District Judge Mike Murphy

Third Judicial District Judge Mike Murphy’s bribery trial had been scheduled for early February, but a judge has put the case on hold while the Court of Appeals considers whether to reinstate a misdemeanor charge.

In September, Judge Leslie Smith dropped the misdemeanor charge of violating the Governmental Conduct Act. The act states that it is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison and a fine of up to $1,000. But Smith ruled that the portion under which Murphy is charged is not a criminal statute because it is too vague to make clear what conduct it prohibits.

Special prosecutor Matt Chandler has appealed, arguing that the Legislature intended that the statute, which requires that a public officer “conduct himself in a manner that justifies the confidence placed in him by the people, at all times maintaining the integrity and discharging ethically the high responsibilities of public service,” be punishable with prison time and a fine.

The Court of Appeals is currently considering the issue. In November, Smith put the trial on hold pending the appellate court’s decision.

Murphy currently faces felony charges stemming from two cases. His May indictment on four felony charges is based on allegations that he solicited a bribe from potential judicial applicant Beverly Singleman, told Judge Lisa Schultz to tell Singleman she needed to pay the bribe, and threatened to destroy Singleman’s reputation for telling others that he solicited a bribe from her.

Separate from that indictment, Murphy faces another felony charge for allegedly offering “several promises” to Schultz in December 2010 if she would agree to be the tie-breaking vote to make Douglas R. Driggers the chief district judge in Las Cruces.

Murphy has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

How quickly the Court of Appeals will act isn’t clear, but a note in Murphy’s District Court file states that attorneys are “advised to continue preparation for trial since the court anticipates setting a ‘compressed’ deadline and trial schedule upon receiving the ruling from the Court of Appeals.”

Bruce Malott

There’s a new bribery allegation related to the investment scandal that rocked the administration of former Gov. Bill Richardson.

The Albuquerque Journal has the story:

“A former high-paid state investment adviser, who has admitted directing deals to benefit political players, received a $10,000 cash bribe from Anthony Correra, according to court documents filed Thursday.

“Saul Meyer, founding partner of Aldus Equity Advisors of Dallas, discussed receiving an envelope from Correra in a 2006 telephone conversation with his then-partner Matthew O’Reilly.”

A transcript of that phone conversation was filed in court Thursday as part of former Educational Retirement Board Chairman Bruce Malott’s lawsuit against Meyer, Correra and his son, and others accusing them of corruption and racketeering.

Read the full Journal article here.

This is the latest revelation in a scandal that’s been ongoing for more than two years – one that law enforcement is investigating. An audio recording that recently came out in another civil case related to the investment scandal included this quote from Saul Meyer:

“To think that Anthony (Correra) and Marc (Correra) don’t have a stranglehold over this thing is crazy. Because the governor runs this sh*t and they run the governor.”

The Correras were well-connected. Anthony was a close friend of and adviser to Richardson. His son, Marc, shared in at least $22 million in so-called “finder’s fees” paid by companies that won state investment contracts.

As for Meyer, he pleaded guilty in 2009 to felonies in New York related to an investment scandal there. In doing so, Meyer admitted to recommending ‘investments that were pushed on him by politically-connected individuals in New Mexico’ while Aldus was the investment adviser to New Mexico’s State Investment Council and Educational Retirement Board.

Richardson, of course, is apparently under investigation by at least two federal grand juries. One is focused on the investment deals.

Raúl E. Burciaga

The governor is free to maintain a permanent exhibit of photographs of children up for adoption in the Governor’s Gallery. However, permanent or long-term exhibits of agencies or organizations throughout the State Capitol are not permitted, no matter how meritorious.

This is in response to the Albuquerque Journal’s editorial “Roundhouse Good Place For Foster Kids’ Photos” and NMPolitics.net’s “Kids’ photos should hang in Roundhouse hallways.”

In late 2011, Governor Susana Martinez’s administration verbally requested that the Heart Gallery’s photos of children be displayed in the State Capitol rotunda during the legislative session. Because space in the rotunda is reserved months in advance, administration officials were advised by Legislative Building Services, which is part of the Legislative Council Service (LCS), that only certain times and spaces were available.

Administration officials declined to reserve any of the remaining available spaces for the photos. The rest of the State Capitol is reserved for art that primarily showcases New Mexico artists, and the art that is displayed is selected by the Capitol Art Foundation and not by legislators, public officials or the LCS.

