A guest editorial, by former State Senator Rod Adair

I remember when it happened, and before it happened. 

This is typical of the Left in New Mexico—and throughout the country. As explained by the thief near the end of this video, Democrats “feel entitled” to engage in all manner of harassment, vandalism, theft, and intimidation because of the outrage of the mere existence of Trump, or Mitch McConnell—or any [fill in the blank] Republican.

See video here: https://www.facebook.com/truthandjusticefire/videos/2573006036146693/?t=73

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

US House, Congressional District 1

Trip Jennings

A good thing about Donald Trump is that he gives you moral clarity.

As president, he has targeted the national intelligence services and the FBI, attempted to silence government scientists and to undermine judicial integrity.

He has done this repeatedly in an attempt to make himself the arbiter of the "truth" the American public should see and hear.

Now, in an evolution of his "the press are the enemy of the people" campaign, his allies are building dossiers of opposition research against individual journalists at outlets that don't shrink from aggressively covering a presidential administration, as journalists in the United States are wont to do in a vibrant democracy.

I remember years ago reading a book that traced the history of the rise of democracy and one of its defining features: the civil society, where people from all walks of life, viewpoints and lived experiences congregate to debate ideas, policies, visions, you name it, they debate it to arrive at some version of a collective truth. The civil society cannot exist by itself, however. It requires a latticework of institutions and communal norms to function properly to foster that debate.

It is these institutions and norms the president has repeatedly attacked.

In that same book, the author talked about what existed prior to democracies and civil societies: monarchies, where kings and queens got to decide for their subjects what was true and what was not.

Like I said, Donald Trump gives you moral clarity.

Rod Adair Trip Jennings. I think I will recommend that this thread be used by New Mexico Political Journal for one in a series of articles that discusses the Trump Administration and its relationship with the American media. I have received mean-spirited attacks from both Trumpistas as well as their polar opposite on the Left, which your comments mimic, and with whom, presumably, you self-identify. I am neither a Trumpista, a Never-Trumper, nor a member of the Left, or Democrat Party-leaning "journalist."

Trump is painfully inarticulate, awkward of speech, word usage, syntax, phraseology, and all manner of public discourse. This cannot be disputed. He is not the first politician (or president) to be so afflicted. He is a poor speaker. (Trumpistas hate me for saying that.)

But he is also the first to have every single utterance to be deliberately deconstructed by the mainstream media in a way that always—100% of the time—attempts to spin each phrase he utters in the most negative possible interpretation. And many times, if not most, the effort goes beyond “possible interpretation” all the way to the preposterous stretch. To wit: He is “quoted” for saying things he did not say. 

THE PRESS: ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE MEME

The New York Times led the way 2½ years ago by citing a Trump tweet in which he said:

“The FAKE NEWS media (failing 
@nytimes, @CNN, @NBCNews 
and many more) is not my enemy, it is 
the enemy of the American people.
SICK!)

However, in the body of their story, the Times (via reporter Michael M. Grynbaum) "quoted" the tweet like this:

“President Trump, in an extraordinary 
rebuke of the nation’s press 
organizations, wrote on Twitter on 
Friday that the nation’s news 
media ‘is the enemy of the American 
people.’”

But he did not say that. The Times said it. They said he said it. It was a false quote.
Fast forward to the world of reporters (like Tripp Jennings, and perhaps 90% of the 32,000 others in the country) and, lo and behold, what the “paper of record” printed becomes “gospel.”

But for many of us—who are not Trumpistas at all—who are not lifetime, “professional” journalists, well, we pause at this juncture, and reflect. For several reasons:

1) Journalism—at least the “reporting” component of it—isn’t really supposed to be about taking sides, or becoming open advocates, or haters—of any particular individual. Rather, it is supposed to focus on accuracy, and an unending search for the truth. (And the Biden version of “truth over facts” or vice versa, doesn’t apply either.)

2) We can read—black letter words in plain view—that the New York Times misstated what Trump said. Sadly, we have to conclude that it is either an accidental error, or it is a deliberate lie. The way in which the story is followed up—with either a correction, or no correction—would determine which of the two explanations is the case. 

3) When we read that Trump actually said that “The FAKE NEWS media…is the enemy of the people,” we cannot help but agree. How could such an assertion be a false statement? How can a source of information (newspaper, TV, radio, magazine, website, Twitter, Facebook, or any other medium) that is providing “false” information, or is misrepresenting actual events be anything other than an “enemy” of the country, or of citizens, voters, and the electorate at large. Such an organization must, ipso facto, be firmly opposed to the best interests of America. Otherwise it would not engage in such activities. Sure, it’s possible that mistakes may be made, so there’s that. But those can be judged over time, to see if there are ever corrections. 

4) Trump did not rebuke “the nation’s press organizations”. What a conceit that is! Those organizations he named are not by any stretch of the imagination “the nation’s press organizations.” He named three. He came back later and named two more. Each day, I read the Albuquerque Journal, the Santa Fe New Mexican, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and the Roswell Daily Record. I often read the New York Times, New York Post, Washington Examiner, Wall Street Journal, USAToday, and others that I may get a chance to read. There are over 1,300 daily newspapers in the country, some 1,500 or more TV stations, 15,000 radio stations, and at least a dozen “networks” with significant reach throughout the country. 

5) There is no objective way of stating—as Trip Jennings and thousands of others who parrot this same story—that Trump actually said that the press—which, philologically speaking in this instance, must mean the entire US press—is the enemy of the people. It just doesn’t work. Trip Jennings, to be fair, you may have simply heard this repeated so many times that you believe it must be true (after all, the New York Times said it), and you may be totally ignorant of the actual original story in which— "Biden like"— a reporter chose his version of "truth" over facts.

So you may not know better, Trip. And that may not be your fault. But if you do know better, it must be asked why you say these things. Why? You are not supposed to have an agenda. You should be reading and listening dispassionately. 

All of this is part of an effort the New York Times itself just last week admitted is part of an organized effort to destroy Trump. In years past, there would be pangs of conscience emanating from many in the media, including the mainstream. (And to be fair, some are expressing concern about the state of their profession.) But today, we Americans have lost an independent, dispassionate press. It is gone. And it is a sad state of affairs indeed.

Trip Jennings Rod Adair this is a lot to digest. I will try to respond later. But suffice to say, when one of the president's first utterances is a lie -- inaugural crowd size -- and the lies continue day after day after day, I offer the president's own mouth as testimony to his problematic relationship with the "truth" and its corrosive effect on the America polity. Respectfully, I would expect someone who knows history to be more concerned about what he's doing to democratic institutions and norms. Trump is not a conservative so much as an agent of chaos eating away at the public commons. I'm less interested in the typical tired (yawn) right-left dialectic in electoral politics than I am in the raging oppostion from the radical and revolutionary from all sides in this age of populism to the center, where many Americans - liberal, conservative, moderate, decline to state, all of the above- practice democracy. Plenty of thoughtful conservatives and Republicans have been vocal with this concern.. Finally, for me to be tagged as a member of the "polar opposite on the Left" of Trumpistas makes me smile. If you think I'm part of the leftist fringe, you are acting publicly in a way that does not reflect what I know to be your political sophistication and worldliness. You know better. Or I thought you did. So I will chalk it up to a statement uttered in the heat of the moment. Have a good morning. :)

HOPE for AMERICA in SANTA FE

At the @Santa Fe Wine Wine & Chile Fiesta, where one might expect “resistance,” with a crowd of over a thousand on the playing of the National Anthem, not one single person kneeled down in protest. Right here. In the belly of the beast. Not one single peep of kneeling.

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.

We Thought McCamley was a Scam Artist: You Should See the Guy Who Beat Him!

New Mexico Political Journal has been very surprised to learn of a lawsuit recently filed in federal court against all of the commissioners in Lincoln County, and their county attorney, Alan Morel, in a case called Romero v. Stone et. al. The reason we are surprised is that Lincoln County is overwhelmingly Republican—Democrats seldom even bother to nominate county candidates anymore—and all five members of the county's Board of Commissioners are registered Republicans.

The attorneys who have filed the case against the Lincoln County officials are Republican State Representative Zach Cook and well-known criminal defense attorney Gary Mitchell, as co-counsel.  These two may seem like an unlikely pair until you consider each of their histories of defending individual liberties against the tyranny of government. 

TAKING ADVANTAGE OF AN INCOMPETENT, ESSENTIALLY DEFENSELESS LINCOLN COUNTY RESIDENT

The lawsuit alleges that the county commission and Mr. Morel prosecuted Mr. Roger Romero, who owns real estate and a home in the Hondo Valley, for violations of the county’s nuisance ordinance, even though they knew that he had been adjudicated by a court of law as incompetent* to stand trial.

Mr. Romero's capacity to participate in legal proceedings was well known to the county because Morel and the county had brought criminal charges against Mr. Romero numerous times in the past, but dropped the charges because Mr. Romero was found to be incompetent to stand trial.

(Keep in mind that the United States Constitution does not require a person to be competent to stand trial in order for that person to maintain his or her own private property and enjoy the due process protections provided by the Constitution.)

KNOWING THAT ROMERO COULD NOT DEFEND HIMSELF, THE COUNTY TOOK ADVANTAGE OF HIM

The complaint alleges that Morel, who was well aware that Romero was not competent to stand trial, figured out a strategy by which he could get a conviction against Romero despite the fact that Romero is incompetent to stand trial. Here is Morel's apparent strategy:

1. Go to Magistrate Court in Lincoln County
2. Prosecute the case himself, thus reducing the likelihood that Romero's incompetence would be revealed
3. Withhold from the Magistrate Judge the critical fact that Romero had been judged to be incompetent to stand trial
4. Withhold from the public defender the fact that his client was legally incompetent

Armed with this tactical plan, in 2017 Morel is said to have entered Magistrate Court with a certain degree of confidence. With the public defender allegedly being unaware of the existing legal ruling that his client had been determined to be incompetent, he never raised that issue, and with the court being unaware of that same fact, Mr. Morel secured a conviction and successfully argued to have Mr. Romero sentenced to 30 days in the county jail. That sentence, apparently, gave the county commission the opportunity to pounce on Romero's property.

THE COUNTY MAKES ITS MOVE

Apparently, according to the allegations made in the complaint, while Mr. Romero sat in the county jail, the county commissioners hired companies (including a company called Sierra Contracting) to carry out the elimination of Mr. Romero's property. One of the companies involved bulldozed everything, including 1) the Romero family home; 2) various privately owned vehicles; 3) equipment Mr. Romero owned; and 4) the ashes of Mr. Romero’s late wife. They then had all of the above loaded onto big dumpsters (provided by Sierra Contracting for $10,000 of the $17,000 total cost) and hauled away.

It is truly hard to understand how a county commission comprised entirely of Republicans, who supposedly believe in private property rights and individual freedoms, could do such a thing. But it gets WORSE:

 At this point, according to the complaint, the county commission then charged these disabled folks over $17,000 for the costs of bulldozing and trashing all of their earthly belongings.  

But  it gets EVEN WORSE than that:

Now the county has filed a lien on the property and is suing the disabled Romero to collect on that lien.

Again, if the allegations in the lawsuit are true, we are shocked that the county commissioners and Mr. Morel would sit around and actually plot out such a strategy without someone raising his hand and saying: What in the hell are we doing here?

Such an apparent desire to employ the heavy hand of government against helpless people flies in the face of those who would purport to represent conservative Republican values and conservative Republican public policy choices. 

We have been under the impression that the Lincoln County commission is now and has always been committed to individual property rights and the plainly spelled-out constitutional rights to due process.   If they really did the things alleged in this complaint, then something has gone awry, and these commissioners need to take a refresher course on conservative values.

ULTERIOR MOTIVE?

One possible motive has been suggested—perhaps something so lucrative or tempting as to cause temporary loss of focus and perspective. We don't know if that is what happened, but human nature being what it is, it is possible.

Apparently, the county uses Sierra Contracting (the same company that got the bulk of the contract money to raze Mr. Romero's property and made 10 grand from it) to handle solid waste collection in the county. In addition to being the Lincoln County Attorney, Mr. Morel is also the private attorney for Sierra Contracting. Apparently, Mr. Romero's property, which is located on the frontage of US Highway 70, is very valuable and its location would make an excellent site for a solid waste transfer station of some kind. 

All of the above, if it turns out to be accurate, smacks of crony capitalism of the most egregious type. We hope the Lincoln County commissioners will tell us this is not true.

* "Incompetent" is a legal term of art to describe an individual who lacks the ability to understand legal proceedings or transactions, or lack of mental capacity to understand the consequences of his actions. Once such a determination is made, a guardian or conservator must act on behalf of the incompetent individual.

https://goo.gl/QgK1ic

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

2

-Garcia-Richard's no show or little show job.  Full pay for her 2017 legislature and her calendar shows meetings that overlap with days and days of the legislature.

2) payment to school employees while they are roundhousing.   I have not followed that issue, but I know Tim Lewis does not take his teacher's pay during the legislature--I don't know if that is because he is a saint or because there is a rule that republican school employees can't get paid.

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

I think I will recommend that this thread be used by New Mexico Political Journal for one in a series of articles that discusses the Trump Administration and its relationship with the American media. I have received mean-spirited attacks from both Trumpistas as well as their polar opposite on the Left, which your comments mimic, and with whom, presumably, you self-identify. I am neither a Trumpista, a Never-Trumper, nor a member of the Left, or Democrat Party-leaning "journalist."

Trump is painfully inarticulate, awkward of speech, word usage, syntax, phraseology, and all manner of public discourse. This cannot be disputed. He is not the first politician (or president) to be so afflicted. He is a poor speaker. (Trumpistas hate me for saying that.)

But he is also the first to have every single utterance to be deliberately deconstructed by the mainstream media in a way that always—100% of the time—attempts to spin each phrase he utters in the most negative possible interpretation. And many times, if not most, the effort goes beyond “possible interpretation” all the way to the preposterous stretch. To wit: He is “quoted” for saying things he did not say. 

THE PRESS: ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE MEME

The New York Times led the way 2½ years ago by citing a Trump tweet in which he said:

“The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @CNN, @NBCNews 
and many more) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American 
people. SICK!)

However, in the body of their story, the Times (via reporter Michael M. Grynbaum) "quoted" the tweet like this:

“President Trump, in an extraordinary rebuke of the nation’s press organizations, wrote on Twitter on Friday that the nation’s news 
media ‘is the enemy of the American people.’”

But he did not say that. The Times said it. They said he said it. It was a false quote.
Fast forward to the world of reporters (like Tripp Jennings, and perhaps 90% of the 32,000 others in the country) and, lo and behold, what the “paper of record” printed becomes “gospel.”

But for many of us—who are not Trumpistas at all—who are not lifetime, “professional” journalists, well, we pause at this juncture, and reflect. For several reasons:

1) Journalism—at least the “reporting” component of it—isn’t really supposed to be about taking sides, or becoming open advocates, or haters—of any particular individual. Rather, it is supposed to focus on accuracy, and an unending search for the truth. (And the Biden version of “truth over facts” or vice versa, doesn’t apply either.)

2) We can read—black letter words in plain view—that the New York Times misstated what Trump said. Sadly, we have to conclude that it is either an accidental error, or it is a deliberate lie. The way in which the story is followed up—with either a correction, or no correction—would determine which of the two explanations is the case. 

