ROUNDHOUSE ROUNDUP: A Civil-Rights Battle Ahead in NM

A version of this was published in The Santa Fe New Mexican 
June 30, 2013

Will gay marriage undermine the sanctity of cake? 

Gay and lesbian people from all over New Mexico celebrated last week after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act and cleared the way for gay marriage in California.

But when the celebrations were over and the sun rose on Thursday, the reality remained that same-sex couples still can’t get married in this state.

And despite the demise of DOMA, there still is doubt whether gay and lesbian couples married in other states and living in New Mexico will be able to enjoy the same federal benefits as non-gay couples.

Still, the court decisions made proponents more optimistic than ever that a change is going to come — and may come sooner than later.

There are two practical ways to bring marriage equality to New Mexico. One method would be in the form of a constitutional amendment, which would be decided by voters in the 2014 general election. The other way is through the courts.

Gov. Susana Martinez last week endorsed the constitutional amendment route. I probably should clarify: Martinez, a Republican who has stated her opposition to same-sex marriage, did not endorse the passage of such an amendment. She merely said that voters, not politicians, should make that determination.

Such an amendment was introduced in the Legislature this year. Rep. Brian Egolf, D-Santa Fe, the sponsor of that measure, told me that the governor didn’t appear to be working for or against the amendment. Egolf’s proposal failed when a couple of Democrats on the Voters and Elections Committee joined Republicans to table it.

That’s one of the main problems with the constitutional amendment process. It has to go through the Legislature, which for years has been timid about passing anything even resembling same-sex marriage. Still, there had been close votes in recent years for bills that would have allowed “domestic partnerships” in the state. But momentum on domestic partnerships stalled after the Catholic Church came out against it a few years ago. The opposition — Republicans and conservative Democrats — was joined by some northern Hispanic Dems who previously had supported the idea.

But even if proponents had the votes in the Legislature for a marriage equality amendment, there are many who don’t believe this route would be wise or fair.
One of these is Tanya Struble of Jemez Springs, who would like to marry her longtime partner Therese Councilor. Struble told me last week that she’s afraid that such a ballot question could have a similar result as what happened in California in 2008 with Proposition 8. In that case, voters decided to take away the right of same-sex couples to marry — which already had been in place. (The U.S. Supreme Court settled that last week. Gay weddings have resumed in California.)

Struble’s fear that voters could reject a constitutional amendment is hardly far-fetched. Polls show the question is close. But while younger voters overwhelmingly support marriage equality, older voters tend to oppose it. And guess which group is significantly better at showing up to the polls.

Also, Struble said she just doesn’t like the idea of people voting on her civil rights. Linda Siegle, a lobbyist for Equality New Mexico, made the same point in February when Egolf’s proposed amendment went down. “It’s always kind of scary to have the majority voting on the rights of the minority,” she said.

The other way to achieve marriage equality here is the judiciary. Struble and Councilor — along with four other couples — are involved in a lawsuit filed by the America Civil Liberties Union trying to end legal roadblocks to gay marriage in the state.

Egolf, as a private lawyer, is representing two Santa Fe men denied a marriage license by the county clerk in a separate case. Last week, Egolf petitioned the state Supreme Court to hear that case. If the Supremes decide to hear it, that would save a lot of time.

Whatever happens, a civil-rights battle is looming on New Mexico’s horizon.

FOG Names New Director.

The state Foundation for Open Government has named Terry Schleder, a health advocate and policy consultant, as the organization's new Executive Director.

It's the first time the watchdog group has named someone other than a journalist to that position.

According to a news release, Schleder has been field director for the New Mexico Alliance for Retired Americans since 2009. He has worked in and with state government in the Department of Health since receiving his Masters' in Public Health from the University of New Mexico School of Medicine.

"Terry brings a wealth of organization leadership to the NMFOG and a strong understanding of our mission, Terri Cole, president of the FOG Board said in the news release.

Schleder, the statement said, "presented organization plans to the FOG search committee for 1, 3 and 5 years out which were well thought out and showed a strategy of growth for the organization and broader understanding of the Sunshine Laws in our state."

Schleder starts work July 10. He replaces Gwenyth Doland, who resigned earlier this year.

Susana: Let the Voters Decide on Same-Sex Marriage

I just got this statement from Gov. Susana Martinez's office regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions on the same-sex marriage cases:

Gov. Martinez’s personal views on the issue, that marriage should be between a man and woman, are well known.  The US Supreme Court decisions tend to indicate a desire for this issue to be decided at the state level, as opposed to the federal level. The governor believes it is most appropriate for voters – not politicians – to make the determination in New Mexico. 

