The criticism from Garcia came last week in a letter she sent to media outlets across the state. It was in response to this campaign ad from Martinez:

“Baby Brianna was five months old when she died. She had many broken bones, over 30 bite marks, and she was beat to death,” Martinez says in the ad. “We had to fight for those kids that were killed this way, so we went to the Legislature and fought for three years to make it a life sentence, and we succeeded.”

Heath Haussamen

Garcia’s most egregious claim – in a letter she sent to media outlets across the state last week – is this statement:

“Martinez claims she had worked for three years on the legislation; however, it was only in 2005 (the year the bill was passed) that I remember her in Santa Fe, merely observing in a house committee and senate committee as SB 166 was debated.”

She implies that Martinez’s only role was “observing” a couple of legislative committees. The reality is well documented and directly contradicts Garcia’s claim.

But first the context: Baby Brianna was one of seven children killed by family members in Doña Ana County in a span of 3.5 years. The circumstances surrounding Brianna’s 2002 death made it the most shocking to the community, which rallied around efforts by Garcia and Martinez to toughen the penalties for child abuse resulting in death.

Brianna’s death became well known beyond New Mexico. I was the crime and courts reporter at the Las Cruces Sun-News at the time and was contacted by people from around the country who work to combat child abuse. Many told me it was one of the worst cases they’d ever seen.

Garcia sponsors legislation

In that context, Garcia sponsored Senate Bill 326, which would have toughened the penalties for child abuse resulting in death, in 2003. Martinez was among those who traveled to Santa Fe for a committee hearing on the bill. The bill didn’t make it out of the Senate that year.

State Sen. Mary Jane Garcia (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

What Garcia and Martinez both seem to have forgotten is that the bill wasn’t introduced in 2004 because it was a 30-day session and the bill wasn’t on the call.

Then came 2005. There was a much more intentional effort to pass Senate Bill 166. To bring attention to the issue, I did a series of articles for the Sun-News on the child abuse deaths. Martinez’s office took portions of a graphic that accompanied one of my articles – images of each child who had died and info about their cases – and enlarged them to make posters to take to Santa Fe for committee hearings.

Lawmakers didn’t allow the posters into hearings. Some of the photos were autopsy photos that offended some legislators.

A private donor funded a Martinez-coordinated effort to bus dozens of people from Las Cruces to Santa Fe to attend the hearings. Martinez and other employees of the district attorney’s office took the lead in inviting people and driving them to and from Santa Fe.

On Feb. 17, 2005, an article I wrote documented one of those trips, in which Deputy District Attorney Amy Orlando bussed 60 Las Crucens north. Here’s what Garcia said at the time about those people who came from Las Cruces:

“I appreciate very much what they’re doing. I want to thank them all.”

Martinez made about half a dozen trips to Santa Fe for hearings on the bill. She spoke at more than one. The Sun-News’ Walt Rubel, writing last weekend about Garcia’s new attack on Martinez, pointed out that in a 2005 article he wrote, he quoted Martinez as telling the Senate Public Affairs Committee, “Almost everyone in this room comes from Las Cruces. We came by bus, we were escorted by law enforcement. Medical personnel, La Pi on Battered Women’s Shelter … everyone that we could load in a bus we brought today. And we are here in very strong support of this bill.”

Martinez also helped organize and spoke at a news conference about the bill in the Roundhouse on that day.

Michael Sanchez’s untruths

Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

The bill made it all the way to the Senate floor before Majority Leader Michael Sanchez butchered it with statements that weren’t true. A Feb. 19, 2005 article from Rubel documented what happened. Essentially, Sanchez “pushed through a floor amendment” that changed the bill so that it still strengthened the penalties for child abuse resulting in death, but also weakened the penalties for intentional and negligent child abuse resulting in permanent injury.

Even though he proposed weakened penalties for both negligent and intentional child abuse resulting in permanent injury, Sanchez said his goal was to distinguish between intentional and negligent acts. He argued that parents could be prosecuted under the negligence law if a child died in an accident or was abused without their knowledge.

“There but for the grace of God go I,” Sen. Dede Feldman was quoted by Rubel as saying in announcing she would support the bill with the weakened penalties.

Martinez was livid. In an interview with me, she was highly critical of senators who amended the bill, saying the weakened penalties would allow parents who permanently injure their children to return home in time to abuse children again before they become adults.

Where was Garcia when all this was happening? She agreed to support Sanchez’s floor amendment.

“The intent is to put the perpetrator in jail. I don’t want to put an innocent bystander in jail,” Garcia was quoted by Rubel as saying.

Martinez challenges Sanchez’s claim

Martinez started working behind the scenes to combat Sanchez’s amendment. She called me and told me she wanted me to quote her as saying Sanchez’s claim was false, and told me she’d spoken with the AG’s office, and if I called them they’d tell me the same thing.

I did, and on March 13, 2005, the Sun-News published my article quoting Martinez and AG spokesman Paul Nixon as saying Sanchez’s claim that parents who accidentally kill their children could be prosecuted under the bill was false. Specific wording in the bill, Nixon told me, prevented that.

Sanchez, I noted at the time, is a criminal defense attorney. Martinez accused him and Sen. Cisco McSorley – another lawyer and legislator who argued for the weakened penalties – of manipulating colleagues who weren’t lawyers and didn’t know any better. She questioned whether the two were working for their constituents or clients.