3) When we read that Trump actually said that “The FAKE NEWS media…is the enemy of the people,” we cannot help but agree. How could such an assertion be a false statement? How can a source of information (newspaper, TV, radio, magazine, website, Twitter, Facebook, or any other medium) that is providing “false” information, or is misrepresenting actual events be anything other than an “enemy” of the country, or of citizens, voters, and the electorate at large. Such an organization must, ipso facto, be firmly opposed to the best interests of America. Otherwise it would not engage in such activities. Sure, it’s possible that mistakes may be made, so there’s that. But those can be judged over time, to see if there are ever corrections. 

4) Trump did not rebuke “the nation’s press organizations”. What a conceit that is! Those organizations he named are not by any stretch of the imagination “the nation’s press organizations.” He named three. He came back later and named two more. Each day, I read the Albuquerque Journal, the Santa Fe New Mexican, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and the Roswell Daily Record. I often read the New York Times, New York Post, Washington Examiner, Wall Street Journal, USAToday, and others that I may get a chance to read. There are over 1,300 daily newspapers in the country, some 1,500 or more TV stations, 15,000 radio stations, and at least a dozen “networks” with significant reach throughout the country. 

5) There is no objective way of stating—as Trip Jennings and thousands of others who parrot this same story—that Trump actually said that the press—which, philologically speaking in this instance, must mean the entire US press—is the enemy of the people. It just doesn’t work. Trip Jennings, to be fair, you may have simply heard this repeated so many times that you believe it must be true (after all, the New York Times said it), and you may be totally ignorant of the actual original story in which— "Biden like"— a reporter chose his version of "truth" over facts.

So you may not know better, Trip. And that may not be your fault. But if you do know better, it must be asked why you say these things. Why? You are not supposed to have an agenda. You should be reading and listening dispassionately. 

All of this is part of an effort the New York Times itself just last week admitted is part of an organized effort to destroy Trump. In years past, there would be pangs of conscience emanating from many in the media, including the mainstream. (And to be fair, some are expressing concern about the state of their profession.) But today, we Americans have lost an independent, dispassionate press. It is gone. And it is a sad state of affairs indeed

Miracles can happen. It appears that State Senator Richard C. Martinez's well-publicized DWI has been dismissed by a Rio Arriba County Magistrate Judge. It was dismissed without prejudice, so it's possible it may be refiled. Here it is:

(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)

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

Why Monica Youngblood will be found not guilty.  My comments here are a political take on a political matter.   Just my take on possible outcomes.  1.  Because the boyfriend will testify that she had not been drinking.  2.  Because there was no bad driving.  3.  Because she was wearing a dress, when the officer was wearing three layers of clothing, which gives credibility to the notion that she was cold when she performed the tests, even though the officer stated that he thought the weather was warm.  By the way, as the night goes on, the officer tells Monica that the weather is getting warmer not colder.  This makes no sense to me.   4.  Because the other lady sitting next to Monica in the van will ultimately testify that there was no alcohol smell coming from Monica, and that she could not note slurred speech.  5.  Because the boyfriend will also testify that Monica had been crying beforehand, which would explain the bloodshot watery eyes, and the officer should have caught that when Monica told him where she was coming from.  6.    Because there actually was no slurred speech, as a matter of fact she was speaking quite clearly.  7.    Because the jury will come to the conclusion that her failure to stop when reciting the alphabet and numbers were her attempts to show awareness and cognitive ability, and not a showing of impairment.  8.    Because she was attempting to be polite throughout and followed numerous subtle commands, and did so quickly, like displaying that her mouth was empty of any foreign objects.  9.    Because although there were some clues in the field sobriety tests, the jury will conclude that overall she did quite well on the tests.  10.   Because in-between the tests, there were no obvious signs of impairment, like overt swaying or losing balance.  11.   Because the jury will conclude that she did not take the chemical tests not because she was attempting to hide anything, but because she was hurt by a process she thought was supposed to be fair, and turned out not to be (the Field Sobriety Tests) and did not trust the process any further.  12.   Because the jury will conclude that she has lost enough already without a criminal conviction adding to the matter.  13.    Because the jury will ask themselves "why does the officer keep telling other officers in a low voice that he is 'live'"?  Is there something that shouldn't be "live" in police interaction with the public.  This theme will play large in the jury deliberations.  14.    Because there actually was a jacket/coat in her car, and when the officer told Monica that no jacket/coat was in the car, that will turn out to be a mistruth, and juries do not like when officers tell suspects mistruths.  The inventory search on the car will indicate where the jacket/coat was, which will be in close to where Monica said it would be.  15.    Because the whole stop may be found to be unconstitutional, i.e. either the sobriety patrol or the way that they were picking out people for further investigation.  16.     Because the instructions the officer gave on all of his Field Sobriety Tests seemed rushed/chopped/and sloppy.   17.     Because the new vest cams don't give an accurate reflection of how the officer moves his own feet when showing a person how to conduct the tests, in comparison to the old dash cams, which gave a fuller picture of the officer showing the suspect how the tests should be done.  So now, the jury cannot see if the officer is actually demonstrating the tests correctly.  18.    Because the jury will be turned off by the tone and wording the officer uses in his voice in communicating with Monica.  His over familiarness with her, his toying with her, i.e. challenging to take the tests, as if he is on a big-game hunt rather than just doing his job.  The constant use of her first name.   19.   Because her surprise at being arrested is authentic and highly emotional, the way a truly innocent person with a clean record might actually react.  20.   Because the scientific opinion on the HGN test will not be permitted in at trial, and the jury will see that Monica follows his basic instructions on this test very well, even if there was slight eye movement, the jury will find that inconsequential.  21.   Because the jury will find that the Officer made a rash decision when he had her arrested because he was frustrated with Monica's attempt to show him up by over-reciting the alphabet and the numbers.  That Monica got his goat if you will, which led him to make a decision he shouldn't have.  A decision to teach her a lesson.  Because in close cases like this, the decision to be on the side of liberty and freedom, not arrest.  22.   Because of the Derek Jeter comment, which showed impulse, quick-wittedness, and ability to respond in an non-impaired manner, which she did throughout the video.  23.  Because she's able to climb that little hill with no problem, when she walked to the van to get tested.  Furthermore, everywhere she walked with the officer there was no problem.  24.   Because as much as juries hate refusals, they at least understand them, especially when the evidence beforehand is slight as to impairment. What they rarely understand in this day and age is the need for sobriety checkpoints, when individual stops are commonplace.  25.   Because the inventory search will indicate no opened bottles of alcohol.

Witnesses of an unusual court case in 2012 stated that Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver "lied in court five years ago to try to get Judge Alan Malott to unlawfully place Patricia Roybal Caballero on the ballot."  Oliver was the Bernalillo County Clerk at the time. Malott, and activist judge, very active in the Democratic Party

"Maggie gave an extrmely twisted version of residency requirements that day," said one Albuquerque Democrat, "Neither she nor Malott wanted anyone onthe ballot other than Roybal Caballero."

EVIDENCE SHOWS ROYBAL CABALLERO DOESN'T LIVE WHERE SHE SAYS

Representative Roybal Caballero has always maintained that she lives at 9600 Central SW, Space 51, Albuquerque. But investigators have watched the property for years, and no one has lived at this mobile home.

Local residents say that in House District 13 "there are only a couple of places where people can find super cheap housing, like buy a trailer house for as little as $3,000. One of them is on Blake Road SW and the other is on Central SW."

Roybal Caballero scoped out the area and chose one of the trailers at the Vista Manufactured Home Community to claim as her residence when she filed for state representative in March 2012. Her then-opponent began challenging her residence, finding that she actually resided at 1145 Carlos Rey SW in Albuquerque, in the district of State Representative Miguel Garcia.

Television news crews in Albuquerque did a good job of documenting Roybal Caballero's actual residence, interviewing neighbors and providing evidence that the Patricia and her husband  

At that point, the Roybal Caballero's went so far as to purchase the trailer house in District 13, establishing a nexus with the District

Major League Baseball is unique among the big four major team sports in that its postseason playoffs are not realistic, and markedly different from the way the game is played normally. 

This detracts from the sport itself and diminishes the game and what it means to be the world champion of the sport. 

This article explains what happens and why it is wrong-headed.

Background on the The Frequency of Play

National Hockey League and the National Basketball Association teams basically play every other day, roughly 14 games per month. The NFL plays once a week. 

But baseball teams play every single day.  Ten days straight, then a day off, then seven more games, then a day off, then ten more games.  Typically a baseball team plays 27 games every 30 days. .

Getting to the Playoffs:  It's a grind

In all four sports, getting to the postseason requires a total team effort—in fact an all-out total organizational effort.  Injuries and slumps force teams to be deep, have bench strength and the capability of moving players in and out of the lineup.  

Each league's regular season is a marathon, not a sprint.  NFL teams play for 17 weeks, 16 games.  The NHL has an 82-game season over six months, paralleled by an NBA season of 84 games over the same timeframe. Baseball is the biggest marathon of all—a true test of resilience and endurance—162 games usually starting around the beginning of April and finishing about the end of September.

The Postseason Playoffs:  Sport by Sport

The National Football League:

Each team plays once a week, the exception being that the four top teams get the first week off.  For a typical qualifier to reach the Super Bowl, the team must play three consecutive weeks.  At that point both remaining teams have two weeks off before the Super Bowl.

With roughly a game each week, reaching or winning the Super Bowl requires a team to overcome the same challenges as those which got the team to the playoffs in the first place.

The National Hockey League: 

Playoffs are conducted in the exact same manner as the regular season: a game, a day off, a game, a day off, a game, a day off, and so on.  Winning the Stanley Cup requires the same stamina, the same approach as that required to make the playoffs.

The National Basketball Association

The playoffs are conducted in the exact same manner as the regular season: a game, a day off, a game, a day off, a game, a day off, and so on.  Getting to the NBA Finals requires the same stamina, the same approach as that required to make the playoffs.

Major League Baseball

Major League Baseball changes its entire structure once the playoffs begin. In the other three sports, teams reach the pinnacle of the sport in exactly the same way as they make the playoffs to start with.  Not so in baseball. 

Baseball teams survive to get into the playoffs only because they have depth and five-man pitching rotations.  But when the playoffs come, baseball suddenly becomes an unrealistic "all-star" game within each team's roster.  MLB playoffs suddenly look a lot like the NBA and the NHL.  Teams have enormous numbers of days off. 

Here's why this is important: No Major League Baseball team could even qualify for the postseason if they played the same way during the regular season that they do in the playoffs.  None. The teams in other sports could.

In the regular season Major League Baseball teams have their pitchers pitching every 5th day.  There are not enough days off to have even a four-man rotation, let alone a team with three pitchers.  The best team in baseball using only a 4-man rotation, would wear them out, and would end up with, at best, a record of 66-96, 25-30 games out of the playoffs.

The 2014 Baseball Postseason is Typical

As examples, last year's World Series teams, the Kansas City Royals and San Francisco Giants, played only 15 games and 17 games respectively in 30 days.  That’s 12 to 15 days off.  That doesn’t even begin to be realistic baseball. It means teams can turn to only three pitchers and give them plenty of rest.  But it isn't the way baseball really works. If a team tried that in the regular season, the three starters would be on the disabled list by May 15—35 games into the season.

At one point, the Royals had 5 consecutive days off, and the Giants had 4.  This never happens in the regular season.  Even the All-Star break is only three days.  The only time there’s anything beyond a one-day break is when there’s a rainout.

What this means is that neither team used the team that actually got them to the playoffs.  (The NFL, NBA and NHL teams ALL used the very same teams that got them to the playoffs.) 

Even more unrealistic is when baseball teams sometimes essentially turn to a two-man pitching rotation in the playoffs—conceding the likelihood that some of their games are going to be lost—when their third-best pitcher has to face one of their opponents' aces. 

Imagine an NFL team using only one running back and three wide receivers, instead of rotating through their roster in the course of a playoff game—or using only 4 defensive backs and 4 linebackers, instead of rotating 8 or 9 DBs and 6 or 7 linebackers?  In hockey, would a team use only two or three of their forward lines?  Would an NBA team use only the starting five?  They would never make the post season if they tried to do that during the regular season.

But baseball does the equivalent of all that every fall.  No other sport drags its playoffs out in such a way as to completely change the basic dynamics of its game.

.

Why Does Baseball Do This?

MLB does this because the TV networks want to drag out the games so that they can try to have one game each day. This requires an unnecessary staggering of games, and creates the phenomenon of 15 off-days in a month.

What about travel days?

What about them?  During the regular season, baseball never takes "travel" days. A team may play in Chicago one day and in Miami the next, or in New York one day and Phoenix the very next day.  The “requirement” of a travel day during the playoffs is completely artificial—and strictly a phenomenon of television.

In years prior to TV, travel days were employed only when absolutely necessary. The famous "subway series" games were played on seven consecutive days.  Why?  Because realistically traversing the 17 miles from Brooklyn to the Bronx did not require a "travel day."  But today there is no question that MLB would put in an artificial travel day even if the games were played in the same stadium!

Prior to the power of television, even fairly long train trips didn't matter.  The 1948 World Series between the Cleveland Indians and the Boston Braves was played in six consecutive days, October 6 & 7 in Boston, October 8, 9 & 10 in Cleveland, and October 11 back in Boston.  They got on the trains at the conclusion of each home stand and played the next day in the other city. Simple as that. Just like they do today in the regular season.

This reflects actual baseball, the way the teams play day-in and day-out, and the kind of unique test that baseball presents to its athletes, its managers and management, and to its fans.

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas. 

Intelligent Political Discourse— for the Thoughtful New Mexican

The Equine Herpesvirus (EHV) which found its way into Sunland Park Racetrack (from a Florida horse we are told) has had a tremendously negative impact on New Mexico horsemen, but one entity that has continued making money is Sunland Park Racetrack & Casino, and the ownership and management of that track doesn't look so good right now.

Racing was suspended for five weeks beginning January 22, resuming February 26. During that time, New Mexico horsemen lost 19 days of racing, meaning 171 total races were lost. This is devastating to New Mexico horsemen because of the fact that funds are set aside for them to receive

Poor Management or Greedy Management? Track Owner does not look good.

Now comes to March 20th and we have reached no agreement on additional races per day...The result will be the loss of the ability to run 8 more races at the meet...

The Horsemen's Committee at Sunland Park have been negotiating in good faith since starting races again on February 26th trying to recover the races we deserve for our owners, breeders, jockeys, and grooms who all participate in the purse money if we run for it...In the event we are forced to redistribute the purses at the end of the meet the jockey does not get paid, the breeder does not get paid, nor does the trainer or groom receive customary tip from the trainer and owner...No winners relates to no 10%'s...

Jockeys, trainers, breeders, owners, all have been adversely affected by the EHV1 virus outbreak...

With the ability to race, all participants will share in the purse money...

Certainly it is apparent after having lost the 19 days, we the Horsemen's in negotiating with the race track are only trying to recover as much of the purse money lost during down racing time but gained during consistent gaming...

Through negotiation with Sunland Park Management and help from the State Racing Commission, we have regained 72 races of the 171 lost, now the negotiation is trying as best we can to recover as many of the lost 99 races...

It seems only right and fitting the Horsemen's have an opportunity to regain their fair share...

