>> FUNDING FOR NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS PROVIDED BY VIEWERS LIKE YOU.
>> Gene: THIS WEEK ON NEW MEXICO TO FOCUS POLITICS ON THE MAP.
WHAT A STATE SUPREME COURT DECISION MEANS FOR TWO REDISTRICTING LAWSUITS, ONE FROM THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND THE OTHER FROM THE NAVAJO NATION.
>> Gorman: YES, THERE IS A LOT OF POLITICAL GAMESMANSHIP IN REDISTRICTING.
IT IS A PART OF THE WHEELS THAT TURN.
>> Gene: AND, TWO JOURNALISTS WARN OF THE LONG-LASTING DANGERS OF CLUSTER BOMBS AS THE WHITE HOUSE SENDS THEM TO UKRAINE.
NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS STARTS NOW.
THANKS FOR JOINING US THIS WEEK.
I AM YOUR HOST, GENE GRANT.
ALL EYES ARE ON PAUL KREBS  THIS MONTH AS FORMER UNM ATHLETIC DIRECTOR STANDS TRIAL  ON TWO FELONY EMBEZZLEMENT CHARGES FOR ALLEGEDLY  MISAPPROPRIATING THOUSANDS IN PUBLIC MONEY.
IN ABOUT 15 MINUTES SENIOR PRODUCER LOU DIVIZIO SITS DOWN  WITH REPORTER DANIEL LIBIT TO DISCUSS THE RARITY OF THIS  CASE HE HAS BEEN FOLLOWING SINCE DAY ONE.
IN THE SECOND HALF OF TODAY'S SHOW, POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT  GWYNETH DOLAND SPEAKS WITH TWO VOTING RIGHTS ADVOCATES ABOUT  A STATE SUPREME COURT DECISION TO ALLOW A LAWSUIT OVER  POLITICAL GERRYMANDERING TO CONTINUE IN DISTRICT COURT.
FIRST WE BEGIN WITH A SPECIAL PANEL DISCUSS ON THE STATE'S FOSTER CARE SYSTEM AND A COURT CASE THAT CULMINATED IN A  MASSIVE 485 MILLION DOLLAR JURY AWARD ON BEHALF OF A  CHILD RAPE VICTIM.
WELCOME TO OUR SPECIAL PANEL  FOR THIS WEEK.
WE ARE HAPPY TO BE JOINED IN  PERSON IN OUR ALBUQUERQUE STUDIOS BY ED WILLIAMS, FROM  SEARCHLIGHT NEW MEXICO.
ACROSS THE TABLE IS MERRITT  ALLEN OF VOX OPTIMA PUBLIC RELATIONS AND BACK ACROSS THE  TABLE NEXT TO ED IS CAROL SUZUKI, WE WELCOME HER.
SHE IS A LAW PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO.
NOW WE BEGIN WITH THAT VERDICT OUT OF RIO ARRIBA COUNTY IN  CASE OF THAT EIGHT YEAR OLD CHILD ALLEGEDLY RAPED BY HER  FOSTER PARENT IN NORTHERN NEW MEXICO.
EARLIER THIS MONTH, A JURY AWARDED 485 MILLION-DOLLARS IN  DAMAGES ON BEHALF OF A GIRL WHO WAS LIVING IN A  SPECIALIZED FOSTER CARE PROGRAM SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE  HER WITH BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, BUT THE LAWSUIT  FIRST FILED IN 2019 ALLEGES A NONPROFIT COMPANY CALLED  FAMILY WORKS, LICENSED BY CYFD, PLACED THE EIGHT YEAR  OLD GIRL IN THE CARE OF CLARENCE GARCIA, WHO  REPEATEDLY RAPED HER.
THE LAWSUIT ALSO ALLEGES  FAMILY WORKS KNEW ABOUT PRIOR SEXUAL ASSAULT ALLEGATIONS  AGAINST MR. GARCIA.
NOW 485 MILLION DOLLAR AWARD  APPEARS TO BE THE LARGEST IN STATE'S HISTORY.
MERRITT, WHEN WE SEE AN AMOUNT LIKE THAT, WE TEND TO THINK THE JURY WAS SENDING A MESSAGE.
WHAT WAS THAT MESSAGE IN THIS CASE IN YOUR VIEW?
>> Merritt: NEW MEXICANS HAVE ABSOLUTELY HAD IT WITH THE  CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM.
>> Gene: BOTTOM LINE.
>> Merritt: WE ARE JUST DONE.
AND IT WAS AS MUCH AN  INDICTMENT AGAINST CYFD AS IT WAS AGAINST FAMILY WORKS.
OUR OR CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM, IT IS NOT A MATTER OF FOSTER PARENTS MISSING MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS OR A KID GOING TO  SCHOOL IN THE WINTER WITHOUT A COAT.
CHILDREN ARE BEING ABUSED AND CHILDREN ARE DYING AND IT  HAPPENS EVERY MONTH.
AND NEW MEXICANS ARE DONE WITH IT.
>> Gene: RIGHT, EXACTLY.
CAROL, FIRST OF ALL, WELCOME TO THE TABLE.
WELCOME TO NEW MEXICO PBS AND THE LINE.
I GOT A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT MERRITT'S POINT HERE.
DOES THE STATE'S REPEATED HISTORY OF FOSTER CHILD CARE  ABUSE MAKE AN IMPACT ON THIS VERDICT AND THIS JUDGMENT TO  HAVE THIS MUCH MONEY ON TOP OF IT?
>> Suzuki: SO THE VERDICT OF 485 MILLION-DOLLARS IS  80 MILLION IN COMPENSATORY DAMAGES, MEANING FOR THE  CHILD'S EMOTIONAL DAMAGES, HER PAST EXPENSES, FUTURE MEDICAL  EXPENSES FOR THE TRAUMA FROM THE ASSAULT.
AND THAT WOULD MEAN THAT 405 MILLION-DOLLARS IS FOR  PUNITIVE DAMAGES.
PUNITIVE DAMAGES, THEY DO SEND  A MESSAGE, BUT THEY SEND A MESSAGE TO ACADIA TO NOT DO  THIS AGAIN, TO DO THIS MISCONDUCT, TO PUNISH ACADIA  AND OTHER DEFENDANTS AND ALSO TWO OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT  DO THIS KIND OF WORK, TO DETER THEM FROM THIS TYPE OF  CONDUCT.
BUT THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE  FOR THIS CASE, FOR THIS CHILD.
THEY ARE NOT TO INDICT THE  COMPANIES FOR ALL OF THE OTHER CHILDREN WHO HAVE BEEN ABUSED  IN THE SYSTEM BUT WHO WERE NOT BEFORE THIS STORY.
>> Gene: INTERESTING POINTS THERE.
CIRCLE BACK TO IT.
ONE THING YOU MENTIONED THERE.
I WANT TO INTRODUCE ED.
THANK YOU FOR BEING AT THE TABLE AS WELL.
I LOVE YOUR WORK OVER THERE.
YOU REPORTED EXTENSIVELY FOR SEARCHLIGHT ABOUT FAILURES IN  THE STATE CYFD SYSTEM.
MR. GARCIA HAS A DIRECT  CONNECTION TO THIS CASE OUT OF RIO ARRIBA COUNTY CERTAINLY  ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORTING, BUT WHERE DOES THIS CASE FIT  IN THE BROADER PROBLEMS THAT YOU HAVE DOCUMENTED FOR A LOT  OF YEARS NOW ABOUT CYFD?
WHERE DOES THE GARCIA THING  FIT INTO THAT OVERALL PICTURE?
>> Williams: THROUGHOUT THE  COURSE OF MY REPORTING ON CYFD AND THE ONE THING THAT WE  PRETTY REGULARLY IS KIND OF A DESPERATION ON THE PART OF THE  STATE TO FIND A BED FOR A KID, ANY BED.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE.
WE REPORTED THAT FAMILY WORKS  AND A NUMBER OF OTHER FOSTER CARE COMPANIES WERE RECEIVING  REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF THEIR LICENSING REQUIREMENTS BUT  WERE STILL GETTING RENEWED.
AND SO WE HAVE KIDS GETTING  SENT TO PLACES WHERE ABUSE IS OCCURRING, WHERE THERE ARE  PEOPLE WITH CRIMINAL HISTORIES FOSTERING CHILDREN.
WE HAVE KIDS LIVING IN HOMELESS SHELTERS AND THE  STATE CYFD OFFICE BUILDING.
>> Gene: IN THE OFFICE BUILDING?
>> Williams: OH, YES.
ABSOLUTELY.
AND THIS IS BECAUSE THERE IS  JUST NOWHERE TO PUT THESE KIDS.
AND SO WE SEE, YOU KNOW, A PATTERN OF THE STATE JUST  TRYING TO FIND A BED.
PARTLY TO AVOID THEM BEING IN  THE OFFICE BUILDING, RIGHT, BUT THEY'LL PUT A KID  SOMEWHERE AND THEN COME DO THE SAFETY CHECKS, THE BACKGROUND  CHECKS AND STUFF LATER.
SO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS JUST  ANOTHER CASE OF CHILDREN BEING PLACED IN INAPPROPRIATE PLACES  THAT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED, BUT WE HAVE NEVER HAD A  FUNCTIONING FOSTER CARE SYSTEM AND THIS IS WHAT WE SEE AS A  RESULT.
>> Gene: MERRITT, SEVERAL  DEFENDANTS, MS. SUZUKI NAMED A COUPLE, BUT IN THE LAWSUIT IT  INCLUDES THE FORMER FOSTER PARENTS, THE NONPROFIT, FAMILY  WORKS INC., ACADIA, AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES, YOUTH AND FAMILY  CENTER SERVICES OF NEW MEXICO AND DESERT HILLS.
A LOT OF PEOPLE POTENTIALLY TOUCHED UP HERE BUT THE STATE WAS NOT NAMED A DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE.
ANY SENSE OF WHY?
>> Merritt: THAT I DON'T KNOW.
THAT IS SORT OF A SURPRISE, YOU KNOW.
HOWEVER, THE STATE HAS ITS OWN ISSUES AND ITS OWN LAWSUITS.
