See recent updates for Central New Mexico and Northern New Mexico (Annual Meeting 4/23/05) Chapters.

ABQjournal: Udall Bill Would Alter Civil Liberties Board
Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., has co-authored a bill that would make independent a board that currently oversees the federal government’s use of anti-terrorism powers, to make sure the government does not annihilate the very freedoms America is fighting to protect. (more…)

Assembly Permit Rules Drafted
By Jim Ludwick and Dan McKay
Journal Staff Writers

The city is working with the American Civil Liberties Union to loosen the requirements for getting a permit to hold gatherings, parades and picketing.

The proposal is intended to make it easier to get a permit when one is needed, said Assistant City Attorney Gregory Wheeler, who wrote much of the proposal at the request of Mayor Martin Chávez.

The bill gives the mayor or his agent authority to deny a permit but to authorize the event for a different date, time or location. It also establishes an appeals process.

Chávez said the restrictions are reasonable and could be necessary to protect public safety.

Involvement of the ACLU is meant to avert problems with a sensitive issue— the constitutionally guaranteed right to peaceable assembly and free speech.

Larry Kronen, ACLU cooperating attorney, said details are still under negotiation, even though a draft has been introduced to the City Council.

He said he’s “optimistic that we’re going to have something in finalized form that we can all live with, that won’t abridge any constitutional rights.”

The draft says there’s a need for “content-neutral prior restraints” on the time, place and manner of demonstrations. It would replace the city parade ordinance, which dates to the 1970s.

That ordinance requires a permit for any demonstration that occupies public property. Applicants must go before a committee that meets every other Monday, Wheeler said.

The new proposal would require a permit for demonstrations on public property only for those likely to require a street closure. It also would allow applicants to ask the mayor for an expedited review.

“This ordinance considers that, really, there are things that happen that are flashpoints, and organizers can’t anticipate them” far in advance, Chávez said.

Wheeler said the proposal stemmed from the city’s experience with protests at the beginning of the Iraq war.

Under the procedures approved in the 1970s, “it took too long to get a permit if a person wanted to respond to a rapidly evolving public issue,” he said.

Councilor Michael Cadigan— who, like the mayor, is an attorney— said it’s a good idea to loosen restrictions.

“Making sure our ordinance is as compliant with current Supreme Court law as possible will probably reduce the amount of litigation the city has to defend,” he said.

The proposal deals with marches, demonstrations or processions that could interfere with the flow of traffic. It would cover meetings, demonstrations, picket lines, or gatherings of more than 25 people— if they result from prior planning and would interfere with traffic.

It wouldn’t apply to funeral processions, employees picketing or students participating in educational activities.

In some cases, applicants would have to pay for police protection. There would be no charge at demonstrations that are “for the sole purpose” of free speech protected by the First Amendment.

When a permit is denied, the applicant can seek an appeal through an administrative hearing officer.

Tom Udall
U.S. Representative
Third Congressional District
NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
March 15, 2005
202.225.1213

UDALL RENEWS CALL FOR “INDEPENDENT” CIVIL LIBERTIES BOARD

Lawmakers Say Current Board Lacks Teeth

WASHINGTON - At a press conference today, U.S. Representative Tom Udall, D-N.M., unveiled new legislation he co-authored that would create a bipartisan and independent privacy and civil liberties board to ensure that the federal government’s use of the powers granted to fight terrorism do not annihilate the very freedoms America is fighting to protect.

Udall and Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., introduced Tuesday “The Protection of Civil Liberties Act.” The measure would amend the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board created by Congress last year.

Among the recommendations made by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) in its final report was the creation of a board within the executive branch to oversee adherence to guidelines on, and the commitment to defend, civil liberties by the federal government.

“One of the crucial proposals recommended by the 9/11 Commission was the establishment of a civil liberties board designed to balance the massive powers granted to the federal government,” Udall said. “Unfortunately, the board created by Congress last year was significantly watered down during conference negotiations and does not currently have the authority or independence to do its job. This bill would change that.”

Specifically the bill:

* Gives the Board subpoena power. Currently the board needs the permission of the Attorney General to issue a subpoena. Also, the Board lacks access to the private contractors who currently perform many critical intelligence functions.

