ARE YOU A PERSON? AN AMERICAN CITIZEN? AN ENFRANCHISED VOTER?

    In its day, the Declaration of Independence was a unique document, the first political document whereby a subordinate political entity declared itself coordinate.  So says its first paragraph; its second paragraph states the principles justifying the rebellion:

 

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, [1] that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—[2] That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—[3] That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

These great words are the gist of the Declaration.  However, since its day, they have been patriotically revered but politically debated or disregarded.  Most but not all citizens have regarded them as the charter of basic American rights.  Those who supported slavery and fought for its survival, and those who have continued to support and fight for doctrines of supremacy and domination“racial, religious, or sexual“over others reject the extension of these rights to all and identify themselves as unAmerican citizens of the United States.  Yet these words have never had legal standing, and only a dozen years later, the drafters of the Constitution, many of whom had signed the Declaration, ignored its assertions about the equality of "all men” and their rights.

 

    Unrecognized is the Declaration’s implication that these rights extend beyond "all men,” propertied or white, to all adults regardless of their race, religion, or sex.  The portentous words which get little attention are the concluding ones of the second clause, "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”  These ten words make three important points.  One, the "powers” of government must be "just” according to its laws.  Two, those "powers” are derived from—that is, justified by—the "the consent of the governed.”  Three, those "governed” are those living under the laws of the land.  The clear implication is that the Declaration implies that "the governed” are all individuals, without distinction of any kind, living under those laws.  (This language seems to permit resident non-citizens, including immigrants, to "consent” or not.)  The converse is that government "powers” are unjust with the consent of only a minority of the governed.

 

    A problem with this franchise of consent-givers is the breadth of those "governed,” who would include minors, temporary residents, and visitors from other countries.  But the problem is not a significant one.  Criteria for defining these categories are relatively easily constructed to exclude them from the political process.  Other exclusions, given the principle of equality and the rights "unalienable,” are impossible to justify.

 

    Yet the drafters of the Constitution turned their back on the inclusive democracy which this third point makes.  They did not universalize "the governed,” define individuals as persons or citizens, or describe their political entitlements.  They assumed that voting would constitute the means of expressing "consent” but did not establish standards of eligibility or election procedures.

 

    Some of these deficiencies were left to the Fourteenth Amendment (1868), particularly Section 1, which reads:

 

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

In the context of this post-Civil War amendment, "persons” meant Black as well as White (but not "Red”) individuals, defined them by birth or naturalization was "citizens,” and declared that states may not curtail their "privileges or immunities.”  So far, so good.

 

    But not for long.  Section 2 muddles the concepts of person and citizen, and relies on a sexist understanding of both.  It reads:

 

    Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

 

It begins by "counting the whole number of persons,” including women but excluding untaxed Indians (i.e., those living on reservations).  It retreats by restricting the electorate to males, when it specifies the penalties for any state which denies "the right to vote…to any of the male inhabitants” of the state.  States could deny women the right to vote without penalty, yet they could grant women the right to vote, as Wyoming did in 1869.  This amendment made explicit what had been implicit from the beginning, that the federal government recognized women as persons (five fifths, not three fifths, like slaves) for some but not all purposes, usually as citizens, never voters.  Its muddle was its progress from "persons” to "male inhabitants” (who might not be citizens? who might be recent immigrants?) to "male citizens” who could vote.

 

    Even so, Section 2 is not without merit.  Its penalty for restricting the franchise suggests a possibility for dealing with the various (intended, attempted, or actualized) infringements of voting rights.  States which unreasonably restrict the franchise by imposing poll taxes, requiring literacy tests, improperly purging their voting rolls, imposing unwieldy administrative requirements or other undue burdens on voters, or arbitrarily restricting access to or use of voting equipment or facilities, among other means, without cause could be penalized under this section of the amendment.  However, I doubt that its penalty has been enforced.

 

    In this regard, the asymmetry between Republicans and Democrats is becoming increasingly pronounced.  Republicans are doing everything possible to restrict the franchise of voters likely to cast votes for Democrats (and to challenge the validity of the election).  Democrats are trying to resist current or proposed restrictions.  The different approaches to the extent of the franchise by exclusion or inclusion is a measure of allegiance to democracy, specifically, the commitment to the vote as the means to establish "the consent of the governed.”