This letter is respectfully written on behalf of the Horsemen...Awareness of the facts are critical in what short days are left of the meet to recoup hard felt looses...

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

We still believe Republicans will win senate seats in Arizona, Montana, 

                                  Total           Per Capita

Alaska             $ 66.3 billion         $ 89,959.29

Texas               $ 44.0 billion         $  1,533.10

New Mexico    $ 17.0 billion          $  8,095.24

State Senator Cliff Pirtle (R-Roswell) recently made his planned retirement decision public, announcing last Friday that he will not seek re-election for District 32 next year.

Even prior to Pirtle's announcement, we had already heard a lot of noise about State Representative Candy Spence Ezzell's plans to run for the seat. "She's telling everyone she's running," at least a half dozen people told us over the past two weeks. So, naturally, we looked at the new map for Senate Districdt 33, and voila! — she doesn't live in the district. She lives in Senator Bill Burt's District 33.

Comes now former Senator Tim Jennings, the newly elected Mayor of Roswell, telling Santa Fe New Mexican Democrat columnist Milan Simonich (known affectionately as Slobodan Milosevich by Republicans who've read dozens of his biased and often-ridiculous columns):

I'm looking at running again. The Senate was a big part of my life, and I still miss it."

Well, that's fine, but guess what? He doesn't live in the district. He lives in Senator Stuart Ingle's district.

Of course Jennings has already made one fake move—he didn't live in Roswell either when he decided to run for mayor. So he up an bought a property on North Pennsylvania, a good long ways north of Senator Pirtle's northern boundary. But hey, what's another house purchase?

After all, if Ezzell decides to run she'll have to jump through the same hoops.

Why doesn't anyone ever check these things?

Intelligent Political Discourse - for the Thoughtful New Mexican

All Posts

SEARCH THIS BLOG >>

See archives
 

New Mexico Political Journal Received the following News Release from the Office of State Senator Cliff Pirtle, R-Roswell:

Senator Cliff Pirtle Makes Retirement Plan Public

ROSWELL — Senator Cliff Pirtle made it official today that he will not seek another term in the state senate. He has released the following statement:

“Over the past year I have told a number of people, including close friends and family, that 2020 was my last campaign and that this would be my last term. I am now making that decision public. 

“Redistricting had a very big impact on Senate District 32, dropping Otero County, and greatly increasing the role of Chaves County, with a smaller portion remaining in north Eddy County. The district is now much more oriented on the City of Roswell, reaching as far north as Country Club Road.  

“Only one legislator lives in the new district, State Representative Jimmy Mason of Artesia. However, with most of the district being in Chaves County I know there are many others—both private citizens as well as elected officials—who will want to study and evaluate the new map. I want to ensure that they have time to do that. (Representative Nibert lives in District 27 and Representative Ezzell lives in District 33.) 

“Candidates for the 2024 election begin gathering petition signatures just five months from now, and I want to let everyoneknow—well in advance—of my decision to leave office at the end of this term. It’s in the best interest of our communities that everyone who might be interested in representing us can have as much time as possible to consider doing so.

“Over the past eleven years I have done my best to provide a voice—and vote—for the kind of common-sense conservatism that reflects the political philosophy of southeastern New Mexico. 

“I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to have served the people and the interests of our communities, and I have very much appreciated the prayers and support that have sustained me throughout my time in public office.”

###

Email us at: editor@newmexicopoliticaljournal.com — with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

Intelligent Political Discourse—for the Thoughtful New Mexican

On March 3, the New Mexico House of Representatives passed, by a vote of 47-20, a bill the Democrats named the “New Mexico Human Rights Act.” (Titles are frequently used to completely and utterly misrepresent the content of a bill. In this case, the Democrats are saying that men in women's locker rooms and men competing against women are both "human rights." No actual scholar would support either assertion.)

House Bill 207 is another step in bringing the full-blown Woke Agenda to New Mexico. It allows biological boys/young men to compete against girls/women in middle school, high school, and college sports. And of course it provides for biological males to be present in all bathroom/locker room settings with biological females.

Most voters—regardless of party—disagree with this idea. And, significantly for elected officials, it is one of the defining contrasts between the Republican Party/conservatives on the one hand and the modern Democratic Party/American Left on the other.

All across the country, Democrats are pushing for and enacting laws and policies that force women and young girls to share locker rooms, showers, restrooms, and similar private facilities with grown men and teenage boys.

Republicans believe that these policies violate the privacy and dignity of women and girls and that they are especially harmful to girls and women who have experienced sexual abuse and who may experience trauma when forced to be present with a member of the opposite sex in this setting.

THE CURRENT LAW is ON THE REPUBLICANS' SIDE

Federal law under Title IX specifically allows schools to "provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex." In addition, when Title IX was being debated by Congress, the sponsor explicitly rejected the idea that it would allow men into women’s dorms and locker rooms—a conclusion similarly reached by every court in the land, except very recently, when encountering some relatively recent appointees of Obama or Biden.

Furthermore, no school has ever lost funding on this basis in the nearly 51 years since Title IX became law. It is clear that Title IX does not require schools to open up locker rooms, showers, and restrooms to members of the opposite sex.

PUZZLING REACTION of FOUR REPUBLICAN STATE REPRESENTATIVES

All across the nation young women—and their parents, grandparents, and loved ones—are fighting to allow their young daughters compete with other girls and young women in both high school and collegiate sports. Some swimmers and track and field athletes are taking courageous stands making the point that there are biological differences between the sexes.

From the conservatives' point of view, this is a matter of hard science. It is real. A man cannot become a woman. It does not matter what kind of surgery is performed. Men cannot have babies. No matter what kind of surgery is performed.

Yet four New Mexico State Representatives—who are all registered Republicans and who ran as Republicans—voted FOR this bill.

We reached out over and over again to all four of these Republicans: former Minority Whip Jason Harper of Rio Rancho, Joshua Hernandez, also of Rio Rancho, Gail Armstrong of Magdalena, and Tanya Mirabal Moya of Los Lunas. None of them would respond to our simple inquiry—which was nothing more than a polite request for the "rationale" for their vote.

Since we could not get any answer from these legislators, we asked around for opinions or guesses. The word we got back was that "Harper is focused solely on his tax plans, and has no explanation"; Hernandez "wants desperately to be liked by everyone"; Gail Armstrong "didn't understand the bill"; and Mirabal Moya made statements about being "a teacher in a school where all of these [Woke] ideas are already policy..." and "her district has changed."

None of these responses—provided they are the actual positions of these officials—makes any sense at all.

Harper should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time—meaning it doesn't really matter if he has other bills, he can respond to each issue that comes up.

Hernandez is not going to make Democrats "like him more," regardless of his throwaway votes here and there.

Armstrong, after six years in office, has no real excuse for "not understanding the bill."

And Mirabal Moya does not have a "Democrat district--both she and Mark Ronchetti carried the district by about 15 points. (If the district were actually "Woke" that would not happen.) We have not reached out to the school districts in question, so we cannot speak to the notion that the Los Lunas or Belen school districts are already "Woke." We are, however, dubious.

REPUBLICAN VOTERS HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO ADDRESS THESE MATTERS

We are not advocating any approach to these representatives relationship with their constituents. That is up to their constituents. However, we would not be surprised to see one or more conservative Republicans decide that their constituency (all four districts are strongly conservative) is not being properly represented. That could mean a Republican primary challenge, with filing taking place only a year from now.

Should that happen, a challenger could make the case that while the hard-Left Woke Democrats are hanging together and pushing their agenda, Republicans should be just as bold in rejecting the non-scientific, aggressively anti-female policies that many average Americans regard as not only ridiculous, but truly harmful to society.

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

Intelligent Political Discourse—for the Thoughtful New Mexican

Republicans Should be Poised to Capture the New Mexico State House

With so many indicators of the public mood working against the Democrats and in favor of Republicans, the Republican Party of New Mexico should be on the verge of recapturing the state House of Representatives for the first time since 2014.

While Democrats worked hard last December to redistrict all three US House seats in such a way as to favor the Democrats (although we believe Yvette Herrell will retain her seat) they did leave 12 Democrat-held state house seats vulnerable to Republican takeover. Unfortunately, the RPNM failed to recruit anyone in House District 4, currently held by Democrat Anthony Allison. However, they did find candidates in the other 11 districts.

The Monkey Wrench for 2022

For the Republicans, the biggest question will be how New Mexico voters factor in the issue of abortion. The Democrats quite clearly see it as the decisive issue—even though New Mexico arguably has the most radical law in the world—currently, anyone can get an abortion at any time right up through the moment of child birth.

Trump is not the Focal Point by Which to Assess Competitiveness

The Democrats controlling the redistricting process tended to measure their new districts based on how Trump had done within their boundaries, and to some extent based on a rolling average over a period of the past 8 years.

However, in New Mexico—in both 2016 and 2020—Trump ran well behind the entire Republican ticket all the way up and down the ballots. In 2020, five state representative candidates carried their districts while Trump was losing them. (They were Bill Rehm, Rebecca Dow, Luis Terrazas, Jane Powdrell-Culbert, and Jason Harper.)

Democrats obviously tried to make a number of districts—including those five—more Democrat. However, they used data that were way too old, and they also used Trump as a measuring stick.

Trying to Find the Most Accurate Gauge

In our view, a better formula would have focused on deep-down-ballot races where voters had never heard of the candidates. We looked at two of those races: Court of Appeals Positions 1 and 3.

In 2020, the two unsuccessful Republican candidates were Barbara Johnson and Thomas Montoya (who are both running again this year). For every 10,000 votes cast, these two candidates each averaged 668 more votes than Trump received. 

More important, within the 12 districts which Democrats left vulnerable, they averaged 886 votes more than Trump, per 10,000 votes cast.

That is a huge margin.

This may or may not work as a predictive formula. This year presents a number of special problems/dilemmas for which no one knows the reaction.

In any case, in any district, whether for the legislature, for a judgeship, or for county commissioner, if candidates for Court of Appeals got as much as 47% of the vote in a given district—when no one knew who any of those candidates were—then local candidates within those districts, whether for the legislature, for judge, or for county office should be able to carry such a district.

Below are districts which show the candidates and the average 2020 votes for Court of Appeals, as well as the percentage for Trump. As you can see, in HD 4, for each 10,000 votes cast, the CofA candidates each got about 1,310 more votes than Trump received. 

Here are the 12* House Districts (HD) that should be captured Tuesday, November 8th 

(Of course this presumes that the Republican Party leadership has provided the necessary fundraising, administrative support, and consulting to develop the right messaging for each contest and that they have ensured that those messages have been competently communicated to the voters via mail, radio, social media, TV (where possible) and through personal contact. (*Only 11 were challenged by the GOP.)

*Retiring. Open Seat.

Republican Incumbents Targeted in Redistricting

While Democrats made an effort to weaken these five Republican incumbents, their efforts should prove unsuccessful. The GOP incumbents and nominees should be able to withstand the challenges, at least in 2022.

These are the 5 Republican Seats that were Aggressively Redistricted by the Democrat Legislature, in an effort to defeat them or make them highly vulnerable

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

Intelligent Political Discourse—for the Thoughtful New Mexican

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

With the pending retirement of Supreme Court Justice Richard C. Bosson, a nominating commission is set to meet this coming Monday to interview eight lawyers who have applied for the vacated position.

The Role of the Nominating Commission is Misrepresented to New Mexico Voters

Some headlines around the state feature the following wording:

"Nominating commission to narrow field of high court hopefuls " [Emphasis added by NMPJ]

And the following line appears in the Santa Fe New Mexican:

"The panel will then narrow the field of applicants and submit a list of finalists for consideration by Gov. Susana Martinez..." [Emphasis added by NMPJ]

But is that true? Is that the role of the commission? To "narrow" the field?

Well, no, not really. The law doesn't authorize them to do that. And it certainly doesn't require such an action.

Abuse of Authority

It is definitely true that nominating commissions through the years have arrogated powers to themselves to be the "deciders" of who gets to be on the court. In some instances they have so badly abused their role as to effectively rule that former members of the Supreme Court were not "qualified" to be appointed to the district court.

They did this by carefully voting to leave a former Supreme Court justice off a list sent to the governor of qualified applicants for district judge. After all, this is New Mexico, so ignoring the law, especially by judges, can be more or less routine.

The New Mexico Constitution

The nominating commission is authorized by Article VI, Section 35 of the state constitution. That section contains more than 600 words, but the key phrase reads:

"...the commission shall meet...and...submit to the governor the names of persons qualified for the judicial office and recommended for appointment to that office by a majority of the commission." [emphasis added by NMPJ]

The only actual authorization granted to the commission is to determine if each of the eight applicants is "qualified."

Commission is not "Non-Partisan" — As Described in Newspaper Coverage

Another line in a story in the Santa Fe New Mexican says:

"The nonpartisan commission is chaired by University of New Mexico School of Law Dean Alfred Mathewson, who serves as a nonvoting member except in the case of a tie." [Emphasis added by NMPJ]

This is simply not accurate. There is nothing "nonpartisan" about New Mexico judicial nominating commissions. In fact, the state constitution specifically requires that Democrats and Republicans be identified on the commission, and that one party may not have more members than the other: 

"...each of the two largest major political parties, as defined by the Election Code, shall be equally represented on the commission."

This doesn't mean there will be 8 Democrats and 8 Republicans on a commission, or 6 and 6, but that whatever number one party has, the other must have the same—at least nominally*.

(*"Nominally," because the task of ensuring both major parties are equally represented is left to the "state bar and judges on the committee." In practice, the state bar has relatively few Republicans; the same goes for judges. In years past, this has often meant that those selecting additional "Republicans" to fill out the commissions have ended up selecting extremely "obscure" members of the GOP, whose names have been entirely unknown or unheard of in Republican circles. Those "fill-out" members, selected by the bar association, have—not unpredictably—ended up voting with the Democrats on their commissions. There is some indication that the bar may have become more sensitive to charges of impropriety in recent years, and its "Republican" appointees may have more legitimacy than in the past.)

The history of New Mexico judicial nominating commissions—which were adopted by the voters in November 1988—far from being free of partisanship, or based strictly on "merit," is one of overt partisan wrangling and manipulation.

"Rules" Adopted

We notice on the UNM School of Law website that someone has adopted "Rules Governing Judicial Nominating Commissions."  

We don't know where the rules come from, or when they were adopted. There is no reference number for the rules, and they don't appear in the New Mexico Administrative Code. We certainly are not saying that saying they were not properly adopted, it's just at this point we haven't been able to determine their source or authority. "Rules" are not mentioned in the constitutional amendment adopted by the voters November 8, 1988.

Here are some of the provisions of the "Rules" which differ from the constitutional amendment itself:

Solicitation, Recruitment of Applicants

Constitution:  "The commission shall actively solicit, accept and evaluate applications..." 

NOTE:  This is fairly routine and standard language meaning that the vacancy in question needs to be made public and applications invited.

"Rules":  "The chair and the commissioners to actively solicit applicants for the position in the following ways:  Notify the Bar Commissioners who represent lawyers in the Judicial District, asking them to suggest candidates and encouraging them to personally contact qualified attorneys to ask them to apply...and place telephone calls to encourage them to apply."