* Creates the Board as an independent agency in the executive branch. Currently the board is in the Executive Office of the President.

* Requires that all 5 members of the Board be confirmed by the Senate. Currently only the Chair and the Vice Chair will be confirmed.

* Requires that no more than 3 members can be from the same political party. Currently there is no provision that ensures a bipartisan Board.

* Sets a term for Board members at 6 years. Currently members will serve at the pleasure of the President.

* Creates the chairman as a full-time member of the Board. This increases the likelihood that the Board will meet regularly.

* Restores the qualifications of Board members that were originally included in the Senate bill. This would require that members have prior experience with protecting civil liberties, among other things. Currently there are no such requirements.

* Restores reporting requirements to Congress. One of the main recommendations of the 9/11 Commission was the need for more Congressional Oversight. Restoring the reporting requirement language requiring semiannual reports helps achieve this goal.

* Requires each executive department or agency with law enforcement or antiterrorism functions should designate a privacy and civil liberties officer. Currently the law only expresses a sense of Congress that a privacy and civil liberties officer be established.

Joining the lawmakers at the press conference were family members of 9/11 victims and 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste who spoke in strong support of the legislation.

“The Maloney-Udall bill would provide for a robust oversight board with bipartisan membership, independent subpoena power and sufficient reporting requirements to assure transparency,” Ben-Veniste said.

Udall, a former federal prosecutor and New Mexico Attorney General, voted against the USA Patriot Act, when it passed just weeks after the September 11th attacks. The federal lawmaker has raised serious concerns about the Bush administration’s approach to privacy and civil liberties.

“It is the responsibility of all Americans to see that no one, not even our own well-intentioned government, has the opportunity to curb our civil liberties. It is paramount that we safeguard the civil liberties and freedoms that form the bedrock of our nation,” Udall concluded.

-END-

Judge’s decision supports city’s gay marriages
Ruling cites ‘no rational purpose’ for opposition
By Jo Stanley, Staff Writer

A San Francisco judge’s ruling that state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage were unconstitutional gave the gay marriage movement a significant legal win Monday while outraging conservative opponents, who promised legal challenges as well as a political fight at the ballot box.

If upheld on appeal, Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer’s ruling could set the stage for gay couples in the nation’s most populous state to wed, joining only Massachusetts in having such a right.

The decision also raises the possibility of a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the state. The proposed amendment could easily become one of the most fiercely fought California measures since Proposition 187, which sought nine years ago to deny undocumented immigrants many public services including an education.

Robert Tyler, attorney for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, said he expected that the judge’s action would lead to a national countermove.

“This ruling has essentially put rocket fuel underneath the movement for a federal marriage amendment,” Tyler said. “The people of America have spoken time and time again, as we saw in the last election.”

The City was found to be in defiance of state law last winter and was ordered to stop marrying gay couples, with the state Supreme Court declaring more than 4,000 marriages void but failing to address whether gay marriage was unconstitutional.

The City Attorney’s Office then teamed up with the National Center for Lesbian Rights to overturn two state laws — one passed in 1977 and a 2000 voter-approved amendment to that law — that defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

Kramer’s 27-page ruling said same-sex couples had been singled out for special restrictions in violation of equal-protection rights guaranteed to all under the state constitution.

He also found that there was “no rational purpose for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners.”

The judge brushed aside claims that procreation was a legitimate reason for state government to say who could and could not wed, noting that many heterosexuals marry who cannot or do not wish to have children, or that it was sufficient to argue that male-female marriage embodies tradition.

Liberty Counsel president Mat Staver, a Florida-based attorney representing a state conservative group called the Campaign for California Families, said he was shocked by Kramer’s finding and planned to appeal as soon as it becomes final.

“The ruling is ludicrous,” he said. “The institution of marriage is one man and one woman.”

For San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, whose staff has been slugging through legal documents and hearings since last spring, the judge’s words were sweet.

“What really comes through is the focus on justice,” he said, adding that he saw “every reason” to believe that Kramer’s ruling would stand up to appellate scrutiny.

“It may take 20 or 30 years before we canonize this decision as an important one,” said constitutional law scholar Bradley Joondeph of Santa Clara University. “Ultimately, popular opinion is what matters. The courts historically have very limited ability to effect social change.”