This policy helps to ensure that art that is displayed is not selected for any political purpose, however worthy or noncontroversial it may be.

On Dec. 9, 2011, Governor Martinez unveiled some of the photographic portraits in the Governor’s Gallery, which is on the fourth floor of the Roundhouse and receives many visitors each day. Many of those photographs are still there.

The governor indicated that she wanted to add these portraits to the artwork throughout the State Capitol and that she would ask the New Mexico Legislature to add portraits from the Heart Gallery to the State Capitol. (See Albuquerque Journal, Dec. 10, 2011.) But as of this date, the LCS has not received a specific or formal request indicating where, for what length of time, or how many photographs the Heart Gallery would like to exhibit.

Although the LCS has never received a written or specific request from the administration, I have spoken about this issue with Secretary of Cultural Affairs Veronica Gonzales, Chief of Staff Keith Gardner and Governor Martinez. Further, we have explained that numerous state agencies, schools, universities and other organizations have used and are welcome to continue to use the rotunda and certain other space in the Roundhouse to showcase their programs and missions. The Heart Gallery of New Mexico Foundation, as a nonprofit partner of the Children, Youth and Families Department, is welcome to any of the limited spaces and times still available.

Additionally, other state agencies under the governor’s control have had and are scheduled to have exhibits in the State Capitol, any of which could have been and could still be replaced at the governor’s direction with the Heart Gallery’s photographs of children. The LCS does not allow permanent exhibits for state agencies, schools, universities or other organizations, but we do allow temporary exhibits in certain areas.

We have advised the administration several times that the merits of the Heart Gallery are not at issue, and that we would be happy to accommodate a temporary exhibit in the rotunda or its east or west wings for times or dates that are not already reserved.

The governor is also free to maintain a permanent exhibit of these photographs in the Governor’s Gallery. However, permanent or long-term exhibits of agencies or organizations throughout the State Capitol are not permitted, no matter how meritorious.

Burciaga is the director of Legislative Council Service.

Heath Haussamen

Hanging photos of foster children who are up for adoption in the halls of the Roundhouse would be a powerful statement about the priorities of state government. I hope the legislative branch changes its mind and grants the governor’s request to do it.

At her core, I believe Gov. Susana Martinez is driven by a desire to better the lives of children.

Say what you will about the policy proposals she thinks will improve New Mexico, or the job she’s doing as the state’s chief executive (I’ve certainly criticized her), but I’ve known Martinez a long time, and there is no question in my mind about her motivation.

As a former prosecutor who has put many child killers in jail, Martinez has little patience for anyone she views as standing in the way of that goal. In her mind, children are being hurt every day, whether it’s at the hands of abusers or by policies that don’t create the conditions for them to thrive in New Mexico.

And she can’t stand to see even one child suffer.

That motivation and her experience as a prosecutor are why I wrote last year that Martinez was up to the task of fixing the state’s troubled Children, Youth and Families Department.

I share Martinez’s motivation. I believe most people do, regardless of their political or other views.

So I was heartened in December when Martinez announced that a new gallery in the lobby of her office in the Roundhouse would feature portraits of foster children who are awaiting adoption. What a spectacular way to shine light on a huge need and to set the tone – in the office of the state’s chief executive – that government in New Mexico is working to better conditions for even the most needy children.

A statement about priorities

Martinez also asked the Legislature to allow that portraits of those children be hung in the hallways, in areas of the Roundhouse not under her control. This week, the director of Legislative Council Service denied that request. He said the decision would force him to OK other requests from nonprofit groups, some of them more controversial, according to the Albuquerque Journal.

That’s crap. This isn’t a request from a nonprofit. It’s a request from the governor to promote a state government program’s non-controversial goal – the adoption of children in the foster care system.

The legislative branch can’t promote a program it funds without having to also agree to promote nonprofit programs it doesn’t fund? That argument doesn’t make sense to me. The best-case scenario is that this is red tape at its worst.

I believe most legislators, like Martinez, are motivated by a desire to create a better state for the next generation. I know they’re all aware how far short we fall in so many areas related to children, including education, protection from abuse, and poverty reduction. We’re at or near the bottom of so many positive lists. I know lawmakers aren’t OK with that.

The Roundhouse’s hallways are decorated with a diverse and impressive display of artwork from New Mexicans. Adding a gallery with photos of some of New Mexico’s most needy children to that mix – with the goal of helping them find permanent families – would be a powerful statement about the priorities of state government.

