The ACLU of New Mexico is organizing concerned individuals to keep an eye on vigilante groups that are forming on the U.S./Mexico border.

The ACLU will train teams of volunteer “legal observers” to follow, photograph, and videotape vigilante groups who are expected to begin hunting for undocumented immigrants on the border in October. The legal observers will gather evidence for possible civil rights lawsuits.

Our next trainings will be 5:30 p.m. Thursday, 9/22/05, at the St. Francis Xavier Church, 820 Broadway SE, Albuquerque, NM

For more information go to www.vigilantewatch.org

Questions or comments?
Contact Kimberly at the ACLU of New Mexico 505-266-5915 or klavender@aclu-nm.org

HOBBS – In a letter to Hobbs Mayor Monty Newman, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico demanded that Kenneth W. Bohn be reinstated as the Hobbs police chief. Bohn was terminated on August 11th, 2005 for unspecified reasons. The ACLU believes that Bohn was fired in retaliation for raising concerns about pay inequities with the police department and for insisting on a full investigation of the police evidence room.

“Bohn was a ray of hope within a seriously troubled police department,” said ACLU executive director Peter Simonson. “He enjoyed strong support from the Black and Hispanic communities. People were thrilled because someone finally showed the courage to try to clean up the department.

“Evidently Bohn’s commitment to improving the place threatened some people.”

In recent months the Hobbs police department has come under fire for complaints, all pre-dating Bohn’s tenure, of missing weapons, transfer records, and homicide evidence from the evidence room. Additionally Bohn discovered what he believed to be evidence that the department had used proceeds from drug investigation forfeitures to buy video and audio recording devices that Bohn found to be secretly planted throughout the department. In May, 2005, Bohn requested an independent audit of the police department’s evidence room by the State Auditor and District Attorney’s office.

On June 27th, Bohn raised concerns in a Hobbs City Commission meeting about disparities in the level of pay for different police officers. Shortly thereafter, Bohn received a “draft performance evaluation” from the City Manager Dan Dible. Although Bohn received excellent marks for job performance, Dible criticized him for speaking up about safety concerns related to pay inequities.

Bohn reiterated his concerns about pay equity at a subsequent meeting of the Commission on July 17th. On August 10th, Dible issued Bohn an ultimatum that he was to resign or be terminated the following day. The letter confirming Bohn’s termination gave no reasons for the firing.

Simonson said, “The City denied Bohn any opportunity to explain his side of the story. In fact, to this day, he still does not know the formal reason for his termination. He was just cast out.”

The ACLU has given the City Commission a deadline of August 31, 2005 to reinstate Mr. Bohn immediately and according to the exact terms and conditions of employment that existed as of August 9, 2005.

ALBUQUERQUE – The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico is organizing concerned citizens to keep an eye on vigilante groups that are forming on New Mexico’s southern border. The first legal observer training will take place in Albuquerque on Wednesday, August 24 at 5:30pm at St. Francis Xavier Church on 820 Broadway SE.

This week the ACLU will begin training teams of volunteer “legal observers” to follow, photograph, and videotape the ‘Minutemen’ who are expected to begin hunting for undocumented immigrants on the border in October. The legal observers will gather evidence for possible civil rights lawsuits. Trainings in El Paso and Las Cruces are soon to follow.

“Nothing good can come from people—civilians—who are racially-motivated trying to take the law into their own hands,” said ACLU-NM Executive Director Peter Simonson. “The situation only gets worse when they start carrying firearms. By monitoring the vigilantes, we hope to dissuade them from falsely arresting people who, because of their skin color, they assume to be undocumented immigrants.”

Simonson added, “The strategy was pretty successful in Arizona.”

Ray Ybarra, an Ira Glasser Racial Justice Fellow with the national ACLU, will conduct the two-hour-long training. Last spring, Ybarra organized 130 volunteers to keep an eye on the Minutemen in Arizona. Observers are instructed not to converse or otherwise engage with the Minutemen in order to avoid confrontations.

“My hope is that like slavery and racial segregation, future generations will look back upon the Minuteman Project, and this period on the border as whole, with outrage and with disbelief,” said Ibarra.

The ACLU supports fair and constitutional immigration laws that are enforced by the proper authorities.

The Minutemen have announced their intent to patrol areas along the U.S./Mexico border in Texas and New Mexico starting the month of October. In volunteering as a Legal Observer, you can help to achieve our goals of preventing abuses and highlighting the suffering of migrants. The first training for Legal Observers takes place Wednesday August 24 in Albuquerque at St. Francis Xavier Church on 820 Broadway SE. Two trainings will follow in Las Cruces.

What is a Legal Observer?
Traditionally, a legal observer is a volunteer who attends demonstrations, protests and similar events to ensure that everyone’s rights are upheld. In this instance we follow the minutemen to ensure there is no violence.