A year ago, a Los Angeles Times poll reported less than a majority of Californians supported same-sex marriage but more than 50 percent opposed the idea of a federal constitutional amendment that would effectively ban gay weddings.

Others statistics have shown that a strong majority in the state favors upholding the same rights through domestic partnerships — a stance Judge Kramer said smacks of the “separate but equal” status conferred to black schools in the South before the U.S. Supreme Court struck down segregation.

Two bills now before the California Legislature would put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the November ballot.

Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, has a revived same-sex marriage bill making its way through the Legislature, with support expected in committee review this spring and a vote on the floor in June.

“It’s important,” Leno said, “that we move forward legislation so that our critics cannot say this is just the work of activist judges.”

Bonnie Eslinger contributed to this report.
—–
Conservatives want voter approval on issue By Bonnie Eslinger, Staff Writer

Monday’s San Francisco court ruling that it is unconstitutional to limit marriage in California to strictly heterosexuals has precedence in two other state rulings that had vastly different outcomes: Massachusetts and Hawaii.

In November 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared the state’s prohibition on same-sex unions to be unconstitutional, and in May 2004 the state became the first to legalize gay marriage

However, in 1993 Hawaii’s Supreme Court also ruled that the state didn’t have “a compelling reason” for their anti-gay marriage law, but Hawaii voters thought otherwise. In 1998, before the high court could issue a final ruling — voters pre-emptively passed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Following Monday’s ruling in San Francisco, several conservative organizations in California said they were ready to take their appeal to the voters.

Liberty Counsel president Matt Staver, representing the conservative Campaign for California Families, said the state’s size makes it an influential battleground. He expects voters in California and other states to be outraged and motivated by the ruling.

“It will send a message loud and clear to other states that they need to amend their constitutions to preserve marriage,” Staver said.

Similar outcomes as the one in Hawaii occurred in Alaska, in 1998, and Oregon, in 2004, in which political battles over gay marriage were won in the courts, but ultimately lost at the ballot box.

Additionally, following Hawaii’s ruling, then-President Bill Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows states to create their own marriage laws, but denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages and permits states to refuse to recognize gay unions performed elsewhere.

Since Massachusetts legalized gay marriage in November 2003, more than 35 states have introduced legislation to maintain the traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Vermont began offering “civil union” status in 2000, which offers marriagelike benefits without granting the matrimonial moniker.

Outside of the United States, gay marriages are permitted in Belgium and the Netherlands. Most recently, Canada’s Supreme Court unanimously declared same-sex unions constitutional, and a bill in support of gay marriage is currently before the House of Commons.

E-mail: beslinger@examiner.com

SB 103: the “NO FEAR” bill
Limiting state funding for enforcement of federal civil immigration law

Explanation of bill

SB 103 would limit state and local law enforcement agencies from using funds, personnel, and other resources to detect or apprehend people whose only crime is that they are suspected of residing in the US in violation of federal civil immigration laws. This bill does not prevent police from investigating immigrants who are suspected of crimes or of contacting the federal immigration service to report criminals who are believed to be undocumented.

Why shouldn’t NM police enforce federal immigration laws?

Fear of being deported deters immigrants from reporting crime to police, making our communities less safe.

SB 103 would lift the pall of fear that stops immigrants from contacting police when they are victims of crime or when they witness crimes happening in their own communities. The bill would have the greatest benefits for immigrant victims of domestic violence who are otherwise trapped in violent relationships with nowhere to turn for protection. In immigrant-dense communities like Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Las Cruces, policies like SB 103 are essential to effective ‘community policing.’

Immigration laws are too complex for state police to enforce without extensive training.

Simply to verify immigration status, officers must be thoroughly familiar with dozens of different types of immigration documents, including student, special employment, and family reunification visas. Many immigrants are in the process of legalizing and do not carry visas or green cards but documentation that nonetheless authorizes temporary legal residence. To properly train local police to identify these documents and screen for fraudulent identification requires significant resources and expertise.

New Mexico can’t afford to divert scarce police resources into federal law enforcement activities.

In recent years, staffing shortages have caused the Albuquerque Police Department to downgrade the priority of some domestic violence calls and cut back on officer investigations of automobile thefts. New Mexico already subsidizes federal civil immigration law enforcement activities by providing jail facilities for immigration holds and detention.

