Martinez blasts voter-approved bail reform, calls for replacement
In Facebook post, gov. suggests legislators should repeal constitutional amendment
Gov. Susana Martinez called Tuesday for the “repeal and replacement” of New Mexico’s recent bail reforms, arguing that criminals she says belong behind bars are too easily getting back on the streets after their arrest.
In a Facebook post, she called on legislators to change the process for detaining defendants before trial and send the issue back to the state’s voters in the next general election.
Voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment just last year allowing judges to detain suspects deemed a threat to the community without bail while also ensuring that defendants who are not considered dangerous do not sit behind bars merely because they cannot afford to pay for their release.
Supporters argue that such policies are fairer in a system in which defendants — who overwhelmingly are poor — are to be considered innocent until proven guilty. But some law enforcement officers, prosecutors and bail bondsmen have criticized the new system as one of “catch and release.”
The Republican governor’s announcement Tuesday signals she will again push to make crime a central issue at the Roundhouse after calling in recent years for tougher sentencing and championing reinstating the death penalty. Heading into what will likely prove to be another year of tight budgets, Martinez also seems to be setting up a showdown with Democrats, who control the Legislature and argue that curbing New Mexico’s rising crime rate requires more funding for prosecutors, judges and police, all of whom say they are stretched thin.
The governor’s latest comments about bail reform, posted on her Facebook page, highlighted the story of a man who shot and wounded a state police officer during a traffic stop in Farmington over the summer while free from jail on other charges. Police shot and killed the man.
The episode, which Martinez had written about previously on her Facebook page, illustrated what she argues are the hazards of the state’s bail reforms. While judges now have the power to detain without bail any suspects they consider dangerous, some prosecutors have complained that the process can require lengthy hearings.
“It’s clear that the judiciary is using these new provisions to return criminals back to our neighborhoods, and it must stop,” Martinez wrote.
But some leading legislators counter that repealing the constitutional amendment — a process that requires a statewide vote — is not a solution to what the latest FBI data, from 2016, show is a rising rate of crime in New Mexico.
The state’s bail reforms did not take effect until this summer, and the constitutional amendment’s backers argue other factors might be at play.
For example, the Albuquerque Police Department remains chronically understaffed, and New Mexico’s economy is still recovering from the recession, while the state’s residents remain among the poorest in the country.
“There is real concern about crime, particularly in Albuquerque. In no way should we minimize that,” said Senate Majority Leader Peter Wirth, a Democrat from Santa Fe. “… Repealing the constitutional amendment that passed the Legislature with broad bipartisan support and that 87 percent of New Mexicans voted for is not the solution.”
Instead, he argued, the courts could review and adjust the new rules.
And, Wirth added, lawmakers as well as the governor must fund the state’s judicial system.
“It’s clear they need money to fulfill their constitutional duties,” he said.
That could prove challenging, however, with the state facing what is expected to be a flat budget after rounds of cuts.
The 30-day legislative session that begins in January also might be particularly fraught with partisan posturing — it comes ahead of an election that will decide control of the state House of Representatives and the Governor’s Office.
Moreover, bail reform has met with heavy opposition from bail bondsmen in the past. The bail bond industry, which relies on judges setting dollar amounts for releasing defendants, has challenged the state judiciary’s new policies in federal court without success so far.