Mayoral vote misinterpreted

THE NOV. 25 Op-Ed by Kevin Washburn was a reasonable discussion until the final paragraph when Washburn makes a huge leap in logic. As a sociologist and a statistician, I can assure Washburn there is no factual data to support his conclusion that the recent mayoral election was a mandate for the judiciary.

Dan Lewis certainly tried to make the judiciary an issue in the recent election, but Tim Keller simply deflected that by stating he was going to concentrate on what was within the authority of the mayor. Keller’s approach did not support the judiciary but simply made Lewis’ charges irrelevant to the election. If Keller ever made any statements in support of controversial issues such as the Case Management Order or the Supreme Court interpretation of the recently approved constitutional amendment, those statements were not on the radar of most voters. It strains any reasonable logic to suggest that a vote for Keller was necessarily a vote in support of the status quo of the judiciary.

What is clear is that polls and policy positions by all the mayoral candidates indicate that the local citizenry is very concerned with the current crime situation. It is reasonable to conclude that the voters will expect some action from new Mayor Keller, who has oversight of a portion of local law enforcement. It is also reasonable to suspect that crime will continue to be a major issue in local elections, which may have implications for others involved in the criminal justice system.

The crime situation certainly has the attention of the current district attorney, who has been pursuing changes in his office. And far from the recent election being a mandate for the judiciary to continue the status quo, it would be more reasonable given the high level of concern about crime for the judiciary to at least evaluate some of their procedures. DAVE ABRAMS Albuquerque