State and local police enforcement of federal immigration laws promotes racial profiling.

According to the Federal Hispanic Law Enforcement Officers Association, “because police are ill equipped to determine who has violated a civil immigration law, some will inevitably stop and question people of certain ethnic background, who speak certain languages, or who have accents when speaking English.”

Doesn’t federal law require state and local police to enforce civil immigration law?

No. Illegal entry into the US is a federal court misdemeanor. By NM Supreme Court ruling, a NM peace officer can arrest for a misdemeanor (without a warrant) only if “he has probable cause or reasonable grounds to believe that the offense has been committed in his presence.”

Illegal residence in the US is a violation of civil not criminal law. If state and local officials had authority to enforce federal civil laws, they might also be expected to enforce the Clean Air Act, federal antitrust laws, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and bankruptcy laws, among many others.

Section 133 of the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibly Act of 1996 authorized the US Attorney General to enter into agreements with local police agencies to enforce immigration laws, but nothing in federal law mandates that a local department do so. Enforcement of civil immigration laws is not a condition of any federal funding for state and local police.

What about preventing future terrorist attacks?

All of the perpetrators of the September 11th terrorist attack entered the United States legally on temporary business, tourist, and student visas. Between 1997 and 2001, the 19 hijackers submitted 24 applications and received 23 visas (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, i.e. the “9/11 Commission”). Several of the hijackers had passed through immigration and customs inspection multiple times prior to the attack.

Many New Mexicans oppose state funding for civil federal immigration law.

In 2004, a coalition of New Mexican organizations, community members, and public officials passed municipal resolutions in Albuquerque and Santa Fe against funding civil federal immigration law enforcement. In New Mexico, Sheriff Darren White, the NM Sheriff’s and Police Association, the Albuquerque Chapter Hispanic American Police Commander Officers’ Association, and the Chicano Police Officers’ Association are on record stating their opposition to the proposed federal CLEAR Act which if passed, would have required state and local police to do the work of federal immigration officers.

Supporting Organizations

ACLU-NM
ACORN
Albuquerque Rape Crisis Center
Catholic Archdiocese of New Mexico
Catholic Charities of Central New Mexico
Community Health Partnership
COPE, Inc.
Enlace Comunitario
Esperanza Shelter For Battered Families
Home for Women and Children
NM Center On Law and Poverty
New Mexico Municipal League
New Mexico Women’s Agenda
Peanut Butter and Jelly
Roswell Refuge for Battered Adults
Somos un Pueblo Unido
The Healing House

Supporting Law Enforcement

Espanola Chief of Police, Richard Guillen
Santa Fe Chief of Police, Beverly Lennen

Law Enforcement Opposition to Federal Immigration Enforcement by Local Police
Executive Summary
by
Beverly Lennen, Chief of Police
Santa Fe Police Department, SFNM
January 12, 2005

BACKGROUND:

In 1999 the Governing Body for the City of Santa Fe passed a Resolution declaring a policy of non-discrimination on the basis of a person’s national origin and immigration status. The Resolution identifies the City of Santa Fe as a multi-cultural community which celebrates the diversity of its citizens, one in which all persons are welcomed with respect and dignity. It was further resolved that no municipal resources will be expended to identify or apprehend any non-citizen solely on the basis of immigration status, unless otherwise lawfully required to do so.

Based upon this resolution, many immigrants have chosen to relocate to our city in order to seek better lives and provide for their families. These individuals have become an integral part of our community and provide vital services for a city that is primarily dependent upon tourism and gross receipts taxes for survival. Many families participate in community service beyond their employment, thus contributing to the well-being of the entire community.

The Santa Fe Police Department has entered into partnerships with several local Immigrant advocacy groups and participates in the local Immigration Task Force. The initiatives were developed to foster relationships and trust, and more importantly to provide outreach to the immigrant community with a goal of reducing crime and increasing public safety for all residents and visitors.

POSITION:

Implementation of Federal legislation such as the CLEAR Act could seriously erode these efforts and public safety, as well. If local police are mandated to enforce civil immigration rules, it is highly unlikely these partnerships or the exchange of information regarding criminal activity will continue. Immigrant victims of crimes such as domestic violence and rape will be rendered unable to report these crimes, and the perpetrators will go unchecked.

