{"id":29950,"date":"2011-06-15T08:50:34","date_gmt":"2011-06-15T14:50:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.nmpolitics.net\/index\/?p=29950"},"modified":"2011-10-08T21:52:48","modified_gmt":"2011-10-09T03:52:48","slug":"politicking-is-part-of-the-process-for-becoming-a-judge","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/2011\/06\/politicking-is-part-of-the-process-for-becoming-a-judge\/","title":{"rendered":"Politicking is part of the process for becoming a judge"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

Third Judicial District Judge Mike Murphy<\/p><\/div>\n

Campaign donors often get appointments. The line between politicking and bribery is crossed when the donation buys the appointment or is intended to influence the process. Did indicted District Judge Mike Murphy cross that line?<\/h4>\n

Indicted District Judge Mike Murphy allegedly told one judicial hopeful she had to give money to the local Democratic Party if she wanted the party\u2019s support for her candidacy.<\/p>\n

That and similar statements attributed to Murphy \u2013 such as claims that he paid $4,000 for his job, and that candidates had to give money to local politico Edgar Lopez, who would pass it on to then-Gov. Bill Richardson<\/a> and the Democratic Party \u2013 are at the center of the bribery case against Murphy<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Finance reports reveal that Murphy, who was appointed in 2006, gave several donations to the Democratic Party of Do\u00f1a Ana County<\/a> totaling $1,600 between 2005 and 2010. Almost every judge appointed by Richardson in Do\u00f1a Ana County has also donated to the party. Some of them remain annual contributors.<\/p>\n

And Lopez is one of the biggest donors, having given $8,606.71 in cash and in-kind contributions from himself and his business between 2005 and 2010.<\/p>\n

But there\u2019s a difference between supporting a cause and paying a bribe. There are many other contributors on the party\u2019s donor list, including activists, politicians, and three witnesses upon whose testimony the case against Murphy is based \u2013 District Judge Lisa Schultz, former Court of Appeals Judge Beverly Singleman, and Third Judicial District Court staff attorney Norm Osborn.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s hardly surprising. This is politics. Think there\u2019s no politicking in the judicial appointment process? Think again. The fact that Republican governors appoint mostly Republican judges and Democratic governors appoint mostly Democratic judges proves the point.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/dt>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s the intention to influence an official process \u2013 looking for the play in exchange for the pay \u2013 that makes it bribery.\u201d – Do\u00f1a Ana County District Attorney Amy Orlando<\/h4>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

The line between politics and bribery<\/h3>\n

Richardson, a Democrat, appointed many people to judgeships and other positions who donated to his campaigns. That\u2019s also true of some people appointed by the current governor, Republican Susana Martinez<\/a>, to various positions.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s nothing illegal about appointing a campaign contributor to a government position. The line between politicking and bribery is crossed when there\u2019s quid pro quo<\/a> \u2013 a deal is made, an appointment is given in exchange for a campaign contribution. Or, at the very least, there has to be intent to make such a deal.<\/p>\n

\u201cBribery is giving something of value, directly or even indirectly, with the intent to influence an official action,\u201d said Do\u00f1a Ana County District Attorney Amy Orlando<\/a>, whose office has handed the bribery case against Murphy to a special prosecutor to avoid a conflict. \u201cThe value is irrelevant and could be a number of things, including a campaign contribution, cash under the table, or something else that has value.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cSimply making or soliciting campaign contributions to support a candidate or party, without attempting to influence an official action in exchange for that contribution, is protected by the First Amendment,\u201d said Orlando, who was speaking generally, not specifically about the Murphy case. \u201cIt\u2019s the intention to influence an official process \u2013 looking for the play in exchange for the pay \u2013 that makes it bribery and why it is against the law in every state in this country.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to witness statements, Murphy claimed that he paid, possibly through campaign contributions, for his position. He allegedly said others had to do the same.<\/p>\n

Murphy has pleaded not guilty and has yet to face a jury. The case against him has received national attention<\/a> and created another scandal for Richardson. It\u2019s also led to a debate about what\u2019s appropriate in the game of politics and whether reform is needed.<\/p>\n