A constant and visible reminder

And at a time when government finds it difficult to focus on the ball, and instead gets caught up in partisan politics and pressured by outside money, such a gallery would serve as a constant and visible reminder to government officials about why they’re there.

It’s about bettering the lives of New Mexicans. It’s about handing a better state to the next generation.

It happens one investigation that saves a child from abuse at a time. One early intervention that helps a child catch up developmentally at a time. One adoption at a time. One teacher who refuses to give up on a child who is struggling to read at a time. One New Mexican who becomes the first in his or her family to graduate from college at a time. One who finds a better-paying job than his or her parents had at a time.

Our governor and lawmakers can – and should – debate how to accomplish these goals. But they should be able to agree that those are the goals.

I hope Legislative Council Service Director Raúl Burciaga changes his mind, or that legislative leaders change it for him.

In the meantime, you can find information about foster children who are currently up for adoption by clicking here.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

Attorney General Gary King (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

The Albuquerque Journal joined the criticism of Attorney General Gary King this weekend, calling his record “woefully inadequate” and questioning whether he has “the commitment and drive to actually deliver some results.”

The impetus for the newspaper’s editorial was the recent discovery by The Santa Fe New Mexican that, in spite of a prior statement from the AG’s office, an embezzlement investigation focused in part on the live-in girlfriend of a former Albuquerque mayor has been ongoing for more than three years.

King’s office initially said the office had received information about the alleged crime “several months ago,” but The New Mexican obtained records that proved otherwise.

King’s response to The New Mexican:

“I guess I do have to do a personal mea culpa to everybody that thinks that several months ago apparently means like three months ago or something like that,” King said. “I think it was meant to be indeterminate.”

But:

“I don’t think ‘several months’ was particularly descriptive of how long we’ve had the case,” King said. “But I don’t think it was a lie, either. Several months is not a good description based on human experience of how much several months is, but basically it was trying to be a way to say that we can’t make a specific comment on any particular case that is under investigation.”

The Journal called the situation “an absolutely surreal exercise in dissembling” and called King’s explanation “astonishing.” From the editorial:

“His ‘folks’ also haven’t tried to prosecute the case criminally — four years in. And that should prompt New Mexicans to ask what else have they gotten from this attorney general.”

King has long faced criticism

Of course, the criticism of King isn’t new. Last year, The Santa Fe New Mexican suggested that he should consider resigning. Here’s how I summed up King’s woes in ranking the criticism of him as the ninth biggest political story in New Mexico in 2011:

“Attorney General Gary King had one of the worst years of any elected official in New Mexico in 2011. The criticism was widespread (and included me), and it covered a range of issues including allegations that his office was “ineffective” in dealing with cop discipline cases, that it trailed those responsible for Medicaid fraud recovery in almost all other states, that he thumbed his nose at campaign contribution limits, that he gave Jerome Block Jr. an overly lenient plea deal, that he was playing fast and loose with Southern New Mexico’s water, that he declined to investigate bribery allegations against a state official the feds later indicted, that his office violated the Inspection of Public Records Act, and that he had a serious conflict with a corruption case his office was prosecuting.

“King has long faced criticism for his handling of corruption cases, but the condemnation of the job he’s doing was deafening in 2011. The Santa Fe New Mexican said King should consider resigning. I slammed King after he attempted to damage my credibility and intimidate me into silence by suggesting that I colluded with Republicans to deflect criticism away from the governor and onto him.

“If King doesn’t change some things, the criticism will continue.”

Journal adds to list of grievances

The Journal had its own list of grievances against King, and here’s what it added that wasn’t on my list:

“ • No criminal charges in the alleged pay-to-play practices involving state investments that have cost taxpayers millions — despite civil lawsuits laying the groundwork for criminal conduct. (Though in this case, King could reasonably point across the street to federal inaction as a mitigating factor.)

“ • A three-year dragging prosecution of former Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron and others in connection with millions in federal taxpayer cash that’s been unaccounted for since the 2004 and 2006 elections. Vigil-Giron and her co-defendants have yet to get their day in court; taxpayers have yet to get any answers to where their money went.

“ • A 16-month investigation into whether a State Investment Council contract that started out at $30,000 but ballooned over six amended versions to $5.1 million should have been put out to bid, as it exceeded the $50,000 threshold. The decision — yes — came after taxpayers had already paid the bill.

