New Mexico State Senator Dede Feldman's Blog

A View from Just Outside the Roundhouse: Conservancy District Elections

Here's my periodic newsletter that, this month, features the election for Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Board.

Conservancy Elections are Upon Us

It doesn’t seem like election season but it is—for those of us in the valley area of Albuquerque, which is served by the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (MRGCD). Election Day is Oct. 3. Stephanie Russo Baca is running for the at-large position being vacated by Barbara Baca (no relation), who was elected to the County Commission. Stephanie needs our support to prevent backsliding into the old, unresponsive-style Conservancy District.  John Kelly is also running for the Bernalillo Co. slot, but (mercifully)  he has no opposition. As long as he votes for himself, he’s in!  Not so for Stephanie.  She faces opposition from Jerome Cordova, who is a farmer and owner of a security company from Valencia County.

Stephanie has a small farm and is now a board member from Valencia County, where she, her husband and five children raise livestock (she told me her pig was giving birth to piglets sometime this week!) and alfalfa.  She is well aware of the issues facing Bernalillo County, whose taxpayers supply 2/3 of the revenue for the multi-county irrigation district even though they mostly don’t irrigate. Check out her responses about the bosque and recreational uses of ditches in our areas in this article from the Downtown News

https://us3.campaign-archive.com/?u=306fc3b21030d6f0128cc4af9&id=2eb90e6612

and you’ll see why she’s the best candidate.   And did I mention that Stephanie is Wonder Woman?  Yes, not only is this young woman a farmer and mother of five, but she’s a water lawyer who serves as an ombudsman at UNM’s Utton Center where she explains water rights to citizens unexpectedly getting a letter from the State Engineer or a realtor.

Important Election Details

In a throwback to the 1700s, only property owners within the district (roughly the north and south valley and downtown) can vote in this election. (Don’t get me started about this set-up, which needs to change). Election Day is Tuesday Oct. 3, with polling locations in the North Valley at the Los Ranchos Villa at 4^th and Osuna, Valley High School and the Raymond G. Sanchez Community Center. Early voting is underway now at the Los Ranchos Villa. 

Here's a link to a complete list of polling places (with street addresses) for both early and election-day voting: https://www.mrgcd.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2023-MRGCD-Site-List-1.pdf

Can’t make it to the polls? Click here Absentee Ballot Application to download and print your application or pick up an application at the MRGCD General Office, 1931 2^nd ST. SW.   Fill out the application showing the county in which you are casting your vote (Bernalillo) and return to the MRGCD Office by Oct. 3 at 7 p.m.  Absentee ballots may not be returned to early voting locations or the county clerk!

…and City, School Board Elections are Coming Right Up in November

 Joaquin Baca is my choice for City Council District 2—and I’ll have a lot more to say about this great candidate in a newsletter closer to the Nov. 7 election. Meanwhile check him out at https://www.joaquinforabq.com/get-involved . I also urge you to educate yourself about school board elections, which some say are the most important ones in decades, given the involvement of a national, right-wing group, Moms for Liberty.  https://abqjournal-nm.newsmemory.com/?publink=0eb7d1c7e_134ad29

