NEW MEXICO

President Nixon and the sacred lake: Bill preserves history

SANTA FE – It was 1970, the U.S. president was Richard Nixon and members of a small Native American community in northern New Mexico traveled to Washington to press their case for reclaiming a sacred alpine lake from federal control.

The story of the return of Blue Lake and 75 square miles of surrounding national forest land to the people of Taos Pueblo – finalized with Nixon’s signature in December 1970 – is being retold 50 years later, as tribal leaders and state legislators look for ways to preserve documentation and memories of the landmark victory for indigenous rights.

A legislative proposal would devote $350,000 from the state general fund to help preserve photographs, transcripts and news articles and develop exhibits and educational lessons about the campaign to reclaim Blue Lake, a site in the perched in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains prized as an integral part of Indian pueblo culture and ceremonial traditions.

Bill sponsor Sen. Bobby Gonzales, a Democrat from the adjacent town of Taos, described the decades-long effort to reclaim the Blue Lake site – culminating in the halls of Congress – as a battle of persuasion and public relations.

In testimony to a state Senate panel, Taos tribal council member Gilbert Suazo, who testified before a congressional committee in the summer of 1970, said the return of Blue Lake was a turning point in his people’s history. He said it’s a milestone in the 20th century Indian rights movement toward greater autonomy in governance and education.

Chili pepper farmers see more foreign competition

LEMITAR – The New Mexico Chile Association wants local chili pepper farmers to become state-certified amid more competition from foreign growers.

Association president Glen Duggins told KOAT-TV in Albuquerque that farmers are seeing more foreign imports from as far as China or India.

He says some of the imported chili peppers are sold under the New Mexico name.

Meanwhile, Duggins says state farmers are moving to other more profitable crops.

State officials are pressuring local farmers to get their peppers the “Certified New Mexico Chile” label by the New Mexico Chile Association.

There are only five large farms who are certified out of about 20 across New Mexico, according to the association.

Farms that make less than $10,000 per year do not have to pay to be certified. Farmers that make more do have to pay and their fee depends on how much they are producing.

ARIZONA

Federal judge OKs religious liberty defense of immigrant rights activists

An Arizona federal judge has reversed the convictions of four faith-based volunteers who were fined and put on probation for aiding migrants at the border, saying that the activists were simply exercising their “sincerely held religious beliefs.”

The ruling in United States v. Hoffman, which was announced on Feb. 3, upended a lower court decision that found the activists guilty of breaking federal law by leaving out water and food for migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona’s Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge.

Activists in the case argued they were working with the group No More Deaths/No Más Muertes, an official ministry of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Tucson, and thus were acting on their religious beliefs to save immigrant lives. They contended that prosecuting them violates the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which bars the government from placing a “substantial burden” on the free exercise of religion.

The lower court rejected the RFRA argument, but U.S. District Judge Rosemary Márquez ruled that not only are the activists’ beliefs sincerely held – so much so that the “depth, importance and centrality of these beliefs caused Defendants to restructure their lives to engage in this volunteer work” – but also that prosecuting them amounts to a substantial burden on their faith.

Katherine Franke, a law professor at Columbia University who joined other legal scholars in submitting an amicus brief in the case, called the ruling a “stinging rebuke” of both the lower court decision and the U.S. Department of Justice, which she accused of trivializing the religious freedom claims of the activists.

Top state court rules divorced woman can’t use frozen embryos

PHOENIX – A woman can’t use her frozen embryos to have a baby over opposition from her ex-husband under terms of the contract they signed with a fertility clinic, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Jan. 23.

The high court ruling ends a case that drew support from social conservative groups for the woman, Ruby Torres, who had her eggs fertilized prior to treatment for an aggressive cancer in 2014 that rendered her infertile. After the couple divorced in 2017, her ex-husband didn’t want to have children together and asked the courts to order the fertilized eggs donated under terms of the contract.

A trial court ruled that the contract left it up to the courts to determine the fate of the embryos and then sided with the ex-husband, John Terrell, saying his interest in not having children he would be financially responsible for outweighed Torres’ right to have a biological child.

The state Court of Appeals overturned that ruling last March, agreeing that the contract allowed courts to decide but saying Torres’ rights to have children prevailed over Terrell’s right not to become a father.

The high court, sitting with only five of seven justices, unanimously agreed with Terrell that a contract clause “means that upon divorce or dissolution of the relationship, the parties chose to donate the embryos absent a contemporaneous agreement for use by one of them.”

The eggs will now be donated under terms of the former couple’s contract.

The Arizona Legislature changed the law in 2018 in response to Torres’ case. The law now allows a former spouse to use the embryos against their former partner’s wishes, but relieves the ex-spouse of parental responsibilities like child support. The change is not retroactive and therefore does not apply to Torres’ case.

UTAH

Lawmaker proposes requiring warning label for pornography

SALT LAKE CITY – A Utah lawmaker has unveiled a proposal to require pornography to carry warning labels or be subject to a possible $2,500 penalty, though an adult-entertainment industry group warned the idea would violate the First Amendment.

The label about the potential harm to minors would have to appear on both print and digital material that appears in Utah if the bill proposed by Republican Rep. Brady Brammer passes the Legislature.

If the label doesn’t appear, the producer could be sued for $2,500 per violation, either by the Utah Attorney General’s Office or a private group. The enforcement process would be similar to warning labels about toxic substances that are required in California, Brammer said.

The 15-second digital warnings would allow people to navigate away quickly if something obscene comes up online accidentally, he said.

The bill doesn’t contain a specific definition of pornography. Instead, that would be decided in court if a lawsuit is filed under the law, Brammer said. The law wouldn’t regulate the content itself, so doesn’t violate free-speech rights, he said.

Mike Stabile, a spokesman for the Free Speech Coalition, an adult-industry trade group, said such a warning label would violate the First Amendment because it would require producers to communicate a specific message.

The bill is broad enough that it could cover everything from the TV show “Game of Thrones” to a partially nude selfie on Twitter, he argued.

Brammer said he drew the language of the warning from a resolution passed by Utah in 2016 that declared pornography a public-health crisis, citing its widespread availability online.