 

    The point of analyzing this aspect of Constitutional history is to note the potential threat posed by an "originalist” argument that the Founders and some government officials after them did not encode a democratic franchise in the Constitution, and only decades later added amendments extending it.  Even so, the Fourteenth Amendment protects citizens only from state infringements, not federal ones, which were not then imagined as possibilities.  The same cannot be said of the Nineteenth Amendment“"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex”“, which extends the franchise to women.  Still, the Fourteenth and Nineteenth Amendments protect the rights of male and female citizens in a way which legislation or court decisions—Roe v. Wade is the obvious example—cannot.

    The specification of persons by race or sex leaves open the possibility of denying personhood or citizenship on the basis of religion.  A belief held by many Christians in their superiority as persons can be distorted into a diminishment or denial of the personhood of believers in other faiths, like Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindi, among others“distortions which can be used to circumscribe their citizenship and restrict their voting rights.  Indeed, it remains an open question implicitly answered by assumptions about who is a person as a first qualification for citizenship.  Fundamentalist Christians believe that a human zygote is a person entitled to the rights of citizenship“an assumption with obvious implications bearing on abortion and contraception.  Without legislation or, better, an amendment defining personhood, a Supreme Court decision is likely to make a basic decision which will ignore or defy the religious convictions of millions of Americans and violate the two First Amendment provisions on religion. 

YVETTE HERRELL: WILL SHE RUN FROM HER CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?

In case you missed it or want a refresher, I post here the link to this blog, first posted on 7 June 2024: https://firstimpressionssecondthoughts.blogspot.com/2024/06/yvette-herrell-will-she-run-from-her.html.

The materials which Herrell's campaign, the New Mexico Republican Party, and supporting PACs have distributed show that Herrell is avoiding her record and her current positions.  Instead, those materials offer vague promises, and use inflammatory language and distorted representations of Vasquez and his record.  They do not inform voters that Herrell supports restrictions on, if not the elimination, of abortion.  They do not inform voters that she was and, if re-elected, will again become a member of the Freedom Caucus, the obstructionist "conservative" faction in the House of Representatives.  She voted to overturn the 2020 election results because she believed that Trump won but was defeated by voting fraud of one kind or another in swing states.  If Trump wins, she will rubber-stamp his proposed nominees and legislation; if Harris wins, she will resist her proposed nominees and legislation.

WHAT IS IT LIKE TO BE A SUPPORTER OF TRUMP?

      I found myself wondering, not for the first time, what makes it possible for Trump supporters to think and feel as they do about this grotesque political anthropoid.  Which led me to re-read Thomas Nagel’s famous philosophical paper "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” (1974).  My training in linguistic philosophy a decade-and-a half earlier did not prepare me for this discussion, and the passage of time has not increased my ability to understand its arguments.  The gist of it seems to be that there is neither an objective nor a subjective way of understanding, much less experiencing, the experience of a bat.  (This conclusion means no more to philosophers than it means to others—that is, almost nothing; to them, it is the arguments establishing this conclusion which matter.) 

The experiential distance between man and bat is, of course, much greater than that between man and man.  Nevertheless, I have no first-hand way to explore, much less experience, the compound of thoughts and feelings which support the visceral bond of Trump supporters to this political animal.  Those thoughts and feelings differ in their nature and their intensity, from the extremists of the kind who attacked Congress, many dressed and acting as if in computer action games, to the moderates who have reflexively voted Republican or have doubts about Kamala Harris (and Tim Walz).

 

I puzzle about these matters because, as a former consultant and teacher, my work required me to understand and communicate with those whose thoughts and feelings were quite different from my own.  In today’s political environment, understanding and communicating are almost impossible or quite rare for two major reasons (I ignore the reluctance or refusal of most people to engage in political discussion "across the aisle”).

 

One reason is that some words used in political discourse, even when their dictionary definition is accepted, carry different emotive or moral values.  For example, the word "bigot.”  Some people regard the label as a badge of shame; some, with indifference; some, as a badge of honor.  If so, attaching labels of moral opprobrium to, say, white supremacists can have little or no constructive effect; they cannot be shamed into abandoning their allegiances or their convictions.  Other words are transmuted or transvalued; Republicans (not Democrats) are "real Americans,” insurrectionists are patriots, compromise is treachery, moderation is weakness, etc.

 

Another reason is the now-common quarrel about what the facts are or whether they are relevant to a political preference or policy.  There are now, apparently, not only facts, but also "alternative facts,” many of which constitute stories of conspiracies.  In the quotidian world of everyday living, the proliferation and acceptance of non-truths threatens not only rational discussion, but also and more importantly sensible decisions.

