New Mexico Repeals Death Penalty!

New Mexico became the latest state to replace the death penalty with life imprisonment without parole when Governor Bill Richardson signed a repeal bill into law on Thursday.

Gov. Bill Richardson, who has supported capital punishment, signed legislation to repeal New Mexico's death penalty, calling it the "most difficult decision in my political life."

The new law replaces lethal injection with a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. The repeal takes effect on July 1, and applies only to crimes committed after that date.

"Regardless of my personal opinion about the death penalty, I do not have confidence in the criminal justice system as it currently operates to be the final arbiter when it comes to who lives and who dies for their crime," Richardson said.

[...]

New Mexico becomes only the second state after New Jersey to ban executions since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976. Fourteen other states do not impose capital punishment.

Congratulations to New Mexico! Now pass the domestic partnership bill, already!

New Mexcio Moves Towards Enacting Domestic Partner Law

New Mexico is moving closer towards enacting a domestic partnership bill for the first time. New Mexico is an interesting case, because it does not have a law banning same-sex marriage nor has it had any initiatives to ban the practice. There have also been no lawsuits or legislative actions to enact same-sex marriage in the Land of Enchantment.

From The Las Cruces Sun-News coverage

SANTA FE — A proposal allowing domestic partnerships cleared its first hurdle in the Legislature on Wednesday when it narrowly won approval in a Senate committee.
The Public Affairs Committee endorsed the measure on a 5-to-4 vote and sent the proposal to another panel for consideration. The bill will head to the full Senate for debate if it is approved by the Judiciary Committee, which could vote on the proposal later this week.

The legislation would give some unmarried couples — homosexual or heterosexual — the legal protections and benefits of married couples.

"I really believe this is a fundamental civil rights issue," said Sen. Eric Griego, D-Albuquerque.

Opponents contended the measure would in effect legally recognize gay marriage.

The New Mexico Conference of Catholic Bishops opposed the measure.

"I would ask you for the protection of marriage as we know it," said Deacon Steve Rangel, associate director of the conference, adding there was a "traditional and religious understanding that marriage is between a man and a woman."

The state's Catholic bishops previously had remained neutral on the legislation, but Rangel said that had changed because of court decisions around the country involving rights of same-sex couples.

(Hat/tip Joe.My.God.) How bizarre that the New Mexico Conference of Catholic Bishops apparently doesn't understand judicial decisions like in California, New Jersey and Connecticut which clearly state that domestic partnerships are NOT the same as marriage, which is why in two of those three cases they ended the practice of barring same-sex couples from marrying.

Hmm, or maybe they do understand and are simply lying!

A bill is being rushed through the New Mexico legislature that could lead to homosexual "marriage."

Hearings are being heard this week on the Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act, which passed the state House by a 33-31 margin. Former New Mexico Congressman Bill Redman weighed in on the subject recently in an interview on Ruidoso Christian radio station KEDU.

"This is same-sex marriage -- and so they are deceptive #1 by the very title of the bill," stated Redman. "The bill is referred to as 'domestic partnership,' but the courts have already determined that domestic partnership is identical to and is same-sex marriage.

I suppose they missed that part of Senate Bill 12 which states, ""domestic partnership" means a legal relationship that is not marriage that two domestic partners establish with each other according to the provisions and requirements of the Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act"!

Dumbasses.

CA-31: Rep. Becerra May Join Obama Admin

My congressperson, U.S. Representative Xavier Becerra is widely reported as having been offered the cabinet-level position of U.S. Trade Representative in the incoming Obama Administration.

If so, his Congressional seat, which would be one of the most coveted political positions in Los Angeles since they are not subject to term limits, would become available in a special election in early 2009, possibly as soon as March (to coincide with the Mayoral election). This would set off a feeding frenzy among Latino politicians in L.A.:

Potential candidates are jockeying to run for Xavier Becerra's congressional seat as word spreads that President-elect Barack Obama is considering him as U.S. trade representative.

Names include Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina, state Sen. Gil Cedillo and Los Angeles City Council President Eric Garcetti, each of whom represents parts of Becerra's district, which includes the heart of Los Angeles.

"I am definitely considering it," said Cedillo, who has represented the area for the last decade as an assemblyman and senator.

"I am beginning the process of consulting people who have supported me over the years, including my family," he said.

Cedillo, who has significant labor ties, has become most identified with efforts to help illegal immigrants obtain driver's licenses. He said that if he were elected to the House of Representatives, he would use it as a "platform to bring immigrants into our society."

Garcetti said it was premature to speculate on a possible run but did not rule it out.

Molina could not be reached for comment.

Other possible candidates include Assemblymen Kevin de Leon and John Perez.

Becerra ran against Villaraigosa for Mayor in 2001 although I am not sure if he is affiliated permanently with the Molina wing of the Latino Political Elite. I believe that Molina would have an easy time of winning, but for progressive Eric Garcetti would be my choice.

Richardson Endorses Obama For President

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and former Presidential candidate, congressperson, Secretary of Energy, and United Nations representative is endorsing Barack Obama for President.

The Wall Las Memorias, an AIDS memorial in Lincoln Park

Mad Professah (and Governor Bill Richardson) attended the unveiling of a mural at The Wall Las Memorias (an AIDS memorial) in East Los Angeles on Friday. In the picture above, the Governor is surrounded by several ministers. Richard Zaldivar, the exexutive director of the organization, is in profile to the audience, facing the podium. Bill Richardson began his speech in fluent Spanish, and even after he switched to English, continued to include Spanish phrases in his text. He spoke about a friend of his, Billy Griego, who was the son of the Chair of the Republican Party in Santa Fe, New Mexico who was the first person he knew to die of AIDS. This happened within a year of Richardson's election to Congress in 1980. It was a powerful speech, a much better performance than his egregious appearance at the Visible Vote '08 forum sponsored by HRC and LOGO three weeks before.

