Merilee Dannemann 5-30 on

Merilee dannemann 5-30 on

Cautious “yes” on amending the anti-donation clause

By Merilee Dannemann

Triple Spaced Again

When we vote this November, three proposed amendments to the state Constitution will be on the ballot. Two of those propose to loosen the purse strings of the state so that more money can be spent for worthy purposes.

Amendment 1 has received lots of publicity. It proposes to take an additional 1.25% out of the state’s permanent fund every year to benefit early childhood education. That’s not today’s topic.

We haven’t heard much about Amendment 2. This amendment proposes to create a new exception to the anti-donation clause of the state Constitution. The anti-donation clause has been keeping government spending in check by prohibiting direct funding to private entities. It has frustrated people with both worthy and unscrupulous intentions. It may have saved the state from deep corruption or prevented us from lifting the state out of poverty – probably some of both.

Amendment 2 is intended primarily for building broadband for underserved rural communities, including reservations – very desirable in a state with so much rural poverty.

One example is providing right-of-way for broadband lines for the “last mile,” meaning extending lines to homes. That’s what’s needed so high school students won’t have to spend their evenings accessing the wifi network in a McDonald’s parking lot to do their homework.

The amendment by itself does not apply any money to anything. If it passes, legislation will be required to appropriate money to specific projects.

I generally favor Amendment 2 because it gives the state a way to help those low-income rural folks. Before you make up your mind, I encourage you to do a few minutes of homework.

Do not walk into the voting booth unprepared. What will be on the ballot, for all three amendments, is a brief summary paragraph – not enough to understand what you are voting on. You can read plain-language explanations of all three amendments plus some of the arguments about them. The most convenient option is vote411.org/new-mexico, published by the League of Women Voters, expected to be available online the first week of October.

You can go to nmlegis.gov/Publications and look for Constitutional Amendments 2022. The Legislative Council Service has prepared a booklet, explaining every proposed constitutional amendment, including arguments for and against.

If you’re really dedicated, you can also read analysis of the legislation as it was under consideration. Go to nmlegis.gov, click on Legislation, then read the Fiscal Impact Reports of the three proposed amendments. Look up each one individually. Click on Analysis.

Amendment 1 is House Joint Resolution (HJR) 1 of 2021. Amendment 2 is HJR 1 of 2022. Amendment 3 is SJR 3 of 2022.

I favor Amendment 2 because the infrastructure needs are genuine and very important to improving lives in our state – even contributing to the education that is the focus of Amendment 1. A great deal of planning has been done, and it is hoped that the passage of the amendment will enable the construction to move forward.

With our perennial low rank in measures of both education and economy, New Mexico needs a lot of bootstrapping, and this amendment could help considerably. The weak spot is that the language gives lawmakers a lot of wiggle room to use the new permission for items beyond the original intention.

At a recent seminar, one participant asked if this would allow money to be used, hypothetically, to build water lines for an unpopular proposed residential development near Albuquerque. The answer, also hypothetically, was, “Maybe.”

So if this amendment passes, it will be one more thing for our legislators to pledge to apply responsibly. And it will be one more thing for us as voters and taxpayers to watch closely.

Contact Merilee Dannemann through www.triplespacedagain.com.

Homage to alcohol

By Merilee Dannemann

Triple Spaced Again

There’s a new brewpub in my neighborhood.

It’s a pleasant place with a nice outdoor covered patio. Behind the bar is a long gleaming row of taps.

The menu boasts 36 varieties of beer, cider and hard seltzer. It lists 10 different margaritas, including jalapeño and avocado (I have no idea how to make a margarita out of avocado). Another page lists New Mexico wines.

This is not your father’s neighborhood bar. Brewing beer is now a craft like making jewelry. Drinking it is something like going to an art gallery. It’s the sophisticated thing to do.

It’s still alcohol. It gets you just as drunk as the old-fashioned kind that comes in aluminum can. And beer can get you just as drunk as wine or hard liquor. You already know that, right?

New Mexico policy makers have had a rude awakening from the recent series by New Mexico In Depth about the ravages of alcohol and the fact that New Mexico is the worst state in the U.S. The series reminds us that alcohol overuse is not just about drunk driving but also is a factor in gun violence, crime, homicide, suicide and several serious health conditions.