 

Trump and Vance campaign according to an anti-factual rhetorical doctrine: a lie really big no one will believe is rigged, so it will be believed.  Their campaign presents a fact-free, dystopian vision of an America in decline; their falsehoods pronounced on social media, at rallies, in friendly interviews, even in a presidential debate enter the informational mainstream.  For example, Trump has repeatedly bad-mouthed the American economy.  A Harris poll in late May for The Guardian reports that 56% of Americans thought the country was in a recession (it was not), 49% believed the stock market was down for the year (it was way up), and, 49% said unemployment was near a 50-year high (it was near a 50-year low).  Thus, 58% believe that mismanagement by the Biden administration had worsened the economy.

 

Most Americans’ eyes glaze over when they see macroeconomic numbers, but their ears perk up when they are told about someone’s bad news.  Even so, it is hard to believe that they accept racist Big Lies about immigrants raping (white) women, murdering (white) people, and eating (white) peoples’ pets.  For many of them live in or near cities and towns with immigrants; can stop, look, or listen; yet learn nothing of the sort.  So the question is why they believe such stuff as fear campaigns are made of when the real world of their quotidian experience refutes it.

 

Whatever the answer, clearly, Trump’s true believers do not acquire the facts and accept the truth about the economy or immigrants and just about anything, everything, else.  They are naïve or needy in accepting whatever Trump presents to them; insensitive or indifferent to his falsehoods, distortions, or contradictions; and incapable of critical thinking.  Bad at dealing with the realities of the outer world, they are worse at dealing with the realities of their inner world.  Their illusions about the outer world parallel the delusions of their inner world.  They are incapable of introspection because they lack the detachment to observe, examine, and understand their thoughts and feelings.  Without self-awareness, they are also without mental or emotional self-control; ignorance and impulse prevail.  Morality and ethics are transactional; they have no conscience.  Their propensity for bigotry, cruelty, and violence reflects their anger and resentment at their frustrations in education, in employment, or of aspirations to popularity, power, or prestige.  (A notable electoral cohort is socially inept and sexually frustrated young males known as incels, for involuntary celibate; for them, it is no longer a man’s world, so misogyny prevails.)

 

Of such people, the true believers in Trump, many might want to say that they are bat-shit crazy or their complicity in that man’s imponderable evil is itself imponderable.  I prefer a story, probably apocryphal, instead.  On a day in Auschwitz, one Jew came upon another deep in prayer.  The one asked the other what he was doing; the other answered that he was praying.  The one asked why he was praying; the other answered that he was offering thanks to God.  The one asked what he was thankful for; the other answered that he was thankful that God had not made him like them.

THE RULE OF LAW DOES NOT RULE IN LAS CRUCES

      In this campaign, more than in any other which I can recall over the past 76 years, the rule of law—not “law and order”—is a major, maybe the major, issue.  In considering the issue, I looked back to the earliest continuing law in the Western World, the Ten Commandments.  Notably, they fuse legal requirements and religious guidance, and are not merely associated with, but essential to, Judaism.  Thus, Jewish law has the inherent approval and inalienable support of religion.  So, too, Islam, its sibling; not, Christianity, its offspring, with its different relationship to law.

     Arguably, Christianity offers no legal (and little moral) guidance.  The argument would begin by noting Paul’s repudiation of Jewish law and Christian antipathy to that law ever since.  As a member of a discussion group of members of Peace Lutheran Church who read a book about reforming Christianity in the 21^st century, I observed that Christianity had no code of conduct as Judaism had, with its 613 laws.  That statement of fact prompted an angry response from two members who demanded to know why Jews needed so many laws; surely, the Ten Commandments were sufficient.  Silence for a moment.  So I replied that it was appropriate only for Jews to choose which and how many laws they want for themselves.  The objection to the number of laws likely unread suggests discomfort with submission to the rule of law.

The argument would continue by observing that Jesus’ various urgings—resist not evil, turn the cheek, love your enemy—are not injunctions, are vague, and are reactive in moral situations.  They lack specific directions for righteous living.  It would conclude by admitting the omission of anything about Christ’s mission or message from the Nicene or Apostles Creeds.  Indeed, some might argue that the fact that Christianity is largely devoid of moral content—some years ago, a chain bookstore carried a book entitled Christian Ethics, which consisted of blank pages—is what has given it international appeal; it has no moral requirements and makes no moral demands which might conflict with cultural norms in different societies.  For many, it is sufficient to be a Christian to do your own thing and have faith that Jesus forgives and loves you.