Many believed the bill was dead, because support evaporated when it was amended to weaken penalties for some types of child abuse. Gov. Bill Richardson said he wouldn’t sign it in its amended form.

But Martinez hadn’t given up. Copies of my article quoting Martinez and Nixon were left on lawmakers desks as the weakened bill headed to the House.

State Rep. Joseph Cervantes (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

Cervantes breathes new life into legislation

Enter state Rep. Joseph Cervantes, D-Las Cruces, who worked behind the scenes to fix the bill. He spoke with the governor and worked with his colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee to restore the bill to its original version and clear the way for it to pass the House and Senate. And it did.

And there was Garcia, being quoted by Rubel as saying she was pleased with the changes that restored the bill.

“My intent has always been to put the perpetrator away for life,” she said at the time.

Martinez was at the House Judiciary hearing. It was the first hearing, according to Rubel’s article, that wasn’t attended by dozens of Las Crucens bussed by Martinez’s office. That was due to bad weather and the late scheduling of the bill.

With Sanchez having been called out by Martinez and the AG’s office, the bill in its original, toughened form easily made it through the House and, on the second try, through the Senate. Martinez publicly thanked Cervantes and House Majority Leader Ken Martinez for making it happen.

Bill enacted; lots of people share credit

Gov. Bill Richardson (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

The governor said he’d sign the bill. And he did just that at a ceremony in Las Cruces. A March 31, 2005 article by Sun-News reporter Diana Alba states that, at the ceremony, the governor “credited legislators, the community of Las Cruces and 3rd Judicial District Attorney Susana Martinez, who pushed for the passage of the legislation. ‘They did it by persisting,’ he said.”

I want to be clear on something: Garcia was the heart behind this bill. She sponsored it and pushed it. But she alone didn’t pass it. Cervantes, Ken Martinez and others in the House, along with the governor, brought the bill back to life and carried it to passage.

And you can’t discount the effect Susana Martinez had, through speaking at committee meetings and a news conference, bussing people from Las Cruces, and working behind the scenes with the AG to combat Sanchez’s shenanigans.

No one person gets credit for this. Garcia, Cervantes, Richardson, Susana Martinez and Ken Martinez all played huge roles, as did Edgar Lopez, the Las Crucen who paid for the busses to take people to Santa Fe.

The people who gave their time to travel to Santa Fe from Las Cruces to stand and speak in support of the bill were also critical.

Garcia and others have called it the ‘Baby Brianna bill’

One more point: Garcia wrote in her letter to the media last week that the bill was titled “Life Sentences for Deadly Child Abuse.”

“The name of Briana Lopez or baby Briana Act does not exist in the statute,” Garcia wrote. “It was never my intention to put the name of any child on the bill because it was done for all children in New Mexico.”

Brianna’s name does not exist in the statute. But lots of people called it the “Baby Brianna Bill” – including Garcia.

In fact, Garcia did it as recently as July of this year, when she authored a guest column on this site and elsewhere about a new child abuse death in Anthony. Here’s what she wrote:

“I remember back to 2002 when something unimaginable occurred in my very own community of Las Cruces. In 2002 baby Briana Lopez, a six-month old infant, was found horrifically beaten and raped countless times by her family members, bitten by her own mother, bruised throughout her entire body, and thrown hitting the ceiling and dropping to the floor. Briana Lopez died July 19, 2002 from the brutal abuse.

“In 2005 I passed SB166 – a bill known as the ‘Baby Briana Bill’ that created life sentences for child abuse resulting in death. Baby Briana’s death was the impetus for this piece of legislation…”

It’s a shame that Garcia is distorting the facts

It’s no secret that Garcia and Susana Martinez don’t like each other. Martinez once prosecuted Garcia’s brother-in-law and nephew, Miguel O. “Mike” Gonzales and his son, Michael Gonzales Jr. Garcia has told me in the past that she doesn’t like Martinez for that reason.

I’m glad they were able to come together in spite of that in 2005 to get this bill passed. It’s a shame that Garcia is now distorting the facts about what happened.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

Diane Denish’s frequent use of a state jet and Susana Martinez’s purchasing of office supplies from a business owned by an employee create negative appearances that will harm their credibility with voters.

Denish’s use of state jet

In Denish’s case, KRQE’s Larry Barker reported three weeks ago that the Democratic candidate for governor had tallied a bill for state aircraft usage of $367,236 over the past four years. There’s a state regulation requiring at least three passengers on such flights for cost-efficiency – and Denish flew 39 times with fewer than three passengers.

From Barker’s report:

“For example, on Oct. 3, 2008, the lieutenant governor and her husband were the only passengers on a flight to Shiprock. Because there were fewer than three passengers on board, the $3,315 flight violated regulations. And the Denish was the only passenger on a flight to Las Cruces last year that cost taxpayers $4,845.”

But General Services Secretary Art Jaramillo was quoted as saying the lieutenant governor is exempt from the regulation because she’s not a member of a board or commission and the department doesn’t have the authority “to require her to comply with these requirements.”

However, according to Barker’s report, there’s nothing in the regulation that exempts the lieutenant governor. Former Assistant Attorney General and State Sen. Duncan Scott was quoted as saying no elected or appointed state official is exempt.