“ • …Six years of violating federal law by submitting federal campaign finance reports with the signature of a political committee treasurer (pay-to-play civil defendant and former Educational Retirement Board Chairman Bruce Malott) who left soon after King’s 2004 race for Congress failed.”

The Journal concluded that King’s list of positive accomplishments is “woefully short.” Read the full editorial here.

Bill O'Neill

We obviously have a major problem with people taking advantage of this progressive and well-intended law. It is a problem of fraud, and it needs to be acknowledged and solved.

Once again I find myself in the middle of one of our most contentious issues: what to do about the 2003 law that permits the issuing of driver’s licenses to foreign nationals who cannot verify their legal status in New Mexico. Once again I am struck by how the debate dominates local television, newspapers, opinion pages – and of course, the governor’s current legislative agenda.

First of all, I would like to point out that I was not in the state Legislature in 2003. This is an issue that I have approached with a fairly objective mindset, having no part in the legislation’s origin. I believe that even the fiercest opponents would concede that the law’s public safety intent was legitimate: to provide the ability for foreign nationals to attain car insurance, and in the process reduce one of the nation’s highest uninsured motorist rates, as well as make sure that these same individuals were in a data bank that could be used by law enforcement officials when warranted.

But we obviously have a major problem with people taking advantage of this progressive and well-intended law, as documented in various media accounts and, most importantly to me, through first-hand anecdotes from my District 15 constituents. Individuals can come to New Mexico to attain these licenses under fraudulent means, and then leave the state, or traffic in these bogus documents, and so on.

It is a problem of fraud, and it needs to be acknowledged and solved.

New Mexicans want this problem solved

Last week, I introduced House Bill 171, which repeals the 2003 law and substitutes instead a provisional license for these same foreign nationals who do not have a social security number. With this license they can still secure car insurance and lawfully drive themselves to work, or to church, or to school to pick up their children. The provision license cannot, however, be used to travel outside of New Mexico. This license would have no validity outside of our state borders.

Thus, the fraud problem is immediately solved: People would not come to New Mexico to attain a license that would have no validity in other states. At the same time, the sensible policy of having these individuals insured on our highways would be preserved.

Let us now talk politics, as this is really how the issue is playing out. A variation of this same provisional license approach has been introduced over the past two sessions by three of my House Republican colleagues, who, like many of us here, want simply to solve this problem and move on the many other important issues facing New Mexico.

I find it curious that Governor Susana Martinez adamantly opposes the provisional license approach and has promised to veto such a compromise. She is often quoted as saying that “74 percent of New Mexicans support my bill to repeal the current license law.” I would suggest that she is wrong, that 74 percent of New Mexicans want this problem solved, effectively and immediately, and that they are leaving the specifics of that up to us, the legislators and the executive branch.

Where are we without compromise?

Over the past several months, I have had the opportunity to walk my district, to address neighborhood meetings, and answer e-mails and phone calls. When I explain my opposition to the severely flawed, Arizona-style Martinez solution to this problem, my overriding sense is that your average voter understands that I, as a legislator, can only vote on the specifics of the bill in front of me. The details matter, and ultimately I am forced to vote on the text of a bill rather than its intent.

The Martinez-backed bill, House Bill 103, sponsored by State Rep. Andy Nuñez, is bad legislation. First of all, it completely ignores the problem that we are trying to solve – what to do about the roughly 85,000 foreign nationals in our state who would not qualify for any kind of legitimate driving privileges under the criteria it proposes. In addition, it remains an open question whether it would in fact bring us into compliance with the Real ID Act, which only a handful of states have chosen to pursue. It does not acknowledge that a driver’s license is not an invitation to citizenship – rather, it is an obligation that we insist upon as a community for our own public safety reasons.

In fairness, in the absence of federal leadership on the illegal immigration issue, states like New Mexico are forced to come up with their own solutions. In that light, my HB 171 is very close to the provisional license bill that was recently implemented in Utah.

I also believe that the governor is sincere in her belief that her approach is the best way to solve the problem. But I am troubled by the complete absence of any willingness on her end to compromise on this important issue. Where are we, in terms of being able to govern effectively, without compromise?

Our constituents do not want issues like these used for political gain. Such a route requires at least some degree of willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue, which means that people on both sides have to make concessions, in the interest of resolving the problem at hand.