Rep. Brian Egolf, D-Santa Fe, had a  proposed constitutional amendment to make marriage a right for same-sex couples in the last legislative session. It was defeated in committee. There also was at least one proposed "Defense of Marriage" amendment in the session that also died in committee. This could be a hot topic once again in the 2014 session.

New Mexico ACLU Statement on Supreme Court DOMA Ruling

Here's a new release I just received concerning the Supreme Court's ruling that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

Today, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico welcomes the historic overturn of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA), the legislation that prevents federal recognition of marriages between same-sex couples, as well as the overturn of Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative that banned same-sex couples from marrying in California. The ACLU represented 80-year-old plaintiff Edie Windsor in United States v. Windsor, the case that overturned DOMA, and filed a friend-of-the court brief in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the lawsuit that overturned Prop. 8.

There are more than 1100 places in federal laws and programs where being married makes a difference—from eligibility for family medical leave, to social security survivor’s benefits, to access to health care for a spouse. Today’s decision will make a huge difference in the lives of thousands of legally married gay couples. Married same-sex couples who live in states that recognize their relationships should now be eligible for these benefits and protections. 

“This is truly a historic moment for basic fairness in the United States,” said ACLU of New Mexico Executive Director Peter Simonson. “DOMA is the last federal law on the books that mandates discrimination against gay people by the federal government simply because they are gay, and today’s decision takes down its core. It’s a great day for equality and the beginning of the end of official discrimination against lesbians and gay men.“

New Mexico is in a somewhat unique position. Although New Mexico does not yet permit same-sex couples to marry, New Mexico does not bar recognition of the marriages of same-sex couples who legally married in another place.  In addition, the New Mexico Attorney General issued an opinion in 2011 concluding that New Mexico law supports recognition of those marriages and that New Mexico courts likely would rule that those marriages must be respected.  This should mean same-sex couples who are legally married and living in New Mexico are eligible for all federal benefits; however, we cannot know for certain at this time whether the federal government will extend all federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples in New Mexico.

Some New Mexico residents, however, will likely feel immediate effects of the court striking down DOMA, including military personnel and other federal employees. U.S. Army reservist Major Christina Altamirano and her spouse, Jennifer Altamirano, both New Mexico natives, welcomed today’s decision:

“I have served my country for 14 years in the military, including a wartime deployment to Iraq,” said Major Altamirano. “But because of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” my wife and children were treated differently than other military families, denied protections, respect and recognition because we are a same-sex couple. After today’s ruling, I finally feel like the country I defend fully honors and recognizes our family’s service and sacrifice.”

“It has been a struggle for our family because in addition to not receiving the health insurance and other benefits other military families take for granted, the government considered me and my wife strangers,” said Jennifer Altamirano, Christina’s spouse. “If she were to be wounded, killed or captured in the line of duty, the military wouldn’t even let me know.”

The ACLU of New Mexico, along with the national ACLU and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, filed a lawsuit on March 21 that seeks to clarify New Mexico’s law regarding marriage for same-sex couples. The lawsuit alleges that under New Mexico’s Constitution, committed and loving same sex couples should already be allowed to marry in our state. Should this suit prove successful, married same-sex couples in New Mexico would enjoy full federal marriage benefits now that DOMA has been removed.

Eichenberg Running for Treasurer

Former Albuquerque state Sen. Tim Eichenberg, who didn't seek re-election to his Senate seat last year, is running to politics, running for the Democratic nomination for state Treasurer.

Eichenberg, 61, in his announcement today praised incumbent Treasurer James Lewis, who legally is barred from seeking a third consecutive term.

“We all owe a debt to our current State Treasurer, James B. Lewis, who is termed out, for the work he has done to restore ethics and honesty to the Treasurer’s office. We share the same core values of respect for the public trust as well as ethical behavior by elected officials, and I will continue his fine work. My experience and reputation for fiscal responsibility make me the right choice for the office so crucial to our state’s financial integrity.”

Lewis, who was elected in 2006, followed former Treasurer Robert Vigil who eventually served prison time after being implicated in a kickback scheme.

Eichenberg's first public office was Bernalillo County treasurer, to which he was elected in 1974 at the age of 22.

He will face former Bernalillo County Treasurer Pat Padilla in next June's primary.

ROUNDHOUSE ROUNDUP: Trust Us ...

A version of this was published in The Santa Fe New Mexican 
June 23, 2013

Trust us.

That’s basically what Gov. Susana Martinez’s spokesman said when refusing to identify the people who put up Gov. Susana Martinez’s husband, Chuck Franco, and two state police officers guarding him on that 2011 alligator hunting trip to Louisiana.

Chuck Franco

It wasn’t anybody who is doing business with the state, the governor’s spokesman, Enrique Knell, said. It wasn’t anybody involved in New Mexico politics.
How do we know that?

Trust us.

