>> 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.