The head of a group that advocates for election transparency took the first steps in state district court to start a recall petition for District 1 Sandoval County Commissioner Katherine Bruch, a Democrat from Placitas.
John Veltri, a Placitas resident who also serves as chairman of the New Mexico Election Transparency Network, filed a complaint Nov. 22 alleging Bruch committed malfeasance, misfeasance, and violated her oath of office.
A hearing in the case has been set for 2 p.m. on Monday, Dec. 11 before Judge Christopher Perez at the Sandoval County Court Complex in Bernalillo.
Bruch, whose District 1 includes Placitas, Corrales and part of the Town of Bernalillo, said she was “disturbed” by the complaint but declined to say more until after the hearing.
“I’m looking forward to Monday’s hearing. I really don’t have a lot more to say until afterwards,” she said.
Veltri didn’t get the judge he hoped for. Representing himself in the civil complaint against Bruch, Veltri first requested that Judge James A. Noel be excused from the case. After he was and the case was assigned to Judge Perez, Veltri filed a motion on Dec. 4 to excuse him as well, arguing Perez is a member of the same political party as Bruch.
“Therefore, to preserve the reputation of the judicial process and the appearance of fairness for both parties, it is requested that a Judge without potential political bias be assigned,” his motion reads.
Veltri said he wasn’t trying to “judge shop” for a Republican judge, though. He said he asked that Noel and Perez be excused because they were both members of the same party as Bruch and that live in her district.
“I’ll take whatever judge they give me,” he said in a phone interview.
Accusations
In his complaint, Veltri cites Bruch’s votes to certify the canvass of the general election in 2022 and to approve an ordinance that restricts people from feeding free-roaming horses in the Placitas as reasons she should be recalled.
The complaint says that Bruch voted to approve an “inaccurate canvass” of the November 2022 election even after the Bureau of Elections reported a discrepancy in the count of absentee ballots.
The complaint also claims that Bruch voted “to codify animal cruelty” when she voted twice to pass the horse feeding ban.
She was in the minority of a 3-2 vote the first time the Commission took up the matter, but was part of a 4-1 majority in the vote to adopt the ordinance when it was brought up again weeks later with modifications that satisfied commissioners Michael Meek and David Heil enough to swing their votes.
Though the County isn’t party to the complaint, Veltri accuses Sandoval County of failing to provide proper notice of the meeting during which the ordinance was passed.
Heil and Meek, both Republicans, also voted with Bruch to certify the canvass of the 2022 election. But Veltri said he can only file for a recall against the commissioner in his own district.
And, neither of them have ever walked out of a County Commission meeting right before the vote on a controversial topic – another charge Veltri brings against Bruch.
Veltri claims malfeasance and misfeasance were committed when Bruch left the Sept. 13 County Commission meeting before a vote on a resolution supporting a referendum effort, thus “Refusing to represent the constituents who elected her.”
Bruch left the Commission chambers immediately before a vote on a resolution supporting the right of citizens to petition for a referendum election as part of an effort to do away with legislation passed by the Democrat-majority state Legislature earlier this year.
Before walking out Bruch said she agreed that citizens should have a right to referendum, but she did not agree with the one that aimed to dismantle House Bill 7, duly passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor.
She said her responsibility was to represent all her constituents, not just the ones who regularly attend Commission meetings and expect her to listen only to them.
“The reality is I’ve been elected and re-elected for this position and I’ve done everything I can to support my constituents and do a good job,” she said at the time. “And I just think this (resolution) doesn’t serve us.”
Those were the only instances cited in the complaint, but Veltri said he could go on.
“This is a representation of the violations perpetrated but not inclusive of all violations by Commissioner Bruch leading to the recall petition,” Veltri states in the complaint.
He asks for a hearing during which he would have the ability to present evidence and witnesses and to cross examine Bruch’s witnesses.
What lies ahead
Veltri said he’ll press the issue as far as he can take if he gets an unfavorable ruling on Monday.
“If I am not granted the opportunity to move forward on Monday, I will submit to the Supreme Court to appeal within five days,” he said, adding that he will still have accomplished something if he loses there. “At the very least what I have done is raise awareness about our commissioner.”
If the judge does finds there is reasonable cause for a recall election, state law requires a petition with valid signatures of registered voters totaling at least 25% of the turnout in the election the candidate last won. Veltri would then have 90 days to collect more than 5,000 names from voters in District 1.
“I’m confident I can get those signatures,” said Veltri, who says he needs 5,008 signatures to be exact. “There’s a lot of people that want to help.”
The petitions would be sent to the Secretary of State’s Office for validation. If it’s found that the required amount of petition signatures are valid, a special election in District 1 would be held within 90 days.
Bruch was elected to the seat in 2018 and won reelection in 2022 getting about 60% of the vote each time.
Court records show she has obtained legal counsel. Attorneys Sara Sanchez and Mark Travis Baker of the Albuquerque law firm Peifer, Hanson, Mullins & Baker law will represent her at Monday’s hearing.
Though County Clerk Anne Brady-Romero is not named in the civil complaint, Sandoval County Attorney Michael Eshleman filed a notice on her behalf on Nov. 29. It states that if the petition was allowed to proceed, “the county Clerk would then have statutory obligations under the Recall Act.”
Unfortunately I am left with an ambiguous view of the true issues as presented here.
Mr. Veltri is taking a page out of the sore losers playbook. He’s going against a duly elected Commissioner, re-elected by an overwhelming 60% of her constituents simply because she voted the will of the residents who wanted the ordinance to ban feeding the wild herds without a permit that passed with a 4-1 majority.
He seems more concerned with her vote than with the residents who vowed to be lawbreakers by feeding the animals than the majority who wanted the wild horses managed away from private property.
His claim of not “judge shopping” rings hollow when he asks for recusal of the first 2 jurists assigned and admits he didn’t get the judge he wanted.
It sounds eerily familiar.
The law passed by the county commission regarding the horses was illegal as this has already been litigated at the state level and appealed and in both instances, The Wild Horse Observer’s Association won and the Placitas horses are protected. State rulings make the ordinance unenforceable.
Because of the 2018 Absent Voter Act unverifiable Absentee Ballot Applications were mass-mailed through bloated voter rolls and doubled the Mail Ballot in 2020. About 250,000 mail ballots (in a 990,000 vote election) went to Democrats, compared to 82,000 for Republicans. Why did ALL the increase compared to previous elections go to Democrats? And that difference was more than enough votes to flip New Mexico to the Democrats.
And when I say ‘unverifiable,’ I mean that signature verification only (paper applications mailed by The Center for Voter Information) is totally inferior to the Internet Secretary of State Portal application which requires four data-points, not just a signature.
Signature Verification is totally open to negligence, abuse of discretion, and outright fraud . . . not to mention the nearly 100,000 drivers’ licenses issued to illegal aliens.
Having two ‘qualitatively different’ ballots, in-person and by-mail, that differ in verification to such a degree is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, and federal and constitutional law that bars disenfranchisement of qualified citizen voters.
This is the reason a true and thorough canvass was necessary. But, repeal of the no-excuse mail ballot is a constitutional issue.