As you know by now, there are eight candidates running to replace Larry Romero, who is leaving under a cloud of corruption. As you also likely know, there is a general cloud of corruption hanging over El Paso. Last month I invited District 2 candidates to submit their write ups for publication and I also let you know that I had started to compile dossiers on each of the candidates. As a result of my research, I came across the criminal record of David Nevarez, one of the candidates running to replace Larry Romero. What prompted me to bring you this post today is that while he is running for office, David Nevarez is scheduled to be in court on Thursday, April 7, 2016 for a “protective order hearing.”
Unfortunately for the voters of District 2, David Nevarez has a criminal record including theft, violating protective orders and family violence. On July 15, 2006, David Nevarez was convicted of assault causing bodily injury in a family violence case. He was assessed 365 days of adult probation and community service. He was also ordered to participate in family violence counseling. This is according to court records.
He was also accused of interfering with an emergency call.
On March 15, 2016, an application for a protective order was filed. He was served on March 18, 2016 and is scheduled for a hearing on Thursday. The civil record shows divorce proceedings for Nevarez and requests to enforce support payments.
Some of his supporters may be inclined to argue that individuals should not be judged by their criminal pasts or that people should be forgiven after completing their sentences. The problem for District 2 voters is that there is no scenario under which an individual convicted of domestic abuse should be elected. This is especially true in a city like El Paso where there are numerous political scandals. It is even more important when the election is to replace a politician, Larry Romero, who is leaving in the midst of a scandal.
In addition, Cortney Niland’s appointment of Nevarez to El Paso’s Veterans Affairs Advisory Committee should be revisited by her, in light of this information that should have been part of the vetting process before an appointment to the city’s committee was made. It is my understanding that he is the chairman of that committee.