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:

On reading comprehension, the 1.65 million students who filled out answer sheets earned a mean score of 497 out of a possible 800 — a three-point drop off from 2010. Comparatively, the results in 2005 showed a mean score of 507.

Here is a break down of the scores compared to previous years, provided by College Board, with CR standing for critical reading, and M and W standing for math and writing:

Accounting for the declining scores is the growth in the diversity of students participating in the exam. The College Board wrote in a press release:

And just as school performance is linked to socio-economic conditions, so goes the trend among test takers who qualified for a fee-waiver of the exam, an indicator of lower economic means:

Brian Stecher, Senior Social Scientist at the RAND Corporation, told The American Independent a researcher’s analytical strategy for looking at how factors might have been related is to consider the change in the pool of students taking the SATs.

“As the population that takes the test expands beyond, say, the most successful and most college-ready, and includes a larger number of students, then we can expect the scores to decline,” Stecher said.

He added, however, that the relationship between the volume of students and the variation in mean scores is not a fixed one. He said researchers should evaluate whether the rate of increased diversity among test takers is in sync with the rate in decline of the scores. Stecher also pointed out the ACT took over the SAT this year in student participation, skewing historical trends.

Students enrolled in advanced courses performed better on average than the rest of the pool. The College Board provided the following numbers:

Some organizations took the published results as an opportunity to criticize the education landscape at large. Bob Schaeffer of FairTest.org said, “[P]roponents of [No Child Left Behind] and similar state-level testing programs promised that overall achievement would improve while score gaps would narrow. Precisely the opposite has taken place.”

He added: “Policymakers need to embrace very different policies if they are committed to real education reform.”

A press release by the group expounded on Schaeffer’s criticism:

A FairTest analysis shows that overall SAT averages dropped significantly under the NCLB federal testing mandate. At the same time, gaps between Whites, Asians, and historically disadvantaged African-Americans and Hispanics have been growing larger. ACT scores, made public last month, demonstrated similar patterns.

But Matthew Di Carlo of the Albert Shanker Institute warns against drawing too many conclusions from the SATs.

“These tests are voluntary, and the sample of students who choose to take one or both can be very different from one year to the next in terms of their demographic, academic and other characteristics,” Di Carlo told TAI. “Overall score changes between years, especially small changes, might just as easily be due to this self-selection as to any ‘real’ change in aptitude of U.S. students.”

Beyond the increased diversity of the test pool, the College Board pointed to additional good news: 43 percent of test takers scored above a 1550 cumulatively, the score the firm says separates students who are likely to perform well in college to those who will struggle. Breaking that threshold, the press release explains, means students have a 65 percent change of averaging a B- or better in their first year of college.

The wealth disparity between white households and black and Hispanic households reached staggering and unprecedented proportions after the housing market meltdown and subsequent recession, according to a new Pew Research Center report which analyzed Census data from 1984 to 2009.

The report finds that the median white household has a net worth of $113,149, 20 times more than the median black household, at $5,667, and 18 times more than the median Hispanic household, at $6,325.

Poor households, possessing zero or negative net worth, were also found to be disproportionately black or Hispanic: About a third of black and Hispanic households had nothing or less than nothing, compared to 15 percent of white households.

One of the main causes of the high disparity was that minority households suffered much more from the housing crisis and recession than white households did: “From 2005 to 2009, inflation-adjusted median wealth fell by 66% among Hispanic households and 53% among black households, compared with just 16% among white households,” states the report. In this four-year period, the disparity between white households and black and Hispanic households doubled, primarily because these minority groups lost much more in net worth than whites did.

One reason for the sharp post-2005 decline is that black and Hispanic households were much more likely to have invested in the housing market. Another is the sustained high levels of unemployment: African-Americans and Hispanics have much higher levels of unemployment than whites do. Declining income during the recession also disproportionately affected minority households.

Hispanics, an ethnic group which grew faster than any other in the United States from 2000 to 2009, also suffered the most from the housing crash, with the median level of home equity declining by half from $99,983 to $49,145 in the 2005-2009 period. Immigration to a particular area can lead to increases in local housing prices. Many of the states which suffered the most from the housing crisis — Arizona, California, Florida and Nevada — also had the highest levels of immigration in the 1990s and early 2000s.