ONE THING THAT KIND OF CONCERNS ME WITH THIS AND THE  VOLUME OF IT, WHILE I CAN'T SAY IT IS NOT JUSTIFIED,  ALTHOUGH IT IS EXTREMELY LARGE, ONE THING THAT I THINK  IS CONCERNING, WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN A HEALTHCARE CRISIS  REGARDING A PROVIDER SHORTAGE CAUSED, IN PART, BY NO CAPS ON MALPRACTICE, DRIVING INSURANCE RATES UP, DRIVING PROVIDERS  OUT OF THE STATE.
WE ARE ALREADY, AS ED POINTED  OUT, IN A CHILD WELFARE CRISIS WITH A LACK OF BEDS FOR KIDS.
THIS WILL DRIVE INSURANCE RATES UP.
AND WE HAVE ALREADY HAD A PURGE OF PROVIDERS AT THE HAND  OF CYFD AND THIS MAY  DISCOURAGE PROVIDERS FROM COMING TO THE STATE OR DRIVE  MORE PROVIDERS OUT.
>> Gene: INTERESTING.
WHAT IS YOUR PREDICTION ON THAT?
WHAT IS YOUR SENSE OF IT?
>> Merritt: I THINK IT WILL  DEFINITELY MAKE THE POOL OF AVAILABLE PROVIDERS SMALLER ON  THE PRIVATE SIDE FOR SURE.
>> Gene: THAT NEEDS ATTENTION  FOR SURE.
>> Williams: THE QUESTION OF  WHY WASN'T CYFD NAMED, THIS WAS HAPPENING AT A TIME WHEN  CYFD WAS TRYING TO SHUT DOWN, WAS REALLY EMBEDDED IN  RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT CENTERS, INCLUDING DESERT HILLS, WHICH  WAS RUNNING FAMILY WORKS.
SO, THE LICENSING DEPARTMENT  OF CYFD WAS TRYING TO BRING THIS COMPANY INTO COMPLIANCE.
AND THAT IS PART OF THE REASON THE ATTORNEYS DIDN'T THINK  THEY WERE NECESSARILY COMPLICIT IN THIS PROBLEM  BECAUSE THEY WERE ACTIVE.
THIS IS ONE OF -- THIS IS ONE  OF SEVERAL RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT PROGRAMS AND FOSTER  CARE PROGRAMS THAT HAVE BEEN SHOUT DOWN.
THERE IS A DEFICIT NOW OF BEDS.
AND THAT IS WHY WE HAVE KIDS LIVING IN HOMELESS SHELTERS,  KIDS WHO NEED MENTAL HEALTHCARE IN THE CYFD OFFICE, BECAUSE WE HAVE SHUT THESE COMPANIES DOWN.
>> Gene: EVERY TIME I DRIVE BY HOGARES ON GRIEGOS, MY STOMACH  CLENCHES, YOU KNOW, THINK ABOUT THE WORK THEY USED TO DO  YEARS AGO AND THEY ARE NOT DOING IT NOW.
IT IS A SHAME.
CAROL, QUESTION, WHAT IS  LIKELY TO HAPPEN NEXT IN THIS CASE?
IS THIS SIMPLY A MATTER OF A SERIES OF CHECKS BEING  WRITTEN, I HATE TO SAY IT THAT WAY OR WILL THERE BE A LEGAL  CHALLENGE AND A LONG ROAD AHEAD?
YOU'RE NOT IN THE ROOM AND I AM NOT ASKING YOU TO MAKE PREDICTIONS HERE, BUT YOUR SENSE OF THAT.
IF YOU WERE IN THE ROOM, WHAT DIRECTION WOULD YOU THINK THEY  WOULD BE GOING IN?
>> Suzuki: I BELIEVE THAT  THERE ARE THREE OTHER CHILDREN WHO ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN  ABUSED BY MR. GARCIA SO THERE ARE THREE UPCOMING TRIALS.
SO THE DEFENDANTS NEED TO THINK ABOUT WHAT ARE THEY  GOING TO DO.
ARE THEY GOING TO GO FORWARD  WITH THOSE TRIALS?
ARE THEY GOING TO TRY TO  SETTLE THOSE MATTERS.
AS OF THIS PARTICULAR MATTER,  THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OPTIONS.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT DEFENDANTS  ACTUALLY WILL DO BUT THEY COULD GO BACK TO THE JUDGE AND  ASK THAT THE JUDGE EITHER RECONSIDER THE MERITS OF THE  CASE OR JUST THE DAMAGES THEMSELVES, SAYING THAT THEY  WERE EXCESSIVE.
THEY COULD ALSO APPEAL TO THE  COURT OF APPEALS.
>> Gene: OH, NO KIDDING.
WHAT WOULD BE THE PROCESS THERE?
IF THEY APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEALS, WHAT WOULD BE THE  OUTCOME THEY WOULD BE LOOKING FOR?
>> Suzuki: THEY WOULD BE LOOKING FOR A REDUCTION OF  DAMAGES AND PERHAPS ALSO A REDETERMINATION ON THE MERITS  OF THE CASE.
>> Gene: THAT FAR INTO IT.
INTERESTING POINT THERE.
LET ME STAY ON THIS SIDE OF  TABLE FOR A QUICK SECOND.
SOMETHING I WANT TO ASK YOU  ABOUT THIS.
WHAT RESPONSIBILITY DOES THE  STATE HAVE OVER THESE COMPANIES THAT THEY ARE DOING  THOROUGH RESEARCH ON WHERE THEY ARE PLACING KIDS AND  SUCH?
WHO IS WATCHING OVER THESE  COMPANIES?
DOES THE STATE HAVE A SYSTEM  TO DO THAT AS WELL?
>> Williams: CYFD IS  RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING SURE THAT THE COMPANIES ARE IN  COMPLIANCE.
THE COMPANIES   ARE BASICALLY -- WE OUT SOURCE.
THIS IS TREATMENT FOSTER CARE, NOT REGULAR FOSTER CARE, SO IT  IS A HIGHER LEVEL OF CARE.
AND IT IS USUALLY RUN BY  NONPROFITS.
THIS COMPANY WITH ERNESTO  GARCIA WAS A FOR-PROFIT COMPANY.
THAT IS A LITTLE UNUSUAL.
SO, THEY ARE LICENSED BY CYFD'S LICENSING DEPARTMENT.
AND THEN THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE  FOR PLACING THE KIDS AND MAKING SURE THEY ARE IN  COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW.
WHAT WE FOUND IN OUR REPORTING  IS THAT THERE WOULD BE SERIOUS VIOLATIONS OF LICENSING  REQUIREMENTS, LIKE, FAILURE TO DO SAFETY CHECKS, CRIMINAL BACKGROUND HISTORIES, ALL OF THESE KINDS OF THINGS FOR  FOSTER PARENTS AND THE LICENSE WOULD BE RENEWED ANYWAY.
ALMOST A RUBBER STAMP PROCESS.
SO THAT I THINK GETS BACK TO  THE ISSUE OF THIS DESPERATION TO FIND A PLACE FOR THESE  KIDS.
WE JUST CUT CORNERS SO WE CAN  FIND A BED.
>> Gene: LET ME ASK A QUESTION  TO ALL OF YOU HERE.
JUST HAVE ABOUT A MINUTE EACH.
START WITH YOU ED.
WHAT IS THE DEEPER CONSEQUENCES HERE FOR THE CHILDREN IN THE MIDDLE OF  THESE CASES?
IS THERE ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY  THAT CAN MAKE UP FOR THESE KIND OF ABUSES?
>> Williams: IT IS HARD FOR ME TO PUT MYSELF IN THE POSITION  OF THESE KIDS, BUT YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER, THESE ARE CHILDREN  WHO ARE IN THE SYSTEM BECAUSE THEY WERE TRAUMATIZED AND  ABUSED.
THEY WOULDN'T BE IN THE  SITUATION IN THE FIRST PLACE, YOU KNOW, IF THEY HAD COME  FROM A SAFE BACKGROUND AND HADN'T SUFFERED TRAUMAS.
SO, THERE IS SOMETHING THAT IS DOUBLY CRUEL ABOUT HAVING A  SYSTEM THAT RE-TRAUMATIZES THEM AFTER, AS KIDS, THEY HAVE  BEEN ABUSED BY THEIR PARENTS OR GUARDIANS.
SO, YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU COULD PUT A DOLLAR AMOUNT ON THIS KIND OF THING.
>> Gene: GOOD POINTS.
AGAIN, MONEY CAN'T MAKE UP FOR EVERYTHING, BUT IT CAN HELP SOME THINGS.
WHAT IS YOUR SENSE OF THAT AS  WELL?
>> Suzuki: WHEN WE TALK ABOUT  THESE CIVIL WRONGS THE ONLY THING THE COURT CAN DO IS  PROVIDE MONEY.
THERE IS NO AMOUNT OF MONEY  THAT CAN EVER REALLY MAKE THIS CHILD WHOLE.
YOU CAN NEVER TAKE AWAY THE FACT THAT SHE WAS REPEATEDLY  ASSAULTED BY PEOPLE WHO WERE SUPPOSED TO TAKE CARE OF HER,  THAT SHE WAS PUT IN A VERY DANGEROUS POSITION.
SO, SHE CAN GET TREATMENT WITH THAT MONEY BUT IT WILL NEVER  REALLY MAKE HER WHOLE.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO COMMENT  IN TERMS OF CAPS.
SO THESE TYPES OF CASES  GENERALLY ARE TAKEN BY ATTORNEYS WHO WORK ON  CONTINGENCY, MEANING THEY PUT IN EFFORT AND MONEY AND THEY  ONLY GET PAID IF THE PLAINTIFF GETS A SETTLEMENT OR GETS AN  AWARD FROM THE COURT.
SO, WHEN THERE ARE CAPS, THAT MEANS THE JURIES ARE NOT ABLE  TO REALLY COMPENSATE THE PLAINTIFF FOR WHAT THE JURY  THINKS SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THIS PARTICULAR PLAINTIFF.
AND ALSO THE ATTORNEYS MIGHT NOT GET FULLY PAID AND WHAT  THE CONTINGENCY MONEY THEY ARE TAKING IS REALLY FROM THE  PLAINTIFF.
SO ONE OF OUR CONCERNS SHOULD  BE THAT WHEN THERE ARE CAPS ON TORT AWARDS, WHICH IS A CIVIL  WRONG, THEN ATTORNEYS MIGHT NOT TAKE THESE CASES, RIGHT.