“New Mexicans die of alcohol-related causes at nearly three times the national average, higher by far than any other state,” says the lead article. “Alcohol is involved in more deaths than fentanyl, heroin, and methamphetamines combined. In 2020, it killed more New Mexicans under 65 than COVID-19 did in the first year of the pandemic — all told, 1,878 people.”

I have been puzzled as the state has passed laws that make alcohol easier to buy, for more hours and days of the week, at more kinds of locations, and as we have celebrated the growth of the drinking industry as both economic development and an art form.

The New Mexico in Depth series goes to some pains to emphasize that this is not strictly a Native American problem. "In New Mexico," it says, "every demographic group dies of alcohol-induced causes at a much higher rate than their counterparts nationwide."

It does not add much insight as to what we are doing that causes such bad results here. I remember when people too drunk to walk straight could buy liquor from a drive-up window without getting out of their car. I watched Nadine Milford, the grandmother who lost four family members to a drunk driver, march through the Roundhouse demanding change. Our DWI reform efforts included reducing the legal blood alcohol limits. We outlawed the drive-up windows in 1998.We passed laws requiring licensing and training not only for bartenders but also for other servers including restaurant waiters who take drink orders.

The 2021 law outlawed mini liquor bottles, which some commentators say forces problem drinkers to buy the next larger size. This major overhaul of our very complicated liquor licensing system expanded hugely the number of businesses that can legally sell drinks, as long as they are sold with food. We now allow home delivery of liquor.

Also in 2021, our state supreme court ruled that a store will be civilly liable if gasoline is sold to a drunk driver, putting the burden on the clerk to discern from inside the store whether a driver at the pump is too drunk to buy gas.

It looks like our reforms have focused on drunk driving, with some success, while liberalizing access to alcohol for the majority who want to drink socially. But we don’t know the answer to why New Mexico’s outcomes, especially in crime and health, are so much worse than most other states. We have to keep asking.

Contact Merilee Dannemann through www.triplespacedagain.com.

Slow reform of insulin

By Merilee Dannemann

Triple Spaced Again

Some New Mexicans who suffer from diabetes are paying a lot less for insulin, and that should begin to show up in health outcomes. It’s probably too soon to expect measurable results.

Diabetes is epidemic in New Mexico. According to the American Diabetes Association, more than 200,00 New Mexicans, 12% of the population, have diagnosed diabetes. Another 53,000 have it but don’t know it. Total direct medical expenses for diagnosed diabetes in New Mexico were estimated at $1.5 billion in 2017. Another $475 million was spent on indirect costs.

Insulin is needed daily for patients with Type 1 diabetes, which is genetically based. Type 2 diabetes can sometimes be managed with other drugs. Cost reports range widely; one study determined that a person with type 1 diabetes incurred annual insulin costs in 2016 of $5,705. It has been five to ten times higher in the United States than in every other developed country.

Insulin was discovered in the 1920s in Canada by three scientists who sold the patent to the University of Toronto for $1 each, believing that this lifesaving discovery belonged to the world and should not be used for profit. To make commercial manufacturing possible, the university gave the rights to a pharmaceutical company. The industry has been in control ever since.

The price of insulin in the U.S. has been a national embarrassment for at least a decade. In 2020 New Mexico enacted a law (HB 292) that capped the customer’s out-of-pocket cost of insulin at $25 for a 30-day supply, beginning Jan. 1, 2021, for people covered by group healthcare plans. New Mexico was the third state to pass such a law. Several other states have followed.

I wondered, if New Mexico is putting a cap on the consumer’s cost, who is paying the rest of the price? Are pharmaceutical companies reducing their prices (hard to imagine) or are insurers paying the difference? It’s the insurers, I was told by Sen. Daniel Ivey-Soto, D-Albuquerque, co-sponsor of the bill. He said insurers agreed to the change because it will reduce their costs in the long run. When diabetics cannot afford insulin, he said, they cut their dose or go without it. That creates serious health complications that are far more expensive, such as heart disease, stroke, amputations and blindness. When insulin is affordable, he said, these complications are prevented so insurers’ costs are reduced.

Now there’s a new federal cap. The just-passed Inflation Reduction Act caps insulin at $35 per month for Medicare patients, beginning in 2023. Medicare patients are not covered by the state law. I am presuming that, as with the New Mexico law, the cost above the cap will be borne by Medicare. Again, we can hope the results are cost-effective as well as life-saving in the long run.