Dede's Report Card: 2024 Legislative Session Final Grade: C

2024 Legislative Session Final Grade: C It’s not that I don’t respect the hard work and good intentions of our legislators.  They passed a solid budget with lots of the surplus from oil and gas socked away into trust funds. They made the tax code a little more progressive and gave some tax credits to alternative energy.  But the shortness of the session, the ability of the Republicans to control the agenda through filibusters and the specter of a coalition in the House all added up to a lackluster session. And the final verdict is not in yet.  The Governor has until March 6 to sign or veto bills. The Good •$10 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund - This will match federal funds, provide more outdoor recreation opportunities and preserve open space. •A 7-day waiting period before you can purchase a gun •A ban on the open carrying of guns within 100 ft. of polling places •A $6 million appropriation for staff for rank-and-file legislators following a study of potential staffing models •A bill to require HMOs, Rx manufacturers and benefit managers to report Rx prices to the Insurance Department - the real prices of meds -from the manufacturer to the user—are now largely opaque. •A bill to allow the Insurance Superintendent to review hospital mergers and acquisitions to determine their effect on patient access to care • A bill to require disclosure when misleading campaign advertisements contain artificial intelligence The Bad: •Failure of the Family Leave Act on the House floor •Failure of meaningful regulations on oil and gasindustry, including the failure of an increase in the royalty rate for operations on state land to match the market rate of 25% and the defeat of a ban on polluting facilities within a stone’s throw of schools and homes • Failure of an alcohol tax increase to fund alcohol harms alleviation and address NM’s status as #1 in alcohol-related death and disease. The tax rate has not been changed since 1993. •Failure of a bill in the Senate to ban local governments from contracting with private prisons to detain asylum seekers—even though Homeland Security has called for closure of the Torrance Co. facility •Failure of constitutional amendments to lengthen the session and allow an independent commission to set salaries for currently unpaid legislators   • The failure of bills in the House to ban assault weapons, raise the age for purchasing automatic firearms and hold gun manufacturers responsible for deceptive practices The Ugly: For the second year in a row, the Senate dismissed a revision to the Governmental Conduct Act that would have put some teeth into the state’s ethics laws, as suggested by the AG and the Ethics Commission. The measure passed the House but died in the Senate Judiciary Committee, after a long tirade by Sen. Daniel Ivey Soto, the subject of an ethics complaint based on conflict of interest. Finally, it’s not a good look for the NM Senate to gush over one of their own members who was caught very publicly in an extramarital affair with a young senate staffer last year. But that’s what happened when Sen. Cliff Pirtle was bid a fond farewell, as the ex-staffer, with baby in arms, sat by his side. On the last day his fellow senators waxed poetic about his representation of ranching, rural values, his approachability and what a good fellow he is. Elsewhere, having a relationship with a subordinate is a firing offense—and maybe more, depending on the age of the employee. But here, we wear it on our sleeve, without so much as an investigation by the Senate, Ethics Commission or anyone else. Mass Exodus from the Senate At last count, nine current senators. (Nancy Rodriguez, Cliff Pirtle, Mark Moores, Steve Neville, Gerry Ortiz y Pino, Bill Tallman, Greg Schmedes, Ron Griggs and Brenda McKenna) have, for various reasons, decided not to run again. Combined with Sens. Gay Kernan and Stuart Ingle, who resigned last year, that makes 11 or over 25%. A number of House members who currently represent the overlapping district are running to replace a few, so maybe the change will not be that dramatic.  But who knows… maybe we’re in for a younger, fresher crop of senators who will inject new life into the ole body. Meanwhile these senators deserve our thanks for their public service. My hat is off to one other departing legislator. Rep. Gail Chasey, who is retiring this year, entered the House the same year I entered the Senate and is now, along with Miguel Garcia, the longest serving House member.  I wrote about the “Grace under Fire” she displayed in her 10-year struggle to ban the death penalty in Inside the New Mexico Senate. For my money, she’s the best legislator we’ve ever had. She’s reinvented herself several times, once when she entered law school in her 60s! I’m hoping she can do it again.  Primary Season Upon Us The filing date for the 2024 election is March 12, which means that legislative, judicial, public education commission and district attorney candidates must submit nominating petitions containing the signatures of 2-3% of registered voters in their district. The Democratic primary (June 4) for the Senate will be very interesting.  Three incumbents face challengers.  Sen. Bill O’Neil will face former Councilor and Commissioner Debbie O’Malley in District 13; Sen. Moe Maestas will face former South Valley Academy Principal Julie Radoslovich in District 26 and Sen. Daniel Ivey-Soto will face policy analyst and financial consultantHeather Berghmans in District 15.  I’ll have more to say about these primary contests later, including posting where you can hear candidates debate the issues. Here’s the first forum I’ve heard about:            District Attorney Candidate Forum            March 24. 3:00 p.m.                 Albuquerque Friends Meeting House                 1600 5th ST. NW Albuquerque                 Sponsored by Democratic Ward 11 Voters can now sign nominating petitions online. Follow this link and put in your name as registered and the petitions you are eligible to sign will be displayed.  It’s easy for both voters and candidates and is a result of a law passed last year by our own Sen. Katy Duhigg. There’s much more to say about the national—and international scene—but I will leave you with a photo of a true hero, Alexi Navalny. May his candle light a fire in the hearts of all who love democracy and hate corruption, here and in Russia.