The report also argues that whites may also have recovered more in the 2005-2009 period because they are much more likely to invest more of their wealth in the stock market, which has recovered faster than the housing market has. And while white households lost more in an absolute sense after 2005 than black or Hispanic households, they did so because the typical white household had much more to begin with. The median white household had $134,992 in 2005, and the median black and Hispanic households had $12,124 and $18,359, respectively

Extremely high racial disparities in household wealth could be one explanation for recent political trends. Last week, Pew released an analysis of survey data which revealed that the Republican Party has been increasing in popularity among white voters while black and Hispanic voters have remained strongly Democratic. Groups where the GOP has traditionally been weaker, including young and lower-income people, have since 2008 grown more likely to identify as Republican if they are white.

UPDATED: 10:40 a.m. This article was amended with a correction* noted below.

Recently proposed federal and state family-planning spending cuts would disproportionately hinder low-income Latinas’ access to reproductive care, said several women’s reproductive care providers and advocates during a teleconference organized this week by Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Clinic directors from local Planned Parenthood affiliates near predominately Hispanic communities illustrated how federal and state legislation might impact low-income Hispanic women, many of whom are uninsured and rely on grant-funded services offered by Planned Parenthood or other community health clinics to obtain low-cost contraception, gynecological exams, testing for sexually transmitted diseases and family-planning education.

“Threats to Planned Parenthood at the federal level mean threats to our ability to provide vital primary and prenatal care to Latinas and their families via Medicaid,” said Guadalupe Rodriguez, director of public affairs at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, whose health centers serve 29 counties in California.

Despite threats from the Republican-led U.S. House, the approved 2011 budget maintained Planned Parenthood funding for family planning services; however, in the final spending plan, programs that provide low-cost reproductive health care access and pregnancy prevention received significant cuts. The appropriation to Title X of the Public Health Service Act was reduced from $317 million to $300 million, and the budget cut approximately $500 million from the Women, Infants, and Children program, which provides federal grants to states for supplemental food, health care referrals and nutrition education for low-income pregnant, breastfeeding and non-breast feeding postpartum women, as well as infants and children up to age 5 who are found to be “at a nutritional risk.”

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. Hispanic population grew by 43 percent during the past decade, to 50.5 million people, making up 16 percent of the total U.S. population. In 2009, 23 percent of Planned Parenthood patients nationwide, approximately 620,000 people, were Hispanic, said Destiny Lopez, director of Latino engagement at Planned Parenthood Federation of America. She noted that the number of male Hispanic patients increased by 191 percent in the last decade.

Lopez said that in the nine states where the Hispanic population more than doubled between 2000 and 2010, in all but one have several measures — such as family planning cuts, abortion restrictions and abstinence-only education programs — been introduced that could potentially restrict access to reproductive health care.

“With the attacks on women’s health care in Congress and in the states, even more Latinas could be cut off from basic reproductive health care like birth control, cancer screenings, and other essential services,” said Elizabeth Barajas-Román, director of policy at the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health.

Barajas-Román said that women with* legal status have to wait five years to qualify for public health care, including access to reproductive services such as birth control. These cuts will make it even harder for these women to get care, she said.

In Texas — where Latinos make up 37 percent of the state’s population, according to 2009 census figures — the state House voted this month to cut $60 million from family planning programs in their version of the state budget.

Last year, the federal government designated $155 million in new funding for the Personal Responsibility Education Program, a state grant program that funds sex education that includes information on abstinence, contraception and pregnancy- and STD-prevention. But state lawmakers only have until the end of the month to decide whether to apply for approximately $9 million of this grant money — meaning they might not put in a request.

“The [Texas] House budget looks terrible,” said Patricio Gonzalez, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Association of Hidalgo County, the seventh-largest county in Texas, located on the Texas-Mexican border.

Gonzalez said the funding cut proposal translates into nearly 70 percent in cuts to family planning services, which he predicted would lead to the shutdown of eight to 10 of his clinics, affecting approximately 18,000 women.

Lillian Tamayo, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of South Florida and the Treasure Coast, which covers Key West to Indian River, said that Hispanic women make up 20 percent of the population in her area and have disproportionately higher pregnancy, birth and cancer rates.