The new law sets a cap of $2,000 annual out-of-pocket on prescription drugs starting in 2025, under Medicare Part D.

Starting in 2026, Medicare will have the authority to negotiate the costs of certain prescription drugs, starting with just 10 drugs in the first year -- the 10 top-selling drugs under Medicare.

This provision is revolutionary within the recent history of American health care. After decades of the highest pharmaceutical prices in the world, there is finally a wedge that will allow Medicare to begin exercising its purchasing power to reduce prices. The Veterans Administration already does this.

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham in June established a Prescription Drug Task Force as an advisory body. Health advocates are now calling for legislation to create a Prescription Drug Affordability Board that could help set reasonable payment costs for drugs.

Americans have finally lost patience with Pharma to the point of doing something about it.

Contact Merilee Dannemann through www.triplespacedagain.com.

The sheriff loophole

By Merilee Dannemann

Triple Spaced Again

When Congress passed the new gun safety law a few weeks ago, one change was the elimination of the so-called boyfriend loophole. This change means that red flag laws can now be applied to individuals other than a spouse.

New Mexico did not have a boyfriend loophole. We have a sheriff loophole. The sheriffs of most New Mexico counties have stated publicly that they will not enforce this law.

Red flag laws are intended to be used when a person has done or said violent things, leading others to fear this person might shoot someone.

New Mexico’s law, officially the Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Order Act, was enacted in 2020. Shortly afterward, 26 New Mexico sheriffs announced they would not comply. If a judge issues an order to take away someone’s guns, they said they won’t do it.

Nothing appears to have changed.

Here is how this law is supposed to work.

If you are worried about gun violence from a person who possesses firearms, and you fit the definition, you can ask a law enforcement officer to file a petition with a judge. The New Mexico law does not allow you to petition the judge directly.

You must persuade the law enforcement officer that this person, called the respondent, is dangerous to self or others. Then the law enforcement officer has to convince the judge. The respondent has the right to a hearing. There are provisions to allow firearms to be taken for 10 days in an emergency or for a full year.

The definition of who can submit the request is broad. It includes a “a spouse, former spouse, parent, present or former stepparent, present or former parent-in-law, grandparent, grandparent-in-law, co-parent of a child, child, person with whom a respondent has or had a continuing personal relationship, employer or public or private school administrator.” As you see, this covers boyfriends and former boyfriends.

If a judge grants the order, the law requires the sheriff to take away that person’s guns. That’s what 26 sheriffs said they would not do.

End of story. If you know your sheriff won’t take the guns away, why would you go through the painful process of asking? Just because he threatened to murder his ex-girlfriend or shoot up his former classroom?

The judge who would hear this case would probably be your own district judge, elected by you and your neighbors just as the sheriff was elected by you and your neighbors.

In a recent copyrighted story, the Albuquerque Journal found that in New Mexico, only nine such petitions have been filed. Only five of those cases resulted in one-year orders being approved.

According to that story, 19 states have similar laws, and some of them have had thousands of cases approved.

We will probably see proposals to amend this law in January. I am guessing there will be legislation to close part of the sheriff loophole by allowing family members or other affected parties to file petitions directly. And there will be fierce opposition, as with any gun-related legislation.

But if the sheriff won’t enforce the order, changing the law won’t make much difference to the family member who is worried about the crazy nephew or the jealous ex-boyfriend.

If you had thought about maybe solving this problem by electing a new sheriff in November, in most New Mexico counties you are too late. Most sheriff races were decided in the primary.

We would all like to pick and choose which laws we follow and which ones we ignore. I used to think that did not apply to public servants who take an oath to uphold the law, but apparently that’s not the standard today.

Contact Merilee Dannemann through www.triplespacedagain.com.

Where speed limits don’t work

By Merilee Dannemann

Triple Spaced Again

The woman was driving about 3 miles above the speed limit when a police officer pulled her over. It was very bad luck.

She was trying to drive unobtrusively. She had just murdered her lover’s wife and was headed for the state line. I learned this when I covered her murder trial, many years ago.

The officer, whom the district attorney described as a “bored cop,” was within his rights. Speed limits are set at an arbitrary number for a reason. While officers usually don’t stop drivers going a few miles over the limit, the law is clear. Both the driver and the officer know what’s legal and what’s not. In some matters, the only reasonable way to have enforceable laws is to have arbitrary cutoff points. In New Mexico, you must be 19 years old to own a handgun and 21 to get a concealed carry handgun license. Exceptions are clearly written, so, again, it’s easy to know what’s legal and what’s not.