 

One might counter-argue with the example of Jesus’ life and his concern for the poor, the weak, the oppressed, and his indifference to ritualistic precision.  But his example is consistent with Judaism and not distinctively Christian.  Moreover, an example creates no obligation.  Observers might or might not follow his example as they see fit.

 

When Christians want to stress the law and the rule of law they fall back on the foundational laws of Judaism, the Ten Commandments, as the two good Lutherans in the discussion group did.  But the fallback position is rhetorical, not real.  Christians may want the Ten Commandments posted in school rooms for children, but they do not want priests or ministers to address, say, adultery, which about half of their congregations commit.  (We all know the good news/bad news joke about that one.)  In short, in itself, Christianity, unlike Judaism, gives little support to the law or the rule of law.  Render unto Caesar is about as close to support of secular law as Christianity gets.

 

Religion to encourage obedience to the law counters the general reluctance to obey the law, to accept it as a guide ruling one’s conduct.  Absent religion, obedience to the law is necessary for some degree of public safety and social cohesion.  The reason for reluctance in a free society is obvious; it means voluntarily submitting to an external, higher authority—an act requiring humility and self-discipline.  In an individualistic and anti-authoritarian culture like America’s, people do not readily submit to restraints on conduct.  Letting it all hang out is a high virtue; being judgmental, even about oneself (go easy on yourself), is disparaged.  The national motto seems to be “rules are made to be broken.”

 

Most of us as youths pleased ourselves with breaking expectations or the rules in the diverse ways of adolescent rebellion.  Most of us outgrew childish ways as the demands of adult social coexistence required a modicum of self-restraint.  In my day, we regarded as low-lifes those who did not act like adults—thus we expressed it—with manners, decency, and honesty.  Steve Bannon, Rudi Guiliani, and Elon Musk would not be allowed on the White House grounds except as tourists.

 

As the nation’s social fabric frays—it seems nearly in tatters these days—, we recognize that growing numbers of adults are turning away from rules of any kind and especially the rule of law to the rule of powerful people who are vulgar and violent.  So successful are they that their followers revert to delinquency and deification.  Some Republicans associate Donald Trump with the Christian godhead or believe that God saved him from assassination for His special purpose on earth.  Never mind the First Commandment that we shall have no other gods before Him.  In such perverse ways, Christian nationalism is a fraud perpetrated and perpetuated by predominantly white people who use the labels and paraphernalia of Christianity as tribal identifiers, not as signifiers of religious convictions or a moral commitment to the law and the rule of law.

 

What is true about the breakdown of the rule of law at the national level is equally true at the local level.  In many respects, that breakdown is less dramatic but no less corrosive and pernicious.  We already know about my complaints about a police force which made false allegations about code violations; about police chiefs, mayors, and councilors who ignored officer dishonesty, LCPD policy violations, and antisemitism; and about their silent, do-nothing response—no transparency or accountability—to these complaints over a period of 5 years.  In my case, nobody listened, or nobody answered.

 

In other cases, too.  Now we learn about the many complaints of people seeking and not receiving medical attention at Memorial Medical Center, complaints reflecting its likely violations of its legal obligations under its lease with the city, complaints ignored for years by the members of City Council.  Councilor Bencomo implied (Bulletin, 6 Sep) that the members of City Council are too small, too weak, too fearful to deal with serious problems.  Asked why these complaints are only now being addressed,

 

Bencomo said that the government had taken a “disempowered approach” to MMC.  “Truthfully, at one point it used to feel like, ‘what could city council really do about our very broken for-profit healthcare system?’  It all felt too big, and I thought that's what this conversation was about.  But by disempowering our governing body, we disempowered our community, and we disempowered patients’ voices,” Bencomo said.

 

Note her admission “It all felt too big.”  View her talk about “our very broken for-profit healthcare system” as a ploy to use a general problem to distract from a specific problem and a play for sympathy.  Interpret “disempowered approach” to mean a cowardly, problem-dodging approach.  Conclude that members of City Council do not think about the legal implications of issues which come before them.

 

The City government’s disregard of the law is one thing; its active violation of the law is another.  I have blogged that many, deliberate, and costly violations of the Inspection of Public Records Act had the support of the Law Office.  The City claims to process 1800 IPRA requests a year without complaint.  Because I doubt that my complaint was unique, I suspect that the City Clerk has violated IPRA in processing other complaints—violations unknown to or unchallenged by requesters.