A Denish spokesman told Barker that Denish wasn’t aware of the regulation. The campaign refused to make Denish available for an interview.

Martinez’s office supply deal

In the case of Martinez, the Republican candidate for governor, the Albuquerque Journal reported a little more than a week ago that the Third Judicial District Attorney’s Office in Las Cruces, which Martinez runs, had purchased more than $60,000 in office supplies from a company owned by one of Martinez’s top aides, Janetta Hicks.

There was no contract or competitive bidding process. Martinez says neither was required because no single purchase was large enough. Martinez told the Journal the deal saved taxpayers money and had approval from two state agencies. She provided documentation to NMPolitics.net to show that buying paper from Hicks’ company was cheaper than other options.

And though the Journal questioned in its initial article whether the deal violated state law, a follow up article pointed out that current laws barring such arrangements weren’t in place at the time of the purchases from 2003 to 2005. From the Journal:

“Because of changes to the Governmental Conduct Act in July 2007, it is now illegal for a state employee to knowingly sell goods to his or her employer. Another section of the law was amended to bar small and sole purchases involving employees.

“Neither of those prohibitions was in effect at the time of the transactions between Hicks’ company and the DA’s Office.

Both candidates take hits

Soon after KRQE’s report, Martinez said she would sell the state jet, winning her points. Denish was damaged by the situation, and her credibility took a further hit when she tried to explain why she wouldn’t sell the jet.

Democrats have hammered Martinez over the office-supply deal she had with her employee, which puts a dent in Martinez’s anti-corruption campaign. Martinez has said she would do the same thing as governor – if it saved money and was transparent – further defending the arrangement by pointing out that auditors found no fault with it.

Some questions remain in the situations involving Denish and Martinez, and I’m currently looking into both.

Newspaper hammers both candidates

The Journal has hammered both candidates in editorials.

“It is unconscionable for New Mexico politicians and appointed officials to use sick kids and rural residents to justify keeping up their jet-setting ways,” the Journal wrote in an Aug. 1 editorial. “But that’s exactly what they are doing.”

The editorial points out that Denish says, “to advocate for rural New Mexico, sometimes you have to get out to rural New Mexico” but states that Martinez is right to want to sell the plan because it’s “too much a symbol of government excess.”

Selling or mothballing the plane, the Journal writes, “might give state officials a closer look at the communities and taxpayers they purport to represent.”

The Journal was equally harsh about Martinez in a Sunday editorial.

“What Martinez misses is the point,” the editorial states. “It isn’t whether the deal… was good for the taxpayers and legal. … The point is that it flunks the smell test.”

“…while $60,000 worth of copy paper and Sharpies is peanuts compared to what has gone on in Santa Fe, it smacks of the kind of insider dealing voters are sick of and that the crime-fighting Martinez vows to clean up,” the editorial states. “The fact she still sees nothing wrong with the office supply arrangement, or how it looks, begs the question of whether she’s up to the task of turning around New Mexico’s culture of corruption.”

The bottom line

The Journal’s editorials accurately represent the way many voters will look at both situations.

Denish has spent years working to build a reputation of being in touch with New Mexicans. But the pricey jet trips around the state – potentially in violation of state regulations and at a time when people are feeling the pain of a bad economy – will appear to many voters as government excess and make Denish look like a politician who’s out of touch with people.

Martinez has built her campaign on ending rampant corruption in state government. But many will view the office-supply contract as another instance of cronyism.

This is politics, and appearances mean a great deal. Politicians from both parties and at all levels of government have given the public every reason in the world to view the actions of government officials in the worst possible light. Fair or not, that’s what is happening in these situations.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

The New Mexico Supreme Court recently took steps to address privacy concerns related to information contained in court records. It’s considering additional steps that would reduce what information is available online. While some of the steps are logical, others are and would be troubling moves toward limiting the public’s access to information it has a right and need to know.

As of July 1, court documents filed by prosecutors are only available to the public with certain information redacted: all but the last four digits of social security numbers, taxpayer ID numbers, financial account numbers and driver’s license numbers, and all but the year of a person’s date of birth.

It’s the last that I find troubling. As a former crime and courts reporter, I can tell you that being able to look up a person using their name and date of birth is an invaluable way to find a person’s past criminal record or other court information.

For example, I used it to determine whether it was a public official or someone else who had been arrested for DWI. And when a man who was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and was off his medication ended up killing someone, I was able, armed with his date of birth, to find a history of incidents that helped paint a clearer picture of how he got to the point that he led police on a high-speed chase through Las Cruces and ran over and killed a man crossing the street.

When the court Web site, nmcourts.com, included full dates of birth, it was a great tool for getting information from a source other than law enforcement.

Now, if you search for cases on the court Web site, you’ll find years of birth only. That’s not enough information to ensure the identity of a person. The change will, I assume unintentionally, push reporters to become cozier with district attorneys in an attempt to get that information out of them, so it will limit journalistic independence.

The other numbers that are being partially redacted in court documents aren’t necessary to identify a person (with the exception of the last four digits of social security numbers) and aren’t as easy to obtain, so redacting them from public records to help prevent identity theft makes sense. But a person’s date of birth is easy to find. For purposes of identity theft, if someone wants your date of birth, they’re going to get it. So the benefit of redacting days and months of birth on the court Web site and in documents is outweighed by the public interest in accurate reporting and journalistic independence, in my view.