There is also a potential that such enforcement can lead to allegations of racial profiling, which would have a devastating effect for a department known for protecting the rights of all, in such a traditionally diverse community.

Other serious concerns relate to the amount of training and staffing required to properly enforce immigration law. Our police department is properly focused on reducing crime in our community, collaborating with other law enforcement agencies to reach national and state homeland security goals, and building regional relationships to meet the daily demands on law enforcement. Federal and state grant funding has become scarcer, local demands have grown, and more of the burdens are placed on local government to maintain public safety, thus placing law enforcement in an untenable position. The added burden will quickly overwhelm most local agencies, who are struggling to meet current needs.

As the Chief of the Santa Fe Police Department and a member of the New Mexico Municipal Chiefs of Police Association, I am opposed to the proposed Federal CLEAR Act and any other effort to burden municipal agencies with additional responsibilities as they relate to the enforcement of Immigration Law. A letter signed by Mayor Larry Delgado and I has already been sent to the New Mexico Congressional delegation, and I support those resolutions/bills already prepared, on a local, county, and state level to oppose such legislation.

Law Enforcement Opposition in Border States to Federal Immigration Enforcement by State and Local Police

New Mexico
Santa Fe Police Department, Chief Beverly Lennen
“As the Chief of the Santa Fe Police Department and a member of the New Mexico Municipal Chiefs of Police Association, I am opposed to any effort to burden municipal agencies with additional responsibilities as they relate to enforcement of Immigration Law.”
(by Executive Summary, 1/12/05)

Espanola Police Department, Chief Richard A. Guillen
“I support this legislation, we do not have the resources or manpower to enforce immigration laws, our contacts with immigrants is strictly for criminal investigations. “
(“legislative endorsement 1/11/05)

Arizona
Pima County, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik
“As a general rule, I wouldn’t want our people certified as having the authority of a Border Patrol officer.”
(“Officials wary of border policing,” Arizona Daily Star, 8/1/02)

Santa Cruz County, Sheriff Tony Estrada
“We will assist all law-enforcement agencies if someone has been identified as being wanted, but we won’t go out and look for these people who are here illegally.”
(“Immigration proposal has many fearing racial profiling,” El Paso Times, 10/9/03)

South Tucson Police Department, Chief Sixto Molina
“We don’t have the time and the personnel to be immigration agents. Murderers, rapists, robbers, thieves and drug dealers present a much bigger threat than any illegal immigrant.”
(Tucson Citizen editorial, “Immigration role not for local police,” 10/15/03)

Tucson Police Department, Chief Richard Miranda
“I do not believe it is appropriate to allocate the limited resources of the Tucson Police Department to the issue of immigration control. We have worked hard to build bridges and establish partnerships with the diverse population of our city. I believe that taking on the additional role of enforcing immigration laws would jeopardize those relationships and create unneeded tension in our community.”
(“Expansion of foreigner arrest plan is feared,” Arizona Daily Star, 7/12/02)

Law Enforcement Opposition in Border States to Federal Immigration Enforcement by State and Local Police

California
California Police Chiefs’ Association, President Rick TerBorch
“It is the strong opinion of the California Police Chiefs’ Association that in order for local and state law enforcement organizations to be effective partners with their communities, it is imperative that they not be placed in the role of detaining and arresting individuals based solely on a change in their immigration status.”
(letter to Senator Feinstein, 9/19/03)

Anaheim Police Department, Spokesperson Mike Hildalgo
“We have enough problems just doing our routine calls and investigating the everyday things. This would put additional burden on us that we probably wouldn’t be able to handle.”
(“Immigrants Worried, Coe Pleased,” Orange County Register, 4/4/02)

Los Angeles Police Department, Public Information Officer Grace Brady
“People without legal rights would not be willing to speak up or would be frightened of police if we did [begin enforcing civil immigration laws].”
(“Value, Legality Debated as Local Police Become Immigration Cops,” Hispanic Link Weekly Report, 6/9/03)