Here are some pictures of the beautiful murals in Lincoln Park (yes, the same park the rock band Linkin Park is named after) which is about 5-10 minutes drive from my house:

Report Cards from the Logo/HRC Forum

1. Hillary Clinton. Hillary was clearly comfortable wth the setting and came across as well-informed and empathetic. She was very specific about what she wanted to do regarding state recognition of same sex couples: repeal Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. Unfortunately there are only 2 sections of DOMA. I believe though Clinton was referring to the second half of DOMA which restricts any federal benefits currently provided to married couples from being provided to same-sex couples. She was more accurate and eloquent on the issue of the ban on openly gay or lesbian people serving in the United States Armed Forces. Grade A.
2. Barack Obama. Impressive, but not as polished as Hillary. Got visibly annoyed when repeatedly asked to defend his position on same-sex marriage. Grade A-.
3. Dennis Kucinich. The biggest surprise of the debate. Clearly the most progressive of the candidates, unabashedly so. Unfortunately has no chance of winning the nomination. Grade B+.
4. John Edwards.I thought he had the best answer to the inevitable same-sex marriage question when he described his intellectual and emotional understanding of how LGBT folk feel like when they are denied the freedom to marry, but he also reiterated that his position had not changed: he is still opposed to same-sex marriage. Grade B.
5. Mike Gravel. Has raised almost no money. I disagree with other bloggers who advocated for his inclusion in this event. Grade C.
6. Bill Richardson. When asked by Melissa Etheridge "Is homosexuality a choice?" the Governor responded "Yes, it is a choice." 'Nough said. When asked whether he would sign a marriage equality bill into law if provided one by the New Mexico state legislature he refused to answer the question! Grade F.

A Cacophony of Candidates In Town Tomorrow

Tomorrow is the LOGO/HRC Democratic Presidential forum known as Visible Vote '08 in Los Angeles (Studio City, actually). As Mad Professah mentioned a few weeks ago, this is not a debate, but actually a series of sequential appearances by presidential candidates who will respond to questions from a panel of journalists, celebrities, and activists. The order of appearance is Senator Barack Obama, former Senator John Edwards, Senator Christopher Dodd ("scheduling conflict"), Congressmember Dennis Kucinich, former Senator Mike Gravel, Governor Bill Richardson and last but not least Senator Hillary Clinton.

With all these presidential candidates in town, I have been trying to think of the correct collective noun to describe a collection of presidential candidates. There are some lovely examples of peculiar collective nouns in the English language, like "an exultation of larks, a pride of lions, a cete of badgers and a convocation of eagles. I like the word "cacophony" but this was after I rejected "cluster" (influenced by The Daily Show's Clusterf@#ck to the Whitehouse) and "bevy." What word would you pick for the collective noun to describe a group of politicians?

At least three of the leading Democratic presidential candidates are having much-discussed fundraising events associated with the first ever LGBT-specific presidential forum in Boystown West Hollywood and other areas. Hillary Clinton's is $50 (or $1000 if you want real face time with the candidate) at The Abbey), Barack Obama's is $250 at Arena (managed by the same company that runs The Abbey!) while John Edwards is $15 at Republic Restaurant, across the street from Barack's (hoping for spill-over?). Mad Professah will definitely be at the Barack Obama event (You can RSVP by donating here) and may stop by the Edwards event also.

LGBT Blogging bigwigs Rod McCollum (Rod 2.0) and Pam Spaulding will be in town for the event. Pam will be live-blogging the debate for Pam's House Blend.

Democrats Likely To Win Presidency If Bush Remains Unpopular

Today's Los Angeles Times has an op-ed by political reporter Ronald Brownstein ("Bush the Albatross") which repeats an argument Mad Professah has been echoing since last November: The Democrats have the upper hand in winning back the White House in 2008 due to the unpopularity of the current Republican president in particular and of Republicans in general. Happily, in his well-written (excellent topic sentences!) column Mr. Brownstein uses actual polling data and historical analysis of presidential results to bolster his claim:

Bush won't be on the ballot in 2008, of course, but throughout American history, outgoing presidents have cast a long shadow over the campaign to succeed them. And when a departing president has been as unpopular as Bush is now, his party has usually lost the White House in the next election.

[...]

In the elections to replace departing presidents, weakness seems more contagious than strength. Outgoing presidents with a high job approval rating haven't always succeeded in passing on the White House to their chosen candidates. Ronald Reagan did in 1988, but, in two nail-biting contests, Dwight Eisenhower in 1960 and Bill Clinton in 2000 could not. [Though MadProfessah and others would argue that Gore did win the presidential election in 2000, but did not get inaugurated.]

[...]

Voters dissatisfied with a departing president typically want change. And they usually believe the opposition party will deliver more change than the president's. The most recent elections to replace retiring two-term presidents — Reagan in 1988 and Clinton in 2000 — help us quantify that instinct. In each case, media exit polls found that the same share — 88% — of voters who disapproved of the retiring president's job performance voted against his party's nominee, George H. W. Bush in 1988 and Al Gore in 2000. By contrast, about four-fifths of voters who approved of the outgoing president's performance voted for his party's nominee each time.

Those are ominous numbers for Republicans today. On the day of the election to succeed them, both Reagan and Clinton enjoyed approval ratings just over 55%, with about 40% of voters disapproving. In last week's Gallup/USA Today poll, Bush's approval rating stood at just 29%, with 66% disapproving. If voters divide as they did in 1988 and 2000, and Bush's ratings do not improve, that would translate into a 2008 Democratic landslide. That's why Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz says flatly, "There is no way any Republican can win the presidential election next year if Bush's approval rating remains anywhere near where it is now."