Some of the governor’s political enemies seem to be convinced that the hunting trip, which took place in early September 2011, is somehow connected to the awarding of a lucrative 25-year contract to operate the racetrack and casino at the state fairgrounds. The “evidence?” Two of the three principals in The Downs at Albuquerque live in Louisiana. The trip took place between the time the company submitted their bid and the time the company was awarded the contract.

Of course, millions of other people live in Louisiana. A supporter of the governor wryly pointed out to me that the son of state Democratic Chairman Sam Bregman lives there, too. (Ah, the plot thickens …)

Asked specifically if Franco’s hosts were connected with The Downs, Martinez spokesman Knell said no. I tend to believe him — if it’s not true, it would be incredibly damaging to Martinez when the names of these mysterious hosts finally are known. And I believe that eventually, one way or another, those names will be known.

Of course, I can’t say with 100 percent certainty that there is no connection between the hunting trip and The Downs, because state officials won’t reveal the names.

The thing is, assuming there is no deep dark hidden secret here, this whole mystery could have been nipped in the bud months ago had the administration just come out with all the information when people first started asking for it.

But from the start they resisted. At first, all information was denied because of “security.” In December, Attorney General Gary King ordered the state Department of Public Safety to release documents like time sheets and gasoline expenses for the trip. A few months later, those documents were released.

But then, when newspapers requested food and lodging receipts, once again the administration played the security card, based on a decision of the Texas Supreme Court.

Even though the names of the two officers who accompanied Franco on the trip were made public when the Department of Public Safety released its documents, one of the reasons given for withholding the food and lodging receipts was because it would identify the officers.

The name of this alligator has been
withheld for reasons of security

“Disclosure of such information could compromise the physical and identity security of the governor or her family, thereby compromising the governor’s and her family’s right to be free from physical harm,” said the letter denying the release of the requested documents. I wondered how a 2-year-old receipt from, say, a Taco Bell in Lake Charles, La., could endanger anyone.

But it turned out there weren’t even any receipts, at least not for the out-of-state expenses. Last week, after months of this cat-and-mouse game, the administration finally admitted that Franco and the officers didn’t pay anything for food and lodging.

Feeling insecure? As anyone who has followed the whole National Security Administration scandal knows, governments can invoke “security” to hide a multitude of sins.

Remember when then Gov. Bill Richardson kept getting in trouble for making his state police drivers go 100 mph on the highway? At one point, Richardson’s public secretary claimed the reason for one of those incidents was because of “security concerns.”

“Security” also was a reason why in the early days of the Richardson administration, his office refused to release information on who was providing the governor with private jets for all those out-of-state trips he was making. (Although to his credit, in 2009, Richardson’s office, in response to a records request, did release several months worth of expense records for his security team showing hotels and restaurants where the officers had been.)

“Legit or not, ‘security’ is becoming a standard administration answer for questions the governor doesn’t like answering.”

I wrote that in this column in 2003. The governor has changed, but it’s still true today.

Udall and Bi-partisan Group of Senators Move to Block Syria War Funds

U.S. Senators Tom Udall, a Democrat has joined with a bi-patisan group of senators to introduce legislation to prohibit the President from using any funds on activities that would escalate U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war.

The bill, introduced Thursday, would ban the Department of Defense, the CIA and all other agencies from funding any military, paramilitary or covert operations in Syria, a news release said. The legislation wouldn't affect humanitarian aid.

Udall's co-sponsors are Mike Lee, R-Utah; Chris Murphy, D-Conn.; and Rand Paul, R-Kentucky.

All four have spoken out strongly against President Obama’s decision to arm rebel groups in Syria.  Udall, Murphy and Paul, are members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. They cast the lone votes in the committee against authorizing the White House to arm and train rebels fighting the forces of President Bashar al-Assad in the ongoing civil war.

A Pew poll released early this week showed 70 percent of Americans opposed to arming the rebels while only 20 percent support it. Sixty percent of those polled said the rebels might be no better than Assad.

Udall in a statement said:

“I am deeply disturbed by the current situation in Syria and atrocities committed by President Assad’s regime and other militant groups inside Syria.  The ongoing humanitarian tragedy deserves the attention of the international community.  But there are too many questions about how the President’s decision to arm the Syrian rebels will be handled, and unfortunately many of those answers are being kept secret.  We don’t know where the money is coming from, who the arms are going to, and whether the arms are going to individuals who have the capabilities to maintain a chain of custody of those weapons.  This would not be acceptable in any standard sale of weapons to another government and should definitely not be acceptable for sales to rebel groups we know little about.  We need to place a check on the President’s unilateral decision to arm the rebels, while still preserving humanitarian aid and assistance to the Syrian people, and that is why I’m introducing this bill.  Bottom line: We should not get involved in another civil war in the Middle East without a clear national security interest.”