Texas
Arlington Police Department, Chief Theron Bowman
“We can’t and won’t throw our scarce resources at quasi-political, vaguely criminal, constitutionally questionable, not any other evolving issues or unfunded mandates that aren’t high priorities with our citizenry.”
(“2 Chiefs Oppose Immigration Role,” Dallas Morning News, 4/5/02)

El Paso Municipal Police Officers’ Association, President Chris McGill
“From a law-enforcement point of view, I don’t know how productive it would be to have police officers ask for green cards. It’s more important that people feel confident calling the police.”
(“Immigration proposal puts burden on police,” El Paso Times, 10/9/03)

Dallas Police Association, Senior Cpl. Glenn White, President
“The strain on local police already is enormous, and to ask us to arrest and detain immigrants is something the federal government needs to address by funding the INS some more and hiring additional personnel.”
(“U.S. May Let State, Local Authorities Enforce Federal Immigration Laws,” Dallas Morning News, 4/3/02)
Law Enforcement Opposition in Border States to Federal Immigration Enforcement by State and Local Police

Garland Police Department, Officer Steve Dye
“Even if they’re here illegally, they still have rights. They should call the police and report [crimes]. They are residents. We serve them like any other residents.”
(“Non-English speakers may face questionable business dealings,” Dallas Morning News, 8/27/03)

Houston Police Department, Spokesperson Silvia Trevino
“The INS handles immigration. We handle crime.”
(“Local police may get role in immigrant law,” Baltimore Sun, 7/9/2003)

Houston Police Officers Union, Hans Marticiuc, President
“It’s very difficult in the immigration communities to get information from folks, and if there’s a fear of being reported to the INS because of illegal status, then it just makes our job that much more difficult and it makes the city have that much more criminal activity.”
(“Houston police stick to hands-off immigrant policy,” Houston Chronicle, 3/3/2003)

San Antonio Police Department, Chief Albert Ortiz
“Any time we get mandates and more work without a commensurate amount of resources, something has to suffer. One of the beauties of living in San Antonio is we have a lot of diversity and we seem to pull together. If that [mandate] happens, we’d really have to think very hard about where it would be on our priority list, and if it would even be a priority…We’ve tried so very hard for years to build bridges to all segments of our community. This would be a setback in that regard.”
(“Sheriff, Top Cop Blast INS Proposal,” San Antonio Express News, 4/5/02)

Waco Police Department, Chief Alberto Melis
“I worry that there are people who don’t ask for help because they have fear of the police.”
(“Waco Police Chief Asks Immigrants Not to be Afraid to Report Crimes,” Waco Tribune-Herald, 4/15/02)

ABQjournal: Death-Penalty Repeal Lives
By Kate Nash
Journal Capitol Bureau

SANTA FE— The Senate Rules Committee voted 4-2 Monday for a measure to repeal the death penalty in New Mexico and replace it with life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The bill (HB 576) is headed to the Senate Judiciary Committee and then, if advanced, to the full Senate.

Proponents of the measure say innocent people have been sentenced to death and later exonerated and that the penalty is often given disproportionately to minorities. They’ve tried for years to repeal the penalty in New Mexico.

“There are no rich people on death row,” said Rep. Gail Beam, D-Albuquerque, the bill’s sponsor. “Those sentenced to death are primarily people of color.”

Sen. Kent Cravens, R-Albuquerque, voted against the measure, saying New Mexico has been judicious about applying the penalty.

“I think effectively we pretty much have abolished the death penalty in New Mexico,” Cravens said.

Two people are on death row in the state. The last execution here— the only one in more than four decades— was in 2001. New Mexico is one of 38 states with capital punishment.

Cravens and other lawmakers said they struggled with the topic.

“This really is about as philosophical of a split you could have in life. … It’s very, very, very difficult for us to have to come in here and make up our minds,” Cravens said.

The full House on a 38-31 vote approved the same measure earlier this session. However, Gov. Bill Richardson has said he supports the death penalty, as long as proper safeguards, such as DNA testing, are in place.

Opponents say murderers deserve to have their lives taken if they kill others.

Andrea Vigil, whose husband, Carlos, was murdered in 1999 a half block from the state district courthouse in Santa Fe, spoke in favor of Beam’s measure.