Political activity is \u2018an important part of the process\u2019<\/h3>\n

State Rep. Joseph Cervantes<\/a>, D-Las Cruces and an attorney, is a regular contributor to the local Democratic Party and was involved in the politicking surrounding judicial appointments during Richardson\u2019s tenure. He said he met several times with judicial applicants who wanted advice on how to increase their chances of being appointed.<\/p>\n

Cervantes said he advised them to get politically active if they weren\u2019t already.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s an important part of the process that they get active within their respective parties,\u201d he said. \u201cAny person seeking elective office who\u2019s unknown has to correct that immediately.\u201d<\/p>\n

Making campaign contributions is certainly part of becoming politically active, but there\u2019s a difference between hoping for an official act and actually expecting an official act or even making a deal in exchange for that act, Cervantes said.<\/p>\n

\u201cAny person who gives a contribution expecting something specifically in return is either corrupt or extremely na\u00efve,\u201d Cervantes said. \u201cAnd any person who solicits a contribution offering or promising something in return is equally corrupt.\u201d<\/p>\n

Reducing, but not eliminating, politics<\/h3>\n

New Mexico\u2019s system for appointing district, appellate and Supreme Court judges is designed to reduce, but not eliminate, politics. When a position is vacant, a bipartisan commission of attorneys and others considers applications, interviews candidates, and recommends finalists to the governor. That process is almost entirely public.<\/p>\n

The governor then makes an appointment from among the candidates recommended. In some instances, the governor can reject the finalists and ask the commission to go back to the drawing board.<\/p>\n

The appointed judge\u2019s first election is a partisan one and open to challengers. If he or she wins, future elections are for retention. There are no challengers.<\/p>\n

Cervantes said New Mexico has done more than most states to take politics out of the process. He said there\u2019s \u201cnot a lot of opportunity for political collusion\u201d during the commission process.<\/p>\n

In addition, Cervantes pointed to public financing for Court of Appeals and Supreme Court races, and contribution limits for all races, including governor, saying those recent reforms help reduce the influence of money on the system.<\/p>\n

Retired federal prosecutor Peter Ossorio, a Democrat who lives in Las Cruces and regularly donates to the local party, said New Mexico\u2019s judicial appointment system mirrors a process put in place decades ago in Missouri, where he worked.<\/p>\n

\u201cLike most procedures, it is not perfect,\u201d he said. \u201cHowever, it has several features that I believe make for a far more independent judiciary than in Texas and many other states where judges have to raise money and run in partisan elections in perpetuity if they want to keep their seats.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cI much prefer this type of process to the one that resulted in the egregious situation in West Virginia where the head of Massey Coal contributed over $1 million to the campaign of a state supreme court \u2018justice\u2019 who refused to recuse himself<\/a> from a high profile case involving \u2013 you guessed it \u2013 the same party that contributed to his election,\u201d Ossorio said.<\/p>\n

In New Mexico, Cervantes said even when politics takes over with the gubernatorial appointment, \u201cThere\u2019s no star chamber. There\u2019s no secret meetings. Applicants and candidates for the office make phone calls and they enlist supporters and they ask for people to support them, no differently than any other candidate for elective office.\u201d<\/p>\n

Cervantes\u2019 description of the process echoes what District Judge Jim T. Martin told investigators when they questioned him about the situation that led to Murphy\u2019s indictment. From a law enforcement incident report<\/a> detailing the interview with Martin:<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026he indicated that to be nominated for a judgeship, a person has to get on the list, and the governor appoints from that list. Judge Martin said the governor picks someone who is active in the party. \u2018A way to show that you\u2019re active in the party is to make donations to the party, participate in events, go to fundraisers, help a particular campaign, be a good democrat or republican. That\u2019s kind of the nature of politics, you have to be actively involved in the game.\u2019\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Murphy case is based on his own statements<\/h3>\n

That doesn\u2019t mean there\u2019s never a promise of an official act in exchange for a campaign contribution in a system that\u2019s political. But proving bribery is often difficult.<\/p>\n

The case against Murphy is largely based on statements witnesses say he made. Among them, from the incident report:<\/p>\n