“The Florida Legislature, rather than being concerned on the creation of jobs, what they’ve done is dismantle women’s rights and attack women’s health,” Tamayo said, noting the 18 bills the state has introduced related to reproductive rights restrictions. ”It’s a wholesale attack on women.”

*Correction: Previously TAI reported that Barajas-Román said that women without legal status have to wait five years to qualify for health care, when in fact she was referring to women with legal status. We regret the error.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) is expected to push for heavy immigration enforcement as chairman of the House immigration subcommittee next session. (Tina Fultz/ZUMApress.com)

During his campaign for the presidency in 2008, Barack Obama made the now-broken promise to Latino supporters that he would pass comprehensive immigration reform in his first year as president. But in remarks to the press on Wednesday, after Republicans took control of the House and won back several seats in the Senate, talk of immigration reform was noticeably absent.

Democrats will still hold a majority in both chambers during the lame-duck session, when leaders hope to pass the DREAM Act to give some undocumented young people and military service members legal status. But after January, immigration reform efforts that include paths to legal status for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the United States seem next to impossible, meaning the next few years will see little progress for immigration reform advocates.

“The new leaders of the House have made it clear that they’re going to continue to push an enforcement-only strategy,” said Mary Giovagnoli, director of pro-reform Immigration Policy Center. “It’s going to be a hard couple of years.”

The Republicans ushered into power in the midterms favor tight border security, strict enforcement and policies that would allow states, along with the federal government, to police immigration. Many campaigned on hard-line immigration positions that cost them support among Latinos, but won backing from the broad segments of the population that approve of illegal immigration crackdowns like Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law.

In short, Republicans who won on Tuesday hold radically different views on tackling illegal immigration from the president and Senate Democrats. Prospects are bleak for anyone who hopes to see meaningful change on immigration policy: A Democratic Senate will have trouble getting immigrant-friendly measures past the House, while the House will have trouble getting enforcement-only measures past the Senate — or the president’s desk. The result will likely be more of the same on immigration policy.

There are a few areas where Republicans have brought forth proposals to reform the immigration system. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who is expected to take over as chairman of the House’s immigration subcommittee, plansuse his leadership position to call in Obama administration officials and question them on immigration enforcement, claiming “they’re not enforcing the laws.”

It’s a common argument from Republicans, who have repeatedly accused the Obama administration of taking a lax approach. After reports that immigration courts were throwing out deportation cases for illegal immigrants who were deemed non-dangerous or had pending citizenship applications, the seven current Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committeesent a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano demanding to know how much it would cost to find and deport every illegal immigrant in the country.

“[Immigration and Customs Enforcement] has cited a lack of resources as one of the reasons for its prioritization of cases and for its selective enforcement,” the Oct. 21 letter reads. “But to date, we have not seen any efforts by ICE, your Department, or the Administration to request an increase in ICE funding. … As a result, it appears that your Department is doing the very thing that we have raised concerns about in several letters – allowing illegal aliens to evade the law.”

If Republicans attempt to force increased immigration enforcement, it would require a huge increase in funding for ICE. The agency currently receives$2.6 billion from Congress each year to detain and remove illegal immigrants. ICE Chief John Morton says this budget allows the agency to deport about 400,000 people per year — a number it approaching this year. Deporting the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, then, could cost as much as $70 billion.

Of course, most Republicans don’t advocate a deportation-only method to decreasing illegal immigration numbers in the country. GOP members also say they hope to pass legislation to eliminate possible incentives for foreigners to stay in the country by cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants, eliminating the few social services illegal immigrants can receive and in some cases even eliminating citizenship for children born in the country to undocumented parents.

A GOP-led initiative to end birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants under the 14th Amendment received support from 95 House members in 2009, although the bill never made it out of committee. Instead of attempting to amend the Constitution, the bill would create a statute limiting citizenship to children with at least one parent in the country legally.

King plans to push for the bill again in the next session of Congress, where support for the measure will be even stronger. King insists the bill is both legal and necessary to stop the “anchor baby” phenomenon — the idea that illegal immigrants come to America and have children in order to gain legal status — which most immigration experts agree does not exist because citizens cannot petition for legal status for their families until they are adults.