IT WOULD BE A PROBLEM BECAUSE AN EIGHT YEAR OLD CHILD IN  THERAPEUTIC FOSTER CARE, SHE CAN'T PAY AN HOURLY RATE TO AN  ATTORNEY TO TAKE THIS CASE.
SHE NEEDS SOMEONE WILLING TO  TAKE THE RISK TO PROTECT HER AND MAKE THESE CLAIMS AGAINST  THESE DEFENDANTS.
>> Gene: I AM GLAD YOU GOT  THAT IN.
LAST WORD TO YOU MERRITT.
AGAIN, AS WE HAVE HEARD MONEY CAN'T MAKE UP FOR EVERYTHING  BUT IS THE MESSAGE STRONG ENOUGH TO GET SOME CHANGE  GOING HERE.
>> Merritt: I THINK   IT CERTAINLY GETS EVERYONE'S ATTENTION BUT AS ED SAID, AS WE WERE PREPARING TO TAPE,  CHILD WELFARE STORIES GET EVERYONE'S ATTENTION NOW.
CERTAINLY IN MOST NEW MEXICAN'S MINDS AS A CONCERN AND, YOU KNOW, THE POINT THAT HAS BEEN MADE THROUGHOUT THIS  SEGMENT, IS THERE AREN'T ENOUGH BEDS AND IT IS VERY  HARD TO GET AND RECRUIT NEW FOSTER PARENTS.
AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE A PLEA, IF IT IS SOMETHING YOU  HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT, THERE IS AN ORGANIZATION, NEW MEXICO  CHILDREN FIRST, IT IS NMCHILDFIRST.ORG AND THEY  OFFER RESOURCES AND TRAINING FOR FOSTER PARENTS BECAUSE  THAT IS ONE AREA WHERE CYFD IS LACKING IS TRAINING AND  RESOURCES AND OFTENTIMES FOSTER PARENTS DON'T REALLY  KNOW WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO NEXT.
AND NEW MEXICO CHILD FIRST OFFERS A LOT OF RESOURCES FOR  FOSTER PARENTS.
SO, IF YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT  FOSTERING, I SUGGEST YOU GO TO THAT WEBSITE AND THEY WILL  HELP YOU AND BRING YOU ALONG BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THAT IS WHAT  IS NEEDED IS MORE BEDS FOR KIDS.
>> Gene: AND HOMES, PEOPLE WILLING TO GET INTO THE GAME.
THANKS TO ED WILLIAMS FROM SEARCHLIGHT NEW MEXICO, UNM LAW PROFESSOR, CAROL SUZUKI AND MERRITT ALLEN FROM VOX  OPTIMA PUBLIC RELATIONS.
YOU CAN JOIN THE CONVERSATION,  JUST SEND A NOTE TO OUR FACEBOOK, TWITTER OR INSTAGRAM PAGES.
>> Gorman: ARIZONA USES WHAT I CONSIDER A SCALPEL LIKE A SURGEON DOES, VERY SPECIFIC  CUTS REDISTRICTING LINES UTILIZING CENSUS BLOCKS.
HOWEVER IN NEW MEXICO, WE USE THE CHAINSAW.
>> Gene: WE TURN NOW TO AN INSIDE LOOK AT THE TRIAL OF  FORMER UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO ATHLETIC DIRECTOR PAUL  KREBS.
HE IS CHARGED WITH TWO COUNTS  OF FELONY EMBEZZLEMENT STEMMING FROM ALLEGATIONS HE  USED PUBLIC MONEY TO SEND HIMSELF, HIS FAMILY AND  PERSPECTIVE DONORS TO SCOTLAND FOR A GOLF TRIP IN 2015.
NOW, AS WE RECORD THIS THURSDAY, THE PROSECUTION  RESTED.
KREBS IS ON THE WITNESS STAND  AND CLOSING ARGUMENT WILL FOLLOW.
THIS WEEK, SENIOR PRODUCER, LOU DIVIZIO, SITS DOWN WITH  DANIEL LIBIT, AN INVESTIGATIVE AND ENTERPRISE REPORTER FOR  SPORTICO AND HAS BEEN FOLLOWING THE CASE.
AND AS MR. LIBIT EXPLAINS IT IS EXTREMELY UNCOMMON FOR AN  ATHLETIC DIRECTOR TO FACE CRIMINAL CHARGES IN A  JOB-RELATED SCANDAL.
>> Lou: DANIEL LIBIT,  THANK YOU FOR JOINING ME HERE ON NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS.
>> Libit: GREAT TO BE HERE.
>> Lou: I WANTED TO START WITH  A QUICK SUMMARY OF THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE FORMER  UNM ATHLETIC DIRECTOR, PAUL KREBS.
WE KNOW THAT THIS IS ALL TIED TO A 2015 GOLF TRIP, SOMETHING  THAT WOULDN'T BE UNCOMMON FOR A UNIVERSITY ATHLETICS  DEPARTMENT OR A BUNCH OF BOOSTERS, BUT CAN YOU WALK US  THROUGH HOW PROSECUTORS SAY THAT KREBS BROKE THE LAW IN  THIS SCENARIO.
>> Libit: YEAH.
IT IS A BIT ESOTERIC, BUT I WILL GIVE IT A SHOT HERE.
SO, THE ALLEGATIONS STEM FROM THE FACT THAT PAUL KREBS  CONTRACTED WITH THE UNIVERSITY'S TRAVEL AGENCY, ANTHONY TRAVEL, FOR A TRIP, PUT THE UNIVERSITY THEN ON THE  HOOK FOR A 250,000 BOOSTER TRIP WITH THE IDEA THIS MONEY  WAS GOING TO BE LARGELY RECOUPED BY HAVING A BUNCH OF  BOOSTERS THEN PAY FOR THEIR FREIGHT TO GO TO SCOTLAND.
WHEN HE WAS UNABLE TO DO THIS, THE ALLEGATION IS THAT HE THEN  USED MONEY IN THE ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT THAT WAS SORT OF  SET ASIDE AS RAINY DAY FUND.
UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO BEING  A PUBLIC INSTITUTION, THE ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT MONEY  THEREFORE BEING PUBLIC MONIES AND THEN USED THAT MONEY AND  MOVED IT OVER TO THE LOBO CLUB, THE OUTSIDE NONPROFIT  FUNDRAISING ARM FOR THE UNIVERSITY, TO SORT OF COVER  THIS GAP IN THE EXPENDITURES FOR THIS TRIP.
THERE WASN'T ENOUGH MONEY RAISED -- I AM SORRY -- IT  WASN'T A MATTER OF ENOUGH MONEY RAISED.
THERE WASN'T ENOUGH PEOPLE WHO HE COULD GET TO GO ON THIS  TRIP AND SO HE USED PUBLIC MONEY TO COVER THE SHORTFALL.
AND THAT IS WHERE ALL OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ORIGINATE BUT  THEN, OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, THEY EXPANDED AND THEN HAVE  SINCE BEEN SCALED DOWN TO INCLUDE THINGS ABOUT HOW HE  BEHAVED IN THE WAKE OF THIS DISCOVERY, WHEN IT WAS  REPORTED TWO YEARS AFTER THE FACT BY KRQE THAT PUBLIC MONEY  HAD BEEN USED TO COVER SOME OF THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS  TRIP.
AND NOW PROSECUTORS HAVE SORT  -- THE JUDGE AND THE PROSECUTORS HAVE DROPPED  SEVERAL OF THE CHARGES, SO THE COUNTS NOW ARE JUST ABOUT THE  MONEY AND THE ALLEGED MISUSE OF PUBLIC MONIES TOWARDS THIS  TRIP.
>> Lou: IN A STORY THAT YOU  WROTE JUST LAST WEEK FOR SPORTICO, YOU POINTED OUT HOW  RARE IT IS FOR UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC DIRECTORS TO FACE  CRIMINAL CHARGES IN A SCANDAL LIKE THIS OR REALLY AT ALL.
WAS THERE SOMETHING DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS CASE THAT BROUGHT  IT TO THAT LEVEL?
>> Libit: IT IS A GREAT  QUESTION.
IT IS HARD TO SAY.
I MEAN, NOT ON THE MERITS, PROBABLY.
I COULD POINT TO 100 ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT SCANDALS ACROSS THE  COUNTRY IN JUST THE LAST DECADE THAT WOULD SEEM TO  REQUIRE GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY AND MAYBE EVEN CRIMINAL  INVESTIGATIONS THAT NEVER WENT THERE.
WE THINK ABOUT FORMER LOBO COACH DAVE BLISS AND THE SAGA OF HIM AND BAYLOR WITH PATRICK DENNEHY, THE FORMER LOBO  PLAYER WHO WAS KILLED.
AS FAR AS I KNOW, I MEAN,  BLISS WAS NEVER CRIMINALLY CHARGED.
I DON'T BELIEVE HE WAS EVER REALLY CRIMINALLY  INVESTIGATED.
SO, WE ARE REALLY LOOKING --  THE ONLY OTHER EXAMPLE IS THE SANDUSKY SEX ABUSE SCANDAL AT  PENN STATE WHERE THE ATHLETIC DIRECTOR PRESIDING OVER THE  DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME WAS BROUGHT UP ON CRIMINAL  CHARGES.
HIM AND KREBS, IN TERMS OF  DIVISION ONE MAJOR COLLEGE SPORTS LANDSCAPE, ARE IN RARE  COMPANY OVER THE LAST THREE OR FOUR DECADES OF ATHLETIC  DIRECTORS WHO ARE CRIMINALLY PROSECUTED FOR MATTERS RELATED  TO THEIR WORK.
SO, VERY RARE.
WHY THIS HAPPENED AT NEW MEXICO PROBABLY HAS AS MUCH TO  DO WITH THE CLIMATE AT THE TIME AS IT HAD WITH THE  CHARGES THEMSELVES.
IF WE RECALL, WE ARE TALKING  2015, '16, '17.
THE ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT WAS  NOT IN GOOD SHAPE.
THERE WAS THE FAILED WISE PIES  NAMING RIGHTS DEAL OF THE BASKETBALL ARENA, QUESTIONS  ABOUT THE PIT SUITES AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAD BEEN  PROPERLY ACCOUNTED OR PAID FOR.