 

I have also sketched out some violations not only of City Council’s ordinance creating the Public Safety Select Committee (now apparently inactive), but also of its multiple violations of the Open Meetings Act.  If, after I complete my review of the documents released under my IPRA request, I discover other violations, I shall report them and address the issues raised by City Council’s multi-year violation of the public’s right to know how the City’s government frequently operates in defiance of law.

 

Meanwhile, because City Council might have met in secret sessions and reached decisions by rolling quorums, the New Mexico Attorney General is investigating whether it violated OMA in the process of hiring the current City Manager.

 

At this point, it is fair to infer that City Council, at least in the past half dozen years or so, has operated in disregard of the law or in defiance of the rule of law when it suits its convenience.  It prefers secrecy, even if it involves law-breaking, to avoid the discomfort of addressing problems in public which might risk demonstrating its timidity, its weakness, and its incompetence.  If the City’s elected officials and its ranking officers have no respect for the law which governs the City and its citizens, I think that they deserve no respect in corrupting the rule of law.

DARING TO MAKE DARING ELECTION PREDICTIONS

 Predictions about the outcomes of political campaigns go for about a dime a dozen and are worth even less.  Most of them reflect the wish as the father of the thought.  Still, in a two-candidate competition, there is a fifty-fifty chance of being right.  What matters in judging predictions are the reasons for them.

My original prediction for the outcome of the 2024 election was made in early June, before Biden’s disastrous debate performance.  I told a few friends with an informed interest in politics that the election would see a “Blue wave” return Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to the White House; maintain, if not enlarge, the Democratic majority in the Senate; and turn the House Democratic with a sizable majority.  That prediction was particularly daring because, at the time, Biden was trailing Trump both nationally and locally in the battleground states, and many Democratic candidates for the Senate and House were struggling as well.  It is still daring, perhaps foolhardy, but I stick with it.

 

One reason for my apparently wishful and rash prediction was the closeness of the race at that time.  If President Biden, already showing the wear and tear of his age, a long political career, and over three years as president, was close to his rival, then he had significant support.  Much the same was true of the many close races at the state level for the Senate and the House.  Supporters would stay with Biden and other Democratic candidates, and a majority of independents and many Republicans would vote for the Democratic ticket out of disgust or exhaustion with Trump and his base.

 

Another reason was a belief that a dispirited party still holding its own against an aroused MAGA base would find something or someone to invigorate them with energy and enthusiasm.  I had little faith that Trump, an aging, malignant narcissist, would finally say or do something which would break through what even the mainstream media had normalized about him, and repel those not suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome (which I impute to his devotees, not his detractors).  I had some faith that Biden himself would finally be appreciated for his accomplishments and his character as the campaign made them better understood by the public.  I was wrong to think that Biden would begin this later effort in the first debate, but, then, I had no notion that his advisers would be so door-knob dumb in preparing Biden for debating Trump.

 

Well, that someone has come along and vindicated a theory of mine.  We all know the Peter Principle: the advancement of an individual above his or her level of competence.  (Local instances are most of the members of the Las Cruces City Council and ranking officials in the City administration.)  But the reverse of the Peter Principle is the person who is not well suited to the lower rungs of the ladder, but who by chance rises to the top and finds his or her abilities matched to circumstances.

 

Enter Kamala Harris.  She earned few plaudits for her work as Vice President.  She gave signs of improvement in the months before President Biden withdrew from the campaign, in areas in which she, better than anyone else in the White House, could work, like abortion-related issues.  But once liberated by her elevation as Biden’s replacement as the presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket, she has astonished the world.  Her intelligence, her eloquence, her energy, and her charm, once repressed, now released, have become evident to all.  Like many women of talent whose self-confidence has survived being put down or held back, she has ascended to her proper sphere as a leader.  (No one imagined Dan Quayle or Mike Pence, both Indiana natives, ascending to acknowledged leadership of the Republican Party.  No one can imagine J. D. Vance, GOP nominee for Vice President rising to the occasion.)  Democratic morale has revived, and Democratic chances to win the White House have risen ever since, and, with those rising chances, the chances of many Democratic Senators and Representatives.  I am happy to think her the agent to make my prediction come true.