Expanding E-Verify, a controversial program that allows employers to check the immigration status of potential employees, is another likely priority for the Republican-led House. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who is expected to head the Judiciary Committee, co-sponsored a bill to make use of E-Verify mandatory for all employers. (Federal agencies and contractorsare already required to use the program.)

Of course, House Republicans cannot enact any laws without the support of Obama or the Democratic-controlled Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is unlikely to risk angering Latino voters by passing enforcement-only immigration measures. But even if it means gridlock, House leaders seem committed to blocking comprehensive immigration reform.

“The best solution to the problem of illegal immigration is to enforce current laws,” Smith told the Chicago Tribune last week. “Attrition through enforcement can reduce the number of illegal immigrants already in the U.S.”

The poll found that 65 percent of Latino-registered voters say they support their Democratic candidate in the upcoming midterm elections to just 22 percent who say they support the Republican candidate.

“However,” the Pew article says. “Hispanic registered voters appear to be less motivated than other voters to go to the polls.”

Just one-third (32%) of all Latino registered voters say they have given this year’s election “quite a lot” of thought. In contrast, half (50%) of all registered voters say the same. And when it comes to their intent to vote, half (51%) of Latino registered voters say they are absolutely certain they will vote in this year’s midterm election, while seven-in-ten (70%) of all registered voters say the same.

There is more good news for Republicans in this poll; of the minority of Hispanic registered voters who support the Republican Party, 44 percent say they have given this year’s election “quite a lot of thought.” Just 28 percent of Hispanic Democrats can say the same thing.

This poll shows that 69 percent of foreign-born Hispanics are confident that the information collected in the census will be kept confidential, while just 57 percent of native-born Hispanics have the same view.

The U.S. Census Bureau has spent more than $25 million in advertising aimed at the Hispanic community and groups like Voto Latino have also spent money convincing the Hispanic community that participating in the census is important. That is nearly 20 percent of the money the census budgeted for advertising.

This led to 48 percent of Hispanics, and 56 percent of foreign-born Hispanics, saying they have seen or heard something from Hispanic or Latino “civic, religious, media or community groups” that encourages participation in the census.

According to the 2000 Census, New Mexico is 42 percent Hispanic. The census does not ask those polled whether or not they are in the country legally.

Census funds are used not only for redistricting in both federal and state races, but to allocate funding for roads, hospitals, Medicare, Medicaid and other governmental programs.

The poll of 1,003 Hispanics across the United States was conducted from March 16-25 and has a margin of error of +/- 4.5 percent.

Fernando C de Baca

“I certainly hope that his data, the results of his poll, are in fact true. This would represent a reversal of a lot of feelings that have occurred in the past,” said (former Bernalillo County Republican Party Chairman Fernando) C de Baca. “That would indicate to me a lot of the prejudices of past generations are finally ebbing away.” 

The Santa Fe Reporter has now devoted a special part of its Web site to chronicling “Blockgate: The Scandalicious Puzzle of Jerome Block Jr.” The latest installment details Block’s most recent campaign finance reports. Here’s the most interesting tidbit:

According to campaign finance reports released today, Jerome Block Jr. paid Attorney General Gary King’s constituent services coordinator Cordy Medina $350 for “mailout assistance.” She’d be the one to pick up the phone if you’re a citizen calling to complain to the AG about Jerome Block Jr.

The Santa Fe New Mexican has more on the Secretary of State Office’s inquiry into Block’s admitted lying about $2,500 of expenditures. See it here.

And here’s something we can dig our teeth into: The Albuquerque City Council is contemplating the use of a letter grade system for restaurants, reports the Journal. Under the proposed ordinance, restaurants would be inspected twice a year, then given a grade of A, B or C. Restaurants that receive an A grade would be able to skip one of the annual city inspections in lieu of a “self-inspection.” Inspection fees would be raised and the extra money used to pay four additional health inspectors.

Slate’s Jacob Leibenluft travels through New Mexico looking for signs of political life in a story called “It’s the Little Things.” It’s always interesting to see our races through a stranger’s eyes:

With two competitive House races, an open Senate seat, and the state’s electoral votes up for grabs, I’ve heard approximately 267 campaign ads on the radio before even making my first night’s stop in Las Cruces. The prize for Most Obscure Reference goes to Rep. Steve Pearce, the Republican candidate for Senate who currently represents southern New Mexico in Congress. His ad attacks his opponent as “breathtakingly liberal” for failing to condemn a French city for naming a street after the murderer of an American police officer.