To top it off, I know people who have used the court Web site to find information about family members who have been arrested. Without full dates of birth, those whose family members have common names will have a more difficult time doing that.

Even more troubling

The Supreme Court is considering another change I find even more troubling. Its Judicial Information Systems Council is recommending that criminal cases in which defendants are not convicted of a crime be permanently removed from the court Web site, even though files from all cases – not just those that result in convictions – are public records that must be maintained by the court in which they were filed.

From the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government:

“Even though they were acquitted of the crime, or the charges were dropped for lack of evidence, the convenience of the public courts website makes it difficult for them to get a job or housing – type in their name, and all the charges appear. The advisory committee figures that if the information is harder to access, then it won’t cause as many problems for defendants.

“FOG is sympathetic, but we believe there are better ways to address employment and housing discrimination than to cut off online access to a huge amount of public court information. It’s 2010, and public information belongs online. Convenient public access to information facilitates oversight of what your elected sheriffs, prosecutors and judges are doing.”

Agreed. Employment and housing discrimination is wrong, but making it more difficult to access public information isn’t the way to combat it. Public information belongs online. It helps journalists conduct research and provide more accurate news reports. It helps the public scrutinize the actions of its public officials.

It even helps political candidates scrutinize each others’ records. In the gubernatorial race, the state Democratic Party and Democratic candidate Diane Denish have used the court Web site to conduct research into the record of Republican Susana Martinez, Doña Ana County’s district attorney.

Having such information online helps people keep track of family members’ court cases. It helps victims keep track of stalkers, abusers, etc.

The New Mexico courts Web site is the only central database of court case information in New Mexico that’s publicly accessible. Removing vast numbers of cases from this database means there won’t be any single place for people to conduct research. If information about cases that didn’t lead to convictions is removed from the Web site, people would have to travel to every court in the state if they wanted to ensure their research was comprehensive. In the 21st Century, that would be a ridiculously prohibitive limiting of access to public information.

The Supreme Court should put full dates of birth back in court documents and online. And it should reject a proposal to remove cases that didn’t lead to convictions from the online database.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

The Doña Ana County wilderness bill that New Mexico’s U.S. senators and local activists are trying to push through Congress before the end of the year puts U.S. Rep. Harry Teague in a very tough political spot.

The Democratic is in a difficult re-election battle against former GOP U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce. It’s a Republican-leaning district in a Republican leaning year, and Pearce already has an advantage.

Because of past votes, Teague has angered conservatives and progressives alike. And no matter what stance Teague takes on the wilderness bill, he’s going to once again anger constituents his re-election campaign needs.

Supporters of the bill want to push it through before the end of the year, because it’s unlikely or at least less likely to pass the House if Pearce, not Teague, represents the district. There’s even a chance Democrats could lose control of the House in November – which would all but ensure the death of the bill.

So the legislation has to be pushed through this year or its chances of passing could go way down. But pushing the bill through this year could seal Teague’s fate.

No matter what stance he takes…

Teague has angered conservatives by voting in favor of cap-and-trade legislation. And he has angered the progressive wing of his party with his health-care record – he voted against health care reform and his company has cut health insurance for employees.

Three polls of the race have shown that it’s a toss-up (here, here and here), but none are recent. It’s my belief that the race has shifted further to the right, and that Pearce has the advantage. That’s in part based on a recent poll that showed last week that the less-conservative 1st Congressional District race in the Albuquerque area is a toss-up even though the dynamics are better for the Democrat in that race.

U.S. Rep. Martin Heinrich hasn’t alienated his progressive base. Republican challenger Jon Barela isn’t anywhere near as well known as Pearce. And yet the 1st District race is close.

I’m guessing that means Pearce is pulling ahead of Teague in the 2nd Congressional District race.

With that as the backdrop, the Organ Mountains – Desert Peaks Wilderness Act could be Teague’s worst nightmare. It’s already passed a Senate committee and awaits a Senate floor vote. Then it’s on to the House.

Progressives have worked hard to get the bill to this point and are anxious to secure approval of the legislation, which would designate hundreds of thousands of acres in the most populous county in Teague’s district as wilderness – a restrictive conservation designation that prohibits most uses of cars, bikes and other mechanized vehicles. Voting for the bill would help Teague in Doña Ana County, but would hurt him in the more conservative eastern side of the district, where many oppose wilderness as another government intrusion.

Voting against the legislation would hurt Teague in Doña Ana County – a must-win county for him – but at least wouldn’t give conservatives a fresh reason to be angry at him.

Walking a fine line

Teague is walking a fine line, and it’s apparent in the statement his office gave me about the bill. From spokeswoman Kara Kelber:

“Congressman Teague has said that the peaks of the Organ Mountains define both Las Cruces and Doña Ana County, and he believes that Doña Ana County’s natural beauty and wide open spaces need to be protected. However, with a unique, exceptionally dangerous drug war that has claimed thousands of lives raging just across the border in Mexico, Harry is cautious to endorse legislation until we know more about how the drug war could impact our national security, and it can be conclusively established that the bill will not hinder Border Patrol and local law enforcement efforts to restrict criminal activity, protect against the drug violence in the border region, and secure our border.