THERE WAS THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF A LOW LEVEL  MEN'S BASKETBALL STAFFER NAMED CODY HOPKINS ON EMBEZZLEMENT  CHARGES.
THAT CASE IS STILL PENDING.
AND SO THERE WAS THIS AURA OF SCANDAL AND MEDIA SCRUTINY  OVER THE ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT.
AND FIRST THE STATE AUDITOR  GOT INVOLVED AND SCRUTINIZED THE FINANCES AND THEN THE  ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE GOT INVOLVED.
AND, YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT PAUL KREBS ULTIMATELY DESERVES  TO BE CONVICTED, A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT HE HAD DONE IN THE  WAKE OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS SEEM SUSPICIOUS.
HE WAS PRONE TOWARDS HIDING THINGS AND TRYING TO COVER  THINGS.
HE CREATED A FICTITIOUS STORY  ABOUT HOW HE REIMBURSED THE UNIVERSITY FOR THE MONEY, FOR  SOME $25,000 THAT IS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MISSPENT.
HE DELETED EMAILS SO REPORTERS COULDN'T GAIN ACCESS THROUGH  PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS.
HE MIGHT HAVE BROUGHT -- HE  MIGHT HAVE ULTIMATELY BROUGHT THIS PROSECUTION ON HIMSELF BY  SOME OF HIS BEHAVIOR IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE DISCOVERY.
>> Lou: YOU HAVE BEEN A LEADING VOICE FOR COVERING  COLLEGE ATHLETICS AS A BUSINESS FOR A LONG TIME GOING  BACK TO YOUR DAYS WITH NMFISHBOWL.COM.
DO YOU THINK THERE WOULD BE MORE PUBLIC SCRUTINY OF ATHLETIC DIRECTORS LIKE THERE  IS IN THIS KREBS CASE IF MORE SPORTS JOURNALISTS TOOK THAT  APPROACH?
>> Libit: THIS IS SORT OF MY  ROSEBUD.
I WAS COVERING POLITICS BEFORE  I STARTED BLOGGING ABOUT THE LOBOS IN 2016 AND MY WHOLE  ETHOS OF IT WAS LET ME KIND OF CONFRONT THIS ATHLETIC  DEPARTMENT WITH A UNIQUE KIND OF MEDIA SCRUTINY AND REALLY  INVESTIGATE IT AND SEE HOW NOT ONLY WHAT I FIND BUT HOW THE  ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT RESPONDED.
AND KREBS WAS A SUBJECT THAT I  WROTE ABOUT QUITE FREQUENTLY.
HE WAS, OF COURSE, THE PERSON  IN CHARGE OF THE DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME.
AND THE REACTION WAS TELLING.
NOT JUST BY HIM, BUT BY OTHERS  AT UNM.
BY OTHERS IN THE STATE, OTHER  ELECTED OFFICIALS, IN TERMS OF HOW THEY RESPONDED TO, IN MANY  CASES, THIS SOURCE OF GREAT PRIDE, SEEING IT SCRUTINIZED,  SEEING IT GETTING RELENTLESS MEDIA ATTENTION AND NOT OF THE  KIND THAT COVERS THE GAMES, BUT THE KIND THAT COVERS THE  OFF-FIELD EVENTS.
MY REPORTING DID NOT INSTIGATE  THIS INVESTIGATION.
THAT WAS CREDIT GOES TO LARRY  BARKER OF KRQE, BUT CLEARLY THERE WAS A WAY OF REACTING TO  MEDIA SCRUTINY THAT WAS PROBLEMATIC AND TROUBLING AND  IS A CASE STUDY, REALLY, FOR HOW TRANSPARENCY PAYS.
AND ONE COULD EVEN DIAL BACK FOR PAUL KREBS AND, YOU KNOW,  RECREATE THE SCENARIO.
HAD HE JUST ISSUED A PUBLIC  MEA CULPA AND SAID, I AM GOING TO PAY 25,000 OUT OF MY OWN  POCKET TO REIMBURSE THIS MONEY BECAUSE THIS WAS MY MISTAKE.
WHETHER OR NOT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED, AND WHETHER OR NOT HE WOULD HAVE EVEN HAD TO RETIRE IN THE MANNER THAT  HE HAD DONE.
>> Lou: THE WITNESS LIST IN  THIS SPECIFIC CASE INCLUDES SOME HOUSEHOLD NAMES AROUND  HERE, ANYWAY.
INCLUDING FORMER UNM  PRESIDENT, A UNIVERSITY CFO AND OTHERS.
NOW, WE ARE RECORDING THIS WEDNESDAY.
THE TRIAL IS EXPECTED TO WRAP UP MAYBE FRIDAY.
SO, SOME OF THOSE FOLKS HAVE ALREADY TESTIFIED.
AND SOME WILL TESTIFY STILL IN OPEN COURT.
THEIR FORMER COLLEAGUE'S FREEDOM IS REALLY AT STAKE.
WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN FOR THE COMMUNITY AND WHAT DOES IT  SAY ABOUT THE BUSINESS OF COLLEGE SPORTS THAT YOU TALK  ABOUT IN GENERAL.
>> Libit: TO ME, THAT IS THE  ISSUE, THAT IS THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM THAT NO ONE WANTS TO  ADDRESS.
WITH ALL THESE ISSUES GOING ON  WITH THE FINANCES IN THE ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT, PEOPLE  WERE LOOKING FOR A SCAPEGOAT.
PEOPLE WERE LOOKING FOR AN  INDIVIDUAL WHO HAD SORT OF RUINED THIS PERFECTLY RUNNING  OPERATION, AND, OF COURSE, THE OPERATION HAD STRUGGLED.
IT HAD LABORED IN THIS SORT OF NO MAN'S LAND OF COLLEGE  ATHLETICS.
IT IS A MID-MAJOR PROGRAM THAT  IS STRIVING FINANCIALLY TO COMPETE IN AN ARENA THAT IT  JUST CANNOT COMPETE IN.
AND IN MANY WAYS, YOU KNOW,  WHAT WE HAVE SEEN WITH THE SCOTLAND TRIP AND THE  AFTERMATH, IS A SORT OF MICROCOSM OR MANIFESTATION OF  THAT.
THIS IS REALLY, YOU KNOW, IN  TOTALITY, MUCH LESS ABOUT HOW PAUL KREBS, AS AN  ADMINISTRATOR, BEHAVED.
THE LARGER STORY IS ABOUT  COLLEGE SPORTS AND COLLEGE SPORTS OF NEW MEXICO AND THE  RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COLLEGE SPORTS AND HIGHER ED.
I THINK THE FIRST COUPLE OF DAYS OF TESTIMONY, ONE ALMOST GOT THE SENSE WHEN FORMER BOOSTERS OR CURRENT BOOSTERS  TOOK THE STAND TO DEFEND THE VALIDITY OF THE TRIP, ALMOST  TO EXTOL THE TRIP AS A REASON WHY THEY HAD COMMITTED, IN  SOME CASES, MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TOWARDS THE ATHLETIC  DEPARTMENT.
YOU KNOW, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT,  AT LEAST ON THE STAND, THIS TRIP IS GOING TO BE  REHABILITATED IN THE PUBLIC IMAGE TO SAY NOTHING OF WHETHER OR NOT KREBS IS GOING TO BE FOUND NOT GUILTY.
BUT THE LARGER STORY IS STILL THERE, WHICH IS HOW  INSTITUTIONS RESPOND TO PUBLIC SCRUTINY AND HOW THEY  RECONCILE THIS VERY DIFFICULT CONUNDRUM OF HAVING A COLLEGE  ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT, ESPECIALLY AT AN INSTITUTION  THAT IS, YOU KNOW, NOT IN THE UPPER ECHELONS OF COLLEGE  SPORTS.
>> Lou: TALKING ABOUT HOW  INSTITUTIONS DEAL WITH THOSE PROBLEMS AND SCRUTINY, IN YOUR  STORY YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT REALLY YOU SEE AS A CULTURE OF  SECRECY INSIDE MANY UNIVERSITIES AND ATHLETIC  DEPARTMENTS.
WE HAVE SEEN THE CONSEQUENCES  OF THAT.
YOU BROUGHT UP SANDUSKY, THE  PENN STATE, NASSAR AT MICHIGAN STATE.
BUT, WHAT MECHANISMS HAVE UNIVERSITIES AND ATHLETIC  DEPARTMENTS, IN PARTICULAR, USED TO HIDE INFORMATION AND  WHY FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE DO THOSE JUSTIFICATIONS BREAK  DOWN?
>> Libit: ONE OF THE THINGS  THAT THEY USE ARE OUTSIDE ENTITIES.
SO, YOU KNOW, THE STORY IS NOT JUST ABOUT THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO.
IT IS ABOUT UNM FOUNDATION,  AND THE LOBO CLUB, THESE TWO OUTSIDE ENTITIES THAT REALLY  ARE THERE ONLY TO SERVE THE UNIVERSITY.
I HAVE -- I AM INVOLVED IN THE STORY MYSELF.
I HAVE FILED LAWSUITS, PUBLIC RECORDS LAWSUITS AGAINST UNM  FOUNDATION AND THE LOBO CLUB FOR RECORDS THAT ARE DIRECTLY  RELATED TO THE SCOTLAND SCANDAL AND THE KREBS  PROSECUTION.
ONE OF THOSE CASES, THE UNM FOUNDATION LAWSUIT, IS CURRENTLY BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.
ORAL ARGUMENTS ARE SCHEDULED, I BELIEVE, FOR SEPTEMBER 11.
SO, YOU KNOW, WHAT I RECOGNIZED EARLY ON IN REPORTING ON THE LOBOS AND AS I HAVE NOTICED IN VIRTUALLY  EVERY OTHER INSTITUTION OF ITS KIND IS THIS USE OF THESE  OUTSIDE ENTITIES TO NOT ONLY RAISE MONEY FOR THE  INSTITUTIONS BUT KEEP, AND THEREFORE KEEP SECRET, MANY OF  THE RECORDS, MANY OF THE RECORDS THAT PERTAIN TO THE  PUBLIC BUSINESS OF A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY.
AND, AGAIN, NOT JUST AS A ASSET AND AS A NEED FOR THE  PUBLIC TO BE ABLE TO SCRUTINIZE THE FINANCES OF ITS  TAXPAYER INSTITUTIONS BUT FOR THE INSTITUTIONS THEMSELVES TO  OPERATE AT THE HIGHEST CALIBER.