Tonight, of course, is the third and final presidential debate, and all eyes are on McCain. (Our eyes will be on, too, so check back in the morning for a full post-mortem.) If Obama doesn’t do him in, maybe Letterman will; McCain is scheduled to appear on the show Thursday night. CBS’s “Late Night” host has been jabbing McCain repeatedly ever since he discovered that McCain lied when giving an excuse for canceling an appearance on the show. The Los Angeles Times gives us a wrap-up and details some of the blows Letterman landed just last night:

You heard what happened at a rally yesterday. Sarah Palin mistook some of her supporters for hecklers. And you know, confusion happens in all walks of life. For example, a few weeks ago, John McCain mistook her for a legitimate candidate.

And tomorrow night is the final presidential debate. John McCain and Barack Obama. And John McCain is going to take this opportunity to unveil his new campaign persona. His new campaign personality, to really energize the last couple of weeks of the campaign — Fighting Underdog. Fighting Underdog. … And if that doesn’t work, then he’s going to go to Corrupt Bordertown Sheriff. And if that doesn’t work, Seen-it-All Bartender.  And then Priest Who Tries to Communicate with Martians. And then the Alcoholic Safecracker. And then the Maniacal Hunter Who’s After Human Prey. And then the Shifty Racetrack Vet. And then the Retired Jewel Thief. And then the Archaeologist Who Scoffs at the Mummy’s Curse. …

I’ll say one thing about John McCain — the guy is an optimist. He sees the glass as half full — of his teeth.

C. de Baca resigned yesterday over a blog posting published  Sept. 19 on BBC News’ Web site. C. de Baca was quoted  as saying, “The truth is that Hispanics came here as conquerors. African-Americans came here as slaves. Hispanics consider themselves above blacks. They won’t vote for a black president.” C. de Baca claimed the quote was taken out of context.

Those comments were “racist” and “undiplomatic,” according to Juan Jose Pena, state commander of the American G.I. Forum of New Mexico and chairman of the Hispano Roundtable of New Mexico. “It is nevertheless true that there were many disagreements and conflicts between Hispanos and Blacks during the Civil Rights Movement,” he said. Pena is an Obama supporter.

While some Hispanics and a political scientist say C. de Baca’s comments represent only a small minority of voters, such sentiments are clearly present among some older Hispanics. C. de Baca, a Republican, may be at the center of the current controversy, but it was state Sen. Mary Jane Garcia, D-Dona Ana, roughly the same age as C. de Baca, who earlier this year told the Rocky Mountain News: “I don’t know one single Hispanic over 50 who will cast a vote for Obama.” She also conceded that “there have always been conflicts between blacks and browns.”

Because older voters tend to go to the polls in greater numbers than young voters, it remains unclear how such sentiments might affect the presidential race — in particular Barack Obama’s candidacy. But Pena said Obama’s lead in New Mexico could dwindle, especially in Northern and Southern New Mexico, where some older Hispanic voters remember the conflicts between Hispanics and blacks during the Civil Rights Movement.

“There is a sentiment by some in primarily Northern and Southern New Mexico that Chicanos were put out in left field during the Civil Rights Movement,” Pena said. “Could it be significant for either candidate in the election? I think it could be for several factors.” (Chicano is a term that refers to individuals of Mexican-American descent — and to those who trace their lineage to Spain — who used it to describe themselves during the 1960s and 1970s; it is still used by some today.)

One, he said, is the fact that the generation that might still remember being left out of the picture when equal rights were being championed is one that votes –- in large numbers. Add to that the large number of Hispanic veterans in the state, and Barack Obama’s seven- or eight-point edge over McCain might be smaller if that voting bloc shows up with the ’60s on their minds.

Pena is working with the Black Veterans Association and Obama’s campaign to help smooth tensions. He said Obama’s recent visit to Española helped, as did his willingness to have many young Hispanic people working on his campaign.