“Harry does absolutely oppose any effort to rob future generations of land to hunt and fish and New Mexicans of their natural heritage by selling off our public lands to for-profit interests – a radical, but real proposal that Congressman Pearce previously put forth.”

Pearce, who opposes this bill and the wilderness designation altogether, knows Teague faces a difficult choice. From a recent news release:

“Like a typical Washington insider, Congressman Teague has been sidestepping this issue and refusing to lead at home,” Pearce said. “I hope Congressman Teague will take a position on the wilderness bill immediately.”

Pearce proposes new land designations that aren’t as restrictive as wilderness. As I’ve written before, progressives aren’t going to vote for him, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll vote for Teague.

Teague is going to have to take a stance

When he announced that he would vote against the health-care reform bill last year, Teague put out a statement that offended some progressives because it sounded as though he was trying to say the legislation wasn’t progressive enough. Some have said he was trying to have it both ways – his vote was to appease conservatives while his statement sounded like it came from progressive Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, who initially voted against the bill because it didn’t go far enough.

In trying to walk that tight rope, Teague didn’t win many friends.

He won’t be able to get away with that a second time. Teague is going to have to take a definite stance on the wilderness bill. People need to see him as principled. That didn’t happen with his health-care vote.

Teague will lose some support no matter which way he votes. That’s inevitable. But Congress isn’t currently scheduled to meet between the November election and January, when the winner of the election will be sworn in.

The wilderness vote is likely coming up for a House vote before the election. Teague is going to have to take a stance.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

The postponing of the corruption trial of former Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron reveals a potential weakness for Attorney General Gary King’s re-election chances: While he’s secured convictions in some corruption cases, the most high-profile cases are unresolved, and it looks like they will still be pending on Election Day.

The trail for Vigil-Giron and three others accused of fraud and money laundering was set to begin Tuesday. Instead, it’s been postponed until Jan. 3 – eight weeks after the election.

Now, there is likely a perfectly valid reason the trial date was pushed back. It happens all the time. I’m not suggesting otherwise.

King’s office secured indictments in three high-profile cases last year. At the time, there appeared to be a good chance he would have some convictions under his belt when he ran for re-election this year – or at least that one or more of the cases would be resolved one way or the other.

Not any more.

King’s office is still appealing the dismissal of some of the charges in the case against Public Regulation Commissioner Jerome Block and his father. The Blocks are facing felony and misdemeanor charges related to misusing the state’s public financing system.

The judge says King’s office overstepped its authority with the indictments, ruling that, with violations of the public financing law, the secretary state can issue fines or hand the case over to the AG for prosecution, but not both – as was done in this case.

The case is on hold until the appeal is settled.

Then there are the indictments against Vincent “Smiley” Gallegos and three others in the housing authority scandal. A trial date also hasn’t been set in that case, which also includes charges of fraud and money laundering. Most recently, a motion to dismiss the charges against some of the defendants was denied.

There’s a pre-trial hearing for one of the defendants scheduled for next month. But a trial before November appears unlikely.

On the flip side, however, one case brought forward under King’s leadership led to Roberta Vigil being convicted of two felonies last year for misusing public money in her former role as head of the West Las Vegas Public Schools’ bilingual education program.

If Chandler wants a shot at winning…

I’m not arguing that King should try to rush the Vigil-Giron, Block or Gallegos cases through the court system so he can say he won a conviction in a campaign ad. Not at all. I prefer that these things be done right, even if that means they’re not done quickly.

I’m simply pointing out that there haven’t been convictions in these cases, and Republicans are likely to use that fact against King – a Democrat whose fellow Democrats have been at the center of almost all of the public corruption scandals that have plagued New Mexico since 2005.

King’s Republican opponent, Matthew Chandler, is a district attorney whose campaign slogan is “leading the fight against crime and corruption.” He can – and if his campaign is shrewd, will – hammer King for not securing a public corruption conviction in these cases. Chandler must also continue talking about his own record of taking on corruption.

On the flip side, King can certainly put up a TV ad highlighting the fact that he’s indicted a former secretary of state, a public regulation commissioner and a former affordable housing official – all members of his own party – on corruption-related charges, and that he secured the Roberta Vigil conviction. Maybe that will cancel out any attack Chandler lobs at King. It certainly makes King appear tough on corruption.

There are some other situations King can tout as well – cases that were started by King’s predecessor or the feds. For example, in his first year in office King got former State Treasurer Michael Montoya, who had already been convicted on federal charges, to plead guilty to one state felony crime in exchange for the dismissal of 15 other charges brought by King’s predecessor.

And, even though it’s not corruption-related, King’s office successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to remove Carol Sloan from the PRC after she was convicted of attacking another woman with a rock because she believed the woman was having an affair with her husband.

I’ve written before, in the monthly NMPolitics.net newsletter that goes out to qualifying donors, that I haven’t seen much reason – yet – to believe Chandler has a chance of winning. He’s an excellent candidate, but King faced an equally strong opponent in 2006 in Jim Bibb, and he still won the race by 14 points.

This time around, King is the incumbent. History would suggest he is even stronger this election cycle. But there is currently a throw-the-bums-out mentality.

If Chandler wants a shot at winning, he’s going to have to make the case that King hasn’t done enough to combat corruption. If he can do it convincingly, that, coupled with the anti-incumbent sentiment sweeping the nation, might be enough to make this race competitive.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

I want to clarify a couple of things after thinking some more about two commentaries I wrote last week on the problems both gubernatorial candidates face.