2023 New Mexico Legislature Gets a B-

 

The 2023 session of the NM legislature wasn’t as frightening as the 1920s’ German film, the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, but it wasn’t as cool as Mark’s cabinet of wonders on display at the North 4th Arts Center either (see above). This year’s legislature started with a $3.6 billion surplus, firm Democratic control of both chambers, and a new regime in the House with Speaker Javier Martinez, and new House chairs Reps. Nathan Small (Appropriations) and Derek Lente (Taxation). There was real opportunity for investments, tax reform, more voting access, legislative modernization and acting to avert global warming. Here are my highs and lows: Victories: •Protecting the right to abortion and gender-affirming health care with a law that has already spurred a court decision to make Eastern NM counties and city’s halt their local bans on abortion providers (HB 7). The story is not over, however, since that whole move was to spur court action that could be appealed to the Supreme Court. •Providing free lunches and breakfasts to NM schoolkids (SB 4). •Using some of the surplus to create a Legacy Fund to conserve land and water resources (SB 9). •Expanding voter access to Native Americans, those formerly incarcerated and providing with better automatic registration, and a permanent absentee list (HB 4). The bill was contested by Republicans at every step of the way—but the Dems stood together to pass it. •Protecting children from gun violence that may come from improper storage of guns. HB 9 was named for Bennie Harper, the Washington Middle School student who was killed a few years back by another child with his parent’s gun.  Republicans opposed at every step.  •Putting New Mexico on record as opposing a private, high-level nuclear waste storage facility (SB 53). Defeats: • In the wake of Covid, the Paid Family Leave Act (SB 11) had a huge amount of support to provide time off to care for an ailing family member or a newborn. But it was narrowly defeated in the House Commerce and Industry Committee when Democrats Patty Lundstrom and Marian Matthews voted to table it. The proponents have vowed to return. • Two constitutional amendments (HJR 2&8) advanced by a coalition of House women to extend the state’s very short legislative sessions and set up an independent commission to study if and how much to pay legislators both failed. The modernization efforts are a key part of improving the legislature’s effectiveness, power and ability to attract a more diverse membership. The salary measure (which would have gone on the ballot in 2024) passed the House but faltered in the Senate. A companion measure to study more staff for legislators passed early in the session. The proponents have vowed to try again. •Global warming coming from NM oil and gas producers will continue to increase with the failure of legislation to enforce drilling regulations and to increase in taxes and royalties on these extractive industries. A “green” constitutional amendment which would have made holding companies legally accountable also failed. For me, the real disappointment comes from the continued underfunding of the two departments that are supposed to be tracking violations of the methane rule that prevents flaring. Right now, the departments rely on companies’ self-reporting along with EPA or citizen flyovers which often reveal methane plumes that have not been reported.  •Truly open primaries, where independents (or “decline to state” voters) can request a ballot from either of the major parties in a primary without switching to them permanently, got further than it ever did this session. But SB 73 died when House Judiciary Chair Rep. Christine Chandler declined to hear it in the final days of the session. The measure had bipartisan support. • With the death of SB 217 and 218 the Senate once again signaled that transparency—at least when it comes to lobbyists—is not a priority. The bipartisan supported bills would have simply required lobbyists to declare what bills they are lobbying for or against and for whom. A no-brainer—for those who want to know what’s going on.  They would have also required disclosure of what the lobbyists are paid by their employers.  Perish the thought! This from a place where paid lobbyists can outnumber unpaid legislators by 10 to one, depending on the session. •With extra money to cushion any blow, 2023 was to be the year of tax reform. It wasn’t. Yes, taxpayers will get a $500 rebate(this will cost the state $666 million) and the gross receipts tax will be reduced slightly over the next few years. If the Governor signs the huge omnibus bill, the child income tax credit will increase. But there will be no real reform to make the income tax more progressive and the reduced alcohol tax that emerged from the conference committee is pathetic. Yes, the capital gains deduction is capped, but tax pyramiding still stands—to the detriment of many small businesses. • I am particularly disappointed in what happened to the proposed 25 cent a drink tax, which was reduced to 15 cents, then 5 cents and then to under 1 cent, which will have no deterrent effect on alcohol use and hence, New Mexico’s astronomical rate of alcohol-related deaths. Read this and weep.  Final Grade: B- Well, as you can see, my defeats list is much longer than my victories.  But I am an easy grader and give points for movement and the tremendous amount of civic engagement from advocates and ordinary citizens.  Despite the outcome of the modernization efforts, I’m encouraged by the energy of younger members now coming into their own in the House, and the band of mothers that will continue to push through family friendly policies in years to come. Check out this photo below of the representatives who pushed HJR 8 on salaries through the House!

