# data[].attributes.headline
EMHS Updates Policy Regarding Math Credits Needed

# data[].attributes.subject
EMHS Updates Policy Regarding Math Credits Needed

# data[].attributes.body
In this document, EMHS clearly states that the math credits needed to graduate is 4. This is different from the previous year, because in the 2022-23 school year, one math credit for every year you were in school was needed. This meant you had to take a math credit regardless of how many you had total.

- Updating this policy means students can now take a different class instead of math if they have aquired 4 credits.

# data[].attributes.headline
Aztec Municipal Court Holds a "safe surrender" Event.

# data[].attributes.subject
Aztec Municipal Court Holds a "safe surrender" Event.

# data[].attributes.body
- If anyone has an outstanding bench warrant from any court in new mexico, they can show up to the Aztec Municipal Court and return into compliance with the law.
- This meant anyone could be relieved of a warrant with only a "slap on the wrist".
- This could result in outrage from many, because of potentially dangerous people being "let off the hook" to easily.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
AZTEC, N.M. - New Mexicans with an outstanding bench warrant can get a second chance this weekend if they're willing to travel.

The Aztec Magistrate Court is holding a "safe surrender" event. If you have a warrant from any magistrate court in New Mexico, you can go to the courthouse Friday and Saturday in Aztec.

"Statewide, there are 82,000 outstanding warrants in magistrate courts. Our goal is always to help anyone who wants to come back into compliance with the courts and the San Juan Safe Surrender event will make it a little easier for people to do that," said Artie Pepin, the Administrative Office of the Courts Director.

During a safe surrender event in Alamogordo in June, judges heard a total of 64 cases.

According to officials, anyone who appears voluntarily will receive favorable consideration when requesting a new court date, payment plan or any other option required to comply with the court order.

The event in Aztec going on from 3-7 p.m. Friday and 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Statewide 'safe surrender' event this weekend

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New Mexicans with an outstanding bench warrant can get a second chance this weekend if they're willing to travel.

# data[].attributes.headline
Revised Federal Water Rule Results in Natives Suing.

# data[].attributes.subject
Revised Federal Water Rule Results in Natives Suing.

# data[].attributes.body
- This policy amendment narrowed the types of waterways that qualify for federal protection under the Clean Water Act.
Meaning, the number of Native waterways that were previously protected by this policy is no longer protected.
- The natives argue that this land is important to their people culture and agriculture. If the water is polluted, their people would suffer tremendously as it is a necessary need in the Native way of life. The goal of the Native's lawsuit was to regain the protection of their water, therefore it could stay clean.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) - Two Indigenous communities in New Mexico are suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over a revised federal rule that lifts protections for many streams, creeks and wetlands across the nation, saying the federal government is violating its trust responsibility to Native American tribes.

The pueblos of Jemez and Laguna are the latest to raise concerns over inadequate protections for local water sources in the desert Southwest. The challenge filed last week in federal court follows a similar case brought in 2020 by the Navajo Nation, the nation's largest Native American tribe, and several environmental groups.

Like other Indigenous communities, the Laguna and Jemez pueblos said in the court filing that waters flowing through their lands are used for domestic and agricultural purposes and are essential for cultural and ceremonial practices.

Removing or limiting access to clean water for both rural communities directly threatens to diminish tribal resources and adversely affect cultural practices, the lawsuit stated.

Both pueblos have small populations with poverty rates surpassing the national average. Laguna encompasses nearly 20 square miles (50 square kilometers) just west of Albuquerque. Jemez Pueblo covers mountainous and desert regions in northern New Mexico.

The tribes argue that water holds a special value because of its scarcity in the arid Southwest. They describe the gullies, arroyos and seasonal streams inscribed into the landscape as "a vein of life" that channels rain or snowmelt to their communities.

"Any water pollution in and around the pueblos has a disproportionate impact because of the scarcity and preciousness of the resource in the region," the lawsuit stated.

