The political season begins semi-officially today, Labor Day. Joe Monahan, New Mexico’s primary political commentator, has already characterized the Congressional race in District 3 between the Democratic incumbent Gabe Vasquez and Republican challenger Greg Cunningham as a tight one. Other media have more recently reached the same conclusion. I am not interested in the race, only in a comparison of the candidates, with a particular interest in their positions and record on public safety, that is, police operations. So I visited their websites.
Vasquez lists the following ten issues of concern:
Making life more affordable for working New Mexicans
Protecting public lands
Improving public safety
Expanding access to healthcare
Real immigration reform
Reforming Washington
Protecting reproductive healthcare
Supporting our veterans
Respecting tribal sovereignty and investing in Native American communities
Free and fair elections
The phrasing of some of these issues is infelicitous. “Real” as opposed to unreal immigration reform? “Reforming Washington” as Trump is reforming it or as reforming some or all of the federal government? “Our veterans” as opposed to their veterans? Five issues conspicuously missing: strengthening public education, supporting small businesses, assisting agriculture and ranching, protecting the environment, and ensuring water supplies for residential, commercial, agricultural, ranching, and mining uses. Still, his discussions of his ten issues outline his positions in some detail and with only a few cliches and slogans.
Cunningham lists the following six issues of concern:
Keep the border secure
Develop American energy
Protect our New Mexico way of life
Build a stronger economy
Invest in New Mexico children
Make New Mexico safe
There is some infelicitous phrasing of these issues. By contrast with Vasquez’s “Improving public safety,” Cunningham’s “Make New Mexico safe” implies that the state is generally unsafe and that most residents fear for their lives. Worse, Cunningham provides no discussion of issues. The phrases are open-ended; their vagueness might allow them to mean whatever readers want or imagine them to mean and to include or exclude numerous issues not specified. Because he indicates his allegiance to President Trump, readers might interpret the phrases in light of Trump’s decisions affecting them. For instance, “develop American energy” might mean both encouraging companies to drill for more oil and gas, and discouraging them from installing solar and wind power. “Keep the border secure” might mean more abuses of citizens and immigrants, legal or illegal, by ICE and CBP. A Trump-aligned congressman seeking to “Protect our New Mexico way of life” might support federal heavy-handedness in defining and making the state’s way of life to be less diverse, equitable, and inclusive than it is—not a good fit for the state. Cunningham’s vagueness is a con-man’s modus operandi. At this point, we have had enough Republican efforts to defraud Americans.
The transparency and accountability arise in the relationship between each candidate and his previous experience in public safety, specifically, with the police. Vasquez claims to have “worked with law enforcement on the Las Cruces Council to increase their police budget by $3.8 million.” A nit: no law enforcement served on City Council, only elected counselors, with whom he could have worked. However, he did work with law enforcement officials when he served on the City Council’s secret Public Safety Select Committee (PSSC) for about one year, from December 2020 until he resigned from office in late 2021. Voters should ask Vasquez to explain why he participated in a secret committee which operated contrary to the Open Meetings Act (OMA) and whether his participation indicates a lack of commitment to open government, and to specify what he did on that committee and what public-safety measures he supported or rejected . In view of a complaint about the PSSC’s violation of the OMA, he should support transparency and accountability by urging the New Mexico Department of Justice (NMDOJ) to reopen that complaint, one which it seems determined to suppress in order to protect him from personal embarrassment and his campaign from political damage, and to thereby assist his campaign for reelection. Otherwise, he implies his desperate need for NMDOJ to support his reelection.
Cunningham touts his work in the Albuquerque Police Department (APD), as an officer in which he “took on cartels, gangs, and violent crime, dedicating himself to protecting New Mexican families and ensuring safer neighborhoods. His years in law enforcement earned him a reputation as a man who never backed down from tough challenges and always put the well-being of others first.” For years, the APD has been under scrutiny for its abuses by its police officers, so any officer must be under some suspicion. To me, in 2026, his talk is a little too hyper-masculine, a little too much of the kind of talk by which an ICE or CBP officer might characterize his or her conduct. So, in support of transparency and accountability, he should request that his entire file with the APD be released so that the public can decide whether his conduct as an APD police officer conformed to professional standards, legal requirements, and constitutional norms. Any refusal suggests a tacit admission of discreditable conduct.
A concluding note: Only one of the two major political parties in America is striving to suppress voting by imposing difficult voter registration or voter identification requirements, shortening periods for early voting, limiting voting sites or ballot drop-off boxes, USPS shenanigans, among other administrative, election-subversive means. That party is the Republican Party. Which raises the question, why vote for any candidate of a party which wants to erode the right to vote and to constrict the means to exercise it—your right to vote, whether you are a Democrat, an Independent, or even a Republican. The appropriate response to reject such efforts is to vote for Democratic candidates up and down the ballot. In 2026, make the vote too big to rig, too real to steal.
No comments:
Post a Comment