We have specific numbers for what constitutes drunk driving. In New Mexico, it is illegal to drive with a breath or blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more if you're 21 or older, or 0.02 if you're under 21, or 0.04 driving a commercial vehicle.

We also have a subjective test that relies on the observation of the police officer. The Motor Vehicle Division explains, “You can be convicted of DWI even if the breath or blood test is below the legal limit if it is proven that your ability to drive was impaired to the slightest degree by drugs or alcohol.” That is logical, because human bodies vary. It is possible for a driver to be impaired without reaching the official numbers, and public safety requires that we take responsibility for our behavior. But that subjective standard, which relies on observation, is much messier to prove.

Numerical standards don’t work for everything. Some situations, especially those involving medical judgments, demand that many factors have to be considered. Last year for a short time New Mexico hospitals went into “crisis mode” because during the Covid crisis they could not meet the medical needs of every patient. Specially appointed medical panels had to be prepared to make agonizing decisions about who gets care and who doesn’t. An arbitrary rule – such as limiting access by age – would not have been right because individual circumstances vary so greatly.

This concept applies to abortion. It’s going to be a factor in our election this November and no doubt in our next legislative session.

There are two general reasons for abortion – choice and medical urgency. Almost all abortions are performed in the first weeks of pregnancy. Statistics from the Lozier Institute say that in New Mexico in 2018, less than 4% were performed after 16 weeks. Of those, 1.6% were done after 21 weeks.

Statistics don’t reveal the intimate details, but I will speculate that every late-term abortion, with few exceptions or more likely none, is due to medical urgency. I am deliberately using broad terminology, to cover multiple possibilities. These medical issues can be devastating, and the decisions that must be made can be heartbreaking.

Some commentators like to use gruesome language to talk about late-term abortion, as if these were trivial decisions made by uncaring women and heartless doctors. I don’t believe it.

That is a reason for not putting an arbitrary legal limit on the right to abortion. If such a decision has to be made, it should be made privately by a woman and a doctor, not by a policeman.

Contact Merilee Dannemann through www.triplespacedagain.com.

Verify election procedures now

By Merilee Dannemann

Triple Spaced Again

We have about three and a-half months until the general election.

New Mexico should have no patience with anyone who waits until after the election and then cries foul. If you have doubts about our election procedures, get your questions answered now.

Following the recent hubbub in Otero County, I posed this question: When county commissioners certify the election, what exactly are they certifying? I got help from Sen. Daniel Ivey-Soto, D-Albuquerque, a recognized election expert and director of the state’s Association of County Clerks.

The answer is that commissioners verify a report from the county clerk that all ballots are accounted for and the numbers match.

It is known how many voters are registered in every precinct. Usually, fewer votes are cast than the number of registered voters. If more votes were cast in a particular precinct than the number of voters registered, that would be a problem, and it would have to be reconciled. (See my column on voter registration, February 2018, at www.triplespacedagain.com.)

Mail-in ballots are only sent to registered voters who have requested them. The county clerk tracks the count. Some mail-in ballots might not be returned, because voters did not mail the ballot in time or changed their minds and voted in person. There could be fewer mail-in ballots returned than the number mailed out, but there should never be more. And so on through other procedural details, all of which must be verified.

Voter databases are updated in real time. If you receive a mail-in ballot but then vote in person, whichever vote was recorded first is the only one counted. In this example, the mail-in ballot will be rejected. The system will not let anyone vote twice.

While your votes are confidential, the fact that you voted is not. For mail-in ballots, the outer envelope identifies the voter. At polling places, voters check in by name.

If a discrepancy is found, the county clerk’s job is to resolve it, and the commissioners review the clerk’s work. Then the commission’s duty is to certify the election. Commissioners do not have the right to demand a recount. Only candidates have that right.

Our election system has multiple built-in checks and balances. The commission’s review is one of three. There are separate reviews at the local precinct and at the state level, plus paper ballots backing up everything.

After the polls close, local election boards at the precincts prepare at least three copies of the returns. One copy is posted at the polling place. At my local precinct, a paper tape showing the results is posted on a window, visible to the public.

The second copy is in a pouch that goes to the county clerk. The third is mailed to the Secretary of State.