I urge both sides – immigrant rights activists as well as Republican opponents – to be willing to tackle the problem with true compromise in the interest of good public policy for all New Mexicans.

 O’Neill, a Democrat, represents the Albuquerque-area District 15 in the N.M. House of Representatives.

That means the committee substitute for HB 103 will move forward, but Nuñez has also promised to try to bypass the committee process if necessary, as he did last year, to get a floor vote on his version of the legislation.

The substitute bill the committee passed would, according to its title, limit the duration of some licenses, cancel some others, and require “additional identification and proof of residency for foreign nationals,” in addition to increasing penalties for violations.

NMPolitics.net liveblogged the committee hearing today. You can read the archive here.

The 

The Roundhouse in Santa Fe (Photo by Peter St. Cyr)

Most agree that policymakers need to address issues with the law allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses, but the governor and many Democrats are at odds over what to do. A victory by either side or a compromise appears to be unlikely again this year.

An investigation has found potential fraud by some immigrants who have New Mexico driver’s licenses; a spokesman for Gov. Susana Martinez says that’s another sign that the state’s license “is not secure.”

The Associated Press investigation, which was detailed in a Tuesday article, found that “addresses of dozens of the same businesses and homes across New Mexico were used over and over again by people to get driver’s licenses in a pattern that suggests potential fraud by immigrants trying to game the system.”

For example, “In one instance, 48 foreign nationals claimed to live at a smoke shop in Albuquerque to get a license,” the report states. “In another case, more than a dozen claimed to live at an automotive repair shop over a one-year period.”

Martinez and some others might tout the report as additional evidence of the need to repeal the New Mexico law – one of only two in the nation – that allows undocumented immigrants to obtain licenses. But Democrats in the N.M. Senate caucused Tuesday and decided to dig in their heels, insisting that amending the current law, not repealing it, is the way to go.

“This issue has drawn national attention and it has made one thing very clear: The current law must be strengthened to include provisions that clearly address the flaws,” Senate Democrats said in a statement released after they emerged from their caucus. “Repealing the law and forcing a fraction of the driving population to go without proper licensing, registration or insurance puts New Mexican families at risk.”

With both sides agreeing that there’s a problem that needs fixed but set in their opposing views about how to do it – amending the law versus repealing it – the debate over the issue appears to be headed for the same bitter and divisive train wreck that consumed so much time during the Legislature’s last regular session a year ago.

The debate could ramp up this afternoon, when the House Human and Labor Resources Committee is scheduled to consider HB 103, sponsored by Rep. Andy Nuñez, I-Hatch. That’s the Martinez-backed bill that would repeal the driver’s license law.

You’ll be able to watch the committee hearing by clicking here; the start time depends on when the floor session ends and other factors. If the debate over Nuñez’s bill happens today, NMPolitics.net will liveblog it.

House, Senate likely at odds again

The debate over the issue was often tense during the 2011 regular session. After a House committee tabled Nuñez’s bill, he pushed for a procedural vote that would bypass committees and bring the bill to the floor for consideration. Speaker Ben Luján delayed that attempt with a controversial ruling to adjourn for the day.

But that didn’t stop Nuñez. Following two days of policy debate and procedural wrangling, eight Democrats joined him and the GOP caucus in passing the Martinez-backed repeal bill.

The Senate later voted to keep licenses for undocumented immigrants, passing what Senate Democrats called compromise legislation that would implement “stricter and tougher requirements for foreign nationals to obtain driver’s licenses,” including “a six-month residency requirement as well as fingerprints for foreign nationals in order to be eligible for a N.M. driver’s license.”

Martinez said she would veto the Senate bill, and lawmakers couldn’t reconcile differences between the two pieces of legislation, so the debate died.

Nuñez intends to force a floor vote on his bill this year, if necessary, and there’s a good chance the House will pass it again. If the Tuesday statement from Senate Democrats holds, there’s little chance of that chamber passing Nuñez’s bill.

“There are more than 90,000 foreign nationals with licenses, and 97 percent of them have complied with our state’s licensing requirements,” Senate Democrats said in their statement. “Repealing the law would not advance public safety, would not help law enforcement and would not eliminate instances of fraud. A sweeping approach may create safety issues. We need to address those actually committing fraud while making sure that everyone driving is licensed, registered and insured.”

Pleas for compromise

Martinez has threatened to inflict election pain on those who oppose her effort to repeal the law – an effort polling has shown is backed by the majority of New Mexicans. All lawmakers’ seats are up for grabs this year, and Martinez’s political action committee has half million dollars in the bank.

Still, at least two Democratic lawmakers representing swing districts are sticking their necks out by seeking compromise. In the House, Rep. Bill O’Neill, D-Albuquerque, has sponsored legislation that, in his words, “repeals the 2003 law and substitutes instead a provisional license for these same foreign nationals who do not have a Social Security number.”

“With this license they can still secure car insurance, and lawfully drive themselves to work, or to church, or to school to pick up their children. It cannot, however, be used to travel outside of New Mexico – this license would have no validity outside of our state borders,” O’Neill wrote in a guest column submitted to NMPolitics.net that has not yet been published.

“I urge both sides – immigrant rights activists as well as Republican opponents – to be willing to tackle the problem with true compromise in the interest of good public policy for all New Mexicans,” O’Neill wrote.

Sen. Steve Fischmann, D-Las Cruces, has introduced a bill he says would comprehensively address immigration issues, rather than taking on only the license issue.

“As anti-license proponents rail at the opposition for supporting de facto open borders, and pro-license proponents decry their opposition as mean spirited racists, we seem to be headed down the same well-worn path that defines most of our current politics,” Fischmann wrote in a guest column NMPolitics.net published Tuesday. “It leads to a land where everybody hates each other and no meaningful problem is ever solved.”

“We don’t have to go there. Let’s drop the political soap opera and get down to the real work,” Fischmann wrote.

One provision in Fischmann’s bill is similar to O’Neill’s – it would create “driving privilege cards for guest workers that qualify as New Mexico ID only.” Utah is the only state with such a law on the books.

Already, one immigrants-rights group has stated opposition to Fischmann’s bill, saying it allows for discrimination by “institutionalizing differentiated driver’s licenses” and creating “the opportunity for profiling.”

Martinez, with public opinion on her side, wasn’t willing to budge last year. She’s given no indication that this year will be any different.

State Sen. Steve Fischmann

We can continue the political soap opera over driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants or comprehensively tackle immigration issues impacting our daily lives. I’m sponsoring legislation that attempts to do the latter. I invite others to help me improve it.

While Washington plays out its habitual gridlock on immigration issues, American citizens as well as immigrants suffer needlessly.

The public justifiably worries about national security and public safety issues when there is no reliable identification system for immigrants. They also worry about strains on public services and scarce tax dollars.

In the meantime, our economy takes hits from every direction. Unscrupulous employers take advantage of undocumented workers they know will not complain for fear of deportation. Workers in construction and hospitality industries suffer from depressed wages and reduced job openings from unfair competition with undocumented labor.

Farmers who can scarcely find anyone but undocumented workers to harvest their crops are turned into lawbreakers for hiring much-needed labor. Businesses of all stripes face uncertainty about how immigration law will be enforced from one month to the next depending on political winds.

An additional toll is taken on our social structure. Undocumented families are split apart when family members are deported, or when a worker cannot afford to pay coyotes for the treacherous process of smuggling wives and children into the country. Fractured families cost all of us thorough increased crime and burdens on our social services.

On top of that, money earned in the United States is sent across our borders to support family members instead of driving our own economy.

Let’s drop the political soap opera

So with just about every honest stakeholder suffering from the current state of dysfunction, how is New Mexico tackling immigration issues? By waging an epic political battle over driver’s licenses.

I receive many constituent e-mails supporting the removal of driving privileges for undocumented immigrants. Fair enough. There are clearly problems with misuse of driver’s licenses for federal identification.

Unfortunately, many mistakenly believe banning licenses will be a significant step toward solving immigration issues. Not so. Forty seven states do not allow driver’s licenses for undocumented workers. Just about all of them still face the same immigration issues we do.

As anti-license proponents rail at the opposition for supporting de facto open borders, and pro-license proponents decry their opposition as mean spirited racists, we seem to be headed down the same well-worn path that defines most of our current politics. It leads to a land where everybody hates each other and no meaningful problem is ever solved.

We don’t have to go there. Let’s drop the political soap opera and get down to the real work.

A bill that would truly address immigration issues

I have introduced guest worker legislation (SB 14) that addresses immigration issues in a manner that can significantly improve our security, our economy, and our quality of life; and that addresses driver’s license issues to boot.

SB 14 creates a predictable immigration policy for New Mexico in partnership with the federal government. It ends policies that make lawbreakers out of employers and workers who serve the economic interests of our state, while protecting jobs for legal citizens, and increasing accountability for unscrupulous employers. It also creates a funding mechanism that requires no new taxes and will actually add money to our state coffers.

While there is plenty to debate and improve upon, I believe SB 14 creates a framework that has real payoffs for our state. Since others on this blog have grossly misrepresented my guest worker bill, I’ve detailed exactly what it does below:

1. Creates incentives for both workers and employers to obtain guest-worker documentation good for two years so immigrant workers can be tracked effectively and live without fear. Allows federal enforcement efforts to be focused on those who do not qualify. The program goes into effect only after federal approval is obtained along with guarantees that ICE will not deport guest-worker permit holders.
2. Allows cities and counties to choose enforcement policies that work best for their jurisdictions in co-operation with federal immigration authorities. There are no Arizona- or Alabama-style mandates for local officials to ask for identification or otherwise encroach on federal enforcement authority.
3. Denies guest-worker status to any foreign national with a criminal background.
4. Protects jobs for New Mexicans by setting appropriate guest worker quotas between 3 percent and 6 percent of the workforce; that can be adjusted annually. Current estimates put undocumented workers at 6 percent of New Mexico’s workforce versus 5 percent nationally.
5. Stops abuse of driver’s licenses as federal ID by creating driving privilege cards for guest workers that qualify as New Mexico ID only.
6. Provides guest workers with the same protections from employer abuses as all other workers. This is crucial not only from a human rights perspective, but because it protects our citizen workforce from unfair competition.
7. Ensures that guest workers contribute their fair share to cover public services. Federal payroll taxes that should not be paid by federally undocumented workers are replaced with guest-worker fees that are paid to the state. These funds will cover administration of the guest-worker program and other general state costs. The measure will almost certainly add money to the New Mexico treasury with no additional tax burdens on business, the public, or immigrants.
8. Creates penalties for employers hiring undocumented workers without a N.M. guest-worker permit. Sanctions include fines, and, after three violations, potential suspension of business permits.
9. Creates a family status for dependents of guest workers to protect families from being split up.

An invitation

The challenges of enacting guest worker legislation are great, but the potential rewards are even greater. Responsible legislation is an opportunity for states to put the federal government on notice that it is time for them to face up to immigration issues with national legislation.

I invite all concerned to review my proposal objectively and help me improve it. We can lecture one another other over driver’s licenses or we can comprehensively tackle the important immigration issues impacting our daily lives.

If we stay focused on what people really need, we’ll choose option number two.

Steve Fischmann, a Democrat, represents the Las Cruces-area District 37 in the New Mexico Senate.

Former Gov. Bill Richardson (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

“To think that Anthony (Correra) and Marc (Correra) don’t have a stranglehold over this thing is crazy. Because the governor runs this sh*t and they run the governor.”

That’s what New Mexico’s investment adviser, Saul Meyer, said to his company’s partners in 2006 when talking about how things work in New Mexico. He was speaking about former Gov. Bill Richardson.

The quote came from an audio recording of the 2006 Aldus Equity meeting. A transcript and the audio recording have been filed in court by Frank Foy as part of his lawsuit alleging pay to play during the Richardson years.

Confused by all of this? The Albuquerque Journal ran an article on the Meyer recording this weekend that you can read here and summed up the various investment-related lawsuits here.

You can read the transcript of the Aldus Equity meeting here (It’s Tab A, which starts on page 6), and listen to it (in five parts) here, here, here, here and here. The files were provided by Foy’s attorney.

As for Meyer, he pleaded guilty in 2009 to felonies in New York related to an investment scandal there. In doing so, Meyer admitted to recommending “investments that were pushed on him by politically-connected individuals in New Mexico” while Aldus was the investment adviser to New Mexico’s State Investment Council and Educational Retirement Board.

And the Correras? From the Journal:

“Anthony Correra was a close political and economic adviser to Gov. Bill Richardson and helped select Gary Bland as State Investment Officer. Marc Correra shared in more than $22 million in finder’s fees paid by companies that received the state investments.”

Richardson, of course, is apparently under investigation by at least two federal grand juries. One is focused on the investment deals.