Couy Griffin on Trial: A Tale of Two Realities

I wrote this article for Source New Mexico after pouring over court transcripts from this bizarre trial of Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin in Santa Fe in August 

Sept. 2, 2022

Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin’s trial for betraying his oath of office to defend the Constitution got underway in Santa Fe in mid-August with Griffin, the founder of Cowboys for Trump, denying he knew he was doing anything illegal in the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Griffin was convicted in June by a D.C. court of trespassing during the uprising, but he told the Santa Fe judge he thought the barricades were just meant to keep people off the grass. In spite of police warnings, Griffin said he never saw a sign that he couldn’t be where he was.

Griffin came to the attention of the nation with his remark that “The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat.” Then-President Trump tweeted the remark, and Griffin’s social media followers swelled.

I reviewed the transcripts from Griffin’s two-day trial, which is based on a section in the 14^th Amendment that disqualifies anyone from office who has taken an oath of office to uphold the constitution and then violated it by fomenting insurrection. The clause originated in post-Civil War history.

If found guilty, Griffin would not be allowed to serve out his term on the Otero County Commission, which ends in December, or run for another office. Griffin is thinking about running for Catron County sheriff.

The recent bench trial was a disturbing tale of two realities. One was presented by a team of lawyers who showed video clips of Jan. 6, 2021, used testimony from a number of witnesses, and played Griffin’s on-the-record statements before and after the event. Witnesses included an injured D.C. police officer, a photojournalist, and two experts on political violence and insurrection.

The other recounting was Griffin’s, presented by the preacher-turned-politician himself. It contained no evidence, no witnesses, but only the pleas of Griffin, who portrayed himself as a peaceful, innocent protestor with heart. He often did not remember saying the things that were on the record in his own deposition, maintained that the videos shown had been doctored by the mainstream media, and accused witnesses of being tainted by a liberal bias.

He asserted that the real villains were antifa provocateurs. He even said that the judiciary had been weaponized against him.

Even though I do some communications work for Common Cause New Mexico, an organization that filed a brief in the case supporting Griffin’s removal from office, I felt some sympathy for him as I watched the hearing. He was all alone there in the courtroom, representing himself in a folksy, down-to-earth manner. A lone ranger.

But then the contradictions began to pile up.

Griffin: “I would never encourage or promote anyone breaking the law and acting in a way to disrupt the government.”

Footage: Griffin pumping his fist and encouraging the mob as it yelled “Heave ho, heave ho,” while it broke down a door leading to the chambers.

Griffin in court: “I had no violent intent on Jan. 6.”

