No one expected the proud Lobo lineman turned politician to ever leave Albuquerque.
State Sen. Mark Moores says the city that meant everything to him is so drug-infested and riddled with crime he’s moving to Las Cruces.
“Albuquerque for a number of years has been going downhill because of crime,” Moores said. Of one of its most impoverished areas, he added: “We used to call it the War Zone, and now the police refer to it as Zombie Land. And if you’ve driven down there recently, that’s what it looks like.”
Albuquerque became home to Moores in 1988. He was 18 years old, a 290-pound offensive tackle recruited from Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda, Md., by the University of New Mexico.
Moores received a degree in political science from UNM, and he started on the football team. After graduation, he worked as an aide to a New Mexico congressman and as chief of staff for a lieutenant governor.
He became a candidate himself 12 years ago, winning the first of three terms as a senator representing the Northeast Heights of Albuquerque. A Republican, Moores was always in the minority party. He didn’t run for reelection this year, and last week’s special legislative session on crime might have been his last official act at the Capitol.
Now 54, Moores is worried about his family’s safety. He and his wife, Lisa, are the parents of a 17-month-old son, Markie. Their daughter, Mattie Hope, will be born in two months.
“I don’t want to raise my son and my daughter in Albuquerque,” Moores said. “It’s a city I love, a city I went to school in. It’s a city I’ve served in this Legislature, and it saddens me that I’m leaving because I don’t want to raise the next generation of Moores up there.”
Business also figures in his relocation. Moores is a partner in Pathology Consultants of New Mexico, a medical laboratory with an office in Las Cruces, a city with its own crime problem. Moores said he won’t take his son to the best park in town because of the fentanyl addicts.
A blend of conservative and libertarian, Moores nonetheless worked well with Democrats on bills such as legalization of cannabis and outlawing contests rewarding riflemen who slaughtered the most coyotes.
He again crossed party lines during the special session by carrying crime bills proposed by Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham. In a role reversal, dominant Democratic legislators rejected the governor’s crime-fighting bills as unnecessary, badly written or poorly thought out.
In frustration, Moores said the measures were better than nothing. “I applaud the governor. You know, quite frankly, I think these bills that she’s introducing, they’re tepid. But they do move the state forward.”
Moores lost that argument, and he should have. Democratic lawmakers chose the right course by standing against him and their own governor. They stopped bills that would generate headlines but not good results.
Sen. Joe Cervantes, D-Las Cruces, pointed out that an anti-racketeering bill proposed by the governor might have put innocent groups at risk.
The bill would criminalize either soliciting or coercing another’s participation in an enterprise. “So as a lawyer I looked up the bill’s definition of what is an enterprise,” Cervantes said. “An enterprise would include labor unions, Rotary clubs, Boy Scouts. Any organization of three or more persons would be criminalized by that bill.”
Sure, the flawed language could have been rewritten. But that would take collaboration and substantial time, a mixture not suited to a special session costing taxpayers more than $50,000 a day.
Cervantes wasn’t finished. He highlighted New Mexico’s ingrained corruption, a bigger public enemy than any inaction by state legislators. A scandal involving Albuquerque police officers who were supposed to arrest and help convict drunken drivers is the latest example.
“We have some of the worst DWI statistics in the country, if not the worst,” Cervantes said. “And so the Legislature gets charged, passes stronger and harder laws on DWI. Yet we have police officers who are paid off to dismiss DWI charges, and their superiors seemingly do nothing about that.
“Our problem is not an absence of laws. Our problem is an absence of courage to speak the truth to power, and to do something about the lack of enforcement.”
Moores often argued in favor of less government. He typically would have agreed with Cervantes. Not this time. Moores grasped for any solution, no matter how unlikely the chances of success.
Lujan Grisham might be foolish enough to call legislators back for another special session on crime. The wiser approach is to fight the plague of drugs on the demand side, an approach that might actually reduce crime. Maybe lawmakers working with Lujan Grisham throughout the interim can have a better crime-fighting plan ready for the regular 60-day session starting in January.
Moores by then will be out of office and out of town. One of the Senate’s diligent workers, he deserves a better sendoff than a moving van will provide.
