Forty-nine percent think marijuana should generally be legal to only 40% who believe it should be illegal. Independents think it should be legal by a 54/34 spread.

When it comes to marijuana usage specifically for medical purposes, 68% of voters support it to only 25% that think it should be illegal. Even Republicans support it by a 50/40 margin.

This flies in the face of statements made by a number of legislators over the past year that if voters knew what they were in for, they would never have approved medical marijuana in the first place. Apparently most voters aren’t bothered by the proliferation of dispensaries in the state.

“It’s unfortunate, but decision-makers and elected officials really just don’t have the pulse of the people they represent,” said Art Way, Colorado manager for the Drug Policy Alliance. “The average person considers the federal position that marijuana has no medical value to be a joke.”

Way said most of the polls he has seen shows even stronger support for legalization than this one. “I think it will go higher as the campaign (for legalization in Colorado, on the ballot in 2012) heats up.

“Legislators are a little behind on this. It is our job to get them on board,” Way said.

“Out of all the states that went for George W. Bush twice and then voted for Barack Obama, I think Colorado is probably the least likely to flip back to the GOP column next year,” said PPP’s Tom Jensen in an email. “And the fact that voters in the state think both gay marriage and general marijuana usage should be legal makes me that much more skeptical folks there will choose Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich over Obama.”

(A separate story on marriage equality polling will follow this one.)

Only 37% of Colorado voters say they support the goals of the Tea Party to 48% who are opposed, including a 30/53 spread with independents. Meanwhile they narrowly support the Occupy Wall Street movement by a 41/39 margin. Asked which of the movements they have a higher opinion of, they go for Occupy Wall Street 43/39.

Democrats lead the generic Congressional ballot in Colorado 46-42, including 40-30 with independents.

Tim Tebow (+46 at 59/13) has a higher net favorability rating than John Elway (+43 at 62/19) with voters in Colorado. Tebow is a source of some partisan division though with 77% of Republicans but only 49% of Democrats expressing a positive opinion of him. New Broncos coach John Fox hasn’t made a terribly strong impression on voters in the state yet with 39% seeing him favorably to 12% with a negative view, but 49% not having formed an opinion at all yet.

There’s a pretty close three way race among Colorado voters for their favorite college. The University of Colorado wins out with 22% but Air Force and Colorado State are not far behind with 17% each. Colorado College and Northern Colorado at 6% and Denver at 5% round out the field. There’s a partisan divide on this issue as well- Democrats prefer Colorado to Air Force 34-7, but Republicans prefer Air Force to Colorado 28-13.

This is part of a shift in strategy, towards new forms of journalism made available as technology has advanced, and an increasing emphasis on national coverage and issue-based coverage from our network. Over the coming months, AINN will announce a number of new journalism initiatives that will continue to advance our mission of producing impact journalism in the public interest.

Going forward, an archive of the New Mexico Independent’s reporting will exist on AmericanIndependent.com.

We are grateful for the loyal readership of the New Mexico Independent, and to the outstanding work of our reporters and editors.

We look forward to keeping you posted on our plans, which will be announced early next year.

Best regards,

David S. Bennahum
CEO & founder, The American Independent News Network

The New Mexico Department of Corrections is fining GEO Group, a Florida-based private prison operator, $1.1 million for understaffing one of its prisons. GEO manages three of the four private prisons in the state, including Lea County Correctional Facility, where from September of 2010 to March of 2011 one out of every four jobs were vacant.

The Santa Fe New Mexican reports:

GEO will pay the $1.1 million over several months, the corrections secretary said. In addition, GEO has agreed to spend $200,000 over the next calendar year to recruit new correctional officers for the Hobbs facility.

By contract, New Mexico can penalize The GEO Group and Corrections Corp. of America, the two firms that operate the private facilities, when staffing vacancies are at 10 percent or more for 30 consecutive days.

The settlement represents the first time in years — possibly ever — that New Mexico has penalized the out-of-state, for-profit companies for not adequately staffing the facilities they operate.

