We Voted "Yes!" on Each Item on the Municipal Ballot

We received our mail-in ballots from the County Clerk's Office, voted, and popped them back in the mail.

There are two sets of items: four separate general obligation bonds and six proposed amendments to the Las Cruces City Charter's recall provisions. The former will increase property taxes a little. The latter won't cost anything, and could save us money and headaches if some fly-by-night group wants to undo a city council vote.

Each of the ten is a good idea.

The bonds would fund good things for the community. Replacing a deteriorated firehouse and building a new animal control facility seem pretty basic. Others would improve quality of life; and some could contribute to saving money dealing with crime, obesity, and bored kids.

City officials didn't initially propose the total package. Their proposal was more modest. A long public-input process revealed that citizens very much wanted additional improvements. The overall plan is based on community needs, not some ivory-tower concept.

Benefits include more parks, sports fields, and trails.

The four would increase real estate taxes modestly. If your house is worth $100,000 or $200,000, you'd pay an extra $70 or $140 in taxes next year, and for a few years thereafter.

If you're on a low fixed income, and feel you can't afford that, I can't argue with you. But that $70 is basically $1.35 per week. It would buy five and a half packs of cigarettes during 2019.

I'd respectfully suggest that feeling pride in your contribution to our community is worth that. 

The right to recall elected officials was a novelty during the Progressive Era a century ago. It's important – but can be abused. Rich folks, mostly from outside the city, abused it in 2014 because they didn't like the minimum-wage hike. (They used paid canvassers, some wild lies, and other tricks to garner signatures.) The city spent money dealing with the recall effort, and councilors and citizens spent money uncovering canvassers' misconduct and fighting back. We nearly had to pay for a special election. The non-financial cost was a widened chasm between people, a bitter rift in the community.

The new rules would track the state rules, which also apply to the county. We still could recall councilors; but we'd need demonstrable grounds, such as illegal or improper conduct, not just political views and actions we didn't happen to agree with. Before signatures were gathered, recall proponents would present their case to a judge. As with pre-trial criminal proceedings, the judge would determine whether there was probable cause.

I was involved in the recall fight. It was a mess. My suggestions for improvement were somewhat different from these. I think mine were a better balance of various interests. But these proposals are far better for our community than the existing charter language. They'd also give the city clerk longer to inspect petitions, and give petitioners only one shot at gathering enough signatures.

The proposed amendments on the ballot would spare us another such community-dividing and costly event. People we voted in could concentrate on their jobs, not on repelling recall attacks. (Under existing law, we could have had two or ten efforts during the past four years, not just one.) Once the community elects someone, that should stand – unless there's actual malfeasance or criminal conduct.  ("misconduct or violation of the oath of office.")

So, yeah, we cheerfully voted “Yes” to all these proposals. I hope you vote for most or all of them.

                                            -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 5 August 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL-LP, 101.5 FM (www.lccommunityradio.org).]

[The City has posted abundant information on all of these issues at http://www.clcbond.org/
and lists the ballot questions there too.]

[The recall amendments:
>require recall commissioners to file a written notice of intention with the City Clerk, with 50 signatures, stating "facts that support grounds of misconduct or violation of the oath of office" after which "a district judge shall determine if misconduct which violates local or state laws governing elected officials has occurred" before the petition is circulated; 
>give recall petitioners 60 days to collect sufficient signatures and increase by five days the time the City Clerk may take inspecting signatures and determining a recall petition's sufficiency;
>remove a provision that gave petitioners a second bite at the apple, a chance to add signatures if the number collected proved insufficient; and
>clarify that people who have signed the petition and wish to withdraw their signatures can do so by notarized letter received by the City Clerk (through certified mail or personal delivery) up to seven days after the recall proponents have submitted the petition to the City Clerk.

As I mention in the column, I could quibble with some of the details in these amendments; when I posted some suggestions in 2015,  I would have (a) amended the initiative/referendum provisions too and (b) taken more of a middle course, providing for a judge's review; but instead of having the judge's word be final, I'd have allowed recall proponents to go forward despite an adverse verdict by the judge but required them to collect a significantly higher number of signatures than if the judge had agreed with them.  I'd still have preferred that.
However, the amendments would be a great improvement.
If you've forgotten the recall travesty we experienced in 2014, search the Sun-News website or just search my blog using the word "recall" -- or google the phrase "Las Cruces" with the words "recall" and any of "Nathan", "Pedroza", or "Sorg."  (Searching my blog yields this page and the google search took me to this list.)  I should note that on this one I got involved as a lawyer, representing the three targeted City Councilors, so (a) I didn't write as many columns on the subject as I otherwise might have and (b) I wasn't an objective bystander the whole time.]