Matt Chandler, left, and Gary King
Republican attorney general candidate Matt Chandler’s new attack ad spins the truth, while the central claim in Democratic candidate Gary King’s new ad appears to be patently false.
The two have been hammering each other in recent days on television. Chandler’s newest ad states that King “supports driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants” because allowing them to obtain licenses “makes our highways safer.”
King’s new ad attacks Chandler’s statement in a previous ad that he has “successfully prosecuted over 30 murderers.” King’s ad state’s that Chandler’s claim is false.
“Facts prove Chandler has only worked on half the murder cases he claims,” King’s ad states.
King’s ad
Let’s start with King’s ad. You can watch it here:
The ad includes no citations to back up its claim that Chandler has only “worked on” half of the 30 murder cases he claims. When initially asked for a fact sheet or other documentation to back up the ad, King campaign spokesman Phil Sisneros wrote this in an e-mail to NMPolitics.net:
“Have you asked Chandler to prove he has prosecuted as many cases as he claims? While I’m thinking about it, have you asked him for proof that Gary King supports drivers licenses for illegals? What documentation is that based upon? I would like to see you ask him to show any proof of that claim. After you get answers from the Chandler campaign for their claims, I might be more inclined to discuss our research.”
Following a contentious e-mail exchange with NMPolitics.net, Sisneros issued a news release that included what was labeled a “King campaign research” document. That document states that the King campaign’s claim is based on data obtained from the state’s Administrative Office of the Courts that shows that Chandler’s office has filed 16 murder cases during his tenure.
The King campaign also claimed in the document that, of the cases Chandler cites as murder cases he prosecuted, eight were prosecuted by Chandler; four were prosecuted by other attorneys in his office; it was “not possible” to determine who prosecuted 12 others; on two cases the “majority” of the work was completed by Chandler’s predecessor; nine were homicide cases other than murders; and one was a federal conviction.
But the King campaign still didn’t provide documentation to back up those claims. Sisneros hasn’t responded to two e-mails asking if he can at least provide case numbers to NMPolitics.net.
Documentation proves King wrong
Chandler, on the other hand, issued a news release in response to King’s ad listing 35 people he says he has successfully prosecuted for murder. Each includes a link to a news article about that case.
Chandler went a step further when asked by NMPolitics.net for additional documentation. He provided 180 pages of news articles and court records to back up his claim about personally being involved in the prosecution of each of the 35 cases he lists.
In that document sent to NMPolitics.net, Chandler backs up claims about 33 of the 35 cases with news articles, court records, or both that show that he was directly involved in each case.
For the other two, Chandler provided news articles that don’t definitively prove that he, instead of another attorney in his office, was directly involved in the prosecution. For those two, articles were quoting news releases Chandler issued after his office secured convictions.
Chandler says he personally worked on each case.
“Chandler not only worked on all of these cases; he visited the crime scenes, advised investigators on the legal ramifications of their investigations, and as district attorney he personally prosecuted each and every case below along with other members of his office,” his news release about King’s ad states.
In 94 percent of the cases cited, the documentation provided by Chandler definitely proves that he was directly involved.
Homicide versus murder
There is a technical difference between murder and homicide, as King points out. Both describe the killing of another human. Murder requires the intent to kill that person, while homicide does not always require that intent. Vehicular homicide or killing in self-defense are examples of other types of homicide.
One of the cases Chandler cites as the prosecution of a murder ended with a conviction for child abuse resulting in death. The child died from blunt force trauma to his head. And in another case, a man was convicted of voluntary manslaughter after prosecutors said he was given a gun and ordered to shoot someone with it.
What does society call such people? Homiciders? No. Society calls them killers or murderers. And that’s what Chandler did in his ad.
However, even if you accept King’s point that those aren’t murders, that leaves Chandler with 26 cases he’s personally been involved in prosecuting that led to murder convictions. That’s closer to Chandler’s claim than King’s claim.
Put simply, King’s attack ad isn’t factual. Even if you give King the benefit of the doubt, Chandler has been involved in the successful prosecutions of 26 murderers – not 15.
Chandler’s ad
On to Chandler’s ad. Here it is:
There’s no citation in the ad to back up its claim that King “supports driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants” because allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain licenses “makes our highways safer.”
But the campaign provided a link to this video that shows both candidates answering a question about the controversial 2003 driver’s license law at a forum.
“My opponent is on record… as saying it makes it makes New Mexico highways safer,” Chandler said at the forum. “I disagree, and that’s maybe just one of the different contrasts between us.”
King spoke next, affirming that he does believe the law makes New Mexico highways safer.
“Well, he’s right on that one. We do disagree,” King said. “I have certainly said that one of the arguments for driver’s licenses for anybody, including immigrants, is that we have an obligation in New Mexico to make sure the people that are driving on the roads have a basic set of competencies so that they’re not causing automobile accidents. I think having a driver’s license is the key. That’s what states do to make sure that people have that competency.”
Even though King said the state has an “obligation” to make sure drivers are competent by issuing them driver’s licenses, he then clarified that he wasn’t expressing personal support for the law that allows everyone – regardless of immigration status – to obtain a license.
“I haven’t really said whether I personally am for or against it because I am the state’s chief law enforcement officer,” he said. “…It actually would be more or less inappropriate of me to say that I was opposed to a law that’s on the books because I am the guy that enforces the laws that are on the books.”
King added that one downside is that the law may cause problems for New Mexicans traveling to Arizona. He said that can be fixed with a change in law so that licenses make clear whether a person has provided proof of citizenship. And he reiterated that “there are some arguments for why the Legislature of New Mexico passed this.”
So King does believe that issuing driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants makes New Mexico’s highways safer. And he says the state has an “obligation” to do that. But that’s a little different than expressing support for the law.
Here’s what state Republican Party spokeswoman Janel Causey, speaking for the Chandler campaign, had to say when asked about the difference:
“We hear King on a number of occasions argue the benefits of this law — people pay insurance, limits fatalities, want to make sure people have competency to be on roads — while conveniently hiding behind his familiar tagline that as the AG he can’t personally weigh in on the law. If that’s not defending the law, what is it? In King’s role as the state’s chief law enforcement officer, charged with public safety, King frequently opines on other policies and pieces of legislation, but on the issue of driver’s licenses, all we hear is King’s defense of the merits of the law.”
Fair enough. I can see King’s statement being interpreted that way – or being interpreted as a very careful toeing of the line between enforcing the state’s laws and opining on them, as King says he’s trying to do. So I’m going to plant myself in the middle on this one and call Chandler’s claim spin on the facts, but not false.