Why should I become a Legal Observer?
While observing the Minutemen, Legal Observers are also deterring abuses with their presence, documenting illegal activity and highlighting the real problems that occur on the U.S.-Mexico border, namely the deaths in the desert of migrants in search of the work this country offers.

What are the duties of the Legal Observer?
During this event, Legal Observers will position themselves alongside Minutemen volunteers, but will remain separate from them. They will at all times remain non-violent and non-confrontational with both Minutemen and law enforcement.

Can Legal Observers discuss issues with the Minutemen?
While most legal observers feel strongly about the issues, they have chosen to protect the rights of others at the sacrifice of our own personal expression. Your presence alone is your statement. While you may feel a strong impulse to engage in dialogue or be confrontational with the minutemen volunteers, you must resist this temptation.

Is it safe to become a Legal Observer?
Legal Observers will be sent in groups out into the middle of the desert with nothing more than a two-way radio, cell phone and video camera to observe armed individuals. Additionally, legal observers are likely to find themselves in the middle of the desert with no governmental protection. Nevertheless, legal observers are to adhere to strict non-violence and will be unarmed. It is our greatest hope that there will be no violence.

If you or your organization is interested in becoming trained or hosting a training to become a Legal Observer in preparation for the October arrival of the Minutemen please contact:

ACLU Texas
Claudia Guevara
(915) 532-0921
(915) 532-4822 (fax)
rybarra@aclutx.org or cguevara@aclutx.org

ACLU New Mexico
Kimberly Lavender
(505) 266-4622
(505) 266-5916
klavender@aclu-nm.org

For More Information Please Visit www.vigilantewatch.org

ACLU-NM: Central New Mexico Chapter

President: Nancy Koenigsberg
Vice President: John McGuffin
Secretary: Mark Ayers
Treasurer: Chuck Huning

Contact: cnmaclu@yahoo.com

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050812/tell_it_to_the_judge.php

August 12, 2005

Louise Melling is the director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project and Karen Pearl is the interim director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Imagine a loved one facing a medical emergency. Where would you take her?
If the Bush administration has its way, and the person in your life facing an emergency happens to be your pregnant daughter, sister, mother or wife, and she needs an emergency abortion, you might end up racing to a courthouse to find her a judge instead of racing to a hospital to find her a doctor.

On Monday, the administration weighed in on the question of women’s health and abortion with a friend-of-the-court brief in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England . The case centers on a 2003 New Hampshire law that prevents doctors from performing an abortion for a young woman under the age of 18 until 48 hours after a parent has been notified. Contrary to Supreme Court precedent, the law contains no exception for circumstances in which the delay would seriously threaten a young woman’s health. Two lower courts struck down this law precisely because of this omission.

Enter the Bush administration. At a pivotal moment in the Supreme Court’s history, the solicitor general intervenes with a call to unravel years of legal protection for women’s health. A decision in Ayotte could reach far beyond harm to teens in New Hampshire. A ruling by the Supreme Court in this case could significantly change the legal landscape for all abortion restrictions, leaving lawmakers free to enact laws that disregard women’s health, and leaving women and their doctors few avenues to block these laws before they cause real damage.

For example, a pregnant woman who develops an infection in the uterus is at risk of serious complications, including future infertility. If left untreated, the infection can spread throughout the body and severely endanger her health.

Under the existing legal framework, women and their doctors can stop laws like New Hampshire’s from taking effect before they face an emergency and any harm is done. This is the world we have lived in for the past three decades.

In its brief, the government poses a different approach. It acknowledges the possibility that pregnant women may face health-threatening emergencies for which they need abortions. Yet the government would have these women find a judge to waive a waiting period requirement or other abortion restriction before they can get the medical care they need.

Women in medical emergencies forced to seek out judges instead of doctors: Does this sound like an administration that values women’s health and lives? Is this the kind of world you want your daughters, sisters, mothers or wives to live in?

Although this case may not result in a ruling that reads “Roe overturned,” it may signal the day when Roe has been so eviscerated that even women facing serious medical emergencies will be forced to put their care on hold while they try to find a judge who will be sympathetic to their plight. Come November, the Supreme Court will have to consider the degree to which the law must protect women’s health. Let’s hope that the justices understand that preserving women’s fundamental right to access medical care is nonnegotiable.

Rachel Hart
Public Education Associate
ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
T: (212) 549-2638
F: (212) 549-2652

www.TakeIssueTakeCharge.org

ALBUQUERQUE – The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico registered an important victory in state court on Tuesday when Judge Theresa Baca struck down an Albuquerque ordinance that empowered city officials to permanently take away motor vehicles for a first time arrest, not conviction, for “driving while intoxicated.”

Judge Baca said the ordinance had “huge problems with procedural due process.”

“The Constitution guarantees people a chance to defend their innocence in court before suffering the government’s punishment,” said ACLU-NM Executive Director Peter Simonson. “This ordinance tried to take that right away. The ACLU doesn’t condone drunk driving, but it also doesn’t believe people should be punished for a crime that they may not have committed.”