Ivey-Soto noted that local election boards must be multi-partisan and are not employed by the county clerk. For fraud to occur, these multi-party board members would have to conspire to commit it.

There is much more detail in the law. You can read it in the state statutes, Chapter 1, Articles 13 and 14. The U.S. Election Assistance Commission has a booklet about the conduct of post-election canvasses at www.eac.gov.

If you don’t trust the results of one race, there is no reasonable way you can trust any of them. It makes no sense to cast doubt on, for example, who won the governor’s race while supporting the legitimacy of your local county commission race. They are all on the same ballot.

Finally, anyone who thinks election results are not legitimate should not be running for office and asking you to vote for them. If they don’t believe their own victory will be legitimate, how can they?Contact Merilee Dannemann through www.triplespacedagain.com.

Is Ronchetti ready?

By Merilee Dannemann

Triple Spaced Again

Garrey Carruthers once said in a speech, with characteristic humor, how surprised he was when he became governor.

He had thought, he said, he would have a large professional staff so he could give directions and delegate almost everything. He discovered that in New Mexico, the governor’s work has to be done by the governor. He had to show up every day and do it.One might reasonably ask, had he really been asking voters to elect him without knowing what the job was?

The governor’s office currently has 37 staff positions, including the governor herself, of which 10 are vacant, according to the state’s Sunshine Portal as updated in May.

Now we have candidate Mark Ronchetti. What does he know about the job he’s applying for, and what do we know about his ability to do it?

According to his own campaign resume, he has never managed or led any organization. As a TV meteorologist, he has been what’s called “the talent,” the fellow who shows up looking handsome and charming the audience (which he did well) while reporting information his station obtained from the National Weather Service. He has never had to balance the interests of competing groups or make life-and-death decisions affecting whole communities. That doesn’t mean he can’t do it. It means you don’t know whether he can or not. If you think you know, you are guessing.

The governor is the chief executive officer of an organization of roughly 24,000 executive branch employees with a cumulative salary of about $1.2 billion. It includes more than 20 cabinet-level agencies that do things from building roads to housing inmates to safeguarding our water.

Can Ronchetti name even half of them? Can he describe what they do?

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham came prepared, having previously been a cabinet secretary at two agencies, including the Department of Health. DOH is one of the largest agencies in state government, with a complex list of missions and with facilities all over the state, including hospitals and laboratories.

You may love her or hate her, and many New Mexicans dislike her intensely, but she knew from the beginning what the job entailed.

When you vote this November, your choice will be between what you know about Lujan Grisham and what you imagine about Ronchetti. That is, unless Ronchetti starts telling voters how he will do every aspect of the job.

The governor’s first task – and it’s huge – is to have a complete legislative package, including a budget, ready for the 60-day legislative session three weeks after taking office.

Does Ronchetti even know how to read the state budget? How will he get that job done? His supporters might ask him.

Gary Johnson insisted on reviewing the budget himself and line-item vetoed items he didn’t understand. That famously included funding for an essential forensic laboratory, the only one that could evaluate sexual abuse of children.

A critical part of a governor’s job is leadership in an unanticipated crisis. Gov. Bruce King had not signed up for a violent prison riot. Lujan Grisham could not have anticipated a deadly global pandemic.

The governor appoints cabinet secretaries and dozens of other officials. Will Ronchetti do a nationwide search for the best qualified? Will he appoint political insiders?

Ronchetti cannot possibly do the job for at least his first year in office. He will be forced to rely on his advisors. Carruthers had Chief of Staff Maralyn Budke, probably the most trusted advisor in our history. Who will be Ronchetti’s advisors? That is the most important question for his supporters to ask him.

Voters may be voting for Ronchetti, but they will be electing his advisors. We have a right to know as much about them as about the candidate.

Contact Merilee Dannemann through www.triplespacedagain.com.

Do Otero County Commissioners know something everyone else doesn’t?

By Merilee Dannemann

Triple Spaced Again

Here’s a big thank you to the 32 New Mexico county commissions that certified the primary election so that the orderly process of constitutional democracy could go forward.

Then there’s Otero County. This county, home of Hollomon Air Force Base, White Sands National Monument, the Museum of Space History, and pistachio nuts, has put New Mexico in the national spotlight as the county that refused to certify the primary election until forced by the State Supreme Court.

Looking at this brouhaha, I’m curious. What could have been hidden in this election that led commissioners to the accusation of possible fraud?