“Our system tries to tell the victims’ families that once they get to the courtroom or death chambers, that everything will be OK. This is certainly not true, at least it wasn’t for me,” she said.

Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White, whose grandfather was murdered, spoke against the bill. He said death is an appropriate penalty.

“For some of the horrible scenes I’ve seen in my career, it is a just punishment for what these people are capable of.”

New Mexico Residents: Urge your State Senator to Support Repeal of the Death Penalty

The death penalty is a seriously flawed system which costs more than life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, does not serve as a viable deterrent, and risks executing innocent people. The New Mexico legislature is currently considering a bill (HB 576) that would repeal the death penalty in New Mexico.

Every state that has studied its death penalty system has found it to be more expensive than life without parole. The most comprehensive death penalty study, conducted by Duke University, found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million more per execution than a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of life imprisonment.

The New Mexico legislature should support this bill and stop the unfair and discriminatory use of the death penalty.

Take Action! Urge your Senator to vote for death penalty repeal.

The death penalty costs more than life in prison. If the death penalty is repealed individuals can be sentenced to life in prison, which costs less than a death sentence. Furthermore, eliminating the death penalty and replacing it with victims’ services will provide tangible benefits to victims of crime.

Capital punishment is not a deterrent. When police chiefs were asked to rank the factors that, in their judgment, reduce the rate of violent crime, they ranked the death penalty as least effective. Politicians who preach the desirability of executions as a method of crime control deceive the public and mask their own failure to identify and confront the true causes of crime. According to FBI statistics, states without the death penalty consistently have lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty.

The death penalty risks executing innocent people. Our court system is not perfect: no matter how hard we try, there will always be error. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 118 innocent people have been freed from death row. During that same time 949 people have been executed, which means for every 8 people executed, 1 innocent person is freed from death row. It is highly likely that some of those people who were executed were also innocent.

TAKE ACTION!

Contact your Senator in 2 Clicks!

Enter Your Zip Code

or

Enter your 9 Digit Zip Code (zip + 4)

Click Here to look up your Zip+4
What’s This?

TAKE ACTION
Support a Moratorium on Federal Executions

Kentucky Residents: Oppose the execution of Thomas Clyde Bowling

RELATED INFORMATION
Press Releases
Action Items
Position Papers
Publications
Legal Documents
Legislative Documents
Events
Newsletters
General Items
Resources
Fact Sheets

© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 This is the Web site of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation.
Learn more about the distinction between these two components of the ACLU.

User Agreement | Privacy Statement | FAQs

ACLU-NM NEWS RELEASE ~
For Immediate Release, March 3rd, 2005

Contact: Peter Simonson, ACLU-NM Executive Director, 266-4622
` George Bach, ACLU-NM Staff Attorney, 266-4622

ACLU Takes Offensive in Clovis Sticker Case

Santa Fe—Today, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico filed a lawsuit in state court in Santa Fe requesting a declaration that free speech guarantees in the New Mexico Constitution protect the right of Clovis resident Dean Young to display two “she-devil” stickers on the windows of his car. The stickers, which depict two horned, partially-clad, cartoon women, have been the subject of considerable controversy in the Clovis area ever since a Clovis police detective charged Young under a state law that prohibits the knowing distribution of sexually-explicit material to minors. Young placed the material on his vehicle as a political statement protesting the ban on Sunday liquor sales in Clovis.

“Mr. Young was just doing what Americans do: he was speaking out about a law that he didn’t like,” said ACLU-NM Executive Director Peter Simonson. “Evidently the police officer who cited him didn’t like the manner in which Young chose to express himself, so he charged Young with an arbitrary crime.”

In addition to the free speech claim, the ACLU complaint asks the Court to declare that the statute prohibiting the distribution of “sexual material harmful to minors” does not apply to the display of Young’s stickers and that the stickers are not harmful to minors.

Simonson said, “It’s a shame that the district attorney’s office insists on pursuing this. No doubt they have more important cases to attend to. We’re confident that the court will resolve the matter quickly, though, and in our favor.”

###

Peter G. Simonson

Executive Director, ACLU of New Mexico

PO Box 80915 | Albuquerque, NM 87198

Tel: (505) 266-5915 | Fax: 266-5916

While we all get used to what a blog (weblog) is and can be used for, you may want to read this on the spot blog of the NM House debate of the death penalty ban as it happened. mjh

Death of the Death Penalty?