 

Unquestionably, there will be difficulties.  Of the most highly contested states, the state of Georgia alone will disgrace itself by trying to disallow Democratic votes.  The others—North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona—may have some kerfuffles but none putting the will of the people in jeopardy.  My prediction—here goes another—is that vote for the Democratic ticket will be so large that the idea of large-scale fraud or manipulation will qualify believers to be pursued by those wielding butterfly nets and providing padded cells.  (Come to think of it, Trump would be well served by incarceration, not in prison, but in a hospital for the criminally insane.)

 

If there is any comfort in the off-chance of being wrong, it is that I shall have a lot of company in the misery of a Trump win.  Still, I shall make another prediction on the assumption that my other predictions come true.  Contrary to the belief that the defeat of Trump will not be the defeat of Trumpism, I believe that a “Blue wave” will cleanse the country of an organized political movement extending his vulgarity and violence except for scattered incidents.  First, no one—certainly not J. D. Vance—will prove capable of assuming the leadership of Trump’s cultish following.  Second, petty pretenders will fall to quarreling among themselves and demoralize the Base.  Third, and most important, most Americans have had enough of what Trump, represented by Project 2025, means for America.  I am surprised that the Democratic National Committee or the Harris/Walz campaign has not resurrected the slogan which Republicans used against Democrats in the 1946 election: “Had Enough?”  The answer is “yes,” a thousand times “yes.”  Not the best of reasons to vote for Harris, but good enough if the many other good reasons fail.

 

If my very limited daily experience tells me anything, it is that the support for Harris is greater than the polls reveal.  Many who mean to vote for Democrats seem frightened of violence from the Base.  Not I.  I have been alternately wearing two long-sleeved t-shirts.  One says, says “Harris for President”; the other, “Dudes for, like, Harris, man.”  People passing me at the supermarket say quietly—they do not want to be overheard—that they like my shirt; some commend me for being brave by declaring myself.  One of my neighbors will not post a Harris/Walz sign in her yard lest nearby Trump supporters berate her.  One is an ultra-patriot, formerly, back in the Vietnam Era, a pot-smoking, draft-dodger; currently, a more-American-than-thou MAGAloid displaying big flags and red, white, and blue bunting.  The threat of vulgarity and violence at the local level is likely widespread and suppresses outward expressions of Democratic sympathies.  No doubt, the final vote will come as a great surprise to them and lead to their tiresome charges of voter fraud.  But the country will leave the refuse which is Trump, his Base, and the remnants of the Republican Party behind, and move on and move forward.

ON THE CITY ATTORNEY’S RESPONSE TO ADVERSE PUBLICITY ABOUT THE CITY’S IPRA VIOLATIONS

      You can thank Las Cruces City Attorney Brad Douglas for prompting me to write this blog.  His comments in last week’s The Bulletin, discussed below, are an example of corruption in the conduct of ranking officials.  "Corruption" is a word usually associated with the transfer of money or favors for nefarious purposes in government or business.  Most people think of bribes.  The word also applies to whoever or whatever erodes principles, standards, or values.  People, especially public officials, who lie corrupt truth or who break promises corrupt trust.  Such people usually justify lies or broken promises on the basis of their commitment to a cause—ends justifying means.

My example of dishonesty for cause is Douglas’s response to the settlement of an IPRA case which I brought against the City.  As reported on The Bulletin website on 22 August (but unknown to me until after my 23 August blog appeared), Douglas offered the paper the assurance—in context, an empty one—that the City is "committed to transparency."  He added, "This case included a small number of documents that were arguably overly redacted per IPRA guidelines.  When we discovered this, the City voluntarily produced those documents and came to a resolution of this case."

 

Everything which Douglas says in these few words is an assault on truth by a lawyer’s spin.  Bluntly, if there were any truth to what he says, there would have been no lawsuit, no City admission of violating multiple IPRA requirements, and no $150,000 in costs, including $21,845 in penalties, paid by the City.  The "small number of documents" were some three dozen documents withheld or redacted, not including nearly 500 emails secretly retained.  The documents were not "arguably overly redacted" (Douglas did much or all of the redacting); after my lawyer and I challenged the redactions, the City agreed that two-thirds of them were unjustifiable.  The City "discovered" nothing, 'voluntarily produced' nothing, and failed to describe the documents withheld or redacted as IPRA requires; the court directed the City either to provide the documents or to provide IPRA-compliant descriptions and justifications for withholding or redacting them.  The City preferred a resolution rather than a court decision, which would have been public and embarrassing, and thus made what my lawyer says is an unprecedented offer of $85 out of $100 dollars per diem in penalties for the delay in compliance.