Added to these "Rules" are these seemingly improbable disclaimers:

"When actively seeking qualified applicants, commissioners shall inform the prospective applicant that being approached by a commissioner does not guarantee a nomination. Each applicant, whether actively recruited or independently seeking a nomination, will be subject to the same investigative and interview procedures. It is important for recruited applicants to realize that they will not be given special consideration simply because the commission is inviting their applications." 

Closed Session

Constitution:  The Constitution has no provision for a closed session, or any secret proceeding.

"Rules":  "...the commission may go into closed session to discuss the applicants' qualifications and to evaluate them..." 

Secrecy of Proceedings

Constitution:  The Constitution has no provision for proceedings that produce no record of deliberations, debate or votes preserved for the public.

"Rules":  "The discussion during closed session shall be confidential. The extent of confidentiality shall be determined by the commission, but, in any event, shall extend to prohibit express or implied attribution of comments or opinions to individual commissioners. As part of the discussion of the applicants, straw votes, non-binding and by secret ballot, shall be taken to determine support for particular applicants."

Duties of Commission

Constitution:  The Constitution specifies that the commission is to submit to the governor the names of persons qualified for the judicial office and recommended for appointment..."

"Rules":  "In recognition of the fact that the New Mexico Constitution vests the Governor with the authority to appoint judges and that the commission does not select the judges, the commission should strive to recommend a list of two or more names for each position to the Governor.

Judicial Nomination Commissions More Partisan than Straightforward Appointments

Just as with the national government, it is probably more democratic to allow the elected executive to appoint judges according to his or her own criteria. President Obama does not have to wend his way through a "nominating commission."

Instead his "commission" is his own administration and White House advisors and researchers, sifting through records of jurists around the country, trying to match those who support his form of activism. Like it or not, he was elected, and that is one of the consequences, or rewards, that accrues as a result of an election.

Allowing governors, whether Bill Richardson or Susana Martinez, the same prerogative, is probably the best polity. In any case, it is certainly better than using the so-called nominating commissions.

New Mexico's 27 year-old system is generally classified under the rubric of the "Missouri Plan," so named for the state which first instituted a similar proceeding for appointing judges. 

But history has shown, unfortunately, that there is absolutely no more merit in this approach than in straightforward, open government appointments.

Visible Consequences

Rule by Elites—Lawyers Selecting Lawyer Buddies

Under New Mexico's current law, the power to select judges is placed in a small, unelected, unaccountable commission, comprised of elites, either from the legal community, or activist politicians, or both. In fact, the main force empowered in New Mexico—effectively given decisive control in fact—is the New Mexico Bar Association. 

Consequences for the Law Itself

So it's no wonder the Supreme Court, and courts in general over the past 30 years, have openly done the bidding of the Trial Lawyers Association, the plaintiffs' bar.  In so doing they have expanded almost beyond credulity the extent to which matters may be opened up to lawsuit, stretched the limits of the concept of liability, and the largess of the tort system.  

They have done damage to the definition of recovery and the entire civil system, increasing costs in every facet of New Mexico —whether people realize it or not—and have made the courts ever most costly and therefore less accessible to the average person than ever before.

The Imposition of Secrecy—the Closing of Government

As we have pointed out, these judges and their bar association colleagues operate in secret with no public accountability.

What has happened, historically (it may be better now) in New Mexico, is that a commission usually ends up with about 5 or 6 known or identifiable Republicans, about 7 or 8 known or identifiable Democrats and between 2 and 4 obscure members, usually nominally Republican or "independent" but who are well-known to some members of the Democratic lawyer group.

This has resulted in a deeply politicized process. With a built-in majority focused on outcomes, not process or merit, the result has been backroom-dealing, hidden from public view, that has ended up stocking the state courts with garden variety trial lawyers, biased in favor of "results-oriented" judging rather than actual legal proceedings. 

As a result, there aren't that many judges in the state who instinctively ask the question; "What does the law say?"

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

Democrat newcomer Melanie Stansbury, a symbol of the new out-of-state Anglo dominance of the Democratic Party of New Mexico, swept to an easy victory in yesterday's special election in Congressional District 1. We expected her to win, after all the Democrats have a big edge in the district, she had an enormous fundraising advantage and much more dark money as well.

What was somewhat unexpected was the margin. Just seven months ago, Congresswoman Deb Haaland had defeated Republican Michelle Garcia Holmes 58-42. A couple of factors led us to expect a somewhat closer margin in the special election.

First of all, the Democrats control the White House—that usually militates in favor of the party out of power. Second, the turnout was, as is always the case in a special election, very low—another factor that works in favor of the GOP. Third, New Mexico isn't doing that well economically, as the policies of both Biden and Governor Grisham continue to adversely impact New Mexicans' lives.

While it is true that last Friday's absentee and early voting totals showed a huge advantage for the Democrats, 42,325 to 19,869 (with 8,776 independents and others), that kind of advantage is not that unusual, and was similar to 2020.

All things considered, we were expecting something closer to a 55-45 result. We certainly weren't expecting the outcome to be worse than 2020. But it was. This morning's totals show Stansbury with 60.33% and Republican Mark Moores with 35.66%.

That's a winning margin of 24.67%, just over 50% higher than Haaland's 16.38% margin just seven months ago.

What Happened?

The Republicans nominated their best candidate. Moores was easily the best choice available, but he was vastly outspent, and dark money from the usual national Leftist actors flooded the state.

But the complaint we heard most loudly from Republicans, both last night and in the days leading up to election day, was "Where is the state party?" "What exactly is Steve Pearce doing?"

As the results poured in last night the complaints got even more vociferous.

Last month we reported the news (first given to us by a Republican state senator) that Pearce is calling around the state to drum up support for his own run for governor next year—it would be his fourth try for statewide office.

Last evening, a former Republican state lawmaker told us that:

"Pearce isn't interested in helping anyone other than Steve Pearce. The only money he's interested in raising for the state party is whatever he can direct to his own race."

We've heard many similar comments.

The consensus bottom line from New Mexico Repubicans appears to be that Mark Moores was a competent, articulate candidate who was left hung out to dry by the Republican Party of New Mexico—a party that is controlled by Steve Pearce and his sycophants, and that is interested only in the personal goals of Steve Pearce.

This is, perhaps, not an opinion held by every single Republican, and certainly not by those who are still disciples of Pearce, but it certainly reflects the predominant opinion held by Republicans.

One former Republican officer who has moved out of state told us last night:

"How many losses will NM Republican insiders stomach before they demand a change in party leadership? There is no bottom for this group of knuckleheads. And it's only going to get worse with redistricting on the horizon."

He was of course referring to the Pearce insiders who became extremely jealous of the electoral success of former Governor Susana Martinez and who broke ranks with her after she had led the charge — by raising and spending some $3 million — to capture the state House of Representatives in 2014.

The dissident group, which, as we have reported before, included Pearce, John Billingsley, Harvey Yates, Mark Murphy, Anissa Galassini Ford Tinnin and others, quickly made a shambles of Martinez's monumental achievements, losing the House back immediately and compounding their blunders by driving the numbers down. They lost 14 seats in just two cycles. The former operative went on:

"It is amazing to see what the anti-Susana group has done. They ruined it all for petty shit. They have truly burned it to the ground. And they'll never pay a price for it."

That is true. The culprits will not pay the price. Instead, it is New Mexicans who are suffering as they are forced to watch, helplessly, as the "progressive" policies are forced on them. No, Pearce and the gang will not pay the price. But their victims will pay the price for years to come. 

Results Table

Unofficial results, thus far, are shown below. As you can see, Moores ran behind the 2020 Republican pace in all five counties. As an example, he should have carried Torrance County 2 to 1, but won by only a 54-33 margin. Similar results are visible everywhere else. In 2020, the GOP carried the Valencia County portion with 53% of the vote—yesterday, Moores did manage to win the county, but with less than a majority.

About two weeks ago, one former high-ranking Republican official expressed his fairly severe annoyance with Aubrey Dunn's constant party-switching and publicity-hound shenanigans, telling us:

"I certainly hope Dunn does very poorly, and I doubt he'll get even five percent of the vote."

We actually believed the gentleman would be wrong and that Dunn would get about 5%. But the Republican was correct—Dunn got only 2.68% of the vote. Apparently, most New Mexicans are tired of Dunn's shenanigans as well. Dog tired.

TV talking head pundits tell lies all the time, most of the time with little or no pushback from hosts or other talking heads. In that regard, KNME’s New Mexico in Focus is little different from most CNN, MSNBC, or other cable news shows.

We don’t talk much about New Mexico in Focus, mainly because—as is the case with most PBS affiliates—no one is watching, so little harm is done either way. We mean no disrespect to Channel 5—they have the same low viewership as other public TV stations. They work hard at producing a quality show. Low viewership is just the way it is with public TV.

Now Martha Burk is probably the most consistently egregious liar in the show’s lineup, but this past May 14 the erstwhile "contributor" let fly with a genuine whopper. Here’s what she had to say during one of her trademark rants:

“By the way, I did the math once again, and if the minimum wage had kep [sic] up with inflation since the last minimum [sic] was passed in the 1980s, you know what it would be today? $44 an hour. “

No, she didn't. (Or if she did, her "math" was something well below Pre-K standards.)

The host, Gene Grant, responded with his normal “wow!” This is unfortunate, but it’s the consistent response from the affable Grant, who appears to be bowled over with amazement at virtually every single comment from a left-wing commentator—not only taking them as gospel, but expressing genuine gratitude for what he considers to be uniformly brilliant insights.

Grant does occasionally push back on those he considers right-of-center, but most of the time, pre-COVID at least, the panel has been either 4 to 1 or 5 to 0 left-of-center. (And quite a number of those who are there occasionally to supposedly provide a "conservative" perspective are far from that.) But we digress.

We are not Asking People to be "Mathematicians," But Rather Just to Think for a Moment

Now, keep in mind that the work year is 2,080 hours. So, if you do the math, Burk is alleging that the minimum wage—if only it had kept up with the Reagan era standard—would result in an annual wage of $91,520. Seems reasonable, right?

Now, we’re not asking everyone to multiply by 2,080 immediately, but they could multiply by 1,000 or 2,000 and have a general sense that the lady is suggesting that the annual minimum salary would be, say, $88,000. You don’t have to be a math “wizard” to do that in your head.

But again, no pushback from the host. And later in the same segment, pundit Laura Sanchez, a practicing attorney, said, “Martha has a point.” No, Martha doesn't have a point. Or rather, she may have one, but it’s totally fake, as are most of her “points.”

Burk calls herself both a "Political Psychologist" and a "Women's Issues Expert." Pretty proud titles, albeit self-annointed ones. But one thing she is not is a graduate of an 8th Grade Math course.

The “1980s” Were Not the Last Time “the minimum” was Passed

The most recent change to the minimum wage was in 2009, when it reached its current level of $7.25. But changes were also made in 2008, 2007, 1997, 1996, 1991, and 1990—all of which Martha apparently overlooked when she did her “research” and “did the math once again.”

Martha, do the show and its numerous viewers a favor: Stop doing the math.

The last adjustment to the minimum wage that occurred “in the 1980s” was the rise to $3.35 an hour in 1981. That would be equivalent to $9.84 an hour today. Not $44.00.

What Really IS True About the Minimum Wage and Current Value?

For those of you interested in something factual (the opposite of a Martha-ism) here is a timeline chart with the minimum wage changes through the years and their current values in 2021.

The original minimum wage, put into effect on June 25, 1938 was 25¢ an hour. That would be the equivalent of $4.73 today. The peak apparently occurred in 1968, when that year’s $1.60/hour would be worth $12.28 in today’s money. But at no time did anything ever approach “forty-four dollars an hour.”

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

Intelligent Political Discourse—for the Thoughtful New Mexican

TV talking head pundits tell lies all the time, most of the time with little or no pushback from hosts or other talking heads. In that regard, KNME’s New Mexico in Focus is little different from most CNN, MSNBC, or other cable news shows.

We don’t talk much about New Mexico in Focus, mainly because—as is the case with most PBS affiliates—no one is watching, so little harm is done either way. We mean no disrespect to Channel 5—they have the same low viewership of other public TV stations. They work hard at producing a quality show. Low viewership is just the way it is with public TV.

Now Martha Burk is probably the most consistently egregious liar in the show’s lineup, but this past May 14 the erstwhile contributor let fly with a genuine whopper. Here’s what she had to say during one of her trademark rants:

“By the way, I did the math once again, and if the minimum wage had kep (sic) up with inflation since the last minimum was passed in the 1980s, you know what it would be today? $44 an hour. “

No, she didn't. (Or if she did, her "math" was something well below Pre-K standards.)

The host, Gene Grant, responded with his normal “wow!” This in unfortunate, but it’s the consistent response from the affable Grant, who appears to be bowled over with amazement at virtually every single comment from a left-wing commentator—not only taking them as gospel, but expressing genuine gratitude for what he considers to be uniformly brilliant insights.

Grant does occasionally push back on those he considers right-of-center, but most of the time, pre-COVID at least, the panel was either 4 to 1 or 5 to 0 left-of-center. (And quite a number of those who are there occasionally to supposedly provide a "conservative" perspective are far from that.) But we digress.

We are not Asking People to be "Mathematicians," But Rather Just to Think for a Moment

Now, keep in mind that the work year is 2,080 hours. So, if you do the math, Burk is alleging that the minimum wage—if only it had kept up with the Reagan era standard—would be $91,520.

Now, we’re not asking everyone to multiply by 2,080 immediately, but they could multiply by 1,000 or 2,000 and have a general sense that the lady is suggesting that the annual minimum salary would be, say, $88,000. You don’t have to be a math “wizard” to do that in your head.

But again, no pushback from the host. And later in the same segment, pundit Laura Sanchez, a practicing attorney, said, “Martha has a point.” No. She doesn’t. Or rather, she may have one, but it’s totally fake, as are most of her “points.”

Burk calls herself both a "Political Psychologist" and a "Women's Issues Expert." Pretty proud titles, albeit self-annointed ones. But one thing she is not is a graduate of an 8th Grade Math course.

The “1980s” Were Not the Last Time “the minimum” was Passed

The most recent change to the minimum wage was in 2009, when it reached its current level of $7.25. But changes were also made in 2008, 2007, 1997, 1996, 1991, and 1990—all of which Martha apparently overlooked when she did her “research” and “did the math once again.”

Martha, do the show and its numerous viewers a favor: Stop doing the math.

The last adjustment to the minimum wage that occurred “in the 1980s” was the rise to $3.35 an hour in 1981. That would be equivalent to $9.84 an hour. Not $44.00.

What Really IS True About the Minimum Wage and Current Value?

For those of you interested in something factual (the opposite of a Martha-ism) here is a timeline chart with the minimum wage changes through the years and their current values in 2021.

The original minimum wage, put into effect on June 25, 1938 was 25¢ an hour. That would be the equivalent of $4.73 today. The peak apparently occurred in 1968, when that year’s $1.60/hour would be worth $12.28 in today’s money. But at no time did anything ever approach “forty-four dollars and hour.”

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

In a representative democracy—a republican form of government—elections are everything. The people must trust their electoral systems, otherwise there will be a spirit of chaos operating on one, two, or all sides of the electorate.

While there are in America today exaggerated claims of 1) election results infallibility on one side—the idea that we have a structurally sound system and that everything is just fine—and 2) massive fraud everywhere on the other side, neither claim is true.