Footage with quotes from the bus tour organized by Women for America First to drum up support for Jan. 6:

• ”It feels to me like we’re a nation at war.”
• ”If you don’t win it at the ballot box, win it in the streets.”
• ”It’s a war we cannot lose. Every card is on the table.”
• ”We will hunt down the RHINOS.”
• ”If he (Pence) doesn’t (send the results back to the states) he’s going to have to find a real dark hole to climb into.”

Griffin in court: “I’m trying to save America, not destroy America…All we wanted was to have our voices heard.”

Footage: Griffin at the event: “I love the smell of napalm in the morning.”

Griffin’s social media account shared the day after the event as he encouraged his followers to return for the inauguration: “Blood will run from the Capitol.”

It’s hard to deal with family members and friends who are in denial about their behavior and its effects on other people. It’s particularly difficult when the person apologizes, as Griffin did during his court appearance.

“I’m not necessarily proud of some of the things I’ve said,” he told the court.  “They were driven by emotion. Sometimes, in the world of politics, you get driven by emotion.”

Griffin admitted to foolishness, to being too blunt, to being frustrated.

His remarks were almost believable until I realized that his behavior had not changed since his two court appearances. He continues to use his office as county commissioner to try and discredit election results nationwide and decertify our own state election — even when ordered by the NM Supreme Court not to do so. He continues to be heavily armed.

I am all for questioning authority and insisting on transparency, two shields he used in court. Unfortunately, it became obvious that his agenda so closely follows the boilerplate Trump conspiracy theories and Fox News media memes that it sapped my sympathy for him.

The last straw, though, was his effort to undercut the testimony of the D.C. police officer who had been wedged between the mob and a glass door, and his insistence that the officer who died the day after the insurrection only died of “natural causes,” not the vicious mob attack.

After a while it became hard to listen to the continued falsehoods and misinformation, even though we must in order to find a clue to healing the disconnect from reality that so many of our fellow citizens have fallen into.

 

Even as fires rage, fireworks ban a tough nut to crack

 

From an Op Ed I wrote for Source NM April 28, 2022... written as wildfires rage in New Mexico, destroying landscapes and eating up about 2000 acres along with homes, livestock, and wildlife. Much of this is taken from Burn Marks from the Fireworks Industry, a chapter in my 2014 book Inside the New Mexico Senate: Boots, Suits and Citizens. dedefeldman.com/books

It seems like common sense. With wildfires eating up over 160,000 acres in Northern New Mexico and costing tens of millions of dollars for fire suppression, why not ban the sale of fireworks during the peak fire season of the year — Fourth of July?

It’s a question that Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham tried to grapple with a few days ago during a news conference on the state’s emergency response to the Calf Canyon-Hermits Peak, Cooks Peak, Cerro Pelado and other fires. The governor would like to ban fireworks in a time of extreme drought and danger, but she cannot according to a 1996 state law that vests that power in municipalities alone. 

And even that law, written with the support of the small-but-powerful fireworks industry, ties the hands of cities by requiring hearings 20 days in advance of any declaration, which renders immediate response to local fires impossible. Moreover, cities can only ban the sale or use of some fireworks (missile and stick-type rockets, helicopters, aerial spinners and ground-audible devices) and can only restrict the use of everything else that sets off showers of sparks to areas that are paved, barren or have an accessible source of water. For firefighters, who have been arguing for years for an outright state ban, that makes enforcement almost impossible.

In the absence of the power to issue a statewide ban, the governor issued an executive order declaring that severe drought and fire conditions exist and urging the municipalities to voluntarily ban fireworks, as have federal agencies and state forests. Faced with the same problem in 2011, Gov. Susana Martinez begged private businesses to take fireworks off the shelves — and some, including Walmart, did. 

That year — 2011 — was the year of the huge Las Conchas fire in the Jemez, and the next year I teamed up with the Republican governor to get the Legislature to give her power to issue a temporary fireworks ban during extreme drought. Every fire department in the state wanted to testify in favor of Senate Bill 5. The Municipal League and the Association of Counties were on board. The state forester was there. Petitions with 7,000 signatures from all over the state poured in, and the mayors of small towns feverishly lobbied their legislators.