The change, which took effect in June, narrowed the types of waterways that qualify for federal protection under the half-century-old Clean Water Act. As a result, critics have said that the number of waterways in New Mexico and other arid states in the West that were previously protected under the act were drastically reduced.

The Navajo Nation, environmental groups, public health advocates and some Western states that are waging their own legal battles over the rule have said the rollback left many of the nation's millions of miles of waterways more vulnerable to pollution since permits are no longer necessary for discharging pollution into many rivers, lakes and streams.

In adopting the change, federal officials argued last year that a previous Obama-era rule imposed unnecessary burdens on property owners and businesses and that the change would bring regulatory certainty for farmers, homebuilders and landowners.

Since January, the Biden administration has been reviewing numerous rules adopted over the last four years and is expected to reverse many of them.

New Mexico was among the states that went to court last May seeking to prevent the rule from taking effect.

At the time, New Mexico Environment Secretary James Kenney warned that the rule would leave nearly 90% of the state's rivers and streams and about 40% of its wetlands without federal protection.

He predicted that would "devastate New Mexico's scarce and limited water resources."

The state in comments previously submitted to the federal government noted that New Mexico has no state protections to fall back on. New Mexico is one of three states that do not have delegated authority from the EPA to regulate discharges of pollution into rivers, streams, and lakes.

Laguna Pueblo relies on the federal government to implement nearly all of the Clean Water Act's pollution programs on its behalf and does not have the financial or administrative capacity to administer the programs itself.

According to the lawsuit, up to 97% of Laguna waterways are affected and the pueblo has concerns about contamination upstream from past uranium mining and milling.

Jemez Pueblo depends on federal authority under the act to protect waters outside its jurisdiction. About 94% of the Jemez watershed was affected by the rule change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New Mexico tribes sue US over federal clean water rule

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) - Two Indigenous communities in New Mexico are suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over a revised federal rule that lifts protections for many streams, creeks and wetlands across the nation, saying the federal government is violating its trust responsibility to Nati

# data[].attributes.body
- This document states that Bernalillo County has the power to remove/remedy a nuisance. The particular nuisance referred to in this document is poorly maintained property.  This claims that they may use whatever means necessary to take care of this for the betterment of the community.
- This is an upset to many, as it violates property rights.

# data[].attributes.body
- This bill passed by NM, adds law enforcement officers to the list of people who could seek a court order to temporarily take firearms from a person considered a threat, among other changes.
- Some agree with this, saying that this bill is a crucial amendment needed to save many lives. However, there are many individuals who claim this is going to be abused by officers to take away the firearms and revoke the 2nd amendment of those who are wrongfully accused and have their firearms seized.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A controversial bill to expand New Mexico's so-called red-flag gun law appears to be a victim of more pressing priorities in this year's 60-day legislative session.

"For all intents and purposes, it's gone, unless something really radical changes," one of the sponsors, Rep. Daymon Ely, D-Corrales, said Wednesday. "But there are just too many other priorities this time."

Ely said he hopes to bring the measure back during the Legislature's 30-day legislative session next year.

"It's a calendar management problem," he said of the bill's likely demise this year.

House Bill 193 sought to amend New Mexico's Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Order Act by adding law enforcement officers to the list of people who could seek a court order to temporarily take firearms from a person considered a threat, among other changes.

Under current law, police officers can only seek a court order if it is requested by a family member, a school official, an employer or someone who has had a "continuing personal relationship" with a person considered a threat to themselves or others. The change would allow an officer to seek a court order based on his or her own observations, "absent receipt of credible information from a reporting party."

The other sponsor, Rep. Joy Garratt, D-Albuquerque, said she, too, looked forward to reintroducing the measure next year.

"We've gotten feedback from the courts and law enforcement that it needs those tweaks, which is why we're doing them," she said.

Garratt said concerns about the bill were blown out of proportion.

"It's not something that's going to be used hundreds and hundreds of times as some of the opponents suggested," she said. "When there's really an imminent risk of somebody harming themselves or harming others with a firearm, that's what it's for."