GEO is the second largest private prison company in the country, after Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), and it operates over 60 facilities in 15 states. The company reported $1.2 billion in earnings and $58.8 million in profit during the first nine months of this year.

The Corrections Department has faced criticism in the past for failing to penalize GEO and CCA for understaffing their facilities in the state. Much of that criticism occurred under a previous corrections secretary, Joe Williams, who called the private prisons “outstanding” despite their high number of vacancies. As the New Mexico Independent reported at the time, Williams had also been hired by GEO as a warden at Lea County Correctional, the very facility for which the company is now being fined.

Gov. Susana Martinez has released evidence in an effort to disprove her earlier claim that her grandparents came to the United States as undocumented immigrants. The Associated Press reports:

Martinez, a Republican and the nation’s only female Hispanic governor, made headlines this year by acknowledging that her grandparents came to the U.S. without immigration documents. But she said her comments were based on what she has since learned were mischaracterizations of census information by the news media.

The governor directed her political organization to undertake the genealogical research after publicity about her immigrant roots and her push to repeal a law allowing undocumented immigrants to get a driver’s license.

“We don’t know everything, I’m sure,” the governor said in an interview with The Associated Press. “But it gave us more information than we had and it helped us understand … the family tree and how people came back and forth from Mexico into the United States.”

What Martinez released wasn’t new evidence per se, but rather a new perspective on whether her grandparents legally qualified as undocumented immigrants by today’s standards.

Initially, the fact that the 1930 Census listed her parents as “aliens,” meaning they were not U.S. citizens or seeking citizenship at the time, led to the media reporting that they were undocumented, and Martinez publicly stated that the claim was true.

However, the 1930 Census does not mention immigration status or whether her grandparents were authorized by the government, typically what is needed by today’s standards in order to say someone is undocumented or “illegal.”

U.S.-Mexico border states during the early twentieth century had many Mexican nationals who weren’t officially “immigrants”, many of which would cross back-and-forth across the border as migrant workers. As Michael A. Olivas, director of the Institute of Higher Education Law & Governance at the University of Houston, told AP: “There was no such thing as an undocumented immigrant during that time.”

Martinez’s grandparents were issued permits by the U.S. government to cross the border multiple times from 1908 to 1931, according to documents given to AP. ”So [my grandfather] understood the process and seemed to have followed the process,” Martinez said.

But the documents don’t say anything about immigration status, merely that the border crossings were authorized by the U.S. government. Mexican nationals are no longer authorized to freely cross the border and inhabit and work within the United States without a visa specifically permitting them to do so.

The concept of “illegal” Latin American immigrants only arose during the Great Depression, as high unemployment caused many Americans to focus on migrant workers as an unwelcome cause of economic competition. That distrust resulted in the policy of “Mexican Repatriation,” when immigration authorities pressured or forced hundreds of thousands of Mexican nationals, and many U.S. citizens of Mexican descent, to leave the United States.

Immigrant rights activists used Martinez’s initial admission to argue against her proposal to repeal a state law allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses. Despite her background, Martinez has gained approval from conservatives for her tough stance on undocumented immigrants, and she is part of a small group of Hispanic GOP leaders to have gained national attention.

Last week, New Mexico Senator Tom Udall and six of his fellow Democratic colleagues proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow Congress to regulate the campaign finance system.

Today, Rep. Martin Heinrich, another longtime advocate of campaign finance reform, co-sponsored his own House version, in a bill that calls for the “power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents” in both Federal and state elections.

The legislation calls for overseeing: “the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.’’

Alarmed just as much by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision as Udall and his colleagues were, Heinrich and his House colleagues drafted a proposal that would repeal the Court’s ruling. “The Supreme Court made an enormous mistake when they said in their Buckley v. Valeo ruling that money and free speech are the same thing,” said Heinrich moments before presenting his bill. “Then the Citizens United decision took that to a whole new level. We’re all put at risk by decisions like that. They’re very scary.”