Democrat Diane Denish isn’t Bill Richardson. Republican Susana Martinez isn’t Sarah Palin.

That is to say that Denish isn’t a bully. She doesn’t try to force her ideas on others. She operates in a more collaborative way. And, perhaps most importantly for purposes of the election, she’s not been dogged by ethical scandals and rumors of pay-to-play corruption. There’s been no evidence presented publicly that she knew about anything nefarious going on during the Richardson years.

It’s also to say that Martinez is intelligent. She works hard and doesn’t quit something in the middle. She cares little about flashiness, snappy quotes and posing for the cameras (she’s only recently starting to look more comfortable on TV). Having been an elected Republican in a Democratic county for so long, she knows how to think outside the box of her own beliefs, though she also stands firm by her beliefs.

What I wrote last week was that Denish’s big problem is Richardson. He’s become the face of corruption in New Mexico and she needs to bluntly distance herself from him, especially because the GOP and Martinez are trying so hard to tie Denish to Richardson.

And I wrote that Martinez’s plans and policy proposals need more substance. As the Democrats and Denish try to convince voters that Martinez is “all sizzle, no steak,” she must show that she’s not Palin – that she’s not an ideologue and that her ideas have depth and substance.

Both candidates face these problems because, right now, the other side is doing an effective job of characterizing them.

Denish hasn’t done nearly enough to distance herself from Richardson during the campaign. For the most part, she’s sat back and taken it as Republicans have repeatedly called it the “Richardson/Denish” administration and tried to tie her to corruption.

Frankly, the GOP is doing a more effective job than Denish right now of defining Denish. She needs to confront the situation head-on. She needs to bluntly tell voters she isn’t Bill Richardson – in a TV ad, during a news conference. She needs to say that the way he did things isn’t how she’ll do things, that she’s not angling to be president and won’t toe (or cross) legal and ethical lines to make rich friends happy.

Martinez invited the Palin comparison by accepting her endorsement during the primary.  It gave Martinez a big boost that helped her win. At the time, I’m sure the thinking was that the endorsement would help her in the primary, and she would worry about the damage it would do to her image with moderate general election voters later.

Well, that time has arrived. The Palin endorsement, coupled with the massive funding from the founder of the swift boaters, gives Democrats all they need to hammer Martinez as the sizzle while calling Denish the steak.

Martinez has been showing more steak lately, traveling around the state to talk about economic policy. She needs to do more of that. And she needs to use new media to get detailed plans on various issues out to voters. Put the plans on the campaign Web site – with details. Tweet them. Put them on Facebook. Though many voters don’t care about the details, those who do need a central place to find the specifics of the candidates’ plans.

Neither candidate is what the other side is making her out to be. Both need to be more intentional about showing the reality to voters.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

This is the second of two columns examining problems both gubernatorial candidates face. You can read the first column, about Democrat Diane Denish, here.

Let’s face it: Diane Denish is killing Susana Martinez when it comes to releasing substantive policy positions and detailed plans about what she wants to accomplish as governor.

Denish has released plans for ethics reform, helping small businesses, workforce development and government reform. The closest Martinez has come to issuing a similarly substantive plan came in a fairly detailed guest column on this site about growing jobs. She has recently released less-detailed statements about eliminating waste and making New Mexico competitive.

While both candidates have done some dodging of reporters’ questions, as far as I can tell, Martinez has done it more. She failed to answer at least two policy questions asked by journalists that Denish did answer, about a situation involving Helena Chemical Company’s facility in Mesquite and the Public Regulation Commission’s authority over insurance rate hikes.

It’s time for this to change.

Martinez has been on fire since her popularity began to spike a few weeks before the primary. Denish tried to halt that surge with a barrage of negative attack ads in June. It doesn’t appear to have worked. Polling has been done since then, and both campaigns are still operating as if the race is neck-and-neck at best, and maybe even leaning in Martinez’s favor.

Martinez is a candidate many find exciting. She’s Hispanic. She’s a woman. She doesn’t fit the mold. She talks about change and has successfully crafted an image as an outsider in a throw-the-bums-out year. She talks about taking down bad guys – and as a prosecutor she’s actually done it.

But Martinez’s honeymoon with New Mexico voters won’t carry her through the Nov. 2 election. She’s going to have to go into more detail about her plans and her stances on issues. Voters are paying attention this election cycle. Superficial slogans and statements won’t cut it.

Martinez must show she’s not an ideologue

Martinez is running to the right of the New Mexico electorate. Political analyst Jose Garcia said in early June that Martinez doesn’t have to follow the conventional wisdom for Republican candidates and move to the center because her ethnicity and law-enforcement background will attract Hispanic voters. He also predicted, correctly, that the unprecedented dynamics in this race would force Denish to move to the center.

I have heard from many moderate Democratic and independent voters that they’re interested in Martinez’s candidacy. That’s critical, because she can’t win without those voters.

Many of those people have told me they don’t know where Martinez stands on most issues. They do know about her far-right stance on immigration – and it makes them nervous.

Those are many of the voters still up for grabs: moderate Democrats and independents who are more closely aligned with Denish’s center-left philosophy but are tired of business as usual in Santa Fe and suspect that Martinez will more aggressively try to change things.