Recent polls in New Mexico lend some credence to Pena’s belief that older Hispanics may be especially resistant to the Democratic nominee. While Obama held a big lead over McCain among Hispanics, according to recent polls from  Public Policy Polling and Survey USA, the two polls also showed that the race tightens significantly when looking at voters 65 and older regardless of race or ethnicity.

Brian Sanderoff of Research and Polling said Thursday that Obama’s lead over McCain in New Mexico was probably closer than the 7 percent margin being publicized. And if what Pena and others are saying is true, Obama will have his work cut out in getting older Hispanics — the best voting group in America belongs to people 65 and older — to vote for him, he said.

While Sanderoff said he couldn’t predict what happens this year, if 2004 is any indication, 73 percent of Hispanics over 65 voted for John Kerry and only 26 percent voted for George W. Bush. Hispanics between the ages of 50-64 also favored Kerry, 68 percent to 32 percent.

“Whether that means that they’re more likely to vote for the Democrat, or they voted for Kerry because he was a veteran, is hard to tell,” he said. “Obviously, if you’re looking at those numbers, one scenario bodes better for McCain, that is if they voted for Kerry because he was the war veteran.”

Sanderoff said he doesn’t have any hard data to substantiate whether older Hispanics would vote along racial lines. He said that if 10 percent of Hispanic voters agreed with C. de Baca’s sentiments and didn’t vote for Obama in this election, it would make a 2 percent net difference in the polls.

“In a close election, that could mean something,” Sanderoff said. “And I think this is a lot closer than some early polling has indicated. Obama knows he has to do better than Kerry did in 2004 with Hispanic voters. His work in Española likely helped him.”

University of New Mexico political science professor Gabriel Sanchez told the BBC last week that he doubts, “there are more than 10 percent of Latinos who think (.C de Baca’s) way — and half of them probably won’t even go out to vote.” 

Santa Fe resident Charles Montano said Hispanics have worked too hard on issues of race for someone like C. de Baca to set them back again.

“It is stupidity to say, much less believe that Hispanics/Latinos don’t vote for qualified, articulate, intelligent individuals regardless of race or gender, or political party for that matter,” Montano said. “It’s equally obscene to believe all Latinos think like Mr. C. de Baca.  Clearly he is a member and a leader of the Republican Party of New Mexico for a reason.  His narrow mindedness on questions of fair treatment and equity for all people regardless of ethnicity, gender, religion, handicap or sexual orientation is consistent with the attitude of many from the ultra-conservative wing of the party. But that does not mean his views reflect who Hispanics are as a body. We should all be grateful for that.”

While Montano, Pena and others do not side with C. de Baca, there seems to be some historical context for why he made the remarks.

Pena remembers the Poor People’s March to Washington, D.C., in 1968, though he said he was “too poor” to attend the march. But he knew many people who did make the march and their feeling was that Chicanos were “out in left field” and given the worst accommodations by the organizers of the march. But he said it wasn’t so much that the blacks were responsible for that.

“The newspapers and TV stations were covering Martin Luther King and the Black Movement was bigger and stronger than the Chicano or Native American movements at the time,” he said. “But later, after the march, there was still some feelings by Hispanos that they were being forgotten.”

Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and others were slow to notice Chicano causes, Pena said. When LBJ was elected, there was a huge Hispanic voter turnout in the Southwest and West, he said.

LBJ rewarded blacks by naming them to high posts in the Great Society programs, while Hispanos had to pull teeth to get money for their colleges and programs from the black administrators of these agencies, Pena said.

“I remember this from the difficulties we had when I was working in the administration of Highlands University to get federal funding for the only public university, which at that time, had the only Hispano university president in New Mexico or in the United States,” Pena said. “Highlands, at the time, was the first real Hispano-serving, higher-education institution in the United States.”

Hispanics are getting much attention today, and are being called the “most wanted” swing voters in America. This year’s Hispanic vote appears to be crucial. According to Public Policy Polling, Obama leads McCain 53 percent to 42 percent overall, but leads 59 percent to 35 percent with Hispanics. Among white voters, McCain leads narrowly 49 to 47 percent, something pollsters believe will seal a win for Obama because of the state’s significant Hispanic population. Full results of the poll can be found here:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NM_922.pdf