In spite of the popular support — and some compromises made along the way — the bill went down in flames, tabled in the Senate Corporations Committee, chaired by Sen. Phil Griego. Lobbyists from the fireworks industry, who portrayed their clients as mom-and-pop enterprises defending mom and apple pie, were successful in holding off what I considered a clear public health and safety issue. 

“We’re talking about a free country and independence,” Eddie Arnet from Amy’s Fireworks in Las Cruces told the committee. “These fireworks are used for the Fourth of July. We’re talking about sparklers in grandmother’s birthday cake.” 

The fireworks industry was composed of three companies, located in Roswell, Las Cruces and Farmington, along with seasonal retail outlets that sell fireworks along the roadside in the weeks before the Fourth of July. In 2012, lobbyists for the three companies were some of the most well-known, powerful and generous at the Roundhouse. And when it came to legislators, their largess was targeted to the Corporations Committee, which they often supplied with dinners shipped in from the fancy Restaurant Martín (complete with white linen napkins and the good china).  

In the years since, there have been several attempts to give cities more leeway on which fireworks they can ban, although the 20-day advance notice has always been maintained. In 2013, Rep. Emily Kane, a firefighter herself, introduced a bill. Sen. Griego tried in 2015, and Rep. Matthew McQueen tried in 2017. All the bills failed.

Opponents said that fireworks don’t usually cause fires, and that even if they were banned, they could be bought on Native American reservations or nearby states. 

Yet, while the causes of major forest fires only occasionally include fireworks, even one fire sparked in such a way can have a major impact. In 2003, a major Bosque fire caused by teenagers playing with fireworks near Old Town torched 300 prime acres of the Bosque running through my Senate district. It cost $1.7 million for fire suppression, nearly burnt down the Bosque School and scarred the suddenly evacuated residents of Thomas Village and Dietz Farms. It spurred me to introduce my first fireworks bill in 2004, which also went down to defeat.  

There are some causes of wildfires, like lightening or wind, that cannot be controlled.  But, according to natural resources professionals, nearly 85% of wildfires are caused by humans who leave campfires unattended, throw out cigarette butts, and yes, use fireworks negligently. Controlling fireworks is one of the few tools available — and yet it is a tough nut to crack in the Legislature.

 

Legislators have been unwilling to give the governor more power in an emergency, and they are unwilling to strengthen the hand of local government as well.

In a time of continued drought, brought on by climate change, it’s time for the Legislature to step up and become a part of the solution, rather than perpetuating the problem — an outdated law that prevents the governor from banning fireworks statewide in longer and longer fire seasons.

What will that take? Confronting a special interest with deep connections to legislators, to start — something the Legislature has been unwilling to do. But why not try a carrot, rather than a stick? Gov. Lujan-Grisham suggested “making them whole” for not selling their deadly, delightful product. It’s a nice way of saying: pay them off. It’s been done before, with other powerful interests that lawmakers are afraid to confront. A sad commentary on legislative courage, perhaps, but a practical way to save lives, expense, rural livelihoods and homes.

 

‘Junior’ budget bills fill in the gaps

Here's my Op Ed on Junior Bills from today's Source NM

March 28, 2022.  When Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham pocket vetoed the so called “junior bill” a couple of weeks ago, she opened what former Gov. Bruce King called a “Box of Pandoras.”  Legislators of both parties and all ideological stripes immediately called for an extraordinary session to override the veto of one of the few bills that had passed unanimously in an otherwise highly contentious session.

The $50-million spending package contained funding for community projects designated by legislators themselves — everything from meals on wheels, transportation for people with disabilities, equipment for police and sheriffs to land grant operating expenses and uranium-mine cleanup. 