What is True? We Lack Structural Integrity throughout the Country's Numerous Elections Systems

One thing that is true is that there are enormous gaps in the structural integrity of our elections systems. Those gaps will continue to exist until each state places in statute a series of checks and balances. Among those steps, the following are absolute requirements:

1) The only addresses that can be recipients of ballots are those addresses from which a voter actually requests a ballot;

Every entity in America—whether it is a Secretary of State or a County Clerk's office—that mails ballots out to locations or addresses, without having received a request for that ballot, is merely mailing blind. That's why people see piles of ballots at post office trash cans, in dormitories, retirement villages, assisted living facilities, nursing homes, and all kinds of group quarters.

All such ballots represent the seed money, the seed capital, from which all mischief, perceived mischief, and—most important—permanent doubt will inevitably grow.

2) The only in-person voter who can receive a ballot is one whose eligibility can be verified;

This is nothing more than common sense. You cannot withdraw money from your own bank account without identifiying yourself. Hell, you cannot even extract information from hundreds of almost meaningless online accounts you may have without a secure means of identifying yourself.

People will argue, "Yeah, but voting is a sacred right" (or somesuch formulation), and the answer is "EXACTLY, with regard to a functioning representative democracy, voting is far more important than these other things. That's why security is even more important for voting."

3) All requests for ballots must be validated by means of some form of verifiable link between the request and requester;

There must be some form of uniform, verifiable, data-related system which can be trusted to validate requests for ballots. New Mexico's online requirement to provide a driver's license number, along with the "last four" of one's social security number, combined with verification of address, and an oath, are all good examples of this approach.

4) Voter ID (which is consistently supported by 75% of voters in all polls, with strong majorities from all parties) must be a part of the system;

Such an overwhelming majority of the American people support positive photo ID because it is a daily—often multiple times daily—occurrence in all of our lives. The arguments against it are hollow and require the listeners to be either:

        a) willing to deny the reality of their own lives' experiences constantly; or

        b) remarkably stupid—believing they are fooling their fellow Americans by claiming that proof of identity is impossible to possess; or

        c) simply willing to lie for a perceived partisan "cause."

It is remarkable that there are 196 countries in the world, and the United States is the only one in which people can vote without being required to identify themselves. This shows the remarkable effectiveness of both illogical propaganda and the Democratic Party's use of that propaganda.

5) Returned ballots must have a system of validation, confirming the voter’s address, his or her last 4, and a signature that is verifiable.

The same verification process used on the requesting end must again be applied on the receiving end when the requested ballot has been returned. The process cannot be allowed to be hijacked.

Legitimacy

In political science, governmental legitimacy is based on the popular acceptance of, and recognition by, a governed people or society that the authority of the governing regime rests that very authority on a rational and legal system of institutional procedure.

In that system of institutional procedure, legislative bodies establish laws that outline logical means of protecting and preserving the public interest, and executive authorities enforce those laws.

When those procedures are properly followed, the governed people will then view their laws—in effect, their protections against illegitimate government—as right and proper.

In a representative democracy, the very foundation of legitimacy (on which all acceptable/accountable governance rests) is the election process.

In a society that depends on elections, as long as any segment of that society—be it Left, or right, or middle—does not have trust in the counting of votes, that society is laying the groundwork for perpetual instability and divisiveness.

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

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

If the Republican Party is to have success in the near term, it must do several things. One of them is to ensure that no one from either extreme of the party plays a significant role, especially not a leadership role, or any role in formulating or articulating public policy.

The reason for that is that the Republican Party itself must be totally united. Going forward, they have to have buy-in from Republican rank and file voters at a level of near 95% in favor of the party platform and its candidates. Having someone at one of the extremes will cause internal party support to fall (perhaps plummet) to a losing level.

What is a losing level?

Because the Republican Party is smaller than the Democratic Party, and possibly smaller than independents, a losing level in one in which fewer than 90% of Republicans are in agreement with each other.

After all, in 2020 Trump held that floor, with 94% of Republicans voting for him, and yet he still lost the election. So, it is imperative that they never have a candidate who cannot retain at least 90% of internal party support.

(Democrats can probably fall to the low 80s in their internal support and still be competitive. The GOP simply cannot do that.)

What Does this Mean?  It Means NO to Q-Anon and NO to Never-Trumpers

The Republican Party simply cannot have leaders who believe in wild conspiracy theories about forest fires in the west, or pizza parlors swarming with child abusers, or any of scores of other things alleged by people like Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene or talk show host Alex Jones and others.

Support for the belief in those kinds of notions are not only killers in general elections, they drop intraparty support down to the 50s.

At the same time, anyone who is now or ever was a “Never-Trumper” is a non-starter as a future leader of the Republican Party. After all, the Never-Trumpers supported Biden—and supporting Biden means:

• open borders with unfettered, advertised, and promoted illegal immigration.

• killing the Keystone Pipeline

• encouraging minors to undergo sex-change operations

• destroying girls’ high school sports, women’s athletics

• supporting a stupid policy regarding Iran’s nuclear program

• allowing rich European countries to not pay their own way in national defense

• supporting statehood for the District of Columbia

• opposing any form of elections integrity, providing all means for potential election fraud

Support for these kinds of policies is anathema to orthodox conservative Republicans and other common-sense voters

Liz Cheney is a Never-Trumper

So, the decision about her race with Elise Stefanik for House Conference Chair is a no-brainer. Republicans should not elect her any more than they should elect Marjorie Taylor Greene.

In addition to encouraging people to vote for Bidenism (which has turned out to be a lurch to the Far Left) one has to ask:

“Why is Cheney still talking about Trump?”

What is the point in May of 2021 of even talking about Trump? Just as a stand-alone event, talking about Trump right now shows very bad judgment. That whole thing is over. And it doesn’t help her party to continue to talk about it.

Yes, many Republicans already know that Trump is a jerk. They voted for him nonetheless because in the final analysis the future of the United States lies with the choices Americans make in the realm of public policy—not in whether any politician stands at the podium too long—or makes too many nonsensical asides, ad libs, and simply incomprehensible claims or assertions.

Just watch Joe Biden. He’s a trainwreck when it comes to the “personality” factor. But it is vitally important to note that it is NOT those traits which will wreck America. It is HIS POLICIES that will do so.

NEVER TRUMPERS WHO WILL DIVIDE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

It isn’t just Liz Cheney. Here are others who cannot be allowed to play a significant role in the party going forward. (Otherwise, they will fatally divide the conservative vote.)

Never-Trumpers

Senators (or former Senators) Mitt Romney and Jeff Flake;

Congressmen (or former Congressmen) Jim Kolbe, Jim Leach, John LeBoutillier, Frank LoBiondo, Susan Molinari, Connie Morell, and Justin Amash.

Former GOP National Chairman Michael Steele

Governors (and former Governors) John Kasich, Mark Sanford, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Larry Hogan, and Phil Scott.

Anti-Constitution Republicans

Additionally, as in the case of Cheney and Romney, the following Congressmen and Senators should not play a role. This is not because they are “Never-Trumpers,” but because they voted for an unlawful impeachment.

Regardless of how one views Trump’s role in the attack on the Capitol (and reasonable arguments can be made on both sides) it is plainly unconstitutional and unlawful to carry out an impeachment proceeding against a private citizen.

Republican leaders must—like Republican judges—understand how important it is to follow the Constitution and adhere to the rule of law.

Those other nine congressmen who voted to “impeach” are:

Tom Rice, Dan Newhouse, Adam Kinzinger, Anthony Gonzalez, Fred Upton, Jaime Herrera Beutler, Peter Meijer, Rep. John Katko, Rep. David Valadao.

The other six senators who voted to “convict” are:

Lisa Murkowski, Richard Burr, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, Ben Sasse, and Pat Toomey

Again, this is not about Trump, it is about the Constitution. We have never been afraid to discuss the dumb things that Trump says or does. It is just that we already have too many judges and politicians who violate the Constitution or believe it is only a set of suggestions.

Having Republicans do the same is simply inexcusable.

Finally, we are not saying that these people cannot participate in Republican functions or attend conventions—as the Democrats do in forbidding pro-life Democrats from being able to speak. We are simply saying that they should not have leadership roles in the party.

The country is too confused as it is. The GOP doesn’t need to send mixed messages.

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

The CD1 Democratic Nominee Working for TerraMar? Wow!

Melanie Stansbury, the Democrats’ nominee in the CD1 Special Election, released her Federal financial disclosures on February 21, 2021. (All federal candidates are required to list their source(s) of income for the prior year.) 

Melanie Stansbury claims to be a "scientist" any time her occupation is mentioned, but has been somewhat vague about what all that entails. The financial disclosure she produced revealed five consulting contracts:

• Wildlife Conservation Society—Bethesda, Maryland
• Thornburg Foundation—Santa Fe, New Mexico
• TerraMar—Woburn, Massachusetts
• Turner Foundation—(no location listed)
• University of New Mexico—Albuquerque, New Mexico

Ms. Stansbury in her federal form also discloses the location of these various companies:

The first glaring issue that arises from viewing Melanie Stansbury's employment history (which she signed and electronically verified) is the TerraMar Project which is located in Woburn, Massachusetts.

This raises a giant red flag. The TerraMar Project is a non-profit whose mission was saving the oceans. It was founded by the nefarious socialite and alleged child trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell who was also the organization's president.

Yes, that Ghislaine Maxwell who travelled hand in hand with the now deceased Jeffrey Epstein. Maxwell has been accused of acting as the convicted sexual predator’s accomplice, recruiting underage girls and abusing them alongside Epstein. Maxwell was recently arrested and indicted by the FBI. Maxwell who was arrested in July 2020 was charged with six felony counts related to the sexual abuse and trafficking of minors and lying to investigators.

Indictment

The Maxwell indictment states G.M. groomed minors for Epstein and it focuses on the years between 1994-1997.

The Ghislaine Maxwell indictment. Charges include:

1) Conspiracy to entice minors to engage in illegal sex acts

2) Conspiracy to transport minors to engage in illegal sex acts

3) Transportation of a minor to engage in illegal sex acts

4) Perjury

Most importantly, GM is accused of abusing minors in New York, Florida, New Mexico, and London.

Questions?

Why would "scientist" and Democrat politician Melanie Stansbury choose to have any association with the TerraMar Project in Woburn, Massachusetts which was founded by Ghislaine Maxwell in 2012 and linked to Jeffery Epstein and allegedly his child trafficking activities?

Without question, TerraMar was very well known on the global stage. In fact, Ms. Maxwell personally presented her ocean conservation program to the United Nations General Assembly.

"These high-profile events dovetailed with Maxwell’s and the Project’s high-profile partnerships and wealthy donors. The Project’s effort to hold the United Nations to sustainable promises made regarding the ocean were praised and supported by the Clinton Global Initiative."

Why would anyone with a resume like Melanie Stansbury who claims she could work just about anywhere, work for TerraMar and Ghislaine Maxwell?

Wouldn't a "scientist" recognize that any ties to anything affiliated with an organization under Ghislaine Maxwell’s brand have the potential to allow prospective voters to question Ms. Stansbury's judgment? And, more important, question her values and moral authority to hold public office?

It appears to us that many questions need to be asked as voters complete their vetting of all the CD1 nominees.

Anyone associated with carrying water for such diabolical figures as Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein needs to be closely scrutinized.

Can anyone imagine what the outcry would be if Republican CD1 candidate Mark Moores had worked for Maxwell/Epstein?

Be honest: You know good and well that it would be wall-to-wall for the next six weeks on every TV station in New Mexico, and it would be the subject of very grave coverage from all New Mexico newspapers as well as the very most serious kind of introspective editorials from the Santa Fe New Mexican. Every. Single. Day.

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

One year, three months, and 19 days ago, on Thursday, December 26, 2019, New Mexico Political Journal broke the Sexual Assault story regarding Governor Lujan Grisham and her former aide, James Hallinan. (See excerpt below.) We had noticed a tweet from Hallinan to which no one in the media anywhere was paying any attention. We did.

Only after our story ran, did the Albuquerque Journal decide to do a story. Then, the next day, the Santa Fe New Mexican followed suit. Some four days later, Albuquerque Democrat blogger Monahan reluctantly took notice.

The comically rogue party switcher and former campaign aide to Mayor Tim Keller and Udall, John Block—now a "Republican" poser— attacked our story, taking up for Grisham, calling the story illegitimate.

His sometime ally Eddy Aragon (they both have run the gamut from Republican bashers to claiming to be "conservatives"), the erstwhile semi-deranged radio station scam artist, joined him in viciously criticizing our story, hollering that "no police report" has been found—which was a detail that had not stopped him (or anyone else) from discussing the reports surrounding Justice Kavanaugh—and many others.

Here's what Aragon said 15 months ago:

“This is not a story”…“Sorry folks…I smell BS…PAY NO ATTENTION TO THIS!..."It has to be corroborated…” Has he gone to law enforcement? Does he have an attorney? “As much as I would like to cover this and wouldn’t mind this being true, he’s going to need a lawyer and a criminal report before his claim can be legitimized. There’s no one to corroborate his claims…If he actually contacts law enforcement then we can “play ball” folks! Let’s see what happens.

Again, this is NOT a courtesy that Aragon extended to Justice Kavanaugh or ANY Republican accused of wrongdoing. All those were discussed regardless of the existence of a police report.

Aragon, others, Now Lying About the Hallinan Case

We wouldn't be wasting time on Aragon if it weren't for the fact that he is now lying on his radio station, saying that he has "been on top of this story from the very beginning." His audience (which is quite tiny, perahps 150 or so) may be too clueless to realize that he is misrepresenting what he actually did on the story.

The Republican Party of New Mexico, led by Anisa Galassini Tinnin and Steve Pearce, also dismissed the story. Perhaps it was because we had called them out for the damage they have done to the Republican Party, in losing the state house and numerous other fiascos, but the reality is that they essentially defended Grisham just to be able to attack NMPJ.

Our Story was Not Only First, it was Also Accurate. Here's the First Part of Our Story from 2019:

            Thursday, December 26, 2019

Think for just a moment. If some prominent political operative came up on the internet with allegations of sexual assault against Susana Martinez (or any prominent* Republican) how long do you think it would be until there was wall-to-wall coverage of the story?

On every TV station in Albuquerque? On El Paso or Lubbock TV? On KKOB? On the front pages of the Albuquerque Journal? The Santa Fe New Mexican? The Las Cruces Sun-News?  On every tweet or blog posting by the Democrat Party spokesman—little Joey Monahan?

We can answer it for you: It would be non-stop! It would be bigger than the headlines on Pearl Harbor.

(Hell, it would be huge even if it was for running a red light or maybe even talking loud in a restaurant. But sexual assault? Holy moly! Heaven forbid! It would be beyond HUGE!)

We Contacted Hallinan's Lawyer Almost Immediately When the Story Broke

We later Corresponded with Hallinan's Attorney, Rachel Berlin Benjamin, who sent us the following email on January 16, 2020, during the time that major media organizations, plus small fry like Aragon, Block, Monahan, and the Republican Party of New Mexico were appearing to work in concert to cover up the story.

