic decency, and a horrific crime against humanity!"

We pointed out IMMEDIATELY that there are some 200,000 mothers (and more than 2,000,000 fathers) CURRENTLY separated from their children, and that NOBODY—including NOBODY in the entire Democratic Party had ever said ANYTHING about the "inhumanity" or any other aspect of the situation.

The only difference between the two situations was that one group was a favored element: Illegal immigrants. (People who might become Democrat voters!)

The other group was made up largely of home-grown Americans. Who cares about them? 

NOW COMES THE ISLAMIC COMPOUND IN NORTHERN NEW MEXICO

The children of these parents from Amalia, New Mexico have been separated from their children. We immediately noted, and have watched ever since, that NO Democrat—not a single "humanitarian," whether pretend humanitarian or real one—has said one word about this.

In fact, it has never occurred to them. No one at the national Democratic Party, or in the national media has thought to create a meme about it. 

But you know something? If the "concern" about family separation had been real—if it had had one scintilla of authenticity, or of any real, sincere, actually-felt compassion at all, the reaction to the separation of these families would have been loud and immediate. 

The fact that NOTHING LIKE THAT occurred or EVEN CAME TO MIND is proof positive of the abject phoniness of the entire issue.

This issue represents, perhaps better than any other, the incredible gulf—the unbridgeable divide between the right/center-right and the Left in America today.

What to do about it? We don't know. There has to be a level of sincerity on both sides, to some degree. Right now that just does not exist.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.