Step #1: Demand to See How Judges Fund Their Campaigns.
- Legislation Passed! NM Senate Bill #160 providing a public financing option for NM judges was signed by our Governor in April, 2021!
Step #2: We are planning to ask UNM Law School, the only accredited law school in New Mexico, to make Family Mediation Training a requirement for graduates.
- In progress as of Oct 2021
Reasonable Next Steps (Working Within Our System)
Noteworthy to NM:
Problems and Solutions
- Step 1: Create a public financing option for all judges.
- Step 2: Update guidelines in NM law schools to including mediation training for graduates.
- Step 3: Provide options, education and tools for parties who open family court cases, rather than demanding they open a lawsuit as their only recourse for unresolved conflict.
- Step 4: Evaluate our current Judicial Standards Commission and its number of independent, unbiased citizens.
- Step 5: Update requirements for Guardians ad Litem to include mediation training, therapy and experience with children.
- Step 6: Host community forums, support groups and other in-person resources for struggling families.
Noteworthy to NM:
- Family Court was created over 30 years ago in New Mexico to bring resolution to families in conflict.
- Family Court has a high percentage of 'pro se' litigants who represent themselves because they cannot afford attorneys.
- Family Court lawyers in Albuquerque can easily cost upward of $300 per hour.
- In Bernalillo County, Guardians ad Litem (G.A.L.s) are for-profit lawyers whose exorbitant fees are paid by family members of the child or incapacitated person. In other counties, GALs work for the state, and the potential for abuse is lowered.
- G.A.Ls. in New Mexico are not required to have any training in mediation, mental health, counseling/social work, nor are they required to have any education or experience with children, disabled, differently-abled people or socio-economic biases. Their only requirement is to be an active attorney. Family Law attorneys in New Mexico are similarly not required to have any training in mediation, mental health, co-parenting, or behavioral health practices when they enter this field.
- Parents who initiate a case in Family Court are given no tools that would educate or encourage resolution to their conflicts, such as options for co-parenting classes, co-parenting counseling, support groups or mediation - making this challenging time for families that much harder as many incur debt to pay exorbitant attorney's fees.
Problems and Solutions
- This is NOT just a New Mexico problem. Judicial Campaigns across the United States are paid for by the lawyers who appear before these same judges everyday in court. Family Courts, Criminal Courts, Children's Courts, Guardianship/Conservatorship and Probate Courts... all over the country have judges who preside over cases with lawyers who are bankrolling their campaigns, even hosting fundraising parties for their judges' campaigns. The long held practice of social and financial relationships between judges and the lawyers who appear before them has been quietly endorsed by Republicans and Democrats for generations. Judges are appointed to the bench through a questionable, confusing appointment process and need only win their first election. Thereafter they're kept on the bench by retention.
- The NM Judicial Standards Commission (tasked with oversight of unethical / illegal behavior by judges) consider these private campaign contributions and fundraising practices ethical despite NM statutes* that state otherwise. The JSC has active District Court Judges on their commission who are tasked with deciding ethical violations against their fellow judges.
- Public financing would be just one solution to curb this particular problem.
*Referenced NM statutes:
Code of Judicial Conduct Rule: 21-100. Canon 1.
A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. [Adopted by Supreme Court Order No. 11-8300-045, effective January 1, 2012.]
Code of Judicial Conduct Rule: 21-211. Disqualification.
A. A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Code of Judicial Conduct Rule: 21-402. Political and campaign activities of judicial candidates in public elections.
A. A judicial candidate in a partisan, non-partisan, or retention election,
(1) shall
(a) act at all times in a manner consistent with the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary;
(b) comply with all applicable election, election campaign, and election campaign fundraising laws and regulations…
(d) take reasonable measures to ensure that other persons do not undertake on behalf of the candidate activities, other than those described in Rule 21-404 NMRA, that the candidate is prohibited from doing under these rules...
B. Contributions creating appearance of impropriety. Candidates for judicial office in partisan, non-partisan, and retention elections shall refrain from campaign fundraising activity which has the appearance of impropriety, and shall not accept any contribution that creates an appearance of impropriety.
Committee Commentary to 21-211.
[1] Under this rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether any of the specific provisions of Subparagraphs (A)(1) through (A)(5) apply. The terms “recusal” and “disqualification” are often used interchangeably.
[2] A judge’s obligation not to hear or decide matters in which disqualification is required applies regardless of whether a motion to disqualify is filed.
[6] In Caperton v. Massey Coal Co., 129 S. Ct. 2252 (2009)...A judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned under Paragraph A of this rule as a result of campaign contributions even though they are not so extraordinary and disproportionate as to violate a person’s due process rights.
Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1-088.1
G. Recusal... “No district judge shall sit in any action in which the judge's impartiality may reasonably be questioned under the provisions of the Constitution of New Mexico or the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the judge shall file a recusal in any such action. Upon receipt of notification of recusal from a district judge, the clerk of the court shall give written notice to each party.”
Code of Judicial Conduct Rule: 21-100. Canon 1.
A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. [Adopted by Supreme Court Order No. 11-8300-045, effective January 1, 2012.]
Code of Judicial Conduct Rule: 21-211. Disqualification.
A. A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Code of Judicial Conduct Rule: 21-402. Political and campaign activities of judicial candidates in public elections.
A. A judicial candidate in a partisan, non-partisan, or retention election,
(1) shall
(a) act at all times in a manner consistent with the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary;
(b) comply with all applicable election, election campaign, and election campaign fundraising laws and regulations…
(d) take reasonable measures to ensure that other persons do not undertake on behalf of the candidate activities, other than those described in Rule 21-404 NMRA, that the candidate is prohibited from doing under these rules...
B. Contributions creating appearance of impropriety. Candidates for judicial office in partisan, non-partisan, and retention elections shall refrain from campaign fundraising activity which has the appearance of impropriety, and shall not accept any contribution that creates an appearance of impropriety.
Committee Commentary to 21-211.
[1] Under this rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether any of the specific provisions of Subparagraphs (A)(1) through (A)(5) apply. The terms “recusal” and “disqualification” are often used interchangeably.
[2] A judge’s obligation not to hear or decide matters in which disqualification is required applies regardless of whether a motion to disqualify is filed.
[6] In Caperton v. Massey Coal Co., 129 S. Ct. 2252 (2009)...A judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned under Paragraph A of this rule as a result of campaign contributions even though they are not so extraordinary and disproportionate as to violate a person’s due process rights.
Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1-088.1
G. Recusal... “No district judge shall sit in any action in which the judge's impartiality may reasonably be questioned under the provisions of the Constitution of New Mexico or the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the judge shall file a recusal in any such action. Upon receipt of notification of recusal from a district judge, the clerk of the court shall give written notice to each party.”
Photo used under Creative Commons from wuestenigel