In 2020, conspiracy theorists claimed votes were changed so former President Trump lost in districts he should have won. That included districts where Republicans won seats in Congress and state legislatures.

So were the unidentified (actually nonexistent) perpetrators brilliant enough to steal a presidential election but too stupid to realize that they could also fix other races on the same ballots? Otero County has 27,079 registered voters, of whom 7,371 voted in this primary, as reported by the Secretary of State.

This was a primary in a non-presidential year. If someone were going to falsify the results, what would be their motive? This little county will not pick a governor or an attorney general. The decisive contests are all local: Republicans against Republicans for a nomination. The county is heavily Republican. Total votes cast in the Republican primary for governor were 5,524; on the Democratic side, where Michelle Lujan Grisham was unopposed, votes totaled 1,544. That adds up to 7,068, meaning 303 voters did not bother to make a selection.

If I were suspicious, which I am, I would wonder whether one or more of the commissioners are unhappy with the results of one or more local races. That would be a reason for claiming nonexistent fraud.

The three incumbent commissioners are Gerald Matherly, District 1; the infamous Couy Griffin, a/k/a the Cowboy for Trump, District 2; and Vickie Marquardt, District 3. Only Matherly is on the ballot for another term. He had a primary challenger and won renomination handily by roughly 2 to 1. He is unopposed in November.

Commission District 2 had a 50-50 split on the Republican side (the Republican will likely win in November). Former Republican Party of Otero County head Amy Barela beat Alamogordo Chamber of Commerce executive Director G.B. Oliver by 801 to 790, or 11 votes. The Alamogordo Daily News said a recount is expected.

A few other local races were close to 50-50.

In the state representative race for District 51, incumbent Rachel Black vs. John Block (yes, Black vs. Block), Block won by 49 votes. Legislative districts 53, 54 and 56 had no primary contests.

The judgeship for the 12th Judicial District had a 53-47 split. The magistrate judge position, Division 1, was 51-49. Again, these are all Republican primary results.

New Mexicans have a right to be furious that state resources have been wasted on the legal battle that the Secretary of State quite correctly initiated. But if you live in Otero County, maybe you know something the rest of us don’t.

If you could corrupt the voting machines, why would you? Is the race between Barela and Oliver, or between Black and Block, so hotly contested as to invite that level of criminality? Behind these bland election returns, is there a family feud or a secret love affair gone wrong?

I don’t know about Otero County local politics, but I suspect not. The fracas was just a few egomaniacs trying to show off that they too can destroy democracy.

And it reflects the absurdity of what passed for reasoning among these conspiracy theorists. Contact Merilee Dannemann through www.triplespacedagain.com.

Recent violence should focus more attention on doors

By Merilee Dannemann

Triple Spaced Again

The purpose of a door is to open and close.

Said another way, it’s to let people and objects in and out when open, while separating the interior from the outside when closed. Sometimes, as when a dangerous airborne virus is lurking indoors, open doors can help ventilate the air. Pretty simple.

Doors were a focus in a recent mass shooting, the less publicized shooting in California where a Chinese man allegedly attempted to shoot up a church in which the parishioners were Taiwanese-Americans.

This came just one day after the much more publicized shooting in Buffalo, New York. Since the alleged California shooter succeeded in killing only one person and seriously wounding five others, the incident was hardly newsworthy by today’s standards.

It was reported that the parishioners fought back and subdued the shooter before he could do all the damage he apparently intended. We don’t usually hear that in mass shooting stories.

The would-be assassin had reportedly chained doors shut from the outside, presumably so his victims would not be able to escape. When doors are locked, people cannot get out. I realize I am stating the obvious, but that’s the point.

Public attention to this event virtually disappeared after the horrendous school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, a week later.

In that incident, the shooter entered through a door that may have been left ajar or failed to lock properly.

The solution, said Sen. Ted Cruz a day or two later, is that a school should have only one door with an armed guard.

Probably every firefighter, architect, civil engineer and safety professional in the nation cringed. I hope by the time you read this, that nonsense has been thoroughly debunked.

Buildings are designed with multiple exits so people can get out in any kind of emergency, including fire. Every building in every modern country, including your house, should have at least two exits, unless you live in a cave. Apartment buildings have multiple exits. We have well established safety standards for good reasons. Our schools have mandatory fire drills to train children in how to get out; see the Safe Schools page on the Public Education Department website.