Ely said "there is no question" the law "needs fixing."

"In an ordinary session, it probably would be [a priority bill]," he said. "But this is one where we're trying to dig out of this economy as quickly as possible and get New Mexico on a really productive track, and I think we're doing it."

Miranda Viscoli, co-president of New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence, said she was "extremely disappointed" the bill wasn't considered on the floor of each chamber.

"This was a crucial amendment that would directly save lives," she said. "I already know of one suicide that happened because law enforcement couldn't step in, could not petition [a court]."

Viscoli called the changes "simple amendments" designed to keep New Mexico communities safer from gun violence.

Gun control measures, however, typically generate stiff opposition and hours-long committee and floor debates.

Ely said no one should question his commitment to the red-flag gun law or other gun control legislation.

"I have no problems fighting for it," he said, adding the priority this year is "fighting for getting New Mexico back to prosperity as quickly as possible."
Follow Daniel J. Chacón on Twitter @danieljchacon.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bill expanding New Mexico's 'red-flag' gun law fizzles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A controversial bill to expand New Mexico's so-called red-flag gun law appears to be a victim of more pressing priorities in this year's 60-day legislative session. "For all intents and purposes, it's gone, unless something really radical changes," one of the sponsors, Rep. Daymon Ely, D-Corrales, said Wednesday.

# data[].attributes.body
- US House releases a bill that protects parents' rights in the school district.
- Parents must be notified about their ability to review the curriculum and school budget, inspect books and other library materials, and receive information about any violent activity in the school.
- Some say this is Congress's way of dictating curriculum and determining what books go in the library.
- Others believe this bill aims to bring more transparency and accountability to education, allowing parents to be informed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
House Republicans passed legislation Friday aimed at boosting parents' access to information about their child's education, fulfilling a midterm pledge that GOP lawmakers hope will be a galvanizing issue next year.

"The Parents Bill of Rights is an important step towards protecting children and dramatically strengthening the rights of parents," House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said on the House floor ahead of the bill's passage.

Five Republicans joined Democrats in voting against the legislation. Republicans hold a narrow majority in the chamber, but several Democratic absences enabled the legislation to pass despite the handful of GOP defections.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has already said the bill has no political future in the Democratic-controlled Senate, but the legislation does send a message about GOP priorities and indicates a further leaning in on culture war issues ahead of the 2024 election.

What does the bill do?

The bill, introduced by Louisiana Rep. Julia Letlow, requires schools to notify parents that they have the right to review the curriculum and school budget, inspect books and other library materials, and receive information about any violent activity in the school.

The bill would also prohibit schools from selling student information. Elementary schools or schools housing grades 5-8 would be requiredto obtain parental consent before changing a student's pronouns or preferred name or allowing a student to change their sex-based accommodations, like locker rooms or bathrooms.

"[This legislation] is not an attempt to have Congress dictate curriculum, or determine the books in the library," Letlow said on the House floor Thursday. "Instead, this bill aims to bring more transparency and accountability to education, allowing parents to be informed, and when they have questions and concerns to lawfully bring them to their local school boards."

Schools that don't comply with the bill would be in danger of losing federal funding.

Democrats tie legislation to other efforts to curb what's being taught in schools

Democrats are fiercely opposed to the bill, dubbing it the "politics over parents act." They claim it seeks to codify already existing parental rights and politicizes the classroom.

"Rather than actually invest in empowering parents, making sure parents have the opportunity to be engaged and involved in the education of their children, the extreme MAGA Republicans want to jam their rightwing ideology down the throats of students, teachers and parents throughout America," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters Friday.

During floor debate on the bill this week, House Democrats argued the bill puts LGBTQ students at risk.

"This Republican bill is asking the government to force the outing of LGBT people before they are ready," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said.

Despite Republican lawmakers repeatedly claiming the legislation doesn't ban books, Democrats argue the bill could provide a legal basis for book bans and censorship in schools.