Each senator got $600,000 to allocate to preferred projects; Representatives got $360,000. The junior bill is often confused with the capital outlay bill, but that’s for brick-and-mortar projects like roads or buildings. Legislators get to divvy up one-off allocations for those projects. Unlike capital outlay, junior bills can include recurring, operational funds for staff and ongoing programs.  

To some, including the governor, a junior bill looks like a Christmas tree, with each legislator getting an ornament or two. In her veto message, Lujan Grisham said the allocations were unvetted and opaque. The big, annual budget, after all, goes through extensive hearings. Even the capital annual bill is finally transparent, after years of advocacy, with legislators required to reveal their allocations. 

But junior bills are not all bad. Over my 16 years in the New Mexico Senate, I witnessed how the power and ability of rank-and-file lawmakers reduced drastically as they tried to get their policy ideas or projects into the main budget. Thanks largely to former Sen. John Arthur Smith (D-Deming), this power is now concentrated in the Legislative Finance Committee and the two standing appropriations committees of the House and Senate. If you are not a member of those committees, your priorities often go unaddressed despite the dire consequences facing communities without services like, say, a behavioral health clinic or someone to maintain a rural water system.

Often a junior bill is the only way for ordinary legislators to address these needs, which may have been passed over by the big committees in favor of solving a crisis du jour or funding a governor’s big initiative, like free college tuition or a hydrogen hub.

For years, with the help of the nonprofit, Farm to Table, I pushed for funding that would allow schools to use locally grown produce to feed children in the public schools. It seemed like a win-win, a way to help local farmers, keep the valley green and keep our kids healthy, counterbalancing the enormous amount of junk food consumed by the average teenager.  But it never got off the ground. Sure, there were a few hundred thousand appropriated here and there throughout the years, but not a statewide project that would change the paradigm. 

What to do? In 2007 I allocated funds from a junior bill to fund a small pilot program for North Valley schools to use fresh produce from New Mexico as part of snacks and lunches for kids. The program has been a great success and other legislators have started initiatives in their own districts, pushing the Public Education Department to begin a statewide program and enlarge it every year using funding in the main budget. 

With funding from the junior bill, the “farm-to-school” project took off, providing a model for how it might be scaled up statewide.  Thank you notes and letters from parents, students, organic growers and others poured in. It was the most popular thing I ever did for my district.

Several agricultural projects were included in this year’s vetoed junior bill. Other funding went to nonprofits that run after-school programs, shelter the survivors of domestic violence, or provide help for victims of crime. These programs are important parts of our communities — filling in the gaps that legislators can perceive and sometimes providing the social equity that the big programs see only as a byproduct.

Fortunately, the special legislative session just announced for April 5 will moderate the shock and awe that the veto of the junior bill caused among nonprofits, legislators and their constituents. A new junior bill will be part of a package negotiated with the governor, which will also include a rebate to help consumers hard pressed by rising gas prices.  

An embarrassing veto override no longer seems likely. And hopefully, legislators will move to address a valid point made by the governor: transparency. The sponsor of each appropriation in the new junior bill should be identified. Communities, constituents, local officials and residents want to know where the money came from. 

Now that shouldn’t be a huge problem in an election year, should it? 

Straight from Source NM: Dede's article on the 2022 legislative session--The games people play

 The Games People Play

Calls of the Senate, filibusters and other delaying tactics

from Source New Mexico, Feb. 22, 2022

Last week’s frustrating end to this year’s legislative session left election reformers, voting rights advocates and others wondering: how could this happen? 

How could one senator filibuster for over two hours, killing arguably one of the most important bills of the session: the New Mexico Voting Rights Act? And how, days earlier, could Republicans — the minority in the Legislature today — issue a “call of the Senate,” blocking all discussion of the same issue?

How a call works

A call of the Senate or the House requires the presence of all unexcused members of either chamber. It can be issued by any member but requires the votes of six other members. 

The sergeant-at-arms,sometimes backed up by the State Police, is then charged by the presiding officer to round up the missing members — from their offices, nearby restaurants or homes. The doors are locked, and the remaining members are not permitted off the floor. The call is “complete” only after all are present. 