 

If his spin on the truth is any indication, the word of this City Attorney is not worth much.  The cause by which he rationalizes his assault on truth is his desire to mitigate the reputational damage to the City because City officials deliberately violated the law, the Inspection of Public Records Act, at great cost to its citizens.  The City is entitled to defend itself, but the City Attorney is not entitled to misrepresent the truth to the public.  In more cases than mine, the desire to avoid adverse publicity about their corruption is a major prompt of corruption in City officials.

 

The corruption of City officials reflects on City governance, particularly by the members of City Council, who become complicit by indifference or tolerance.  In my experience, City officials have not been honest or insisted on honesty in others.  That experience includes my complaint about five false code violations tainting the integrity of ACO officers, IA officers, and three police chiefs; the dishonesty of a City Manager and various Public Works personnel; and employees in the Law Office and the City Clerk’s office involved in my IPRA case.  And I am only one citizen in Las Cruces.

 

I recall Police Chief Miguel Dominguez’s testimony before City Council in which he stated that Las Cruces citizens do not trust the police; to my point, not one Council asked why.  Issues associated with corruption in Las Cruces are pervasive.  My hope is that there are some citizens concerned with good government who will undertake an anti-corruption campaign against current office-holders and ranking officials to replace them with a public-serving government well managed, technically competent, and fiscally responsible.

CROOKED CITY OFFICIALS COST LAS CRUCES $150,000 FOR IPRA VIOLATIONS

       Personal pique and professional pettiness help explain why the former City Attorney and current City Clerk chose to play hard-ass with me at the risk of litigation, sanction, and costs paid by taxpayers’ dollars.  By violating the law about public information, they prompted a lawsuit costing Las Cruces about $150,000, including $21,845 in penalties paid to me as Plaintiff.  These costs did the City no good; they will not even prompt City officials to obey this law.  However, my award will do some good because I donated $20,000 to Camp Hope of the Community of Hope (the difference kept for taxes).  If City officials had obeyed the law, the City would have had $150,000 more to alleviate the problems of the homeless.  It certainly should not expect successful plaintiffs like me to make up some of what the City might have provided this or some other worthy charity.

 

*       *      *      *      *      *      *

 

It all began on 22 May 2023, when, during a City Council meeting, I heard about an advisory committee operating unknown to the public and seemingly unknown to some Councilors.  Councilor Yvonne Flores feigned surprise to learn of its existence, for, as I later learned, she had received a 10 December 2020 notice of Mayor Ken Miyagishima’s charter creating the Public Safety Select Committee (PSSC), as had all other Councilors.  (PSSC members have included Mayors Miyagishima and Eric Enriquez; Councilors Gabe Vasquez, Kasandra Gandara, and Tessa Abeyta; City Managers David Maestas and Ifo Pili; City Attorneys Jennifer Vega and Linda Samples; Police Chiefs Miguel Dominguez and Jeremy Story; Fire Chiefs Eric Enriquez and Jason Smith; City Clerk Christine Rivera; and others by invitation.)  Operating in secret, the PSSC likely relied on violations of the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) to conceal likely violations of the Open Meetings Act (OMA).  Twice asked whether PSSC still operated, Mayor Enriquez and all Councilors refused to answer; at a minimum, secrecy and rudeness prevail in this City Council.

 

Curious about a secret committee, I filed an IPRA request on 25 June 2023 for “all documents in whatever media or format related to the Public Safety Select Committee since 6 January 2020.  Such documents include, but are not limited to, meeting emails and other social media messages among committee members, announcements, agendas, notes, minutes, memorandums, reports, and recommendations.”  IPRA requires that the City either release the records or, if some records are withheld or redacted, identify the redactor and provide a description of the record, including the date, author, audience, and abstract of content.  The purpose of this information is to enable the requester to ascertain the likelihood that the withholdings or redactions are justified.

 

In response, the City withheld 2 records and released about 80 records: 45 emails and 35 agendas, notes, and minutes, some redacted by then Assistant City Attorney Brad Douglas.  However, it did not comply with IPRA requirements; it failed to describe the withheld records and only partly described the redacted records.  Months later, on 3 November 2023, I filed a supplemental IPRA request reminding Rivera that the City had not released PSSC emails to non-PSSC members.  It had not disclosed—apparently concealed—about 480 such emails.  Of these, it withheld 40 records and released 25 records redacted by Rivera, who again provided no descriptions of these 65 records.  After a court directive and ensuing negotiations, the City released some withheld records, revealed some redactions, and completed all descriptions.