~ ACLU-NM NEWS RELEASE ~

For Immediate Release, February 24nd, 2005

Contact: Peter Simonson, ACLU-NM Executive Director, 266-4622

` George Bach, ACLU-NM Staff Attorney, 266-4622

ACLU Asks Development Secretary Homans
to Retract Statement

Albuquerque—Today the ACLU of New Mexico sent a letter to the Secretary of the NM Department for Economic Development Rick Homans requesting that he retract a directive prohibiting all departmental employees from visiting the capital on their own time during the current legislative session. The ACLU’s letter reads, “It is our opinion that the directive imposing a blanket ban on employees, as private citizens and on their own time, from contacting legislators or appearing in a public forum to advocate for their personal beliefs on matters of public concern violates protections of free speech and free association under the federal and state constitutions.”

The letter was copied to the Office of Governor Bill Richardson and includes a request under the Inspection of Public Records Act for “any written policies that dictate what employees of the Economic Development Department may and may not do with regard to contact with legislators and other venues for public expression.”

“We understand perfectly the requirement that employees obtain the Secretary’s approval before visiting the legislature in their capacity as departmental employees,” said ACLU-NM Executive Director Peter Simonson. “However, their freedom cannot be restricted in their capacity as private citizens. The Secretary’s authority does not reach that far.”

A copy of the ACLU-NM’s letter accompanies this release.

###

Peter G. Simonson

Executive Director, ACLU of New Mexico

PO Box 80915 | Albuquerque, NM 87198

Tel: (505) 266-5915 | Fax: 266-5916

ABQjournal: Senate Says Notify Parents Before Underage Abortion By Deborah Baker, The Associated Press

SANTA FE — The Senate, after heated debate, voted to require parents to be told when their underage daughters seek abortions.

The bill, which went to the House on a vote of 29-10, requires the notification of a parent — and a 48-hour wait after that — before an unmarried girl under 18 could get an abortion.

If the girl didn’t want a parent notified, she could go to court and get a judge’s authorization for the procedure.

The bill had not been on the Senate’s voting agenda for Monday. Instead, its supporters used a parliamentary maneuver to “blast” it out of the Judiciary Committee, where it was awaiting a hearing.

Sen. Kent Cravens, R-Albuquerque, who sponsored the measure, said that “a family making this decision together” is preferable to a girl making it on her own.

“All the bill is asking .. is to put parents back in the driver’s seat,” Cravens said.

But opponents said the legislation ignored the plight of girls from troubled families — including those raped by their fathers — who could be in jeopardy if their parents were told.

And they said it would result in an increase in illegal abortions.

Sen. John Grubesic, D-Santa Fe, who voted against the bill, criticized the “arrogance and chauvinism” he said was exhibited on the Senate floor, which he said functioned “like a good old boys’ club.”

“We didn’t value women enough to spend the time to look at this bill carefully” in committee, he said. Instead, he said, the message was “we control you and we will make decisions for you.”

Sen. H. Diane Snyder, R-Albuquerque, complained that she was put in a difficult position politically by the legislation.

She said it would drive young women to “backroom abortionists” or set them up to be beaten by their parents.

But she said if she voted against it, a more conservative Republican would likely defeat her in the next primary election. Because her district wouldn’t vote for a far-right candidate, however, the GOP nominee would likely then be defeated by a Democrat. Snyder said keeping the seat Republican was more important than opposing the bill, which she voted for.

Dauneen Dolce, executive director of the Right to Life Committee of New Mexico, said she was optimistic that the bill could pass the House if it reached the floor for a vote.

“We think we have enough time now to be able to do what we need to do in the House,” Dolce said.

The Senate has voted in the past for similar legislation — most recently in 2002, when supporters tried to get it to the desk of Republican Gov. Gary Johnson before he left office. The bill, however, was bottled up in the House.

A spokesman for Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson, who described the governor as generally pro-choice, said the governor hadn’t seen the legislation and would not comment on it.
— — —
The parental notification bill is SB126.
—–
Track SB126
PARENTAL NOTIFICATION ACT
Sponsor: Kent L. Cravens
Current Location: House Intro