In the 2021-22 school year, more than 1,600 book titles were banned, according to a report by PEN America, which advocates for freedom of expression.

Political fissures about parents rights and what's being taught in classrooms have also been on display at the state level. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who is widely considered a viable presidential contender in 2024, signed the controversial "Parental Rights in Education" bill last year, which critics refer to as the "Don't Say Gay" bill. DeSantis' administration is currently moving to expand on that policy by prohibiting instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation to all grade levels.

Last year, at least a dozen states considered measures that mirrored the Florida legislation.

"Democrats are now trying to take advantage of the extremes that we're seeing in some parts of the country, the strong curricular efforts in Florida, for example, the images of libraries with yellow tape across the books," said Jeffrey Henig, a professor of political science and education at Teachers College, Columbia University.

"That's because there still are a lot of Americans, including Americans in purple states or swing areas, who value the notion that education ought to stretch their kids' minds and understandings, the notion that we have a complicated history in the U.S. and that children as eventual citizens need to understand that complicated history."

Education as a culture war issue

The issue of parental involvement in education has been brewing as a culture war issue for years and was accelerated by the coronavirus pandemic where school shutdowns and mask mandates energized parents.

As schools reopened, concerns among conservatives grew about curricula in schools, particularly on topics of race, gender and sexual orientation.

Critical race theory, an academic approach taught in college and post-grad that examines how race and racism function in American institutions, was brought to the forefront of political discourse as House Republicans argued the theory was being taught to K-12 students.

The issue was encapsulated in the 2021 Virginia governors race, where Republican Glenn Youngkin trumpeted parents' rights.

"What we're seeing now in terms of the Parents Bill of Rights is really an outgrowth of Glenn Youngkin's victory," said nonpartisan election analyst Dave Wasserman of The Cook Political Report.

"It was a message that struck a chord as we were coming out of the pandemic, and it helped Youngkin win that race," he told NPR. "His crusade for parental rights kind of became a catch-all for voters' frustrations with schools and logistics in the pandemic. And now as we've emerged from COVID, these issues are more of a partisan culture war that divides Democrats and Republicans."

Wasserman says the bill is a sign Republicans view parental rights as a winning issue in 2024, but cautions the "jury's out" for now on how independent voters and voters in swing districts view this type of legislation.

"Republicans believe that attacking Democrats as a party beholden to teachers unions and siding against parents on a variety of cultural war topics - be it transgender athletes, or what Republicans would say is 'woke indoctrination' and libraries and curriculums - they believe that will resonate," he said. "And yet we haven't really seen this issue take center stage in a presidential campaign lately, so it'll take time to to see whether independent voters warm up to Republicans' message or whether this falls flat."

Henig, of Columbia University, says part of the political appeal of the messaging over parents' rights is that it's adaptable to local audiences.

"So when Republicans talk about parents choice to voters in suburban, moderate communities, they can bang on COVID kinds of issues, which generate some sympathy among parents who had to deal with kids at home or unpredictable schooling or the complications of online schooling," he said. "Then when they're speaking to voters in red states, or MAGA voting districts, they can turn the dial to the end of the culture wars issues - the anti-critical race theory, the teaching about sex to young children, the issues related to how to treat transgender athletes."

While that could be effective at the district level, the strategy becomes trickier on the presidential level. The nature of the Republican primary means candidates are likely to cast themselves further right than some moderate Republicans or swing voters might be comfortable with come November.

"In general elections, most of the strategy depends on perceptions of the audience in a small number of purple states," he said. "That's where Republicans for national office want to be able to reserve the ability to swing back to the less controversial version of parents rights," he said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What a House GOP messaging bill could spell for 2024 culture war campaign

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Although the GOP-led "Parents Bill of Rights" likely won't advance in the Democratic-controlled Senate, the messaging bill highlights Republican priorities as lawmakers eye the 2024 election cycle.