YOU KNOW, TRANSPARENCY DOES PAY, EVEN THOUGH IN THE SHORT  TERM, IT MIGHT SEEM TO THE INDIVIDUALS RUNNING THESE  INSTITUTIONS, MAYBE IT IS BETTER IF WE KEEP CERTAIN  THINGS SECRET.
>> Lou: WHEN IT COMES TO THIS  SPECIFIC CASE, SHOULD PEOPLE EXPECT IT TO BE A PRECEDENT  WHEN IT ALL ENDS?
DO YOU THINK SEEING CRIMINAL  CHARGES FOR THE FIRST TIME WILL GIVE UNIVERSITIES LIKE  UNM MORE PAUSE WHEN USING THAT KEEP-IT-IN-HOUSE MENTALITY.
>> Libit: POSSIBLY.
IT WOULD BE A NICE THOUGHT.
IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THE REFLEX.
THERE HAS BEEN PLENTY OF OTHER INSTANCES WHERE UNIVERSITIES  SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AND IT IS NOT JUST UNIVERSITIES.
IT IS JUST OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS AND OUR PUBLIC  SERVANTS SHOULD RECOGNIZE A VALUE AND A ETHIC FOR  TRANSPARENCY AND IGNORE IT.
AGAIN, ALL OF THESE THINGS,  THEORETICALLY, SOUND GOOD AND THEN THERE IS AN INDIVIDUAL IN  THE SEAT OF SCRUTINY AND THEY HAVE THE DECISION WHETHER OR  NOT TO BE THE ONES TO POTENTIALLY MAKE THEIR OWN  JOBS MORE DIFFICULT AND GIVE THEMSELVES HEADACHES AND  TRADITIONALLY IT SEEMS THAT THEY OFTEN DECIDE, NOT I.
SO, WE JUST REPEAT THE CYCLE OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
I THINK CERTAINLY UNM IS PROBABLY REVERBERATING,  REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE VERDICT IS, BUT, DIFFERENT  CIRCUMSTANCES WILL COME ALONG AND DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS WILL  HAVE THEIR OWN RATIONALE FOR WHY, YOU KNOW, THEY SHOULDN'T  BE THE ONES TO STEP FORWARD AND BE OPEN AND TRANSPARENT.
>> Gene: A RECENT RULING FROM THE NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT  COULD FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE POLITICAL REDISTRICTING IN THE  STATE.
THE JUSTICES WEIGHED IN ON A  LAWSUIT BROUGHT BY THE STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND OTHERS  CHALLENGING THE NEW CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS DRAWN  BY THE DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED STATE LEGISLATURE.
THEIR ORDER SENDS THE CASE BACK TO DISTRICT COURT IN  CLOVIS BUT THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION COULD IMPACT ANOTHER  CASE, TOO, A LAWSUIT BROUGHT BY NAVAJO NATION AGAINST SAN  JUAN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
THE TRIBE ACCUSES  COMMISSIONERS OF PACKING NATIVE AMERICAN VOTERS INTO A  SINGLE DISTRICT, LIMITING THEIR VOTING POWER IN A COUNTY  WHERE NATIVE AMERICANS MAKE UP 40% OF THE POPULATION.
NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, GWYNETH DOLAND,  CAUGHT UP WITH TWO PEOPLE FAMILIAR WITH THESE CASES,  HANNAH BURLING FROM FAIR DISTRICTS NEW MEXICO AND  LEONARD GORMAN OF THE NAVAJO NATION HUMAN RIGHTS  COMMISSION.
AS THEY EXPLAIN, EACH OF THESE  LAWSUITS COULD MAKE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IN FUTURE  ELECTIONS.
>> Gwyneth: MY GUESTS TODAY  ARE LEONARD GORMAN WITH THE NAVAJO NATION HUMAN RIGHTS  COMMISSION AND HANNAH BURLING WHO HEADS UP FAIR DISTRICTS  NEW MEXICO.
HANNAH, I WANT TO ASK YOU  THIS.
POLITICAL JUNKIES, PARTISANS,  THEY JUST WANT TO KNOW ONE THING ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING  IN THIS GAME CALLED REDISTRICTING.
IS THIS A DECISIVE WIN FOR REPUBLICANS IN NEW MEXICO?
OR NO?
>> Burling: NO.
BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE OPINION YET.
WE HAVE THE ORDER BUT AS FAR AS I KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE THE  WRITTEN OPINION.
SO, IT IS NOT A DECISIVE  VICTORY.
IT IS GOING BACK TO THE  DISTRICT JUDGE.
>> Gwyneth: BUT THIS  ACCEPTANCE OF THE CASE, THIS DETERMINATION THAT THE SUPREME  COURT MADE TO SEND IT BACK TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH SOME  ADVICE, DOES THAT MEAN, I MEAN, IS THAT AN ENDORSEMENT  THAT THE REPUBLICANS CLAIM THE  DEMOCRATS UNFAIRLY POLITICALLY GERRYMANDERED THE STATES THREE  CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS?
DOES THIS DECISION SAY THERE  IS MERIT TO THAT?
>> Burling: THIS DECISION SAYS  THAT THAT DECISION CAN BE EXAMINED.
THAT THAT CLAIM CAN BE EXAMINED AND THE FASCINATING  THING TO US IS THAT THEY ARE ASKING THE DISTRICT JUDGE TO  USE JUSTICE KAGAN'S THREE CRITERIA IN HER WRITTEN  DISSENT IN 2019 IN RUCHO.
>> Gwyneth: AND WHAT ARE THOSE  THREE POINTS?
>> Burling: WELL, THE THREE  POINTS ARE, FIRST, WAS THIS DELIBERATE PARTISAN  GERRYMANDERING?
SECOND, DID IT SUCCEED?
THIRD, WAS THERE ANY OTHER REASON FOR DRAWING THE LINES IN THAT WAY?
>> Gwyneth: LEONARD GORMAN,  YOU HAVE PARTICIPATED IN REDISTRICTING IN ALL OF THE  STATES THAT THE NAVAJO NATION OCCUPIES.
YOU HAVE BEEN THROUGH SEVERAL CYCLES, YOU HAVE SEEN A LOT OF  THIS.
IS THERE A LOT OF PARTISAN  GERRYMANDERING GOING ON IN REDISTRICTING IN THE FOUR  CORNERS AREA IN THIS PAST CYCLE?
DID YOU SEE THAT?
>> Gorman: YES.
THERE IS A LOT OF POLITICAL GAMESMANSHIP IN REDISTRICTING.
IT IS A PART OF THE WHEELS THAT TURN WHEN WE TALK ABOUT  REDISTRICTING.
THERE IS PARTISANSHIP IN ALL  DIFFERENT ANGLES.
THE REPUBLICAN, THE DEMOCRATS,  INDEPENDENTS.
AND ON THE ARIZONA SIDE, THE  INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION IS MADE UP OF THE  THREE MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES, REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS AND  INDEPENDENT.
AND ON THE NEW MEXICO SIDE,  SAME SITUATION.
IN UTAH, SAME CIRCUMSTANCE,  THAT AFFECTS THE REDRAWING OF MAPS, EVEN TO THE LOCAL LEVEL.
SO, THAT IS A PART OF THE DYNAMICS OF THE REDISTRICTING.
>> Gwyneth: AS THE STATE REDISTRICTS FOR CONGRESSIONAL  SEATS AND FOR LEGISLATIVE SEATS, THERE IS ALSO  REDISTRICTING, AND SOMETIMES WE FORGET ABOUT THIS, IN  CITIES AND COUNTIES AND OTHER BODIES, RIGHT?
SO, WHAT DOES YOUR LAWSUIT SAY THAT THE SAN JUAN COUNTY  COMMISSION DID WRONG?
>> Gorman: I THINK AT THE  HEIGHT OF THE 1965 VOTING RIGHTS ACT, I RECALL, FOR  EXAMPLE, IN 2011, IT WAS A VERY IMPORTANT AND  INSTRUMENTAL BASIS OF REDISTRICTING.
AND ONE OF THEM WAS THE SECTION 5 PRECLEARANCE.
I RECALL SPECIFICALLY WHEN NAVAJO NATION PARTICIPATED IN THESE DISCUSSIONS ON REDISTRICTING IN ALL THE THREE  STATES AND AT THE COUNTY LEVEL.
PEOPLE THAT DREW LINES, APPROVED THOSE LINES, HAD THE  RESPONSIBILITY TO LISTEN TO THE NAVAJO NATION AT THAT  TIME.
>> Gwyneth: LET ME JUST  INTERRUPT YOU TO RECAP.
BECAUSE PRECLEARANCE MEANT  THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE  HAD REVIEW POWER OVER THOSE PLANS BEFORE THEY WERE PUT  INTO PLACE, RIGHT?
>> Gorman: YES, BEFORE ANY  ELECTION LAW OR LAWS THAT RELATE TO VOTING BECAME  IMPLEMENTED IN THOSE AREAS, IN THOSE JURISDICTIONS.
BUT, OF COURSE, SINCE THAT TIME, THERE HAS BEEN A  DOWNWARD SPIRAL ON THE CHIPPING AWAY AT THE 1965 LAW.
IN JUNE OF 2013, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT BROUGHT DOWN THE PRECLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS SAYING THAT IT IS OUTDATED.
I THINK THAT WAS THE FEAR AND THE ANTICIPATION OF THE MOST RECENT DECISION IN THE MILLIGAN CASE THAT THE CURRENT  SITTING U.S. SUPREME COURT WOULD FURTHER VALUE THE  STRENGTH OF THE U.S. VOTING RIGHTS ACT.
>> Gwyneth: SO, IN THIS CASE WITH SAN JUAN COUNTY, YOU'RE  SAYING THAT THE COMMISSIONERS UNFAIRLY PACKED NAVAJO VOTERS  INTO A DISTRICT THAT WOULD REDUCE THEIR ABILITY TO ELECT  MORE COMMISSIONERS.
ARE THE SEATS ON THAT  COMMISSION NOW APPORTIONED FAIRLY?
HAVE THEY BEEN IN THE PAST OR HAVE NAVAJO VOTERS IN THAT  AREA NOT BEEN REPRESENTED FAIRLY ON THE COMMISSION,  IN YOUR OPINION?