In order for the bill to become law, it has to pass with a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress and then be ratified by three-quarters of state legislatures. “I have yet to find somebody who thinks this is a bad idea,” said Heinrich. “Unfortunately, if you look at the other people who are behind this bill, it’s largely Democrats. Still, I think even the most ardent Tea Party activists are concerned that corporations have been given this status of being more important than individuals, and that Republicans are going to wake up to that. It’s a mistake that the Republicans don’t already see this. But I do think they’ll have to respond to the growing sentiment that’s out there.”

Heinrich also expressed concern over James Bopp Jr.’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of New Mexico’s campaign-contribution limits. “The piles of money that flowed into the state in the last election are of huge concern,” he said. “What we’re seeing with these campaigns of unlimited spending is that it’s undermining the democratic process.

“In New Mexico in particular, we have inexpensive media markets and they’re very vulnerable to this money that floods in from out of state,” he added. “This bill stems from the same logic as the bill that passed into law in New Mexico in 2010: it’s the logic of not serving corporations but serving the voters.”

Which is why Heinrich decided to co-sponsor this bill. “It’s indicative of how deep this issue is and it’s not coming from some special interest group,” he said of its origins. “It’s coming from the people. It’s an issue that has a life of its own and it should. How it does and whether or not it passes will depend on the intensity of the support that’s out there.”

While amending the Constitution is no small task, Heinrich sees the impetus behind the bill as part of a larger battle. “It really is the choice between serving Americans and serving the interests of a corporation,” he said.

As stated in Article V, Section 7 of the New Mexico Constitution, “when the governor travels outside New Mexico’s borders . . . the lieutenant governor shall act as governor.” Governor Susana Martinez recently told the Albuquerque Journal that she’d like to amend this 1948 amendment in such a way that she would retain all the authority of her office when traveling outside the state.

Having grown up in El Paso, Texas, which sits about five miles from the New Mexico border, Martinez makes frequent trips back home to visit her father and other relatives. Not entirely illogically, Martinez would prefer it if every time she did so she did not have to relinquish her power and duties to her lieutenant governor, John Sanchez. Martinez called the 63-year-old article “silly” and “archaic.”

When the state governor leaves the state, she is not only required to cede her authority to the lieutenant governor on every leave but to inform the lieutenant governor’s office of her plans.

It’s a practice that not every governor has adhered to. Former governor Bill Richardson, for example, attended the 2008 Kentucky Derby without alerting his lieutenant governor, Diane Denish, beforehand.

Changing the state’s Constitutionally approved succession-of-powers, though, is no easy task: it requires majority approval of both chambers of the legislature as well as approval by voters statewide. In order to get even that far, Martinez’s idea, which she has not yet proposed, only voiced her frustration with, would need to make it through this upcoming January’s legislative session, and the earliest a state referendum could be voted on would be next November.

In an age of cell phones and internet communication and other technologies, the governor’s desire to stay in control while out of state sounds more reasonable than it might have even just 10 years ago. Such was the logic of her spokesman, Scott Darnell, when he implied that “if the Legislature were to pass an amendment that appropriately brings the Constitution up to date, she would support it.”

A raft of new commentary and news pieces in New Mexico are indicating some state leaders would prefer a salaried legislature.

An article in Las Cruces Sun-News, an editorial in the Albuquerque Journal, and commentary on NMPolitics.net point to a frustration by legislators, who say they are too tempted by corporate givings or represent a citizenry that has the financial means.

Moving towards a salaried Legislature would require a change to the state Constitution, but there appears to be political will and cross-party interest in pursuing that amendment.

From Las Cruces Sun-News:

The governor would receive support from certain Democrats if she pushed for legislation that would place restrictions on lobbying jobs for former officeholders or government employees.

“We need to do it because of the perception. The perception of corruption is what we need to get rid,” said Rep. Antonio “Moe” Maestas, D-Albuquerque.

He said he favored a bill prohibiting legislators from becoming lobbyists for one year after they left office.

“I’m happy for Kent for getting that big-wheel job, but I think a one-year restriction would be the right thing to do,” Maestas said.

Sen. John Arthur Smith, D-Deming, said he had greater concerns about legislative reform than when somebody can go to work as a lobbyist.