To win them over, Martinez is going to have to take detailed stances on the most important issues to voters – the economy, education and health care – in addition to other issues like ethics reform. She doesn’t have to move to the left. But she has to show that she understands the complexities of issues and has tangible plans to accomplish her goals.

Martinez has to show that, while she may be more conservative than most New Mexico governors in modern history, she’s not an ideologue. Displaying intelligence and substance on the issues would go a long way toward proving that she’s not Sarah Palin. Showing that she understands the complexities of issues would create the potential for compromise that will be critical to working with the Legislature and accomplishing anything.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

This is the first of two columns examining problems both gubernatorial candidates face. You can read the second column, about Republican Susana Martinez, here.

Albuquerque Journal columnist Leslie Linthicum was right on in a column published this weekend highlighting Democratic gubernatorial candidate Diane Denish’s big problem: “What do you do when your record is linked to someone who’s turned toxic?”

Gov. Bill Richardson is toxic for Denish. The Republicans know it, and they’ve worked hard to tie Denish to Richardson by, among other things, repeatedly referring to his administration as the “Richardson/Denish administration.”

It’s a silly label – it’s not as if Richardson ever let Denish decide anything, and lieutenant governors have little power anyway. But I’ve heard a number of voters repeating the line being sold by the GOP: that Denish had to know about some of the shenanigans going on in the Richardson administration and, even if she didn’t partake in them, she did nothing to stop them.

Richardson has become the face of corruption in New Mexico – corruption that has plagued state government and the Democratic Party since two former state treasurers were indicted in 2005. The governor only narrowly avoided being indicted in his own pay-to-play scandal. His approval rating has nosedived into the ground. And there are other factors that have come together at the wrong time for Richardson’s legacy, and Denish’s candidacy.

The economy has tanked. Jobs have been lost. The rainy-day fund former Gov. Gary Johnson saved up has been spent during the Richardson years. New Mexico’s education system still stinks, despite the reforms of the Richardson years.

Though I suspect history will remember Richardson more kindly than voters currently do – if the spaceport is successful, the film industry stays in New Mexico and the system he set in place to encourage renewable energy development works – Richardson is currently Denish’s greatest weakness.

In this throw-the-bums-out climate, Denish looks to many voters like one of the bums. That’s why Republican Susana Martinez has the advantage in the governor’s race, at least at this point.

What Denish must do

Denish can win the race. But I would suggest she needs to be blunt. She must tell voters she won’t do business the way Richardson has.

She has argued that she has stood up to the powers-that-be in Santa Fe, most notably with a TV ad highlighting her work to reform the scandal-plagued housing authority system. The ad states that Denish took on “Santa Fe insiders” and “wouldn’t back down.”

That’s not enough. Denish needs to be direct. The public needs to see her stand up to the ultimate insider and the way he’s done business as governor. Even Richardson has acknowledged that Denish has to separate herself from him.

Denish could do it with another TV ad that highlights her work to reform the housing authority system. Picture an ad in which Denish says:

“Pay to play. Gov. Bill Richardson has certainly had his share of problems, including scandals involving campaign contributors who got state contracts after giving money to his campaign.

“But when corruption was revealed in the state’s affordable housing system, I fought for reforms to ensure that housing was going to the people who need it most – even though some of the men involved in the scandal had given contributions to my campaign. When those men were indicted for fraud and money laundering, I donated their contributions to a group that works on neighborhood revitalization.”

Then a narrator says:

“Diane Denish. Doing the right thing, even when Santa Fe insiders don’t want her to.”

Such an ad would be bold. It might be risky because of who it would upset. But I’m betting it would resonate with voters.

People believe their government isn’t working. They want more than policy ideas packaged in fancy TV ads. They want honesty.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

I’ve written plenty about how tough a time U.S. Rep. Harry Teague, D-N.M., is going to have winning re-election in November. In fact, in NMPolitics.net’s monthly newsletter that goes out to qualifying donors, I’ve ranked him as the second most endangered incumbent in New Mexico this year, behind state Rep. Karen Giannini, D-Albuquerque.

The situation got worse for Teague last week when Politico told us about a $2.7 million lawsuit he and his companies are facing for failing to repay loans on equipment purchases.  The most important revelation from the article is that Teague’s companies have lost a lot of money. The candidate who pumped $1.5 million of his own money into his campaign in 2008 may not have the resources to do it again.

Despite all of that, I don’t count Teague out. He has a realistic shot at winning re-election. It’s my view that the race leans toward Teague’s GOP challenger, former U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce, but only slightly.

Pearce is in a good position, but I’ve heard many say things like “Teague is toast,” and I simply don’t believe it. This is a Republican-leaning district. It’s a Republican-leaning year. The GOP has a tested, well-known and personally wealthy candidate who’s loved by the well-financed libertarian wing of his party. Pearce held the seat longer than Teague, which reduces Teague’s incumbency advantage.

By many conventional measures, perhaps, Pearce should be in a very comfortable position right now.

But he’s not. Teague has held on in every poll of the race that has been released publicly. In those polls, Teague led by 1 point, trailed by 2 points and trailed by 4 points. In other words, the race is a statistical tie.

