EDITORIAL: Voters should exercise great discernment in judicial retentions; keeping the same judges will change nothing

Every couple of years, voters are asked if judges A through Z should be retained.

The number of judges up for retention on ballots can be extensive, 20 this year for Bernalillo County voters, and voters are unlikely to know much at all about any particular judge.

Top law enforcement leaders often complain about Bernalillo County judges releasing violent offenders pretrial, but by the time the judges come up for retention votes years later, voters have likely forgotten the specifics.

So, every even-numbered-year general election, most judges and New Mexico Supreme Court justices up for retention are essentially reelected.

In fact, since the 2012 general election, only six judges statewide have not been retained by voters — District Court judges Christina P. Argyres and Jacqueline Dolores Flores in the 2020 election; Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court judges Edward L. Benavidez and Kenny C. Montoya in the 2018 election; and District Court judges Sheri A. Raphaelson and Albert J. Mitchell Jr. in the 2014 election.

Were the other nine justices and judges retained in 2022, the 68 judges retained in 2020, the 17 judges retained in 2018, the four justices and Court of Appeals judges retained in 2016, the 83 justices and judges retained in 2014, and the three justices and Court of Appeals judges retained in 2012 really that good? If so, why are we ranked the most dangerous state in the nation based on FBI crime data and U.S. News & World Report and Forbes Advisor news reports?

With just six of 190 justices and judges not being retained by voters since 2012, judges have had almost a 97% chance of staying on the bench. And it only takes 57% of votes for a judge to be retained per the state Constitution. That is a low bar indeed.

With little public scrutiny, voters have fallen into a habit of rubber-stamping judges up for retention. Moreover, in one-party dominated counties such as Bernalillo County where Democratic judicial candidates typically go unchallenged in the general election, judicial retention elections are often the only opportunities voters have to determine who serves on the bench.

Judicial retention votes are therefore among the most impactful, yet least known, ballot decisions we have in New Mexico.

The legal experts at the New Mexico Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission are of little help. This year, the Legislature-created JPEC recommended that voters retain all 35 judges that JPEC evaluated — as if catch and release, over-reliance on the pretrial release Arnold tool and the revolving door of justice were not serious problems in New Mexico.

Second Judicial District Court Judge Emeterio L. Rudolfo was one of four district judges who evaded evaluation by JPEC, which said he and three other judges haven’t served long enough for JPEC to accurately assess their performance.

However, two years on the bench is long enough for us to know Rudolfo is arguably the worst judge in New Mexico and he definitely should not be retained.

After Judge Rudolfo’s pretrial release of convicted killer and first-degree murder defendant Joe Anderson in January 2023, over prosecutors’ objections, New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez appealed Rudolfo’s decision to the New Mexico Supreme Court, which unanimously overturned Anderson’s release in February 2023 based on his “extensive criminal history” and poor record of complying with court orders.

In his Jan. 13, 2023, order, Rudolfo wrote that although Anderson presented a danger to the community, the danger could be mitigated by conditions of release, which included fitting Anderson with a GPS ankle monitor. Anderson’s GPS ankle monitor was found a day after his release by the side of a highway. It wasn’t until several weeks later that Albuquerque police caught up with Anderson and arrested him again.

The next year, in May 2024, Judge Rudolfo ordered the pretrial release of a man who allegedly shot and critically injured his stepmother at a May 8 graduation ceremony at the Kiva Auditorium.

Rudolfo ordered 21-year-old Cristian Bencomo to remain under house arrest at his grandmother’s home and to wear a GPS ankle monitor while awaiting trial, even though prosecutors allege Bencomo shot his stepmother once in the neck during the crowded event at the Albuquerque Convention Center.

Rudolfo said prosecutors had failed to show that no conditions of release could be fashioned that would ensure public safety if Bencomo were freed while he awaited trial, noting Bencomo has no criminal history aside the pending charges.

Prosecutors presented additional evidence at a second pretrial hearing in May, again asking Rudolfo to detain Bencomo. Judge Rudolfo said although prosecutors had clearly shown that Bencomo “is a danger to the victim and the public,” they had “provided no testimony or further evidence, outside of argument, that indicated that (Bencomo) could not or would not follow the court’s conditions.”

Judge Rudolfo has released dangerous defendants back on the streets and epitomizes our broken justice system.

JPEC evaluates judges and New Mexico Supreme Court justices based on fairness, communication skills, legal ability and control over their proceedings. JPEC also takes into account how long it takes a judge to resolve cases, overall caseload and the number of times a judge is excused from hearing a case. JPEC then bases its recommendations on evaluation reviews from other judges, lawyers, jurors, social workers, law enforcement and parole officers.

What’s missing? A whole lot. JPEC does not directly evaluate the propensity of judges to release dangerous defendants back onto the streets, the appropriateness of sentences imposed by judges and other critical judicial decisions that have led to New Mexico becoming the most dangerous state in the nation in terms of violent and/or property crimes.

The Journal Editorial Board reached out to some of Bernalillo County’s top law enforcement leaders, dug into our archives and assembled our own list of judges who should be retained and those who should not. The Journal’s retention recommendations cover both criminal court and civil court judges and are not necessarily based on a judge’s record in criminal cases. The Journal evaluated many factors in formulating its recommendations listed below.

Justice of the Supreme Court Briana H. Zamora — Yes on retention

Court of Appeals Judge Jennifer L. Attrep — No recommendation

Court of Appeals Judge Shammara H. Henderson — Yes on retention

Court of Appeals Judge Megan P. Duffy — No recommendation

Second Judicial District Court Judge Brett R. Loveless, Division 03 — Yes on retention

Second Judicial District Court Judge Dan E. Ramczyk, Division 06 — Yes on retention

Second Judicial District Court Judge Cindy Leos, Division 09 — Yes on retention

Second Judicial District Court Judge Elaine P. Lujan, Division 12 — No recommendation

Second Judicial District Court Judge Courtney Bryn Weaks, Division 15 — No on retention

Second Judicial District Court Judge Denise Barela Shepherd, Division 18 — Yes on retention

Second Judicial District Court Judge Emeterio L. Rudolfo, Division 21 — No on retention

Second Judicial District Court Judge Victor S. Lopez, Division 27 — No on retention

Second Judicial District Court Judge David Allen Murphy, Division 30 — Yes on retention

Metropolitan Court Judge Asra I. Elliott, Division 1 — No on retention

Metropolitan Court Judge Renee Torres, Division 3 — No on retention

Metropolitan Court Judge Rosemary Cosgrove-Aguilar, Division 7 — No on retention

Metropolitan Court Judge Yvette K. Gonzales, Division 9 — Yes on retention

Metropolitan Court Judge Michelle Castillo Dowler, Division 13 — Yes on retention

Metropolitan Court Judge Felicia R. Blea-Rivera, Division 15 — Yes on retention

Metropolitan Court Judge Nina Aviva Safier, Division 17 — Yes on retention

District, metropolitan and magistrate court judges are the gatekeepers of our judicial system, and are at the heart of criticisms of our judicial system being too lenient, particularly with regard to repeat violent offenders. When the system is broken, change is needed. Rubber-stamping judges will never reform and improve the judicial system. Safe streets can never be realized if voters keep the same players on the judicial bench.

Ballots ask voters if a particular judge shall be retained. The question we should ask ourselves is why should any particular judge be retained? Given our crime crisis, the onus should be on the judges. What has he or she done on the bench to merit your vote for retention?

When in doubt, toss them out.