 

The City Attorney and the City Clerk are responsible for complying with IPRA requirements.  Samples was responsible for ensuring that records claiming an attorney-client exemption were justified in claiming it, but many claims were not justified.  In turn, Rivera is responsible for ensuring that records withheld or redacted meet IPRA requirements, but they were not met in many instances.  Her failure is notable because the City once touted her as one who “ensures that the City complies with hundreds of IPRA requests….  The City Clerk is often the first line of communication with City residents and has proven to be the friendly and helpful point of first contact with the public.”  Despite this glowing testimonial, she has been grudging or non-responsive in performance and discourteous when dealing with my IPRA requests.

 

Samples and Rivera had many opportunities to comply with IPRA and avoid litigation.  Before I filed my case, my lawyer invited Samples to meet to discuss IPRA violations.  But she, who touts herself for problem-solving and preemptively alleviating liability issues, replied curtly, “The City disputes the allegations”—and that was that.  On several prior occasions, I had emailed Rivera to provide her with copies of the IPRA requirements and to urge compliance, but she did not have the courtesy to reply.  I once called to ask her to remedy deficiencies in her responses, but she refused to speak with me.  In short, Samples and Rivera knowingly and deliberately refused to comply with the law, and went on to make an unforced error in choosing to play hard-ass with me.

 

Not satisfied with these responses, I initiated legal action.  Because of her violations of the law, I named Rivera as well as the City as Defendants in my lawsuit.  After legal setbacks, the City’s legal team informed City Council that my case would prevail.  The City rendered a final Third District Court hearing unnecessary by admitting to IPRA violations and paying Plaintiff’s costs and its penalties.  Rivera, having gambled with City money, lost the game and cost the City $150,000 because she chose not to obey the law.

 

Nevertheless, Rivera has not learned from this experience because she repeated the same IPRA violations in response to a more recent IPRA request even while my case was before the court.  I requested Samples’s email advising—so I am told—City Council members and other City officers not to communicate with me because of my pending litigation.  Rivera denied the request on the basis of attorney-client privilege and again failed to describe important details about the document: date and audience.  The City Attorney has not produced this email or issued another correcting Samples’s advice.  Although she has violated the law repeatedly and incurred costs for the City, she is not likely to face consequences, for the City Manager and the City Attorney prefer protecting to penalizing those who break the law and waste taxpayers’ money.  The result: the City will continue to employ a City Clerk who is a crook incurring costs to the City.

 

*       *      *      *      *      *      *

 

The obvious question is why the City did not obey the law.  One answer is that government leaders act on impulse according to their likes and dislikes—the petty politics of personality—the law be damned.  I am not their favorite; I am an outsider and a critic.  Their behavior, intended to convey their dislike of me and annoy me in this and other matters, has failed to do so.  Instead, it either amuses me or appalls me to think that they treat other citizens critical of their official conduct shabbily.

 

Another answer is that government leaders constitute a special-interest community whose members protect one another even if it means tolerating or abetting illegal conduct and financial waste.  Rivera acted to protect government colleagues from the discovery of some of their OMA violations: former Mayor Miyagishima, retired; former Councilors Gandara and Abeyta, recently defeated in their runs for office; and former Councilor, now Congressman Vazquez, currently running for re-election, as well as Mayor Enriquez.

 

Yet another answer is that they do not think that anyone will hold them accountable.  They are not concerned that Inspector General Charles Tucker, a milquetoast chosen to give the public the appearance of accountability, will pursue any waste, fraud, or abuse linked to high-level incompetence or corruption.  Nor are they concerned that citizens will protest their conduct; culturally conditioned political inertia enables government personnel to be arrogant, scornful of citizens, and defiant of laws like IPRA and OMA which are intended to empower an informed citizenry in a democratic society.

 

The correct answer is all of the above.  For this reason, better government—not to say, good government—has little or no chance in Las Cruces.  Government leaders lack integrity, a commitment to constituent as well as community service, and the essential values and principles of good government, including transparency and accountability.  Instead, they prefer the easy, crowd-pleasing hypocrisy of professing those values and principles to the hard, selfless demands of practicing them.  So they will continue to incur the costs of their dereliction of duty as evident in illegal conduct by City employees and settlements subsidized by taxpayers.