Harry Teague

How Teague has held on

How is Teague hanging on when he’s angered the right with his vote for cap and trade and the left with his vote against health care reform? Some thoughts:

• Many say Teague has the best constituent services of any member in New Mexico’s congressional delegation. He has set up five offices across the 2nd Congressional district. He has been in New Mexico more often than the others. He has held more town-hall and constituent meetings. I’m not saying the others don’t work hard – they do – but Teague has been tireless and intentional about putting together constituent services some say rival those of former U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici.

• The next point plays off the last: Some Republicans don’t like Pearce because they didn’t see him do anything for their town or area when he was in Congress, but they believe Teague has helped them. These aren’t ideological voters. They’re Republican voters whose choice is based on what someone has done or will do for them. Teague will win some of their votes.

• Teague speaks the language of rural New Mexico. He’s personable and talkative. One-on-one conversations are when he’s at his best. He looks uncomfortable in Washington but very comfortable talking with someone in an informal setting in rural New Mexico.

• Las Cruces is becoming a larger player in politics. This district is becoming less Republican-leaning because of the progressive awakening that has taken place in Las Cruces in recent years. Conventional wisdom in the 2nd District is slowly changing.

Martinez may help Teague

I want to suggest one other factor that may help Teague: the GOP’s nomination of Doña Ana County District Attorney Susana Martinez for governor. Many progressives feel that Teague hasn’t given them a reason to vote for him on Nov. 2. Diane Denish, the Democrats’ candidate for governor, doesn’t necessarily excite them either.

But progressives who have a strong dislike for Martinez – and the hard-line stance she’s taken on immigration – may be inspired to show up to vote against her, especially since she’s from their hometown. While they’re there, expect some of them to vote for Teague, even if they do it begrudgingly.

Martinez may also inspire others in Las Cruces to vote in larger numbers than usual, and I don’t expect them to be straight-ticket voters. Martinez hasn’t inspired straight-ticket voting in her time as district attorney. She’s won election four times in a Democratic county as a Republican. Moderate independents and Democrats may vote for her instead of Denish but pick Teague over Pearce.

There are plenty of reasons the race leans slightly in Pearce’s favor, with the national mood and his ability to self-finance his race being at the top of the list. But don’t count Teague out.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

In politics, people lie. Certainly not all people, and not all the time, but it does happen frequently.

I devote much of my work to trying to sort the truth from the lies and the spin that falls somewhere in between. The American public is inundated with the spin and the lies daily in TV ads, news releases and other communications.

TV ads have more reach than any other attempt to influence voters. That’s why it’s so important that political candidates be able to back up the claims they make in TV ads with facts.

Enter Susana Martinez, the Republican candidate for governor who has claimed in two TV ads (here and here) that she’s “taken on members of the most violent Mexican drug cartels.”

I want to make clear up front that I think Martinez’s claim is probably true. The words of the head of the federal agency that coordinates the fight against drug trafficking in New Mexico – a man who says Martinez’s claim is accurate – add credibility to Martinez’s claim.

So does that agency’s 2009 report, which details cartel-related crimes that are being committed in New Mexico – the type of crimes that, in Doña Ana County, would be prosecuted by Martinez’s office.

As a former crime reporter in Las Cruces, I’ve covered cases involving the types of local gangs officials say act as enforcers for the cartels. I understand why Martinez doesn’t want to identify specific cases to back up her claim. Informants, government officials and journalists are killed in Mexico all the time for taking on cartels. People have been killed in New Mexico by gangs working with cartels for losing drug shipments or money owed to cartels.

This is scary stuff.

Reason to doubt

But Martinez made the statement about taking on cartels in a political context, and the bottom line is that, in that context, the gubernatorial candidate’s ads make a claim she isn’t backing up – even if there’s a very good reason she isn’t backing it up.

My job as a journalist is to be skeptical. I want to be able to show you proof.

In this case, I’ve found testimony from a federal official and narratives in a federal report about the types of crimes that Martinez’s office might be prosecuting. But, while that’s evidence in support of her claim, it isn’t definitive proof. There is a difference.

Because so much in politics is spin and lies, the American public has reason to doubt every claim a politician won’t or can’t back up. It’s no surprise that the state Democratic Party has accused Martinez of exaggerating her own importance in combating cartel activity. She hasn’t provided proof that they’re wrong.

Martinez opened herself up to such attacks by putting the ads on the air and not providing proof of the claims they make.

Of course, Martinez isn’t the only one to do that. I wrote last week about Democratic gubernatorial candidate Diane Denish’s TV ad that makes an unsubstantiated leap. In that case, Denish’s campaign was unable to provide proof to support its claim that Martinez “allowed” child predators to avoid the sex offender registry.

That’s because the campaign doesn’t have proof. Denish made an allegation that was based on spin – a leap to the worst possible conclusion about two cases Martinez’s office prosecuted that required taking the cases out of context and making a claim without having all the facts.

Denish paid the price for that when the father of the victim in one of those cases called her out and left her with egg on her face.

If you can’t provide proof…

I’ve spent most of my time in the last few weeks investigating claims being made by both gubernatorial candidates. The bottom line is this: You shouldn’t make a claim – positive about yourself or negative about your opponent – that you can’t back up with proof.

Because if you can’t provide proof, the political system in which you operate has given the public all the reason in the world to believe you’re lying.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed