The Roundhouse in Santa Fe (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

GOP hints that votes against tougher penalties for public corruption will be used against Democrats in November

A weekend vote on a bill that would toughen penalties for public corruption could have political consequences for those who opposed the legislation, The Santa Fe New Mexican is reporting.

From the newspaper:

“The House on Saturday voted 41-26 to pass House Bill 111, which would increase criminal penalties when a crime is committed by a public official. It also would mean that officials convicted of crimes – such as embezzlement, bribery and making false vouchers – could lose part of their state pensions and would not be allowed to become lobbyists.

“Not long after the two-hour debate on the bill, the state Republican Party emailed a news release with an all-capital-letters subject line that shouted: ‘TWENTY-SIX DEMOCRATS VOTE AGAINST ANTI-CORRUPTION BILL.’

“GOP Executive Director Bryan Watkins said in the release, ‘It appears some Democrats will run for re-election on the platform of giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants and taxpayer-funded pensions to corrupt public officials. Republicans look forward to that debate.’

“The no votes included most of the Santa Fe area’s House delegation: House Speaker Ben Luján of Nambé, Rep. Luciano ‘Lucky’ Varela and Rep. Jim Trujillo.”

What’s the issue? From the newspaper:

“Both Varela and Trujillo said they were concerned that the bill would mean low-level state employees could be prosecuted. It could happen to any clerk who issued a check because he was ordered to by a corrupt boss, Varela said. ‘There’s nothing to protect him.’”

But the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Nate Gentry, R-Albuquerque, said this:

“‘If a janitor is ripping off $1,000 worth of supplies a month, why shouldn’t he be held to the same standards as a principal (engaged in similar crime)?’”

Read the full article here. You can also check out the legislation here and see how each member voted here.

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.”

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.

Without further ado, here’s my list of the top 10 New Mexico political stories of 2011. Feedback? Submit a comment at the end of the article.

U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, right, with Sen. Tom Udall, who will replace him as the state's senior senator (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

1. Bingaman’s retirement

When he announced in February that he is retiring at the end of 2012, U.S Sen. Jeff Bingaman gave this explanation:

“At some point in any one of these jobs, you come to a point where you think you’ve made your best effort, and it’s time to move on and allow someone else to serve. That’s the point I’ve arrived at.”

For a senator who generally kept a lower national profile than his colleagues and spent more time on policy than politics, that quote revealed something profound: Bingaman spent nearly three decades in the circus that is Washington and somehow retained his humility.

Others will talk about New Mexico’s loss of seniority in the U.S. Senate with the retirements of Pete Domenici in 2008 and Bingaman next year. That’s a fair point. In fact, it’s what makes Bingaman’s retirement the top New Mexico political story of 2011. During the 110th Congress, the two were the longest-serving duo in the U.S. Senate. They were the chair and ranking member of the Senate Energy Committee and had a dramatic impact on national energy policy. They protected New Mexico’s military installations and national laboratories.

Bingaman worked successfully on other issues including conservation, immigration, and health care. He was one of the “gang of six” who worked toward compromise on health-care reform in 2009.

With Bingaman’s retirement, New Mexico will shift to having one of the shortest-serving duos in the Senate – Tom Udall and whoever wins next year’s race to replace Bingaman. But Udall spent a decade in the U.S. House before moving over to the Senate, so he’s not exactly a young’un.

The battle to replace Bingaman in the Senate will be one of the top New Mexico political stories of 2012. U.S. Rep. Martin Heinrich is giving up his House seat to run for Senate, and state Auditor Hector Balderas is running against him. Former U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson is the frontrunner for the GOP Senate nomination, but Lt. Gov. John Sanchez and Las Cruces businessman Greg Sowards are also in the mix. There are three-way primaries on both sides in the race to replace Heinrich in the House. Bingaman’s retirement creates opportunity and uncertainty in state politics.

But that’s one of next year’s top stories. For now, I’ll leave you with Bingaman’s quote about the delegation he’s leaving:

“I think we have a very capable congressional delegation, and I’m confident they can carry on.”

Simple. Kind. Unassuming. It’s exactly what you’d expect from Bingaman at the end of his career in the Senate. Whether he will admit it or not, his has been a career that made a real difference. Well done, senator. Thanks for your service.

2. Uncertain dynamics in the Roundhouse

Gov. Susana Martinez

Republicans had more influence in the Roundhouse in 2011 than they’ve had in more than eight decades. In addition to Gov. Susana Martinez taking office, the state had its first GOP secretary of state and a greater percentage of Republicans in the House than it has had in more than 80 years.

The result was largely gridlock. At the top of the list of issues on which policymakers are at a stalemate is Martinez’s push to repeal a law that allows undocumented immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses and Secretary of State Dianna Duran’s proposal to implement a voter ID law. The Legislature also quit a special session having given up hope of finding compromise on redistricting and leaving the task to the courts.

But it wasn’t just the GOP gains that led to the gridlock. Rep. Joseph Cervantes’ attempt to unseat House Speaker Ben Luján at the end of 2010 was unsuccessful, but it still weakened Luján’s power. Then came Andy Nuñez’s switch from Democrat to independent after his party refused to support Cervantes. Add to that a surprising independent streak in Democratic Rep. Sandra Jeff, and the House is nearly evenly split and entirely unpredictable.

To make things even more difficult in Santa Fe, Martinez seems to have picked up where former Gov. Bill Richardson left off as far as the executive’s relationship with the Senate – which is to say that the relationship is almost non-existent. The Senate is determined to protect its power and is oversensitive to any attempt by the executive to encroach on its authority. Martinez has little patience for those who don’t get on board with her agenda.

Meanwhile, the governor has won a few legislative victories, including implementing the assigning of letter grades to schools. But she certainly hasn’t gotten things done as quickly as she’d hoped.

As 2011 comes to an end and lawmakers prepare to gather in Santa Fe in mid-January, everyone is still trying to figure out how things are going to work. Time will tell, but 2012 promises to be interesting in Santa Fe.

District Judge Mike Murphy

3. Judicial scandal

In spite of early statements in the bribery case against District Judge Mike Murphy, prosecutors have produced no proof of widespread bribery in the judiciary. In fact, Murphy isn’t even charged with paying a bribe. 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.

But perhaps the most interesting aspect of the case may be all the other judges who knew about Murphy’s big mouth – his alleged statements that are the basis for the charges against him – and did little or nothing about it.

As I wrote in a May commentary, judges and lawyers are required to report potential violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct to the state’s Judicial Standards Commission. From that commentary:

“And yet, according to witness statements, Murphy told several other judges and lawyers that he made some sort of payment – possibly a campaign contribution – in exchange for his appointment to the bench, and that other judicial applicants had to do the same to get appointed.”

But who was there to stop him? Judge Lisa Schultz claims she sought advice from several other judges, including a Supreme Court justice, about what to do, but she received little help until she took the allegations against Murphy to law enforcement.

The judiciary has learned to take certain problems seriously in the years since then-District Judge John Brennan was arrested in Albuquerque in 2004 for drunken driving and cocaine possession. That incident led to a reshaping of the state’s judiciary, and Appeals Court Judge Roderick T. Kennedy wrote a column this year about help that’s available for judges who are in trouble.

In 2011, a DWI ended Appeals Court Judge Robert E. Robles’ career, and District Judge Albert S. “Pat” Murdoch quit after being charged with raping a prostitute (the case against him has been dropped for now but could be refilled).

But the tolerance for Murphy’s big mouth reveals another serious issue. When asked about it during an interview for the judgeship in 2006, Murphy promised to keep his mouth in check and was given a pass. He broke that promise repeatedly with his claims about how he got his job (and his offensive comments about gay people). The ensuing scandal – one of the worst in the history of the state’s judiciary – illustrates why his colleagues needed to report him.

Former Gov. Bill Richardson (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

4. Another Richardson investigation

Former Gov. Bill Richardson left office at the end of 2010 but didn’t stay out of the news. A federal grand jury is currently investigating an accusation that Richardson had supporters pay a woman $250,000 to keep quiet about their alleged extramarital affair while he was running for president. The details have trickled out. Read about them here, here and here.

Will Richardson or anyone close to him be indicted? Personally, I’ll believe it when I see it. This is at least the fourth time a grand jury has investigated Richardson since 2008. Two probes ended without indictments. A third into state investments is pending, as is this newest investigation.

The longer Richardson stays in the news because of criminal investigations, the more likely it becomes that history will remember him as corrupt, regardless of whether he is ever charged with or convicted of any crime.

Richardson’s only comment on the probe thus far? “Merry Christmas.”

5. Jerome Block Jr. convicted, resigns

Former Public Regulation Commissioner Jerome Block Jr.

Those who were paying attention should have known even before he was elected in 2008 that Jerome Block Jr. had no business becoming a member of the Public Regulation Commission.

Regardless, it was simply sad when Block’s career as a public official began to unravel in August and his addiction to a prescription drug was revealed. As the House began moving forward with impeachment, Block entered into a plea bargain with the attorney general on a number of charges stemming from several cases, and he resigned.

Gov. Susana Martinez, a Republican, replaced the Democrat Block with independent Doug Howe.

The AG’s deal let Block avoid prison if he completed a drug-treatment program, but Block has violated the terms of that agreement more than once and ends the year with an upcoming sentencing date and the AG seeking the maximum of 4.5 years in prison.

The question of how Block obtained drugs remains unanswered. There appears to be a law enforcement probe into some questionable e-mails Block sent that might have referenced drugs.

6. Columbus firearms smuggling case

This case didn’t receive as much media attention as those involving Block or Richardson, but it’s arguably much more serious. Here’s how I summed it up in an August column:

“New Mexico has seen lots of government corruption exposed in recent years that involves stealing money from taxpayers. But the recent weapons-smuggling case involving Columbus village officials takes government corruption to a more egregious level.

“The (now former) mayor, police chief and a city councilor were involved in a ring that helped smuggle firearms to the La Linea cartel in Mexico and also provided it with ammunition and tactical gear.

“In other words, public officials in a tiny border town in New Mexico used their jobs to help arm a cartel in Mexico, where the drug war and other lawlessness have claimed tens of thousands of lives in recent years.

“Is it a stretch to say that former Columbus Mayor Eddie Espinoza, Trustee Blas Gutierrez and Police Chief Angelo Vega enabled the killing of people in Mexico? I think not.”

An Occupy Las Cruces protester (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

7. Occupy movement

In the fall, the Occupy movement stormed Las Cruces, the rest of New Mexico, and the nation. Occupy has already had a tangible impact by forcing Bank of America and other financial institutions to back off new fees. People are protesting, boycotting, camping in public places, and in some instances clashing with police (or having police clash with them).

The movement has added another dimension to the conversation about America’s future. Budget cuts are no longer the only solution being seriously discussed.

But will Occupy have a lasting impact? The 2012 election will be telling. In the meantime, I have been asking people involved in the movement to share what they believe it’s about. You can read some of their thoughts here, here and here. And you can read this news article from a reporter who visited the original Occupy movement in New York City to try to make sense of it.

8. Duran’s voter fraud probe

Dianna Duran, the first Republican secretary of state in more than 80 years, grabbed headlines in 2011 for claiming that she had uncovered evidence of foreign nationals illegally voting in elections. But in the end, all we had was what I called a “snarky report we can’t trust.” Here’s how I summed it up:

“Duran had the opportunity, coming off her impressive and bipartisan election, to unite elections officials from both parties behind a compromise to improve election integrity and make it difficult for the naysayers in the Legislature to win the day.

“Instead, Duran has hidden evidence from county clerks and the public, attempted to deflect criticism onto the Democratic AG, taken shots at a Democratic county clerk, and, in her report, taken a tone that seems to be more about winning an argument than finding solutions.

“That’s the most unfortunate part. Though technology has helped clerks and the secretary of state make dramatic improvements to New Mexico’s voter rolls in the last 10-15 years, it’s clear there are still problems with the system. We need solutions.

“We needed Duran to lead a transparent investigation that included the county clerks – from both parties – throughout the entire process, so we could know there was evidence to back up the conclusions and that partisanship wasn’t an issue. We needed Duran to unite our state’s elections officials behind solutions so lawmakers would be pressured into acting.

“We didn’t need a snarky report we can’t trust.

“What a wasted opportunity.”

Attorney General Gary King (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

9. Criticism of Gary King

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.

10. Redistricting

Here’s what I wrote earlier this year about the Legislature’s futile attempts to settle the issue of redistricting:

“Elected officials generally seek to preserve their own seats, even when it no longer makes sense. Groups with power seek to protect it. To top it all off, we’re living in one of the more partisan times in American history. This fight was destined to end in a stalemate.”

Fortunately, we have courts to decide things for us when our elected officials in the legislative and executive branches don’t get the job done. But does anyone think that’s an ideal situation? It costs millions of dollars and doesn’t seem all that democratic.

When she was a candidate for governor, Susana Martinez told NMPolitics.net she supports the creation of an independent redistricting commission to take the politics out of the process. What a fine idea. Let’s hope she starts actively pushing for the formation of such a body.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary page │ Feed

Rebecca Vigil-Giron

Because of pending motions, the resignation of one judge, and the expected recusal of another, there’s “no trial date in sight” for former Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron and other defendants accused of bilking taxpayers out of millions of dollars.

That’s according to the Albuquerque Journal, which reports today that Vigil-Giron has once again filed a motion seeking the dismissal of the case. From the Journal:

“Former Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron has asked for a third time to have her 2009 criminal case dismissed with prejudice because of the length of the delay thus far and the likelihood of more to come.

“‘In an ‘Alice in Wonderland’ legal enigma, the more Ms. Vigil-Giron requests her day in court so that she can clear her name, the more distant the prospect of trial actually becomes,’ her attorney, Robert Gorence, said in a motion filed last Thursday.

“A dismissal with prejudice means it could not be refiled.”

Vigil-Giron, lobbyists Joseph Kupfer and Elizabeth Kupfer, and media consultant Armando Gutierrez, who headed the company Vigil-Giron hired to help the state implement a federal voter education program, each face 50 counts including money laundering, fraud, soliciting or receiving kickbacks and tax evasion. They allegedly took the money between 2004 and 2006 using the secretary of state’s contract with Gutierrez by falsifying invoices.

The charges were first filed in 2009, but a dispute about whether Attorney General Gary King’s office had a conflict led to delays. Earlier this year, a judge ruled the AG couldn’t prosecute the case, so King appointed a special prosecutor.

The resignation of then-Disrict Judge Albert S. “Pat” Murdoch after he was charged with raping a prostitute further delayed the case (the charges against Murdoch were later dropped but may be refilled). The Journal reported that the new judge assigned to the case, Sam Winder, “is expected to recuse himself because Elizabeth Kupfer’s attorney is a campaign consultant for Winder.”

So the case apparently hasn’t yet been assigned to a judge who’s going to sort through everything. And there are dozens of pending motions in the case, the Journal reported.

By the way, the Kupfers also face federal tax evasion charges related to the allegations in the state case.

Former Gov. Bill Richardson (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

A federal grand jury is investigating potential “financial irregularities” related to former Gov. Bill Richardson’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential campaign, the Albuquerque Journal is reporting.

From today’s Journal article:

“The grand jury has been hearing testimony in secret since at least September, and a number of witnesses have been granted immunity, according to defense attorneys familiar with the general outlines of the investigation.

“… the Journal has learned that one area under scrutiny is whether money from campaign supporters was used to settle a threatened lawsuit against Richardson in the fall of 2007 by a woman who formerly worked in state government.

“Several people familiar with some aspects of the investigation have mentioned similarities to pending criminal charges against former presidential candidate John Edwards on allegations that his campaign supporters paid to shield the candidate from a public scandal.

“The legal issue is whether the money constituted a de facto campaign contribution made in furtherance of the candidate’s bid for federal office.”

According to the Journal, the investigation “involves several other matters tied together by potential election law violations, including possible coordination between so-called ‘soft money’ from political action committees and the campaign.”

Also interesting in the Journal article is this:

“This makes at least the fourth grand jury that has investigated Richardson, or his administration, or his campaign, since 2008. Two were completed without returning indictments, and the third – involving state investments – has been pending for more than two years.”

You can read more about the other investigations here.

Bruce Malott

The former chairman of New Mexico’s Educational Retirement Board filed a lawsuit on Tuesday seeking damages because of an alleged pay-to-play scheme he says ruined his reputation.

From The Associated Press:

“A former New Mexico pension fund official on Tuesday sued financial firms, an ex-state investment officer and dozens of others for damages because of an alleged pay-to-play scheme over pension program investments.

“The lawsuit by Bruce Malott, former chairman of the state Educational Retirement Board, is the latest in a series of allegations that politically influenced investments generated large fees for supporters and friends of former Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson.

“… Richardson, who served as governor from 2003 through 2010, has not been named as a defendant in the investment lawsuits, including the one brought by Malott.

“… Among the defendants is former state investment officer Gary Bland; Anthony Correra, a friend and political supporter of Richardson; and Marc Correra, his son. The younger Correra shared in nearly $22 million in fees as a third-party placement agent for deals involving the educational pension fund and the Investment Council, according to state records.”

You can read the full article here, and Malott’s lawsuit here.

Third Judicial District Judge Mike Murphy (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

Warning: This article contains language that is explicit and that many will find offensive.

With embattled District Judge Mike Murphy’s secretly recorded comments about gay people eliciting a statewide outcry, Murphy’s lawyer said Monday that his client has been and will continue to be supportive of the gay community.

“Judge Murphy has always treated litigants equally and with respect regardless of gender, race, religion or sexual preference and he will continue to do so when he returns to the bench,” attorney Michael Stout wrote in an e-mail to reporters. “He will continue to treat all persons equally and with respect.”

But Stout didn’t issue the apology some are seeking from Murphy.

The judge, who is facing bribery charges and is on suspension without pay, has been under fire for his comments about gay people since KOB-TV in Albuquerque reported last week on the audio recording, which was secretly made by District Judge Lisa Schultz in December 2010.

During the meeting with Schultz, Murphy made a number of statements some view as offensive – including detailing a conversation in which he told a court employee “a big old nasty faggot joke” because that employee was gay, and describing a cousin who is a lesbian as “a diesel dike from day one.”

Murphy spoke during the conversation with Schultz about an apparent investigation into his conduct, referencing “my confidential deal about being, you know, uh, anti-gay, anti-Semitic.” He said such allegations are “a crock of shit. You know, I may be rude, crude, and socially unacceptable, but I’m none of those other things.”

Lost in the media reporting, Stout said Monday, is the fact that Murphy was “talking privately in a friendly manner to an openly gay person, in part discussing gay politics and how to make improvement on gay issues. Not reported was that he praised the ending of ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ in the military and the advances on gay marriage; he bemoaned the unfairness of bullying of gays in schools, the firing of a gay court employee and the stereotyping of gays by society.”

Stout is correct. Murphy also said all of those things during the conversation with Schultz.

‘Yet to issue a formal apology’

Stout’s comments came in response to the group Equality New Mexico (EQNM) sending out a news release calling Murphy’s comments “derogatory.”

“Judge Murphy has called into question the fundamental belief that all New Mexicans, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, actually receive a fair hearing –untainted by bias or bigotry – when they appear before a judge,” said Jacob Candelaria, the head of Equality NM.

“What’s worse is that while Judge Murphy has tried to excuse his offensive and unacceptable behavior, he has yet to issue a formal apology to the LGBT families of this state,” he said.

Stout didn’t apologize, but he said Murphy was “pained that his private comments have hurt anyone.”

“He agrees with EQNM’s goals and will continue to help achieve them,” Stout said. “As he said in his private (though secretly recorded) conversation, sexual preference of an individual has ‘all the significance of being left-handed.’ It is an irrelevant consideration both in court proceedings and otherwise.”

Stout is correct that Murphy’s comments about gay people have nothing to do with the bribery case, though one felony bribery charge is based on other comments contained in Schultz’s secret recording. Stout took issue with the recording being included in court records by prosecutor Matt Chandler, which is how the recording became public.

“Judge Murphy’s secretly-recorded, private conversations were perfectly lawful. This water-cooler talk has nothing whatsoever to do with bribery or any other charge,” Stout said. “Attaching this recording to a court document was a calculated attempt to convict an innocent man of a crime through the use of irrelevant, though sensational, language. In the end Judge Murphy’s innocence will shine through.”

Comments have ‘eroded public confidence’ in judiciary

“The real tragedy here,” Candelaria said, “is that Judge Murphy’s comments have further eroded public confidence in the judicial system.”

In a weekend editorial, the Albuquerque Journal agreed – not only as it relates to Murphy’s comments about gay people, but also with regard to the allegations that Murphy told several people he paid money for his appointment and told another potential judicial hopeful she had to do the same.

From the Journal editorial:

“Judge Murphy needs to ask himself if he would want someone who lacks a filter between brain and mouth to preside over his own case – perhaps someone whose witty repertoire includes you-might-be-a-redneck jokes. And he should ask whether it’s justice for serious cases to languish because a judge’s conduct is in question. And whether the entire judiciary should pay the consequences of his shoot-from-the-lip modus operandi.

“According to Murphy’s application seeking a judicial appointment, he promised he would ‘always try to preserve the good public repute of the court.’ He fell woefully short of that mark.

“He should try to repair it by apologizing and resigning.”

Third Judicial District Judge Mike Murphy (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

Warning: This article contains language that is explicit and that many will find offensive.

A secret audio recording that serves as the basis for one felony bribery charge against District Judge Mike Murphy contains comments by the embattled judge about gay people that many would view as outrageous and inappropriate.

KOB-TV in Albuquerque obtained and posted online the entire 38-minute recording and aired an in-depth report about it on Thursday.

The first segment of the KOB report highlights the statements Murphy made on the recording that have led to the bribery charge against him. You can watch that report by clicking here.

As NMPolitics.net has reported, that bribery charge is based on allegations that Murphy offered “several promises” to District Judge Schultz during a December 2010 meeting if she would agree to be the tie-breaking vote to make Douglas R. Driggers the chief district judge in Las Cruces. Murphy says he’s innocent.

‘Outlandish and inflammatory’ comments

What hadn’t been reported on publicly – until now – was the extent of what, in the words of KOB reporter Gadi Schwartz, are “outlandish and inflammatory” comments Murphy made during that conversation with Schultz – a conversation Schultz secretly recorded.

You can listen to the full recording here:

During the meeting with Schultz, Murphy shared details of a conversation he said he had with an employee of the court. Here’s what Murphy said:

“He, you know, I told him a big old nasty faggot joke, and he says, you do know I’m gay? And I said of course. I said, if you weren’t I wouldn’t have told you that joke.”

He also talked with Schultz, who is a lesbian, about a female cousin he described as being gay. Murphy said when men “hit on her,” she would tell them that they had a lot in common: “We both like to eat pussy.” He then described her as “a diesel dike from day one.”

Murphy spoke during the conversation with Schultz about an apparent investigation into his conduct, referencing “my confidential deal about being, you know, uh, anti-gay, anti-semitic.” He said such allegations are “a crock of shit. You know, I may be rude, crude, and socially unacceptable, but I’m none of those other things.”

There’s lots more. Watch KOB’s second segment, which delves into the remarks, here:

‘My skin was crawling’

Included in that segment is an interview with New Mexico GLBTQ Centers Executive Director David Stocum, who listened to the recording and then reacted.

“My skin was crawling, when I was listening to them,” KOB quoted Stocum as saying about Murphy’s statements. “What I heard on that tape – I would not want to be a gay man or a lesbian standing in front of that judge.”