>> Gorman: THE MILLIGAN CASE  IS A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE NAVAJO NATION IS  LITIGATING IN NEW MEXICO SAN JUAN COUNTY.
IT IS CLEARLY AN ACCURATE REFLECTION OF WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE COUNTY, AND, AS YOU CAN TELL FROM THE WAY THE CASE EVOLVED, ALL THE WAY UP TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, AND THAT  IS WHERE, IN THOSE AREAS, THE MINORITIES SOUGHT THE SECOND  DISTRICT THAT THEY BELIEVE COULD BE DESIGNED TO ELECT  ANOTHER CANDIDATE OF THEIR CHOICE.
SIMILARLY HERE, THE LITIGATION THAT THE NAVAJO NATION  BELIEVES THAT THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE SECOND  DISTRICT TO WHERE THAT NAVAJOS CAN ELECT A CANDIDATE OF THEIR  CHOICE.
>> Gwyneth:   HANNAH, I WANT TO COME BACK TO YOU.
AND THE CASE THAT THE SUPREME COURT SENT BACK TO A JUDGE IN  THE CONSERVATIVE SOUTHEASTERN PART OF THE STATE, YOU THINK  THIS DECISION FROM THE NEW MEXICO STATE SUPREME COURT IS  THE LEAST PARTISAN DECISION?
>> Burling: I DO BELIEVE THAT  AND I BELIEVE THAT IT IS BECAUSE, FIRST OF ALL, THE  REPUBLICANS HAVE NOT WON A VICTORY.
I AM NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO THE MERITS OF THAT CASE.
I DON'T BELIEVE I AM QUALIFIED.
BUT, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE THEIR COMPLAINTS EXAMINED AND THEY ARE GOING TO BE EXAMINED UNDER JUSTICE KAGAN'S  CRITERIA.
>> Gwyneth: SO YOU THINK THAT  THIS IS THE BEST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN FOR VOTERS IN NEW  MEXICO OF ALL PARTIES?
>> Burling: YES, I DO.
I DO BELIEVE THAT.
I BELIEVE THAT VOTERS IN ALL  PARTIES FREQUENTLY FEEL THAT THEIR VOICE IS NOT HEARD,  THEIR VOTES DON'T COUNT AND THAT IT IS DELIBERATE ON THE  PART OF THOSE WHO HAVE OTHER BELIEFS.
WE ARE A VERY DIVIDED NATION AT THIS POINT.
>> Gwyneth: SO THE PROCESS OF THIS DISTRICT JUDGE GOING  THROUGH AND EXAMINING WHAT THE NEW MEXICO STATE LEGISLATURE  DID IN DRAWING UP AND APPROVING THOSE DISTRICTS,  THAT PROCESS WILL BRING TO LIGHT, YOU KNOW -- DO YOU  THINK IT WILL IMPACT VOTERS' PERCEPTION OF THE INTEGRITY OF  THE SYSTEM AND THE FAIRNESS OF THE PROCESS?
>> Burling: I HOPE THAT IT WILL.
I SEE THIS AS OFFERING A REAL CHANCE FOR VOTERS TO  UNDERSTAND THAT AND I AM HOPING THAT VOTERS WILL BE  GIVEN ENOUGH CLARITY ON THE SUBJECT TO GET THAT.
THE MAPS THAT THE CITIZENS REDISTRICTING COMMITTEE DREW  WERE VERY GOOD MAPS BUT THEY COULD -- THEY COULD AND THEY WERE CHANGED BY THE LEGISLATURE.
AND WE THINK THERE IS AN INHERENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST  WHEN ELECTED OFFICIALS CAN DRAW THEIR OWN DISTRICTS.
THE OTHER PROBLEM WAS THAT THE CRC, WHILE THEY WORKED VERY,  VERY HARD, THEY WENT ALL OVER THE STATE, THEY TOOK A TON OF  PUBLIC INPUT.
THERE WERE SEVEN MEMBERS.
THERE WAS NO ONE FROM ANY OF THE SOVEREIGN NATIONS IN NEW MEXICO.
THERE WAS ONLY ONE WOMAN AND EVERYONE CAME FROM CENTRAL NEW  MEXICO.
>> Gwyneth: LEONARD, YOU HAVE  OBSERVED THE WORK OF THE ARIZONA INDEPENDENT  REDISTRICTING BODY.
DOES THIS FUNCTION PRETTY WELL  IN YOUR OPINION?
IT IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT  MODEL BUT ITS INDEPENDENCE IS SOMETHING THAT HANNAH'S GROUP  HAS BEEN PUSHING FOR.
HOW DO YOU THINK IT WORKS IN  ARIZONA?
>> Gorman: IT DEPENDS ON  EXACTLY WHAT INDEPENDENCE YOU'RE SEEKING.
I THINK THAT THE PEOPLE IN ARIZONA BACK IN THE YEAR 2000  INITIATED A PROPOSITION IN WHICH THE REDISTRICTING WOULD BE TAKEN AWAY FROM THE LEGISLATURE.
AND THAT THERE WOULD BE AN INDEPENDENT COMMISSION ESTABLISHED TO DRAW THOSE LINES AND HAVE THE FULL  AUTHORITY TO APPROVE THOSE REDISTRICTING PLANS.
NOW, THERE IS NO INDEPENDENCE FROM THE POLITICAL GERRYMANDERING ASPECTS, EVEN IN THIS INDEPENDENT  REDISTRICTING COMMISSION.
BUT THERE IS SOME VAST  DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO.
I ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT NEW MEXICO IS ANTIQUATED.
IT IS BEHIND TIMES.
NEW MEXICO USES THIS HUGE COLLECTION OF POPULATION WITH REFERENCE TO PRECINCT  BOUNDARIES.
PRECINCT BOUNDARIES ARE FOR  VOTING PURPOSES.
IT IS NOT FOR POPULATION AND  REDISTRICTING.
>> Gwyneth: RIGHT.
WHAT YOU'RE POINTING TO HERE IS SOMETHING THAT VOTERS IN  ALBUQUERQUE PROBABLY DON'T REALLY NOTICE BUT WHEN YOU GET  OUT TO THE NAVAJO NATION AND YOU REALIZE THESE LINES FEEL  MUCH MORE ARBITRARY, RIGHT?
>> Gorman: CORRECT.
AND THE NAVAJO NATION DOES THINGS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE  COUNTIES DO.
SO, WHEN YOU DRAW COUNTY  PRECINCT BOUNDARIES ON THE NAVAJO NATION, THERE IS AN  ELEMENT OF DISENFRANCHISING NAVAJO VOTERS, BECAUSE YOU  SPECIFICALLY INTENTIONALLY DO NOT DRAW PRECINCT BOUNDARIES  ALONG NAVAJO POLITICAL BOUNDARIES.
BUT THE LEGISLATURE WAS HELPFUL IN THE LAST SESSION BY  PASSING HOUSE BILL 4 IN WHICH NOW IT IS REQUIRED THAT THE  COUNTIES RESPECT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE NAVAJO CHAPTER BOUNDARIES.
BUT BACK TO THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ARIZONA AND NEW  MEXICO, ARIZONA USES WHAT I CONSIDER A SCALPEL, LIKE A  SURGEON DOES.
VERY SPECIFICALLY CUT  REDISTRICTING LINES, UTILIZING THE CENSUS BLOCKS.
HOWEVER, IN NEW MEXICO, WE USE THE CHAINSAW.
WE PICK UP SUMS OF POPULATIONS, USING PRECINCT BOUNDARIES.
THAT IS REALLY UNFAIR TO THE  VOTERS IN THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO.
>> Gwyneth: THAT IS A GREAT ANALOGY.
I REALLY LOVE THE WAY YOU JUST PUT THAT.
SO, USING A SCALPEL TO CARVE OUT THESE CENSUS BLOCKS THE WAY THAT THE U.S. CENSUS PUTS PEOPLE IN LITTLE AREAS IS  QUITE PRECISE AND YOU ARE ABLE TO GROUP PEOPLE TOGETHER IN  COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST EASIER THAN IF YOU USE THESE PRECINCT  BOUNDARIES WHICH MIGHT BE REALLY LARGE AND LUMP PEOPLE  IN WAYS THAT THEY DON'T FEEL KIN TO PEOPLE IN THE SAME  LUMP.
WE CHAINSAW YOU WERE SAYING.
I LOVER THAT.
>> Gorman: AND BASICALLY, WHO  REALLY DOES SET THE TONE FOR REDISTRICTING IS THE COUNTY  CLERKS.
THEY SET THE TONE FOR REDISTRICTING EVERY DECENNIAL PERIOD.
>> Gwyneth: THAT MAKES THOSE ELECTIONS IMPORTANT TOO.
LET ME ASK YOU, TO KIND OF  WRAP THIS UP, HANNAH, WHAT IS NEXT?
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO SEE NEXT IN THIS LAWSUIT THAT THE  REPUBLICANS HAVE BROUGHT SAYING THE DEMOCRATS UNFAIRLY  POLITICALLY GERRYMANDERED THE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT LINES?
WHAT SHOULD WE SEE NEXT?
>> Burling: WHAT WE WILL BE  SEEING NEXT IS THE WRITTEN OPINION.
AND THEN WE'LL BE SEEING HOW THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE APPLIES THAT.
>> Gwyneth: OKAY.
SO, HE IS GOING TO HAVE SOME RULES SET BY THE STATE SUPREME  COURT FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THIS IS UNFAIR OR NOT?
>> Burling: RIGHT.
>> Gwyneth: OKAY.
AND THAT WILL COME IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS?
LEONARD GORMAN, WHAT IS NEXT IN THE NAVAJO NATION'S LAWSUIT  AGAINST SAN JUAN COUNTY COMMISSION SAYING THEY  UNFAIRLY DISENFRANCHISED NAVAJO VOTERS IN THAT COUNTY?
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
>> Gorman: ONE OF THE MOST  IMPORTANT PARTS IN ANY FORM OF PROTESTING VOTING RIGHTS IS  PUBLIC EDUCATION.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC HOW THEY ARE AFFECTED BY THESE DECISIONS THAT ARE MADE, NOT ONLY AT THE STATE  LEVEL BUT ALSO AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, SUCH AS THE COUNTIES.