           [Editor, NMPJ]

           In response to Governor Lujan Grisham's public comments today regarding my client, Mr. Hallinan:

It’s unfair to victims. It’s completely false.  There are real victims every single day and in this poisonous climate that’s what happens, right? that they use these things and they hide from real things do happen. I hope he gets help, but I’m proud of who I am, what I stand for and what we are going to get done. — Gov. Michelle Grisham

           I have issued the following statement:

"Governor Lujan Grisham’s comments are inappropriate and damaging, only serving to revictimize Mr. Hallinan and countless other victims. We look forward to a court’s assessment of who the 'real victims' are and who truly seeks to 'hide' from the 'real things' they have perpetrated against employees and associates over the years. We are hopeful that other victims will come forward to further expose the truth." 

            Rachel Berlin Benjamin, lead legal counsel for James Hallinan

             Buckley Beal, LLP

Now Comes the Story that Grisham has "Settled" — But Many Questions Remain

Of course we hate to say it, but, well we told you so. We have to get that out of the way, but we were the ONLY voice on this story.

However, much more needs to be uncovered. The sum is paltry. Many questions remain unanswered.

The Governor states that the money she is paying to Hallinan is coming from campaign funds. Now the Secretary of State claims that that is legal. But it clearly is not. Throwing water on someone's trouser fly and grabbing someone by the crotch is in no way "campaign related."

This is a fraud in many ways.

Plus, where are the Governor's legal fees in all this? Where are they reported? Who negotiated with the Atlanta law firm Buckley Beal, LLP?

There's much more to this story.

But for right now, it's important to know that New Mexico Political Journal was correct, and the rest of the media got it wrong. As did Aragon, Block, the RPNM, et. al.

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

With last night's first round of the Democrats' CD1 nomination process in the books, State Senator Antoinette Sedillo Lopez was left holding a 74 to 43 advantage over the only other remaining contender, State Representative Melanie Stansbury.

The race now turns to bargaining for the 81 votes that went to the six also-rans. (198 total votes were cast last night, with the frontrunners getting 117 of those.)

Lopez is only 26 votes shy of the 100 needed to win, while Stansbury is less than halfway there, needing to pick up 57 votes, exactly two-thirds of the votes that went to someone other than the two leading candidates. What will the delegates' decisions turn on?

The Roybal-Caballero Delegation

We received a report this morning that intense negotiations are ongoing to try to get State Representative Patricia Roybal Caballero to release her delegates and become the "kingmaker" (queenmaker?).

A report surfaced that one of the two leaders (either ASL or Stansbury) offered P-RC a letter to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to help PR-C secure affordable housing in New Mexico so that she and her husband would not have to continue living in El Paso.

The Roybal-Caballero's (aka "the Grifters") live in El Paso, and apparently have never lived in New Mexico, even though she has served in the legislature for 8 years!

Then we realized that PR-C only received one vote (presumably her own) and has no real significant "batch" of delegates to release. We have judged the earlier report to be false.

Identity Politics Report: Will the Democrats's Decision Today Turn on Ethnicity? It Could.

At first glance, the race is now a 74-43 vote contest between two individuals, so—in times past—the decision as to which one would go ahead and reach a majority of support would depend on, perhaps, a debate or a forum in which the two face tough questions from the delegates.

However, as we have noted in our previous story, there are NO differences between these two candidates. In fact, as confirmed by the Progressived Democrats of America—New Mexico Chapter, there are NO differences between ANY of the 8 original candidates.

There is a "woke uniformity" now that transcends the modern Democrat Party. No one dares deviate from the established position on the core issues: Abortion (on demand); Immigration (totally open borders); Economy/budget (spend whatever, no restrictions, no limits); Health Care: (Medicare for ALL).

And on and on. There is no disagreement. So what is left?

Well, there's the go-to matter of identity politics. In reality, identity politics has become the opiate for the Democrat masses — that portion of the Democrat Party that has all its energy and drive. We are talking bout the Hard-Left of the Democratic Party—which probably represents about 75% of the party, with the other one-quarter of the party perhaps being considered just plain Left, or "Near-Hard Left."

The great bulk of the Democrats actually do want an enormous welfare state and the most Leftist agenda possible put in place, much of which is impractical. To distract this mass of voters from the difficulty of making such massive changes, the "inner party" Democratic leaders have turned to identity politics as a distraction:

"We care about you, because of your race, ethnicity, sex, sexual activity, et. al."

This gets everyone concentrating on identity politics rather than whether or not the leaders have enacted the far-Left economic policies the Democrat masses are dreaming of.

Here is the Count—And Some of the "Identity" Counts: The Woke Report

Sedillo Lopez: 74, Stansbury: 43, Everyone Else: 81.

Hispanics: 108, Anglos: 77, Indians: 13. So if Hispanics feel that Antoinette was "cheated" out of the position last time, they have the votes to make up for the outrage.

Women: 178, Men: 20. Well, we got THAT out of the way.

LGBTQIA+(to our knowledge): 20, Heterosexuals: 178. That must leave a good deal of discomfort among the party faithful, but it is what it is. Not even a late-breaking "HIV" appeal to get the "The-manner-in-which-we-have-sex" coalition could get the LGBTQIA+ crowd off the sand bar.

(Though some say this ratio could actually be: 63 to 135, which isn't quite as embarrassing.)

Hispanic Female: 88 Anglo Female: 77, Indian Female 13. Looked at this way, it may come down to how the Gays and Indians vote.

Hispanic Males: 20, Anglo Males: 0, Indian Males: 0, Females: 178.  "Diversity is our strength." — State Senator Linda Lopez (plus every single other Democrat elected official for the past 25 years).

Bottom Line

Antoinette Sedillo Lopez has the task of securing only one-third of the "other" voters. Melanie Stansbury must win over the 81 deciding voters by a 2 to 1 margin.

To accomplishe that, Stansbury will have to conduct, well—behind-the-scenes in a "whisper" campaign, mind you—a fairly intensive negative campaign on her part.

That's a tall order, especially in this era of identity politics and wokeness.

Can it be done? Definitely. Is it likely? Probably not.

But it is doable. The question is "At what cost to the New Mexico Democrat coalition?"

Tough answer on that last one.

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

The 1st Congressional District (CD1) Central Committee of the Democratic Party of New Mexico is set to choose its candidate to replace former Congresswoman Debra Haaland, who had to resign to become Secretary of the Interior.

While Democrats are heavily favored to retain the seat, no matter who they choose, they nonetheless face some potentially thorny issues within their own ranks. Identity politics is the absolute be-all and end-all of the modern Democrat Party, and it has thus far (in the view of the modern Left) provided a highly successful approach to what they see as building their 21st Century coalition.

However, identity politics can be tricky, and perhaps—if over-thought and overdone as a rhetorical device—can present possible pifalls that may result in the development of hazards along the campaign trail.

The New Mexico Democratic Party has Shifted, Considerably

Over the past generation, New Mexico Democrats have experienced substantial changes in their demographic makeup. For most of the past century, the party was dominated by Hispanic Catholics, with many of its leaders coming from rural areas, and traditional central and Northern New Mexico families whose ancestors arrived anywhere from 250 to 400 years ago.

Those Hispanic Democrats were liberals, but they weren't "Leftists" — the element now firmly in control of the national and state party apparatus. They were for people like John F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey, but not necessarily George McGovern, let alone folks like Bernie Sanders, or Kamala Harris.

They nominated candidates like Fabian Chavez, Jerry Apodaca, Bruce King, and Jeff Bingaman, not extreme Leftists like Martin Heinrich, Michelle Lujan Grisham, or Deb Haaland.

Increasingly however, the party has come to be dominated by what would have been called "outsiders" in our earlier history. Many are from out of state, though a number are home-grown types, raised to parrot the ideological polemics of their professors.

The dominant movers and shakers in the party are largely Anglos, but there are plenty of Hispanics (even some with traditional New Mexico ties) who have happily and opportunistically moved Leftward and have become fellow travelers with the nationally-oriented interest groups. Lujan Grisham is a prime example, though there are quite a number of others, mainly in the legislative class.

Challenges in CD 1

When Governor Grisham plunged into the governor's race in 2018, there was a scramble for the position. It was a contest in which Democrats constantly invoked the "virtue" of identity politics, a dynamic of course which can almost never succeed in benefiting more than one candidate at a time. In the event, six candidates filed—four Hispanics, one Anglo (Albuquerque City Councillor Pat Davis), and one self-identified Native American, Debra Haaland.

But which one would be able to claim the "Diversity Prize," to be awarded to the candidate who could make the best claim of representing a "neglected minority"? Lefty Anglo Democrats were in a quandary.

Haaland, whose father is of Norwegian descent and is therefore half American Indian, half "Anglo," came on strong, making the claim that her identity trumped the other identities. Davis, who had made a splashy entry, ultimately agreed, dropping out of the race and even more splashily endorsing Haaland—an act many attribute to pressure from Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller.

Keller was seen as playing a strong behind-the-scenes role to thwart the efforts of former UNM Law professor Antoinette Sedillo Lopez. The final totals showed the success of the stratagems, with Haaland garnering 40.6% of the vote, Davis (who was still on the ballot of course) getting 3.8%, and the four Hispanic candidates together receiving a landslide total of 55.6%.

The next year, Sedillo Lopez was appointed to the State Senate to replace Cisco McSorley, and she easily won election to a full term in 2020.

Many Democrats believe this special election should belong to her, basically because she is seen as having been "cheated" out of the nomination by Haaland.

About Public Policy Differences—There are NONE: Welcome to the Modern Woke Democrat Party

Significantly, as is the case now throughout Left-wing circles in America, there are no differences whatsoever in policy choices among the eight Democrats. "Diversity" within Democratic Party circles refers only to immutable demographic characteristics, although they also add to that the manner in which one lives out one's sexual life. 

It is not just us at NMPJ who are of this opinion. The Progressive Democrats of America New Mexico Chapter had this to say about a February forum:

"all the candidates had the same reply," and they "all thought alike."

Of course they do. It is now required. So, the outcomes of primaries, or of Central Committee meetings like this one, will be determined by all kinds of factors totally unrelated to public policy. On that they are all clones of each other. What is left are matters of demography, identity politics, and cosmetic issues.

Looking at the Field (in alphabetical order of course)

Francisco Antonio Fernández  Fernández may be the least known (or tied for least known with one other) of the 8 contenders. However, in many ways he is actually easily the most qualified and best suited of the lot for the nomination of the modern Democrat Party. He certainly punches more tickets of "wokeness" than any other candidate—though to be fair, they all try desperately hard to hit on all the woke cylinders.

Fernández's narrative has a rather dire spin to his upbringing—“working class,” child of divorce, living on food stamps, free lunches, and such, but ultimately being able to work to help pay for his education—at New Mexico’s most expensive high school Albuquerque Academy (annual tuition $25,390).

It must be said that it is a singular characteristic of the modern Social Justice Warriors (again, all eight candidates qualify as SJW) that they almost all come from relatively bourgeois, rather privileged backgrounds (if not upper middle class) but invariably see themselves as oppressed. But we digress. He goes on to describe his campaign thusly:

"As a person of color, New Mexico’s first openly gay representative, and the nation’s first openly HIV positive member of Congress, we’d make history and provide a courageous voice…”

Well, there you have it. He goes to the head of the class—significantly outdistancing would-be rival Victor Reyes, who is merely "gay," by adding on the additional diversity qualifier of "HIV positive." For checking the boxes—supremely woke, identifying as "poor," being Hispanic, Gay, and finally HIV positive—he must be seen as leading the pack.

This, of course, does not mean he wins.

Selinda Guerrero Guerrero is tied with Fernández in the unknown category. But she is probably the most intensely involved in actual on-the-ground, in-the-trenches social justic warfare. Why is she running? Here she is in her own words:

Why am I running? We are the working poor, I am a union member, my family was evicted this summer due to economic impacts associated with the pandemic. We organize for Black Lives and I am a human rights activist. I am a precinct chair in the Democratic Party and a member of the current SCC.

"I have been a dedicated voter Registration Agent for more than a decade. I understand that democracy works best when ALL voices are represented. I am a community healer - my values are to Lead with Love and Stand in my Courage and that is what has brought me to do this work today....I will be honored to be your next Congresswoman."

  Antoinette Sedillo Lopez (ASL) See above. Many believe it is ASL's "turn" so to speak. Among a half dozen insiders we heard from, ASL was mentioned by everyone. She is Hispanic, female, and, well, probably claims some sort of oppression if properly pressed.

Yeah, she's rich and is a retired professor married to a wealthy lawyer, but that has no real bearing on "wokeness." If you feel it, if you identify as woke, you're in. ASL can do all of that—so she hangs with her competitors in that regard.

Georgene Louis All the insiders and hangers-on we heard from also mentioned Louis, with some saying she "should" get the nomination, but that Sedillo Lopez probably "will" get it.

Louis is something of a fast burner, steadily rising to prominence in the party after becoming the first Native American to win a non-Indian-designed legislative district. That is something of an achievement.

(NOTE: Democrat minorities are famous for having to have districts that are gerrymandered specifically to be "majority minority," while Republicans—like Jane Powdrell-Culbert or the late Larry Larrañaga, to name just two examples among dozens—ask for no such thing, and instead just go out and win in Anglo districts, running campaigns on issues rather than race or ethnicity.)

Whether Louis can put it all together in this forum, of course no one knows. But she is well-liked by the party faithful.

Randi McGinn McGinn is a fabulously wealthy trial lawyer, who was called by her late husband, former NM Chief Justice Charlie Daniels "the smartest lawyer in New Mexico." That may be hyperbole from a husband, but we have it on pretty good authority that McGinn is in solid agreement with it.

In the old Democrat Party, McGinn would be formidable, after all, she's a woman. But she is undoubtedly disadvantaged right now by being able to check only that one box of the numerous possible identity politics boxes.

We note that she has hit on at least some oneupswomanship by saying she has a record of "Defending LGBTQIA+ Rights."

All of the candidates are on board with the standard, relatively old-fashioned LGBTQ crowd. That acronym stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer/Questioning.

But McGinn has added the I and the A, which stand for "intersex" and "asexual/aromantic/agender," and then tacked on the +, which means "and more," indicating the other 170-plus forms of sexual identity. Not even the two Gay men, touting their hopes to be the "first," thought to do that. So, McGinn must be credited with extra efforts toward wokeness.

An Anglo woman, McGinn is in a tough spot, but she has "thousands" of connections, so she could pull it off. In fact, one insider said that "the first two are probably Sedillo Lopez and Stansbury, but that the next two are Randi McGinn and Victor Reyes."

Victor Reyes

Reyes is mentioned by one of our insiders, probably because he is Governor Lujan Grisham's close associate and presumed favorite. He also claims a couple of identity politics boxes: Gay and Hispanic (though not the add-on HIV positive). He, like Roybal-Caballero, next below, is from Texas, but he has had the sense to take up residence in New Mexico, something PR-C has never seen as a necessary step.

Reyes holds the coveted title "community organizer," as well as a litany of woke policy roles, including "environmental advocate" and "progressive leader," as well as "top aide to Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham."

He says he is a "longtime advocate and national leader on reproductive freedom and justice." (Though he would seem to play no role in such undertakings.) And he "serves as the Board Chair of Catholics for Choice," who has "helped to defeat anti-abortion legislation," (very Catholic). He further states:

"If elected, [he] would be the first LGBTQ person to represent New Mexico in the United States Congress."

Of course he'll have to elbow Fernández aside for that honor.