Smith said he was especially bothered by the fact that teachers from the Albuquerque Public Schools and certain school administrators can serve in the Legislature without a loss of pay.

He said these situations posed more significant day-to-day conflicts than former legislators taking lobbying jobs.

Lawmakers do receive stipends for the days they are in session, which last for 30 or 60 days depending on whether it is an election year.

The Las Cruces Sun-News also quoted a legislator saying an amendment could be proposed next year:

Maestas said Rep. Henry “Kiki” Saavedra, a 35-year member of the Legislature, could introduce such a bill in 2012.

“It would have to be somebody with the standing of Kiki. If any of the younger people tried it, it would be looked at as self-serving,” said Maestas, 43.

A self-described “center right” Hispanic Republican group announced its two New Mexico state coordinators on Thursday.The Hispanic Leadership Network named Jamie Estrada, a former Bush administration official, and Christopher Saucedo, an Albuquerque attorney, to run the group’s grassroots outreach efforts in the state.

In September, HLN kicked off its efforts in the Southwest by holding a conference in Albuquerque having as keynote speaker Gov. Susana Martinez, one of a group of high-profile Hispanic Republican leaders elected in November 2010 that also includes Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval and U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (Fla.), urged those in attendance to “have a conversation” with Latinos in their communities.

National HLN co-chairs, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Bush administration Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, were unable to attend but sent videos. Both praised Martinez’s leadership and argued that Democrats had failed Latinos.

Stringent immigration policies enacted by Republican-controlled state governments, as well as rhetoric on the issue that many perceive to be anti-Hispanic, have alienated many Hispanic voters from the GOP.

Lauro Garza, the head of Somos Republicans, a Hispanic GOP group in Texas, recently announced he was leaving the party after presidential candidate Herman Cain said he wanted an electric fence on the border that would kill potential unauthorized migrants, which Garza pointed to as evidence that the party had been “infiltrated by nativist ideas.”

The founders of HLN are hoping that it can reverse the trend of Southwestern Hispanic voters rejecting the GOP. But according to Jose Armas of the Hispanic Link News Service, the HLN conference received a mixed to negative reaction from Latinos in attendance. One particular grievance was that the Corrections Corporation of America, a private prison company which lobbied in favor of Arizona’s restrictive immigration law S.B. 1070, was a sponsor of the conference.

Here’s video of Gutierrez and Bush addressing the conference:

The office of Secretary of State Dianna Duran says that the names of 641 dead people are still on the voter registration rolls in New Mexico.

Ken Ortiz, Duran’s chief of staff, says they still don’t know whether anyone has voted using the name of a dead person because they need to check the dates of death against the dates when the names were last used to vote.

The review of voter registration records will be part of a report to the Legislature that Duran is compiling. As part of this review, Duran also announced that 2 foreign nationals had confessed to accidentally registering to vote without knowing that it was illegal.

Duran has made pursuing voter fraud by foreign nationals a high priority, and earlier in the year announced that her office had identified at least 117 foreign nationals on the voter registration rolls, and that 37 foreign nationals had voted in the 2010 elections.

As Keesha Gaskins of the Brennan Center for Justice observed after Duran’s announcement, matching the names and birthdays of voters and lists of foreign nationals in the state is a bad way to check if illegal voting has taken place. Statistically, Gaskins points out, finding matching names and birthdays is quite likely when comparing lists with hundreds of thousands of names over long periods of time.

Finding mismatches between names and Social Security numbers on voter rolls is also a flawed method of identifying fraud, because it discounts the possibility that a Social Security number could be incorrectly entered into the system, either due to the voter’s error when filling out the form or due to an error during data entry.

At the time, Duran also claimed that there were up to 64,000 possible cases of voter fraud in the state. The ACLU of New Mexico filed a lawsuit against Duran in July after she made this claim and refused to release documentation to back it up, which the ACLU argued was a violation of the state’s public records law.

Duran said this week that her office is asking some voters to re-register due to irregularities on their form. However, she also said that she would not be purging inactive voter files this year or next year because by federal law notices must be sent in advance to the voter’s address notifying them that their file will be eliminated, something her predecessor did not do.