SUCH AS THE SCHOOL BOARDS.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO ENSURE THAT  ALL VOTERS, NAVAJO VOTERS, IN PARTICULAR, IN THE NORTHWEST  QUADRANT OF THE STATE, WHERE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE HAVE A FULL  OPPORTUNITY TO CAST A BALLOT.
>> Gene: THANK YOU TO HANNAH  BURLING FROM FAIR DISTRICTS NEW MEXICO AND LEONARD GORMAN  FROM THE NAVAJO NATION HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION.
YOU CAN WATCH GWYNETH'S ENTIRE INTERVIEW RIGHT NOW ON THE NEW  MEXICO IN FOCUS YOUTUBE PAGE.
NOW, EARLIER THIS MONTH, THE  BIDEN ADMINISTRATION PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED ITS DECISION TO SEND  CLUSTER BOMBS TO UKRAINE.
20 COUNTRIES HAVE BANNED THESE  TYPES OF WEAPONS SO NEITHER U.S., RUSSIAN OR UKRAINE HAVE  RATIFIED THAT CONVENTION.
FOR TWO DECADES NEW MEXICO  JOURNALIST KAREN COATES AND JERRY REDFERN HAVE DOCUMENTED  LONG-TERM HUMAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF  VIETNAM ERA CLUSTER BOMB CAMPAIGNS IN CAMBODIA AND LAOS  INCLUDING IN THEIR FILM, ETERNAL HARVEST.
GET THIS, THE U.S. MILITARY DROPPED FOUR BILLION POUNDS OF EXPLOSIVES IN SOUTHEAST ASIA BETWEEN 1964 AND 1973.
ABOUT 30 PERCENT OF THOSE BOMBS DIDN'T DETONATE AND THEY  STILL REMAIN A THREAT TO PEOPLE TODAY.
THE FILMMAKERS JOINED LAURA PASKUS IN OUR ALBUQUERQUE STUDIOS TO TALK ABOUT WHAT MAKES THESE BOMBS SO DANGEROUS  FOR SO LONG.
>> Laura: KAREN COATES, JERRY  REDFERN, THANK YOU FOR JOINING ME TODAY.
>> Redfern: THANKS FOR HAVING US.
>> Laura: SO, WHEN YOU HEARD THAT PRESIDENT BIDEN APPROVED  SENDING CLUSTER BOMBS TO UKRAINE, WHAT WAS YOUR INITIAL  REACTION?
>> Coates: HERE WE GO AGAIN.
I HAD OTHER THOUGHTS, TOO, THAT I PROBABLY SHOULDN'T SAY ON PUBLIC TV.
>> Laura: SO, CLUSTER BOMBS  ARE BANNED BY MANY COUNTRIES BY CONVENTION THAT WAS ADOPTED  IN 2010 AND EVEN CONGRESS HAS PLACED SOME RESTRICTIONS ON  CLUSTER BOOMS.
JERRY, CAN YOU TALK ABOUT WHY  THEY ARE SO BAD.
>> Redfern: THE REASON THEY  ARE REALLY BAD IS LIKE THEIR VERY BASIC GENERAL NATURE.
SO A CLUSTER BOMB IS ACTUALLY LIKE A BIG BOMB WITH A BUNCH  OF TINY LITTLE BOMBS INSIDE AND WHEN YOU DROP IT, THE BIG  BOMB OPENS UP AND SHOOTS ALL THE TINY LITTLE BOMBS OUT,  LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE SIZE OF SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
THIS IS HALF OF THE CLUSTER MUNITION THAT WAS DROPPED OVER  LAOS PROBABLY 55 YEARS AGO.
SO YOU WILL MAYBE 600 OF THESE  INSIDE A MUCH LARGER BOMB, IT CRACKS OPEN IN THE AIR,  SCATTERS THESE OVER THE COURSE OF TWO OR THREE FOOTBALL  FIELDS AND EXPLODING ALL OVER THE PLACE, OR NOT, DEPENDING.
CLUSTER MUNITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AND THAT ARE BEING MADE AND ARE BEING -- AND THAT REMAIN UNTIL RECENTLY HAVE ALL SORTS OF DIFFERENT PURPOSES.
ANTI-PERSONNEL TO TRY TO KILL  PEOPLE, TO TRY TO PENETRATE THROUGH ARMOR.
OR TO ACTUALLY, LIKE THIS ONE DID, IT WOULD SEND OUT TRIP  WIRES TO ACT AS A LAND MINE.
SO THAT IF SOMEBODY WAS  WALKING NEARBY, THEY TRIP OVER THE WIRE AND IT WOULD EXPLODE.
SO, THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF REASONS.
THE BIG PROBLEM WITH THEM IS THAT YOU'RE THROWING SO MANY  OUT THERE THAT YOU INEVITABLY HAVE A FAILURE RATE AND IF  YOU'RE THROWING OUT HUNDREDS AT A TIME OR THOUSANDS AT A  TIME, OR IN THE CASE OF LAOS, VIETNAM, HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS  AT A TIME, THOSE FAILURE RATES ADD UP.
AND THEN YOU'RE LEFT WITH MILLIONS OF THESE THINGS IN  THE GROUND YEARS AFTERWARD THAT ARE FOUND BY FARMERS OR  KIDS AND IT KILLS THEM.
IT KILLS THEM.
>> Laura: SO THE UNITED STATES HAS MILLIONS OF THESE BOMBS IN  STORAGE.
AND BEFORE WE DIVE INTO YOUR  REPORTING ON LAOS AND CAMBODIA, I JUST WANT TO ASK,  WHO BUILDS AND SELLS AND PROFITS OFF OF THESE BOMBS?
>> Coates: WELL, JUST TO CLARIFY, AS FAR AS WE KNOW, AS  IS REPORTED, THE UNITED STATES IS NO LONGER MANUFACTURING  CLUSTER MUNITIONS.
THERE HAD BEEN AN EFFORT FOR  QUITE A FEW YEARS TO TRY TO COME UP WITH A SO-CALLED  BETTER CLUSTER MUNITION WITH A LOWER FAILURE RATE BELOW 1%.
NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN ABLE TO ACHIEVE THAT AND SO I THINK IT  WAS IN 2016 WHEN THE LAST COMPANY WHO WAS MAKING THEM,  PULLED OUT AND SAID, WE CAN'T DO THIS ANYMORE.
HOWEVER, THERE IS STILL DESIRE TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING  BETTER.
>> Laura: I WAS SURPRISED  BECAUSE IN A RECENT WASHINGTON POST STORY IT SAID HAD  ALTHOUGH THE UNITED STATES HAS USED CLUSTER MUNITIONS IN  EVERY MAJOR WAR SINCE KOREA, NO NEW ONES ARE BELIEVED TO  HAVE BEEN PRODUCED FOR YEARS.
SO WE DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW IF  SOMEBODY'S MAKING THEM OR -- >> Coates: AGAIN, JUST TO  CLARIFY, THAT ISN'T THE FOCUS AREA OF OUR REPORTING, BUT AS  FAR AS I KNOW, THE RESEARCH I HAVE DONE, I HAVE NOT COME  ACROSS ANYBODY WHO TODAY IS MAKING THEM IN THIS COUNTRY.
HOWEVER, THEY ARE BEING MANUFACTURED IN OTHER  COUNTRIES.
>> Laura: SO YOU HAVE REPORTED  ON THE IMPACTS OF CLUSTER BOMBS IN CAMBODIA AND LAOS FOR  ABOUT 20 YEARS.
I WAS WONDERING, ON THE  GROUND, WHAT DID YOU LEARN, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE STORIES  THAT YOU HAVE HEARD, HUMAN IMPACTS THAT YOU HAVE SEEN  THERE?
>> Coates: WE HAD BEEN LIVING  AND WORKING IN SOUTHEAST ASIA FOR QUITE SOME TIME BUT IT WAS  IN 2005, GOING WAY BACK TO THEN, WE WERE WORKING ON AN  ARCHEOLOGY STORY.
THERE IS A LARGE AREA CALLED  THE PLAIN OF JARS, FULL OF MASSIVE ANCIENT STONE JARS.
THAT AREA, DURING THE WAR, WAS HEAVILY BOMBED AND SO TODAY  AND AT THAT TIME, ARCHEOLOGISTS AND ANYBODY  STUDYING THE JARS HAD TO GO WITH A CLEARANCE GROUP, A BOMB  CLEARANCE GROUP TO MAKE SURE THAT THE AREA WAS SAFE.
MANY OF THE JARS HAD BEEN DESTROYED OR DAMAGED IN THE  BOMBINGS.
AND IN THE COURSE OF REPORTING  THE STORY, WE WERE IN THAT AREA FOR ABOUT TWO-AND-A-HALF,  THREE WEEKS.
AND WE HEARD OF MORE THAN 20  ACCIDENTS WITH CLUSTER MUNITIONS, JUST AROUND THAT  AREA.
SO, WE KIND OF LOOKED AT EACH  OTHER AND SAID, WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING MORE ON THIS.
AND WE MET A 10-YEAR OLD BOY, NAMED BICH, WHO WAS IN THE  HOSPITAL.
JUST A FEW DAYS BEFORE HE HAD  BEEN OUT WORKING IN HIS FIELD AND HIT SOMETHING AND IT BLEW  UP AND CAUSED, YOU KNOW, MAJOR DAMAGE TO HIS BELLY AND HIS  FACE.
AND THAT WAS SORT OF WHAT  REALLY MOTIVATED US TO LOOK INTO THIS DEEPER.
AND OVER MANY YEARS, THEN, WE ENCOUNTERED, I DON'T KNOW HOW  MANY STORIES LIKE THAT.
>> Laura: SO, THESE WERE BOMBS  THAT WERE DROPPED IN THE 60'S'S AND 70'S; IS THAT  RIGHT?
AND SO I AM IMAGINING THAT  THERE WERE TERRIBLE IMPACTS AT THAT TIME BUT NOW DECADES AND  DECADES LATER, STILL?
>> Redfern: YEAH.
SO THE BOMBS DON'T NECESSARILY STOP WORKING AND I MEAN IT'S A  BIT OF A MISNOMER TO CALL THEM DUDS.
THEY JUST HAVEN'T GONE OFF, RIGHT, BUT THEY ARE STILL, IN  MOST CASES, COMPLETELY CAPABLE OF GOING OFF AT THIS POINT.