It’s easy to see how a handful of legislators in either chamber can stop debate indefinitely on any bill. The logjam is usually cleared by an agreement to remove the call — in return for something else. Or not.

At a time of deep partisan divide, either political party could theoretically put a call on every bill if they had the votes of a mere seven members. That has not yet happened, but the mechanism has been misused in the past, revealing not just run-of-the-mill political maneuverings but some seedy behavior as well.  

One call of the House that I remember in 2004 involved renegade Rep. Bengie Regensberg, the black-hatted cowboy from Wagon Mound who promoted cock-fighting and had a reputation for feisty confrontations. Regensberg was absent from a late-night call of the House, and Speaker Ben Luján sent the State Police to find him. 

Officers finally found him at his motel. The lawmaker proceeded to get into a fist fight with the State Police, according to reports.  He came back with a black eye.

Months later, he got a surprise challenge in his Democratic primary — newcomer Hector Balderas, who today is New Mexico’s attorney general. 

During the 1990s, Sen. Tom Benavides from the South Valley of Albuquerque was notorious for eluding capture during calls of the Senate. Benavides was best known for his black eye patch — a distinguishing feature you might think would make him easy to find when looking for errant senators. 

Not so. During one call, Benavides successfully hid under his desk. During another he donned a black wig and sunglasses and disguised himself as a woman. As police mounted a manhunt, “Mrs. Benavides” sat quietly (accounts vary as to whether she was on the dais or in the gallery) while senators fumed, only to erupt in laughter when Benavides shed his wig and sunglasses and they realized he had been there the whole time. 

Benavides was so slippery that in 1995 Lt. Gov. Walter Bradley had him followed by two burly State Police officers the last two days of the session. President Pro Tem Manny Aragon even presented him with a gag gift of handcuffs, to make sure that policemen could keep him locked to his Senate chair. 

He was defeated by Sen. Linda Lopez in 1996.

 

Republican filibusters also have a long history in the N.M. Legislature. Mostly reserved for the final days of unreasonably short sessions, they are effective for Republicans who believe that their main job is to thwart the majority and prevent new laws, government regulations or taxes. 

Republicans introduce far fewer bills and have less to lose in any delay, and so the filibuster is not just reserved for the final days but, as observers know, rolls on cumulatively during committee hearings, and even during announcements and miscellaneous — a nebulous time on the floor when in the Senate, the two-hour limit on debate does not apply. 

In 1997, my first year in the Senate, I was stunned by the last-day filibuster of Sen. Bill Davis, which brought down the capital outlay bill, as well as a private prison deal. Later I became more callous, if no less resentful, when in 2011 a $240 million capital outlay bill languished as Sen. Rod Adair and Sen. John Ryan engaged in what was called a “Laurel and Hardy” routine by then-Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez. 

At the turn of this millennia in the Senate, other fun and games included demands from either Davis (R-Albuquerque) or Sen. Ramsay Gorham (R-Albuquerque) that the entirety of a bill actually be read on “the third reading of legislation,” a parliamentary term for the time when debate begins on each bill.  The tactic was particularly effective when facing debate on, say, a 560-page bill. 

For years, defenders of these time-wasters have said these games are a way to prevent the majority from trampling on the rights of the minority. It’s true, but the damages can’t be denied. 

At the national level, Senate filibusters have historically allowed the denial of voting rights, prolonging the Jim Crow era. It’s why there is now a national movement to end Senate filibusters, especially as applied to essential components of our democratic system — like voting rights.  

It’s time to revise the rules here in New Mexico, too. Elections and voting rights are not a game to be played by obstructionists donning black wigs or telling folksy tales.

Filibusters would be far less effective in longer sessions.

Calls of the Senate or House should take into account Zoom and other technologies to allow members to participate remotely, as COVID has already taught us. 

And maybe, a professional paid Legislature, with regular hours, and fewer reasons for citizen legislators to be absent from their main job — lawmaking — would cut down on the fun and games.  ###