We equip buildings with doors that let people out but not in. Exit doors, standard everywhere, lock from the outside but not the inside. The door at the elementary school may have been that type. The California church shooting reminds us what havoc can be caused if a door can’t be opened from the inside.

Future shooters learn from the innovations of other shooters. The technique of chaining the doors shut is probably being studied right now on Internet message boards frequented by the small but scary league of depraved teenage boys who are fantasizing about their own moment of mass murder.

So the deliberate blocking of exit doors must be added to the list of safety concerns for every public building.

I know a bit about blocked exit doors from my work at the Workers' Compensation Administration, where I wrote two safety manuals. Exit doors can be blocked carelessly from the inside because people pile miscellaneous objects in front of them. Once you become safety-conscious and pay attention, unblocking the doors is a very easy safety measure.

We now have to be aware that someone intending harm could deliberately block the exits from the outside, so checking the exits for intentional sabotage must become a regular safety procedure – at your school, your church, your movie theater, your supermarket. This task needs to be assigned to a responsible staff member and done routinely.

I am not going to waste your time talking about gun safety. This is the new reality, so let’s just do what we have to do.

Contact Merilee Dannemann through www.triplespacedagain.com.

Voting for judges

By Merilee Dannemann

Triple Spaced Again

In New Mexico elections, the most confusing decisions we make involve voting for judges. The reason is simple but frustrating: judges cannot talk about their political views because their job involves individual specific cases, and they are supposed to approach each case without bias. They can only talk about their qualifications.

Here is a little information about the rules of voting for judges.

In New Mexico, even though judges are not supposed to be political, we have not decided to make judge elections nonpartisan. So we have a rather odd hybrid system.

Every judge must run once in a competitive partisan election.

Then, when the judge’s term of office is expiring, the judge must run in a “retention” election. There is no competitor. The voters choose either to retain the judge for a future term or not. Judges do not often lose retention elections.

Let’s back up a few steps. Typically, a vacancy in a judicial seat occurs when a judge decides to retire and a new judge is appointed to fill the vacancy.

The appointed judge has undergone some scrutiny prior to the appointment. Candidates for judicial appointment are reviewed by a judicial nominating commission, and approved names are sent to the governor.

When you see a competitive election for a judge, it usually means one candidate is already a judge by appointment and is running in that first-time competitive partisan election, and someone else who wants the job is challenging that judge.

When there is a contested race for a judgeship in the primary election, it usually means another person in the same party is challenging the appointed judge.

The winner of the primary might then be challenged again in the general election by a candidate from the other party. If the first challenger wins the primary, it is possible that none of the candidates in the general election will be a sitting judge. You can read about judge candidates in your district at vote411.org/nm.

When a judge is a candidate for retention, the judge’s name won’t show up on the primary ballot. It will be on the general election ballot in the form of a question – whether the judge shall be retained. A 57% vote in favor is required to retain the judge.

To help voters, New Mexico has the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, nmjpec.org. This commission evaluates of the performance of judges who are up for retention, based in part on responses from lawyers, court staff and others. The commission will give a simple Retain or Do Not Retain recommendation. It does not evaluate judges who are running in first-time competitive elections.

You don’t need this for the primary election. Save the information for November. On this website, nmjpec.org, you can click on your judicial district and you will find the evaluation information for individual judges by name.

New Mexico also has a Judicial Standards Commission, described as the ethics commission for the judicial branch of the state government. It is charged with investigating allegations of misconduct against New Mexico state, county, and municipal judges. This commission’s actions are not directly involved in elections.

A little more about judicial nominating commissions: There are 15 such commissions around the state. The appropriate commission meets within 30 days of an actual judicial vacancy, considers candidates who have applied to fill the vacancy, and sends recommendations to the governor.

You can read more about judicial nominating commissions at supremecourt.nmcourts.gov/supreme-court/judicial-nominating-commission and at lawschool.unm.edu/judsel/index.html.

If you think this is pretty confusing, so do I. Some day legislators might take the plunge, pass legislation to make judicial elections nonpartisan and seek the approval of us voters as a state constitutional amendment. That would likely be a great relief for dozens of judges.

Contact Merilee Dannemann through www.triplespacedagain.com.

Merilee Dannemann 5-30 on

Merilee dannemann 5-30 on

This website uses cookies.