AND THAT'S REALLY THE BIG ISSUE.
SO, THEY FOUND THAT WHAT HAPPENED A LOT OF TIMES,  PARTICULARLY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA, YOU HAVE MONSOON SEASON  AND IF YOU'RE BOMBING DURING MONSOON SEASON WHEN THE GROUND IS ESSENTIALLY JELLO, YOU KNOW, THE BOMBS WILL SINK INTO  THE GROUND DURING THAT SEASON INSTEAD OF DETONATING LIKE  THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO.
AND THEN, THEY CAN CHURN.
IT IS A TERM CALLED TURBATION, HOW THE SOILS CHURN ALL ON THEIR OWN, BETWEEN SEASONS AND SUCH.
SO, THINGS THAT CAN BE DROPPED IN ONE PLACE, YOU DROP A BOMB  HERE, IT DOESN'T DETONATE.
IT CAN CHURN THROUGH THE  GROUND AND POP UP SOMEWHERE ELSE.
AND THESE SORTS OF DANGERS JUST, YOU KNOW, KEEP ON MOVING  THROUGH FIELDS YEAR AFTER YEAR, DECADE AFTER DECADE.
AND THESE THINGS STILL HAPPEN.
THEY STILL FIND THINGS IN LAOS  TODAY AND CAMBODIA AND VIETNAM.
>> Laura: SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE IS OBVIOUSLY LIKE  IMPACTS ON INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE AND FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES.
WHAT ABOUT THE GOVERNMENTS?
LIKE HOW ARE THEY HANDLING  HAVING TO DEAL WITH THIS U.S.
CAUSED PROBLEM ALL THESE  DECADES LATER?
>> Coates:   IN SOUTHEAST ASIA AND LAOS, IN PARTICULAR,  THAT'S A REALLY DIFFICULT QUESTION TO ANSWER AND IT'S A TRICKY QUESTION BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY COMPLICATING  FACTORS ABOUT THE LAO GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS A  COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT.
>> Redfern: SO THE UNITED  STATES ACTUALLY DOES SHELL OUT A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY, WELL,  THEY SAY THEY SHELL OUT A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY.
THEY CALL IT A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY EVERY YEAR TO HELP THESE  COUNTRIES CLEAR UP BOMBS THERE, IN LAOS, CAMBODIA AND  VIETNAM.
THE IDEA, THOUGH, THEY HAVE  BEEN DOING THIS -- THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON SINCE THE EARLY  90'S.
SO THAT IS 30 YEARS.
WE ARE STILL PAYING MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS A YEAR TO HELP  CLEAN UP THIS ISSUE.
THEY ARE STILL FINDING BOMBS.
THE GOVERNMENTS DO WANT TO WORK TO GET RID OF THESE  PROBLEMS.
TO GREATER OR LESSER EXTENT, I  THINK, FOR THE MOST PART, THEY ALL REALLY WANT TO GET RID OF  IT.
BUT FOR AN ECONOMY LIKE LAOS,  WHICH IS VERY MUCH A DEVELOPING -- A LOWER  DEVELOPING ECONOMY, THEY ALSO, I THINK, OFTEN DON'T WANT TO  SCARE OFF INVESTORS.
SO THEY DON'T, SAY, TALK ABOUT  IT AS MUCH AS VIETNAM DOES OR CAMBODIA DOES BECAUSE THEY  DON'T WANT TO SCARE PEOPLE FROM SHOWING UP AND DOING  THINGS THAT LAOS HAS SPACE AND MONEY TO DO LIKE MINING AND  FORESTRY AND SUCH, WHICH ARE DANGEROUS IF YOU DON'T WORK  WITH CLEARANCE TEAMS.
>> Laura: IN A 2016 STORY,  KAREN, YOU WROTE... [READ SCREEN] CAN WE TALK ABOUT THOSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
>> Coates: YES, AND JERRY HAD TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS  ALREADY.
ANY TIME YOU HAVE AN  EXPLOSION, IT IS GOING TO TURBATE THE SOIL, THE  SEDIMENTS, THE ROCK, WHATEVER IS IN THE ENVIRONMENT.
WHEN YOU HAVE MULTIPLE EXPLOSIONS IN A PLACE, WHICH  IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS WITH CLUSTER MUNITIONS, YOU HAVE,  YOU KNOW, BOMB, BOMB, BOMB, BOMB, BOMB.
THERE'S AN EVEN GREATER EFFECT.
SO IN PLACES IN LAOS, FOR EXAMPLE, AS WE HAVE SEEN,  THERE ARE STILL LARGE CRATERS AND SMALL CRATERS ALL OVER THE  COUNTRYSIDE TO THE POINT WHERE 50 YEARS LATER, THEY ARE DEEP  ENOUGH, THEY ARE PROMINENT ENOUGH, THAT PEOPLE USE THEM  AS PONDS.
THEY USE THEM FOR FISH,  BUFFALO WILL SORT OF WALLOW IN THE WATER IN THERE.
THE CHANGES IN THE LANDSCAPE ARE NOT NECESSARILY GOOD OR BAD BUT WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT ANY TIME YOU HAVE EXPLOSIONS  LIKE THAT ON A BATTLEFIELD, IT DOES ALTER THE LANDSCAPE.
IT MEANS THAT CERTAIN THINGS MIGHT NOT GROW THERE IN THE  FUTURE THAT HAD IN THE PAST.
IT CAN CHANGE THE VEGETATION.
THE SOIL STRUCTURE, AS I WAS SAYING.
SO IT IS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A DEFINITE HUMAN CAUSE CHANGE TO  THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE WAY THAT PEOPLE PERCEIVE THE LAND  AS WELL.
AND ANOTHER BIG THING ABOUT  THAT AND A SIMILARITY BETWEEN, SAY, UKRAINE TODAY AND LAOS,  BOTH ARE VERY HEAVILY, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE FARMING COMMUNITIES, FARMING AREAS.
AND SO IF YOU'RE A FARMER AND  YOUR LAND HAS BEEN BOMBED, YOUR LAND HAS BEEN COVERED  WITH CLUSTER MUNITIONS, THE WAY YOU SEE THAT LAND IS GOING  TO COMPLETELY CHANGE BECAUSE YOU ARE THEN AFRAID TO GO OUT  ANYWHERE, EVEN IF THE -- EVEN IF THERE IS JUST ONE THAT  DIDN'T GO OFF.
YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE IT IS.
SO YOU CAN'T USE IT SAFELY.
>> Laura: SO, I KNOW YOU DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THE PEOPLE OF LAOS OR CAMBODIA BY ANY  MEANS, BUT IN YOUR EXPERIENCE OF INTERVIEWING PEOPLE, WHAT  DO YOU THINK THAT THE PEOPLE OF LAOS AND CAMBODIA MIGHT  WANT AMERICANS, RUSSIANS AND UKRAINIANS TO REALLY  UNDERSTAND ABOUT USING THESE BOMBS AND REALLY EMBRACING  THEIR USE IN THIS WAR?
>> Redfern: I THINK THEY WOULD  BE HORRIFIED.
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WE HAVE  EVER MET HAS BEEN ANYTHING BUT ABSOLUTELY CRUSHED BY HAVING  COME IN CONTACT WITH THESE THINGS.
I MEAN, EMOTIONALLY AND THEN PHYSICALLY AS WELL.
YOU KNOW, A KEY THING TO REMEMBER, SOMETIMES PEOPLE CONFLATE LAND MINES WITH CLUSTER MUNITIONS AND THEY ARE  ACTUALLY QUITE DIFFERENT.
THERE WAS A COVER STORY IN THE  NEW YORK TIMES THIS PAST WEEKEND TALKING ABOUT LAND  MINES IN UKRAINE AND THE KEY PART ABOUT MOST OF THAT IS  THAT A LAND MINE IS DESIGNED TO INJURE A SOLDIER, SO THAT  TWO OTHER SOLDIERS HAVE TO COME ON TO THE FIELD AND TAKE  THAT PERSON OFF.
SO YOU ACTUALLY GET THREE FOR  ONE THAT ARE TAKEN OFF THE FIELD.
THESE CLUSTER MUNITIONS LIKE THIS ORIGINALLY, WHICH IS NOW  A LAMP, THESE THINGS WERE DESIGNED TO KILL.
SO WHEN PEOPLE FIND THEM IN THE GROUND, GENERALLY  SPEAKING, THEY DON'T SURVIVE.
I MEAN THIS IS AN INCREDIBLE  DANGER, RIGHT?
AND THEY'RE SMALL AND WHEN  THESE THINGS ARE IN THE GROUND, YOU CAN BARELY SEE  THAT THEY ARE THERE.
THEY LOOK LIKE ROCKS OR IF YOU  FIND ONE LIKE THIS IN A TREE IT LOOKS LIKE A TOY TO A KID,  SO THEY'RE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT ANIMAL.
THEY'RE SMALL, THEY'RE HARD TO FIND AND THEY'RE MEANT TO BE  COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY DEADLY.
>> LAURA: WELL, THANK YOU  BOTH FOR YOUR REPORTING OF THIS TODAY.
IT'S AN IMPORTANT AND FRUSTRATING STORY, SO THANK YOU.
>> Coates: THANK YOU, LAURA.
>> Redfern: THANKS LAURA.
>> Gene: THANKS TO JERRY AND  KAREN FOR ALL THEIR REPORTING ABOUT THE DANGERS OF CLUSTER  BOMBS.
SEE A CHILLING VIDEO OF JERRY  DESCRIBING HOW ONE OF THESE THINGS WORKS HEAD OVER TO THE  OUR LAND INSTAGRAM PAGE.
BE SURE TO TUNE INTO NEXT  WEEK'S SHOW FOR RUSSELL CONTRERAS' CONVERSATION WITH  TINA CORDOVA OF THE TULAROSA DOWN WINDERS.
IT WILL BE ESPECIALLY RELEVANT WITH THE CHRISTOPHER NOLAN  EXPECTED BLOCK BUSTER BIOPIC OPPENHEIMER OPENING IN  THEATERS TODAY.
THANKS AGAIN FOR JOINING US,  FOR STAYING INFORMED AND ENGAGED.
SEE YOU AGAIN NEXT WEEK, IN FOCUS.