Patricia Roybal-Caballero If there is an award for chutzpah in this whole affair, it must go to Roybal-Caballero, whom we have noted in articles past as one of New Mexico's leading grifters. It is one thing to note that the US Constitution does not require a US Representative to live in the district being contested. But it does require the person to live in the state.

Roybal-Caballero has resided in El Paso for a number of years. True, she is a sitting State Representative, and yes, her recent Democrat primary opponents have made her Texas residency an issue, but to no avail.

Royball-Caballero has outsmarted everyone by observing this critical rule in grifter-related politics: If you are going to run for office, choose a district in which the voters are dumber than you are.

She and her husband have effectively fought his requirement to pay child support for a severely-disabled child, currently living in Texas. But after years of help from a judge with questionable ethics, they finally lost the case. So PR-C's husband now owes more than $100,000 to a woman who is raising the child alone.

Will New Mexico Democrats reward Roybal-Caballero? None of the Democrat observers, whether considered insiders or outsiders, mentioned her name.

Melanie Stansbury

Stansbury was mentioned by some of the insiders. And one of them said she "has done the best organizing."

Of course, in a small electorate like the central committee, organizing is everything.

Still, Stansbury is an Anglo in a local party which is seen by many to have cheated a "woman of color" last time around. Who knows? She's probably better positioned than McGinn, probably because of this highlighted feature she just posted yesterday:

"I am the only candidate in this race that's beaten an incumbent Republican. In 2018 I flipped a red seat blue, and I did so by organizing and building a campaign that listened to the people and lifted up our communities. I am the only candidate with the infrastructure and the team that can beat Sen. Moores on Jun 1st."

Also just yesterday, in what could be a decisive development, Stansbury received the endorsement of both the Sierra Club as well as AFSCME, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. AFSCME is the most powerful union in New Mexico.

Democrats are Smarter than Republicans in at Least One Respect

We do have to give the Democrats credit for at least one thing: they have not adopted rules that allow for a mere plurality of votes to determine their nominee at the Central Committee meeting. With seven candidates and only 135 central committee members, the Republicans could have nominated a candidate for congress with as few as 20 votes, or 15% of the support present, if they had been distributed in the right way.

As things turned out, the winner got 36% of the vote. But having rules like that open the door for a fringe candidate or a nut-job to win. That didn't happen with the GOP, but they were fortunate it did not.

The Democrats are requiring a majority, something that at least provides a measure of security against the nomination of an undesirable candidate, though of course it isn't a guarantee.

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

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

Given the possibility of backlash against the extremism of the Biden-Harris Administration and the likelihood of a low turnout in the June 1st Special Election, the Republicans actually have at least an outside chance at an upset win in this district that is dominated by Albuquerque.

But the process the RPNM has set up may have doomed them to failure. For whatever reason, the Republican Party of New Mexico is rushing the decision-making process on their nominee for the upcoming Special Election to succeed former Congresswoman Debra Haaland, who had to resign her seat upon accepting the position of Secretary of the Interior.

The GOP Central Committee of the First Congressional District will hold a “Zoom” candidate forum tonight, then select the nominee tomorrow. Talk about a senseless schedule! In rushing things through, the party makes itself vulnerable to extremely bad decision-making.

In any case, here is our take on the announced candidates, in alphabetical order.

Eddy Aragon is almost certainly the worst possible candidate the Republicans could select. Aragon operates what some consider a semi-shady station on which he “sells” interviews to prospective candidates—something unheard of in legitimate broadcasting.

Additionally, he has only recently joined the Republican Party after trashing the party and almost all its candidates for most of the past decade.

In 2019 and 2020 alone, Aragon attacked every single Republican candidate for the US Senate, threatened to run as an independent, then at the last moment he registered Republican and threatened to enter the primary.

He did very similar things in the previous Albuquerque mayoral race, bowing out after gathering money for matching funds, but allegedly never accounting for those funds.

If the delegates are brain-dead enough to make him their nominee, Aragon would have to immediately explain what is difficult or impossible to explain in today’s world--- what appears to be pornographic or near pornographic materials and just plain crazy stuff.

He has published or re-tweeted photos and stories from what some would consider porn sites or near-porn sites for a number of years, including this topless photo of a very young woman. And then there are all these other weird posts:

As you can see, Eddy Aragon would quickly be made into an absolute joke by the Democrat Party. Republican hopes would be gone in an instant.

Michaela Chavez

As far as can be determined, Chavez is respected both as a volunteer in Bernalillo County politics as well as having been the nominee for Senate District 13 last November, where she lost to incumbent Democrat Senator Bill B. O'Neill, 15,655 to 8,464.

So while from all appearances she has a solid reputation and is well-liked, garnering 34% of the vote in a race for the legislature is not necessarily an outstanding calling card for a nomination for Congress.

Jared Vander Dussen

Vander Dussen, an attorney, is another local Republican who has been active in the Bernalillo County GOP, volunteering his time and helping with legal matters. Vander Dussen, as we noted last year, made the best speech at the last GOP state convention, as he was running for the nomination for this same position, CD 1.

He is polished, makes eye contact, is cogent, logical, and makes a good impression. Again, his failing is that to this point he has not had electoral success. Despite making a better speech at the convention, Vander Dussen lost to eventual GOP nominee Michelle Garcia Holmes, 23,783 to 19,847, with Brett Kokinadis receiving 5,798.

Ronnie Lucero

Lucero is not well-known to Albuquerque GOP activiists, and as best we can tell, appeared on the scene just this year. He says he is a 1989 Del Norte High graduate and he did a two-year stint in the US Navy.

He has an attractive family, but the rest of his bio is somewhat vague. He apparently is the auto loan officer for Melloy Nissan in Albuquerque. He says his work in finance has shown him how New Mexico families "struggle with less than stellar credit" and that he is running for congress to "continue his fight...for all our families."

He adds that he knows that "common sense not blind ideology will serve New Mexico better in Washington."

Elisa Martinez

Martinez is another candidate who has run for office before but has come up short. Last year she lost the Republican nomination for US Senate to Mark Ronchetti, 89,216 to 41,240, with Gavin Clarkson finishing third at 27,471.

Martinez may be both helped and handicapped by her singular focus on the abortion issue. She can be helped in a Republican Central Committee meeting by the fact that so many active Republicans are focused on that issue, which could lead to her winning the nomination. However, that same factor would probably spell almost certain doom in left-leaning district.

Soft Republican women in Albuquerque's northeast heights tend to be pro-choice, and that doesn't even begin to consider how many hard-left Democrat men and women there are in the district. So her "Johnny-one-note" campaign style will almost certainly not serve her well on June 1st.

Additionally, like Susana Martinez, Elisa Martinez is a Hispanic woman running for office. However, unlike Susana, Elisa actually repeats that all the time, saying over and over again: "I am a Hispanic woman." (She also says she is Native American.)

In sharp contrast to Elisa, Susana Martinez let her appearance as a woman and her surname show that she was 1) a woman, and 2) also Hispanic, respectively. She didn't campaign on those two facts as if they were issues in and of themselves.

In other words, while Susana sounded like a conservative Republican emphasizing issues, Elisa sounds a little more like Kamala Harris, emphasizing identity politics. We'll see how this plays out.

Mark Moores

State Senator Mark Moores may have the upper hand with the more astute voters in that he is the only one of the seven candidates who has enjoyed actual visible electoral success. Moores played football for the UNM Lobos and earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from the University of New Mexico. He then went on to earn an MBA from the Anderson School of Management.

In 2012, he won the Republican State Senate District 21 primary in a landslide with 50% of the vote in a three-way race. Then he went on to face the extremely haughty incumbent Democrat, Senator Lisa Curtis, who boasted about her electoral prowess and spent upwards of $400,000 to prove it.

But she didn't prove it. Moores absolutely crushed her, 14,067 to 10,768. He was subsequently re-elected in 2016 and also in 2020.

In terms of qualifications as well as electoral success, Moores appears to stand above the rest.

Tracy Trujillo

Trujillo may be the least known of all the candidates. She sent out a letter saying that she is from Minnesota, but that she has lived in New Mexico for "almost" six years. She is a wife and mother of 3 great boys, step-mother to 3 daughters and has 10 grandchildren.

She says that for four years she has been a "department head at Randall Lumber in Taos...in charge of power tools and Stihl chainsaws." She also says she has been President of womens leadership for New Mexico Farm and livestock bureau District 5 for two 2 years and for Taos County for 4 years

She asserts that she is running "because i believe that we need a hard working honest down to earth person who has had to work for everything."

Trujillo is the only candidate who does not live in the district, though living in the district is not a requirement for US House.She lives in Questa, in CD 3, which is currently represented by Democrat Teresa Leger-Fernandez.

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

*With apologies to Jim Nabors/Gomer Pyle

Your Words Can Come Back to Bite You in the Butt

As can be gleaned from almost daily news stories from all 50 states, child protection services are all too frequently embroiled in the most bizarre controversies, often involving incompetent decisions made by bureaucrats—or resulting from indecision or outright neglect.

In New Mexico, most of the responsibility in this area of children’s’ lives rests with the Children, Youth, and Families Department (CYFD).

But no matter what a state’s name for these agencies may be, what is crucial for each is the existence of some form of independent and objective monitoring.

In New Mexico, as is the case in every state, all government entities must be closely watched because such oversight is essential to protect and improve outcomes for our most vulnerable.

It’s also crucial in avoiding the most egregious, embarrassing, and infuriating horror stories we have all seen pop up from time to time.

The Substitute Care Advisory Council (SCAC) is statutorily authorized to provide a permanent system for independent and objective monitoring of children placed in CYFD custody. While changes have been made to try to increase the effectiveness of the SCAC, they have not been enough.

On February 1, State Senator Gay Kernan (R-Hobbs) and State Representative Marian Matthews (D- Albuquerque) stepped forward with a bill to provide the crucial protections our most vulnerable children need to have. Their bill, Senate Bill 242, provides those kinds of protections, strengthening the SCAC’s ability to do its job.

EVERYONE RECOGNIZES THE NEED FOR THE OVERSIGHT

This didn’t come about out of the blue. On the contrary, the need for the legislation has been thoroughly documented.

The photos shown here, tragic and heart-breaking as they are, don't even begin to represent the tip of the iceberg of examples of neglect and error by CYFD.

Oversight is needed. It's not a question for debate.

In its annual report, the Council documented the statutory changes needed to meaningfully provide oversight of CYFD and to effect child welfare system change (they are found at the SCAC website at www.nmscac.org). SB242 addresses all these needed changes.

THE GRISHAM ADMINISTRATION ADMITS THE CHANGES ARE NEEDED

CYFD Cabinet Secretary Brian Blalock has also been vocal about his support for oversight and accountability of CYFD.  In a February 2020 press release titled Big Plans for Increased Transparency & Accountability from CYFD, Secretary Blalock stated,

“… as a government agency, the public’s involvement in oversight and expectation of accountability are crucial elements of ensuring we stay on the right path for kids.”

Secretary Blalock has further shown his support by designating SB242 an “agency bill,” meaning they are backing it. 

The bill was heard in the Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee (SHPAC) on February 22nd.  An SB242 committee substitute received a “ Do Pass” from SHPAC and it was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC).  The current version of SB242 was scheduled to be heard on March 6th in SJC, but without explanation it was removed from the agenda during the hearing.

As of today, March 10th, SB 242 has not been rescheduled in SJC.

What is going on? What is Senator Joseph Cervantes doing with this crucial legislation?

Cervantes is the powerful chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Time is running out for the session. This is not an issue that is appropriate for legislative or political games and subterfuge.

In Summary

The question is not whether we need a structure for independent and objective oversight of our child protection agency. We know we do. The statutory directive already exists in the authorizing Act and the framework exists with the Council.

SB 242 makes the Council’s oversight of CYFD and the Council’s collaboration with the department, the court, and the legislature stronger. SB242 ensures not only the vital element of collaboration, but the absolute requirement for transparency and accountability.  

Failing to take action on this bi-partisan, bi-cameral legislation in the 2021 legislative session not only fails New Mexico’s most vulnerable children, it fails all of New Mexico.

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

On this date—and throughout this era—Republicans were powerless to stop the racist policies of the Democratic Party.

President Biden Makes a Mockery of Title IX and Girls’ Sports

The Biden Administration has dropped support of Trump’s lawsuit that had been brought on behalf of female athletes. Trump sought to block biological males from competing in girls’ sports in Connecticut. Former Attorney General Bill Barr and Trump's Department of Justice had backed the lawsuit, saying the Connecticut law violated Title IX.

On Wednesday night, February 24, Alanna Smith, one of three girls who had brought the lawsuit, blasted the Biden Administration, saying,

“Fairness needs to be restored in our sport and all other women’s sports … these biological males are just taking it away from us.”

The Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC), which has permitted boys to compete in events and win awards that would otherwise have gone to girls.

Biological boys have taken 15 women’s state championship titles (titles held in 2016 by nine different Connecticut girls) and have taken more than 85 opportunities to participate in higher level competitions from female track athletes in the 2017, 2018, and 2019 seasons alone.

Smith began her comments, saying:

“I got involved after I ran against the biological males at the New England meet because in the 200 meter I took third place when I  should have gotten runner-up...”

“And it’s not really about placement but it’s all about knowing that I work so many hours a week to be able to get runner-up in New England’s [championships] as a freshman.

And I am really disappointed in the news, because me and the other girls, Selina and Chelsea, have worked really hard to get our stories out there, to get people to realize that fairness needs to be restored in our sport and all other women’s sports.”

The Overt Hypocrisy and Lies of the Democrats, the American Left, and the Media

One observer noted,:

“...the Left claims to always stand up for women, they’re the party of women, and yet here we are with policies that disenfranchise female athletes. And [there are] serious questions abut what this means in terms of harassment of female athletes.

“Does this mean that biological males are allowed to go into the locker room as well as compete against them and take away scholarships and placement in state championships?

To be clear, the lawsuit will move forward, but it is significant that the Biden Department of Justice will now oppose the young women—siding with radical activists over female athletes.

Additionally, it is now clear that the Biden Administrationand the Democrat establishment are determined to gut legal protection for women not just in is not just Connecticut, but throughout the country.

Biden and all Democrats in Congress are now pushing the so-called Equality Act, which ignores the real physical differences between men and women and threatens women’s privacy, women’s homeless shelters, and yes, even women’s sports on a national level for female athletes.

Democrats constantly parrot the line “It’s only fair” to allow biological males to compete.

So we are left wondering if the American people realize that a lot of actual biological females have missed out on numerous events?

So-called “transgender” athletes (boys) have taken spots on the podium at district, regional, and state championships that belong to biological females.

As Alana Smith stated:

“We train for so many days a week, so many hours to be able to be the best in our state and the best in our region, and these biological males are just taking it away from us and we really deserve it.”

Biden and the Democrats in Congress are Bent on Destroying Title IX

Title IX was designed to ensure that girls have a fair and level playing field, have a chance to showcase their talents, to be champions, and frankly, to earn those college scholarships.

The Trump Administration wanted to see women’s sports protected across the country. The Biden Administration wants to see women’s sports destroyed.

One Connecticut girl noted that she lost four girls’ state championships and two all-New England titles.

Biden and 100% of Democrats in Congress View the East Germans as the Model for American Sports

Americans used to joke about “the East German Olympic team” in female events—the whole scheme used by the former Communist nation was viewed as a laughingstock and a disgrace.

