New Mexico House passes bill to toughen human trafficking laws
In response to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal that touched New Mexico, it’s no wonder their state’s legislature has introduced a bunch of new laws targeting sex trafficking and offending.
We’re posting this not because they introduced a law, nor that it passed the House by an overwhelming 63-3 this week, but to highlight the statement of one of the three lawmakers who voted in opposition to the law.
Rep. Moe Maestas, D-Albuquerque, who cast one of the three “no” votes on the bill, said the retroactive aspect of the provision makes it a violation of the court agreement entered into by all parties in the case. “The government can’t do stuff retroactively,” he said. “The judge, the defendant, the attorneys on both sides all left the courthouse knowing that person was not going to have to register.”
Sounds like someone remembers they swore to uphold the Constitution! We need more lawmakers like Rep Maestas!
No doubt their laws need some upgrading however the retro active aspect is….they can do it because they can get away with it. Show me any other law that is retro active. Is there one out there that does not specifically deal with sex offenses?
“Upgrading”?
The only upgrade that can be done to the Sex Offense Registries (Hit Lists) is to destroy them in their entirety. That’s the upgrade.
Until that happens, all PFRs should ensure that the Hit Lists are 100% worthless and much worse. The Hit Lists must have consequences. They cannot exist without war. They can only exist at the highest possible cost of time, money, goodwill, respect, progress, peace, and other limited resources. That cost is being paid and there is no doubt it will continue.
I believe that most of our politician lawmakers swore to support and defend a document…the US Constitution…that they have no knowledge of.
Since I live in New Mexico, I felt I should supply some positive feedback in the form of an email sent to the Mr. Maestas.
Dear Rep. Maestas,
Your vote against HB-56 demonstrated both political courage and fidelity to constitutional principles and the rule of law. Kudos.
Few persons acknowledge the ex post facto question when applied to SORNA. Many take the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Smith v. Doe as carte blanche to implement virtually any SORNA provisions. That was not what the Court said, and the edifice is crumbling from many lawsuits. Fairness aside, the extra expense and squandering of judicial resources are not justified by public safety arguments–none of which were actually articulated by the bill’s sponsors.
I’ve attached my brief analysis of HB-56 which I’ve sent to pertinent senators. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail there. In the spirit of transparency, I am on the SORNA registry for having years ago possessed images of some under the age of 18. None of the provisions in HB-56 would have an effect on me. However I, like you, am concerned with principles.
Veritas,
MY REDACTED NAME
Albuquerque, NM
Very well written, Ed.