During the hearing, Judge Baca underscored the importance of “the presumption of innocence that we have in this country.” She added, “Non-guilty people can be arrested for various reasons. That has long been recognized.”

In his arguments, ACLU cooperating attorney Paul Kennedy accused the city of “perverting nuisance laws to make up for perceived insufficiencies of the criminal justice system.” He urged Judge Baca to consider striking the ordinance down on grounds that it was “so poorly drafted.”

Simonson said, “The Mayor had an opportunity to write a law that would have had a real impact on drunk driving. Instead, he created a law that demonstrates his disdain for drunk drivers, but that was so poorly conceived; it immediately crumbled under the court’s scrutiny. It seems that the Mayor was satisfied with meeting his political needs rather than practical purposes.”

Judge Baca granted a permanent injunction which, she emphasized, was based on constitutional grounds and applied to the law “in its entirety.” In addition to due process problems, the ACLU claimed that the ordinance violated New Mexico Common Law and state law prohibiting double jeopardy and excessive fines.

ACLU Staff Attorney George Bach and cooperating attorneys Paul Kennedy, Ousama M. Rasheed, and Roger I. Smith argued the case on behalf of the ACLU of New Mexico.

Saturday, July 30. 2005
Proposal for Modest Improvements Passes Senate by “UC”
Around five o’clock last night, before the Senate broke for its annual August recess, the Specter-Feinstein bill to reauthorize the expiring provisions of the Patriot Act passed. This bipartisan bill was approved through a process called “unanimous consent,” where the leaders of both parties get consent to take action on a measure and none of the other Senators object.

The good news is there were also no amendments to make the bill worse or try to strip out some of the modest improvements made to the Patriot Act. As we prepared for the summer break in the congressional session, we were developing a strategy to make sure the Roberts bill approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee would not be dueling on the Senate floor with the Specter bill.

As you recall, the Senate Intelligence Committee had passed a bill to expand the Patriot Act and did so behind closed doors. Just this past Wednesday, the FBI was asking again for expanded powers to write its own search orders without any court approval in advance and without demonstrating to any court that there were any facts connecting any personal records sought to an agent of a foreign power.

This terrible idea, called “administrative subpoena” power by the Justice Department and called the FBI’s “write-your-own-search-order” by us, was not embraced by the three other Committees in Congress that considered the Patriot Act (though an amendment by Congressman Flake on the House floor takes a step backward in that direction–more on that later).

Still, had the Specter bill not been approved by “UC,” in the lingo of the Senate, it would have been subject to potentially unlimited amendments and debate unless there were consent by both parties to limit these or if “cloture” had been invoked (a Senate rule allowing a super majority to force a vote). Unlike the House, the Senate is the last bastion of the democratic principle of freedom of debate and amendment, where the tyranny of any majority party is not allowed to gag the minority or limit amendments to only those approved by the party in power–as happened in the House Rules Committee a week ago.

So, now the Senate bill which the ACLU has praised for being a truly bipartisan effort that take some modest steps toward reforming the Patriot Act (but which we cannot endorse due to the significant flaws that remain) goes to conference.

This is the process for reconciling differences between bills passed by both houses of Congress about the same subject. We know the Senate conferees, but not the House ones yet. They are Chairman Specter and Chairman Roberts, as well Senators Hatch, DeWine, Kyl, Sessions, Leahy, Rockefeller, Kennedy, and Levin (members of either or both the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees).

The ACLU and its allies across the nation still have a lot of work ahead of us to help ensure that in the conference committee of House and Senate members the modest improvements are not lost and that the worse provisions of the severely flawed House bill do not become the law.

We’ll be reaching out to you in the coming weeks as we work toward a vote in both the House and Senate on a final bill, likely in September.

Thank you again for your tremendous efforts! We still have much to do to reform the Patriot Act so that we can be both safe and free.
Posted by Lisa Graves, Senior Legislative Counsel, ACLU in Congressional updates at 12:38 www.reformthepatriotact.org

Join us on Monday August 8 in Santa Fe to hear a talk by Al Bronstein Director Emeritus, ACLU National Prison Project and U.S. Board Member, Penal Reform International.

Al Bronstein is the founder of the ACLU’s nationally-renowned National Prison Project and an expert on prison reform, international corrections, and repeal of the death penalty. He will be giving a talk entitled: “America’s Criminal Justice Policies: Wasting a Generation” . This will be a broad discussion regarding incarceration rates, drug policy, privatization, and the death penalty.

When & Where: Monday August 8 from 6:30 - 8:00 pm at the NEA -New Mexico building in Santa Fe 2007 Botulph Lane (off St. Michaels across from St. Vincent’s Hospital)

This event is being organized by ACLU of New Mexico and co-sponsored by:
New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association
New Mexico CURE/Faces
New Mexico Women’s Justice Project
New Mexico Coalition to Repeal the Death Penalty
Drug Policy Alliance New Mexico
Santa Fe NAACP
ACLU Northern New Mexico Chapter