That raises a question about whether, if the suspended judge ever returns to the bench, he can preside over a case involving someone who is gay without there being at least an appearance of bias.

KOB didn’t highlight a statement about Hispanics some might view as offensive, but it’s part of the same conversation with Schultz.

“Traditions and culture are the hardest things to change,” Murphy said while referencing a new law relating to DWIs that he wanted to propose. “I’m not gonna talk Manny Mexican into having a quinceañera without having a keg.”

‘The First Amendment is a good thing’

NMPolitics.net asked Murphy’s attorney, Michael Stout, in August about the statements Murphy made during the meeting with Schultz. Here’s what Stout had to say:

“The First Amendment is a good thing, huh? As you know as well as anyone, it’s not a crime to be crude in (what you thought was) private conversation.”

As NMPolitics.net has detailed previously, members of the judicial nominating commission that interviewed Murphy for the judgeship in 2006 asked about his reputation for what Murphy himself called his tendency to make “locker-room jokes.”

Murphy told that commission he recognized the difference between what is appropriate “in the private setting” and what is appropriate in court, and promised that his mouth wouldn’t be an issue.

Ninth Judicial District Attorney Matt Chandler

A private defense attorney says a former employee of District Attorney Matt Chandler who has accused the DA of playing politics in the case against a Las Cruces judge called Chandler “honest and ethical” in a conversation earlier this year.

Chandler provided NMPolitics.net with a letter from Clovis attorney Fred Van Soelen that describes an affidavit from Soelen about his encounter with Kirk Chavez.

Soelen didn’t provide the full affidavit, saying it names other people “not involved in this matter,” but provided an excerpt in the signed letter to NMPolitics.net.

The encounter detailed in the affidavit came after Chavez appeared on behalf of Chandler at a hearing in the bribery case against District Judge Mike Murphy in Las Cruces. Soelen lives across the street from Chavez in Clovis, and wrote that he saw Chavez arrive home and approached him to ask how the hearing went.

“I think yesterday was my last day at the district attorney’s office,” Soelen says Chavez told him.

From the affidavit excerpt:

“He then said Matt Chandler was the best attorney he knew, honest and ethical, but that he had a problem with the investigators that worked for Matt.”

Soelen says that conversation should shed light on an affidavit Chavez, who is no longer employed in Chandler’s office, provided to Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles W. Daniels last week. As NMPolitics.net reported Thursday, Chavez is accusing Chandler of playing politics in an attempt to gain an advantage in the Murphy case by “judge shopping.” He accuses Chandler of seeking to have an earlier judge who Daniels assigned to the case disqualified by releasing a public statement that would imply collusion between Daniels and Murphy’s attorney, Michael Stout.

The intent, Chavez wrote in his affidavit, was to pressure Daniels into appointing “a more conservative, and hopefully Republican judge” to the case against Murphy, who is a Democrat.

Chandler, a Republican, says the allegation is false. Soelen wrote this in his letter to NMPolitics.net:

“I sincerely question how Mr. Chavez could later make a claim of misconduct after telling me and numerous other people that Matt Chandler is the most honest and ethical attorney and prosecutor he has ever known.”

Read the full letter here.

Update, 11:10 a.m.

Chavez sent NMPolitics.net this statement:

“Heath, as you know, I have refused to comment on this case, and I will continue to do so. But, after reading Mr. Van Soelen’s comments, I must make the following statement.

“Matthew Chandler is one of the finest people I know. He is value-oriented and the best prosecutor in New Mexico. I will always have the deepest respect for Mr. Chandler, and he knows he will always have my support in future endeavors. I learned more in my three years working for Mr. Chandler than anybody else in my life other than my father.

“With that said, even the best of attorneys and people make mistakes. My profession teaches me that I must be truthful even when the truth hurts myself or others around me, no matter how much I believe in them as people.

“So, Mr. Van Soelen is correct, and to this day I believe the words I told Mr. Van Soelen on the day after the hearing in Las Cruces.

“Although I believe some ethical missteps were taken in this case, Mr. Chandler is still the most ethical and honest man, as well as an attorney, that I have ever known.”