But now, 100% of Democrat elected officials see the East German model as legitimiate and someting to be proud of—and to adopt as our national policy. Biden sees the East Germans as his new American ideal, the new model for sports.

Barr had it Right

Barr had stated in March 2020:

“Under [Connecticut's] interpretation of Title IX...schools may not account for the real physiological differences between men and women. Instead, schools MUST [emphasis added] have certain biological males — namely, those who publicly identify as female — compete against biological females. In so doing, [Connecticut] deprives those women of the single-sex athletic competition that is one of the marquee accomplishments of Title IX."

Virtue Signaling Housewives (and Househusbands) of Albuquerque's Northeast Heights

Many voters who claimed to be "conservative" or "moderate," both nationwide and in New Mexico were going all-out to virtue-signal about how anti-Trump they were because of his stupid tweets and often-ridiculous verbal "asides" and unscripted comments (which, to be fair, were often ignorant and embarrasingly inaccurate).

However, we have maintained that the overriding question in all elections in a democracy has to do with public policy. The conclusion we reached was that the Trump Administration was not only pursuing the right policies—foreign and domestic—but was remarkably successful. The fact that Trump talked too much and too dumbly had, in the final analysis, no effect at all on policy.

Trump's policy regarding women's athletics was correct. People who voted for Biden out of the desire to virtue signal ended up voting for a whole host of policies that would make the former East Germany, the current China (and Russia) and scores of other bad actors in the world and in America very proud.

In our view, millions of Americans will come to regret those votes.

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

Something repeated on the Sunday talk shows approximately 150 times.

Something you should really PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO:

Democrats yesterday and again today are continuously referring to the Constitution as:

                        “a technicality”

Have you noticed this?

If that doesn't grab your attention, either you're not paying attention, or you don't understand it.

Caveat lector

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

The entire impeachment proceeding gives every voter who cares about the role of the courts in the United States an opportunity to see very plainly a clear example of the great chasm in jurisprudence that has increasingly divided both voters and elected officials.

Fundamentally, it is a question of what our laws mean—what our Constitution means. Does the law mean what it says, or what we wish it to mean? Do laws provide the agreed-upon, established, printed rules of American life? Or are they merely pages in a book that can be referred in a general way so as to provide an alleged reference even as the actual words themselves are ignored?

It comes down to this: Do you see the Constitution in the manner of Harvard Professor Lawrence Tribe, or Judge Robert Bork?

This becomes the essential question of what is law about? Do we have laws that codify the will of the people in plain language—language that provides equal treatment for all people? Or do we merely have documents or books that we "call" the law, while ignoring the actual texts contained therein?

Do we approach events, circumstances, and political or criminal situations with a view toward what we as a people have codified? Or do we approach legal questions with only the goal of a desired outcome? Is the question of justice one that is resolved if we "feel good" about what we want to see happen? Or is it about really and truly applying the law, consistently, uniformly, and equally for all?

Judge Richard Posner said that Lawrence Tribe's view is that:

"the Constitution is what we want it to be...and that what we should want it to be is the charter of a radically egalitarian society."

Judge Bork on the other hand, believed that the text of a statute or of the Constitution means what it says in the plain language it is written.

The Senate Vote in the Impeachment Trial Reflects the Reality of the American Divide About What Law Truly Is

We already know that all modern Democrats believe that the Constitution—and American law itself—law is merely a theoretical tool. There is no section, no clause, no phrase which cannot be turned into whatever "we want it to be," "or whatever outcome achieves 'justice' as we see it." So the votes of the 50 Democratic senators were nothing surprising at all.

It must be said however, for anyone who is still being fooled by the verbal gymnastics and numerous political somersaults of Joe Manchin of West Virginia, that no, he is not sincere, and never has been. He and Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona (beauty that she may be) have firmly established that they are in reality no different from their colleagues. (Don't look for them to uphold the filibuster rule either—regardless of their prior statements).

On Saturday, 13 February, Republican Senators Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Toomey, Burr, Cassidy, and Sasse annnounced to their constituents that they are Tribists. For whatever reason, hatred of Trump or whatever, they did not follow the letter of the Constitution. 

Sasse is very disappointing. He has demonstrated clear intellectual capability and has intelligently articulated public policy and the role of government on many occasions. His votes over the past week ar the most surprising and disappointing.  Cassidy and Burr are puzzling.

Collins has to tread a very careful line, though that is no reason for poor reasoning.

Murkowski is, for lack of a better name, something of a scam artist: she knows she cannot get a Republican nomination in Alaska, so she has fashioned her own cynical "coalition" of non-philosophical Republicans, Democrats, and fairly clueless independents. That is her "formula" for forging a general election majority and she is sticking with that, regardless of what she has to do to attract it.

(Murkowski and Manchin are probably the very worst of the worst in the Senate. You can't really include the rest of the Democrats—they openly admit and advertise their ideologies. They aren't really trying to deceive anyone.)

Do you Follow the Plain Language—the Rule of Law—or the Desired Outcome?

Senator Mitch McConnell, regardless of what you may think of his opinion about what Trump did or did not do on January 6th, did very carefully and logically lay out what the Constitution says. You simply cannot get around the plain language: It is impossible to get around the words "removal," "president" and the plain reading of the text.

It does not say anything about former officers, nor does it give any other authority. It says what it says.

50 Democratic senators predictably, said nothing matters other thanthe outcome we want. Sadly, seven Republicans joined them. There is no rationale for the GOP to renominate six of these seven. All but Collins come from states where actual Constitution-respecting Republicans can win general elections. Collins is a separate issue.

Murkowski, Romney, Toomey, Burr, Cassidy, and Sasse should never again receive a GOP nomination for any office.

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

Background

On January 27, the House Health and Human Services Committee held a hearing on House Bill 7. The bill is titled “Repeal of Abortion Ban.” It refers to a relatively weak “prohibition” law passed by the New Mexico Legislature in 1969 and signed by moderate Republican Governor Dave Cargo. (* See the explanation of why it is a relatively weak law in the footnotes below.)

The law, of course, is invalid, having been superseded and rendered obsolete by the US Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade four years later.

However, it is important to keep in mind that there are quite a number of existing statutes or even Constitutional provisions, not just in New Mexico, but in all states, that have been made ineffective or of no consequence because of case law that has invalidated those very laws. Sometimes states go through the process of amending or removing the state statutes; sometimes they don’t. There is no imperative to do so.

As an example, for 45 years following passage of the 26th Amendment that lowered the voting age to 18, the New Mexico State Constitution continued to “require” voters to be 21. It also required voters to have resided in the state, county, and precinct for 12 months, 90 days, and 30 days respectively, despite having those requirements struck down by the Supreme Court. (All the all the above were repealed by voters in 2016.)

The point is that state legislative action on “unconstitutional” laws or laws made ineffectual by case law is not mandatory. That cannot be used as a rationale for casting a vote.  

The Committee Vote and Reaction

The committee vote was 8 to 3 in support of repealing the so-called "abortion ban"— New Mexico's law that was passed four years before Roe v. Wade. GOP Representative Phelps Anderson of Roswell joined seven Democrats voting to repeal the ban. Three other Republicans voted “no," to keep the prohibition on the books.

Representative Anderson told us he was very impressed with the testimony at the hearing and that it really had an impact, making him think and reflect on the issue.

The response has been something of a firestorm from Republicans, many of whom have called for Anderson to resign. Anderson represents Chaves, Lea, and Roosevelt Counties, and the GOP chairs for Lea and Roosevelt have asked him to resign.

We asked if he was going to do that. He responded,

“Unless I’m wrong, it’s my call. I am not going to resign. I am not a quitter.”

When we asked if he would run again, Anderson replied:

“I don’t know about that. Filing date is a year away. But if I had to answer right now, I’d say no.’”

Representative Anderson added that the bill was “going to pass anyway.” But of course, that is never a good reason to vote for anything. Tie votes, or one-vote margins are relatively rare in legislative roll calls.

What this means is that 97% of the time, or more, any bill is going to be passed or defeated “anyway” regardless of how one votes.

What constituents expect, and what everyone should do, is vote for what one believes is correct, right, or just. It doesn’t matter if the vote is 8 to 3, 7 to 4, or 10 to 1.  Or for that matter 69 to 1 on the floor of the House.

So, any mention of an ultimate outcome is really irrelevant. One must do the right thing at all times. We can only presume that Representative Anderson did what he thought was right for him.

Abandoning the Republican Party

The reaction was so strong that Anderson surprised everyone in his hometown of Roswell by publicly announcing that he was leaving the Republican Party.

“I decided to re-register as a Decline to State. People ask if I can win a primary, well, that’s not a question that has to be asked because I’m no longer in the Republican Party.”

His decision to re-register was surprising because Anderson has a lifelong pedigree as a prominent member of the Republican Party. His father, the late Robert O. Anderson, had been a pioneer member of the Chaves County GOP, and Phelps followed in his footsteps, serving in the State House of Representatives from 1976 to 1980, then serving the Republican National Committee as New Mexico’s National Committeeman from 1988 to 1996.

We asked why leave the Republican Party. His answers took us by surprise:

"I've been I’ve been very disappointed with the Republican Party. In particular, the events of January 6th were just so disappointing that they led me to consider re-registering as DTS. I’m demoralized by my party. Their defense of January 6th was just so disappointing.”

We found this to be more or less stunning, and pushed back by pointing out that we could find no Republicans who in any way justified the January 6th riots. In fact, we pointed out, every single Republican we have seen or read about has denounced the violence. (In fact, it is the Democrats who have not denounced the widespread violence that has taken place for nearly a year.)

But Anderson pushed back on our pushback:

“I disagree with that. There’s lots of political spin about what happened on January 6th. There’s lots of video imagery. I disagree with what happened on that day and will always disagree with it. Trump encouraged that mob. People were killed inside the building. It just tears me up that that’s my party.”

So, what to think about all of this? Has Anderson, like lots of Americans, Reacted Emotionally to Recent Events

Anderson admitted that he’s always found the abortion question to be a troubling and difficult one, telling us that he’s “always voted pro-life on bills that have come up,” but admitting that he has struggled with the issue in general.

Not openly stated, but certainly broadly hinted, it is likely that Representative Anderson has always been pro-choice at heart. We discussed that matter. He is clearly uncomfortable with the GOP’s pro-life platform, but he has lived with it. Till now.

What pushed him over the edge? It clearly has a lot to do with the riots of January 6th. But in that regard, Rep. Anderson sounds more like the media talking heads than a dispassionate observer. Anderson says, “People were killed inside the building.”

Let’s look at the facts about that. Who was killed?

Five People died on January 6th

None of what happened in the invasion of the Capitol by the mob is in anyway excusable. All those who violated the law should be prosecuted and sentenced to jail. The rioters were, and remain, idiots. There is no way any of that is attributable to the Republican Party.

To do so is an emotion-based, media-inspired reaction.

But was anyone actually killed?

Yes. One person: A Trump supporter, 35-year-old Ashli Babbitt, a military veteran from San Diego. She was unarmed. But she was shot as she tried to crawl through a broken window.

That’s all we know. Authorities have refused to release the name of the man who shot her explain why she was shot. We may never know the answer to why her life was taken from her.

Four Other People Died, but none was “killed.”

Rosanne Boyland, a 34-year-old woman from Georgia. Authorities say she died of a “medical emergency.” Some have said she “may have been trampled accidentally.”

Kevin Greeson, a 55-year-old who had a history of high blood pressure. His wife said “In the midst of the excitement, he suffered a heart attack."

Benjamin Phillips, 50 years old. He died of a stroke. But he apparently died outside on the grounds of the Capitol and never entered the building.

Brian Sicknick, a 42-year-old Capitol police officer. His union chief announced that he “died of a stroke.” Media reports have falsely stated, many times, that he was “beaten to death with a fire extinguisher.” But this is simply not true. He was not beaten with a fire extinguisher or anything else. No one knows where this story came from.

The lie about the beating led to the Democrats having Officer Sicknick lie in state at the Capitol, where Democrats (who are relentless critics of the police, calling them “racist” for the past year) made a histrionic scene of solemnly streaming past his body—used essentially as a prop—to build an emotional case for their impeachment case. They finally found a police officer they could use for political purposes.

But he wasn’t killed by anyone. He died of a stroke. And there was no evidence of any kind of trauma. For whatever reason, he was immediately cremated, and his autopsy has been sealed.

The Bottom Line

Representative Phelps Anderson is a sophisticated, educated, thoughtful person who has wanted to serve in political office and has done so in a conscientious way. He is a gentleman and gregarious, friendly man.

The reality is that, as all human beings’ life experiences change them over time—none of us is static, unchanging, or unaffected by our experiences—Rep. Anderson has probably been, perhaps unconsciously, both culturally and socially disaffected with and alienated from the Republican Party for a number of years.

The committee meeting simply brought clarity to his current thinking. It became a moment of decision and he made that decision.

*As US abortion prohibition laws go, the New Mexico law is relatively “moderate,” in that it provides for all manner of exceptions—not only in the cases of rape, incest, or life of the woman, but it also contains provisions that permit abortion when the woman or her parent or guardian asserts that the pregnancy is likely to result in “grave impairment of the physical or mental health of the woman” or the child will probably “have a grave physical or mental defect.”

Nonetheless, pro-abortion advocates have long been irritated by the law, and with the election the hard-Left Governor Grisham in 2018, they have been champing at the bit to repeal the law

In other words, the reality is, even if there had never been a ruling in Roe v. Wade, abortion would not really be prohibited in New Mexico. The provisions of the law were such that abortion could not actually be prevented, provided the woman wanted an abortion and is able to obtain written certification from a special hospital board to back up her request.

The New Mexico Statute in Question

30-5-3. Criminal abortion.

Criminal abortion consists of administering to any pregnant woman any medicine, drug or other substance, or using any method or means whereby an untimely termination of her pregnancy is produced, or attempted to be produced, with the intent to destroy the fetus, and the termination is not a justified medical termination.   

Whoever commits criminal abortion is guilty of a fourth degree felony. Whoever commits criminal abortion which results in the death of the woman is guilty of a second degree felony.   

“Justified medical termination" means the intentional ending of the pregnancy of a woman at the request of said woman or if said woman is under the age of eighteen years, then at the request of said woman and her then living parent or guardian, by a physician licensed by the state of New Mexico using acceptable medical procedures in an accredited hospital upon written certification by the members of a special hospital board that:   

(1)     the continuation of the pregnancy, in their opinion, is likely to result in the death of the woman or the grave impairment of the physical or mental health of the woman; or   

(2)     the child probably will have a grave physical or mental defect; or   

(3)     the pregnancy resulted from rape, as defined in Sections 40A-9-2 through 40A-9-4 NMSA 1953. Under this paragraph, to justify a medical termination of the pregnancy, the woman must present to the special hospital board an affidavit that she has been raped and that the rape has been or will be reported to an appropriate law enforcement official; or   

(4)     the pregnancy resulted from incest;   

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

73 years ago today, on Tuesday, February 3, 1948, Gerald Champion, Chairman of the Republican Party of New Mexico, was killed in a plane crash atop a 9,000-foot peak, about 8 miles south ofCloudcroft, New Mexico

The wreck was finally sighted Sunday evening, February 8, on the 5th day of a search that began on the previous Wednesday.