Lowe’s lows

By Carter Bundy

Jim Lowe, who is leading the recall effort of Albuquerque City Councilor Don Harris, had the chance to lay all of his cards on the table this past weekend during the television program Eye on New Mexico. Unfortunately, Lowe set new, low standards for what should constitute recall.

I’ll repeat my disclaimer: I personally, and my union, supported Harris’ Democratic opponent in the 2005 city council race, although our members did prefer Harris in the all-GOP runoff. I personally am a strong Dem and certainly would not rank Councilor Harris at the top of a list of liberal councilors. So in one sense, I really don’t have a dog in this fight.

In another sense, though, I do, and so do all citizens. Some things are more important than partisan politics or even policy. I’d argue that respecting the will of voters, even when you disagree with them, is the essence of our democracy. Overturning an election is a dramatic and serious threat to that democracy, and shouldn’t be undertaken lightly.

While Albuquerque’s recall law doesn’t technically require it, a basic sense of history, decency, common sense and respect for fellow voters should limit overturning elections to cases of significant illegal or unethical behavior.

In the world of law, there’s something called summary judgment. It means that even if every fact in dispute is assumed in favor of one side, the other side still wins.

So let’s list the major grievances submitted by Lowe, who is leading the recall effort, and see if these allegations, even if true, are sufficient to justify undoing the voters’ election of less than two years ago.

The Declaration of Independence this ain’t

• Grievance 1: Meth and burglary are still problems. Definitely true. Does it justify recall? Eye on New Mexico’s Dennis Domrzalski shredded Lowe’s crime-based complaints. He noted that the councilor has been in office less than two years, and that meth was in District 9 long before he took office. Exactly. Further, councilors don’t get to manage the police department. The mayor does.

Not only is there no allegation of unethical or illegal behavior, but it’s hard to see how one rookie councilor was blamed for the problem to start with.

• Grievance 2: Harris voted to help fund the Metropolitan Detention Center. True. Despite Lowe’s anger over crime, Lowe strangely blasts Harris for funding the jail, claiming that city support for the jail is double taxation. Huh?

Lowe seems oblivious to the fact that if the county has to raise taxes to pick up the city’s share, it’s almost entirely city residents who foot that bill. He also doesn’t seem familiar with statistics showing that the city generates the vast majority of inmates, nor does he realize that city residents benefit from a safer community even more than rural county folks. Not only was Harris’ vote legal and ethical, it does far more to address the crime problem Lowe purports to care about than anything Lowe has ever done.

• Grievance 3: Harris has discussed alternatives to Tijeras Canyon Road. I hope this is true. Councilors are elected to search for solutions to problems, which means floating many ideas. Maybe a tunnel is a great idea, maybe not. Why wouldn’t a councilor at least open a discussion on the topic? There’s not any legal or ethical issue here, but it does make Don sound like a pretty conscientious, responsive and hard-working councilor.

• Grievance 4: Harris has not endorsed flooding Four Hills with additional speed bumps. True. Lowe was finally forced to admit that speed bumps are indeed his big issue when Harris produced the single e-mail Lowe ever sent to him. It was a surprisingly angry, personal missive about, wait for it… speed bumps.

This is an issue that has passionate advocates on all sides, and Harris has staked out a position that acknowledges the need for traffic control, including some speed bumps, without giving speed bump advocates all they wanted. Illegal? Unethical? Sounds more like balanced and thoughtful.

• Grievance 5: Lowe claims that a developer who works in the city donated money to Councilor Harris. True. But if that’s the standard for recall, Lowe should have started recall efforts of dozens of other city and state elected officials who have received much, much larger developer donations.

Having said that, Harris is still recusing himself from a decision relating to that developer, making Harris far more ethically responsible than many others in government. Lowe’s laments are making Harris sound pretty good!

• Grievance 6: Lowe’s friend (also involved in the recall effort) wasn’t appointed to the open space committee. True again. But since when is having a personal crony appointed an absolute right of any voter? If you want to overturn a democratic election, Mr. Lowe, you’ll have to do better than whining that your friend didn’t get an appointment.

Lowe threw out some other things during the show, but they were fairly incomprehensible. His complaints about Harris’ misfilings would likewise apply to nearly every politician or activist in New Mexico, apparently including Lowe himself.

Lowe for council

Lowe is an opinionated guy with lots of ideas. Nothing wrong with that. While some of Lowe’s ideas strike me as strange or angry, I respect his right to voice those views.

Let’s go back to the summary judgment standard, and grant that Lowe is a policy genius who is right on facts concerning everything from crime to speed bumps. But he still hasn’t shown the slightest hint of illegality or unethical behavior by Councilor Harris.

Perhaps Lowe should run for council himself. I doubt I’d support him, but if he won, I wouldn’t start a ridiculous recall against him absent real wrongdoing, no matter how low Lowe goes in his relentless recall attempt.

Bundy is the political and legislative director for AFSCME in New Mexico. The opinions in his column are personal and in no way reflect any official AFSCME position. You can learn more about him by clicking here. Contact him at carterbundy@yahoo.com.