Sherry Robinson 2021
© 2021 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES 4/26/21
State prepares the way for its future as outdoor recreation mecca
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
It’s time to get outside. Burn off the body upholstery layered on during the pandemic, and support New Mexico’s outdoor recreation industry.
The state’s Outdoor Recreation Division is busy making sure that happens for New Mexicans and tourists. The Legislature provided funding for projects and heard several natural resource bills this year.
One bill aimed to modernize wildlife management but ran counter to the state’s drive to support outdoor recreation businesses.
SB 312 would have changed the name of the state Game and Fish Department to the Department of Wildlife Conservation; the State Game Commission would have become the State Wildlife Conservation Commission. The distribution of hunting tags would have changed from 84 percent for residents, 10 percent for outfitters, and 6 percent for nonresidents to 90 percent for residents, 10 percent for nonresidents, and none for outfitters. Cutting outfitters, they reasoned, gave more tags to New Mexicans.
The bill would have required farmers, ranchers, and other landowners to consult the department before killing wildlife on their property and called for new rules about when and if wildlife could be killed to prevent property damage. Currently, landowners can kill wildlife that’s damaging their crops, fencing, or other property. They can also kill elk and antelope because of perceived threats.
Proponents said the bill would conserve wildlife as a resource for the equitable use of all New Mexicans.
Guides and outfitters said the changes would put them out of business, and the New Mexico Chamber of Commerce agreed, saying the state would lose $300,000 in gross receipts taxes.
When this bill was before the Senate Conservation Committee, thousands of calls poured in, for and against. Chairwoman Liz Stefanics, D-Santa Fe, said she has six rural counties in her district and had to stand with her constituents. The bill died in her committee, as she voted with Republicans to table the bill.
A second bill over trapping generated far more emotional discussion. SB 32 bans the use of traps, snares and poison on public lands but not on private or tribal lands. It makes exceptions for ecosystem management; cage traps to protect property, crops or livestock; and Native American use for ceremonial purposes.
After hours of heated debate, it passed the House by one vote and was signed by the governor.
I’m not going to rehash this much-discussed bill, but I’ve written before that we have invited New Mexicans and visitors to recreate here, and with the state promoting outdoor recreation we owe them a safe experience for their children and pets. Trappers argue that most operate carefully within regulations, but clearly not all do. Otherwise people with terrible experiences wouldn’t crowd Zoom hearings.
Something everyone can agree on is the benefit of getting more people into the great outdoors. In a year with a lot of one-time money, one good use of it is hiking trails.
The Outdoor Recreation Division budget includes $100,000 for the Outdoor Equity Fund, plus additional money in the junior budget bill, SB 377.
Created in 2019, the fund provides grants to help low-income kids experience the outdoors. Late last year, the division made its first round of grants for 25 programs all over the state, chosen from 84 applicants.
A second initiative is the Great New Mexico Trails Package to match federal funding with the Land and Water Conservation Fund to create more than 150 miles of new trails in 23 counties. The division received one-time funding of $500,000. That’s not the $3.2 million it asked for, but it’s a start.
The beauty of the outdoor recreation industry is that it’s open to all, it’s rural, and the state is providing new tools for entry.
© 2021 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES 4/19/21
Beef up New Mexico’s food supply chain with local processing
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
For the past year, I’ve been buying excellent beef directly from a New Mexico rancher, who’s become a regular vendor among vegetable sellers at a local growers market. From her I’ve learned about the trials ranchers face in selling their products.
Her immediate concern is the state’s shortage of meat processors. She has to take her animals to Colorado.
The pandemic has shown us the weaknesses in the supply chain and reoriented consumer demand. Consumers nationwide depend on four big meat packing companies, and when plants closed over COVID-19 outbreaks, grocery store shelves emptied. That spurred consumer interest in buying local meat; there’s also growing enthusiasm for organic, grass-fed beef.
Ranchers are captives of an unfair market that rewards retailers and packing plants but not the people raising the livestock. They’re more than willing to sell directly, but there’s a bottleneck at the state’s few processors.
How did we get here?
In 2007, the U. S. Department of Agriculture admitted that for 30 years it wasn’t performing daily inspections as the law required. Hundreds of small meat processors located a long distance from the inspector’s base got a visit twice a week or every two weeks, according to a Reuters story.
That year, the USDA launched a new inspection system focused on facilities’ safety records and risk. The agency reasoned that this would send inspectors where they were most needed. But industry and consumer groups sharply criticized the agency because it lacked meaningful scientific data and had no objective way to weigh risk, according to the Center for Infectious Disease and Research Policy. The Consumer Federation of America said the Bush administration was simply trying to cut meat inspection costs.
With that backdrop, the USDA in July 2007 pulled the plug on New Mexico’s meat inspections, which had been performed by the state Livestock Board, after federal inspectors reported compliance issues. Then-Gov. Bill Richardson reshuffled the leadership of the Livestock Board, which tried for 18 months to placate the federal agency. The USDA gave Richardson several choices that included letting the USDA take over the program. He reluctantly agreed because he didn’t have a choice, a member of the Livestock Board told the Albuquerque Journal.
Until then, the Livestock Board had inspected about 30 meat processors. (They could sell only in New Mexico; USDA-inspected processors could sell out of state.) Many of the small processors didn’t survive the transition. Critics believed that was the point of the crackdown; the agency no longer had to spread inspectors among small, distant processors.
The industry nationwide was consolidating, with the blessing of the USDA. What’s left was fewer, larger, plants.
Today, New Mexico ranchers can expect a six-month wait before they get a slot at the remaining processors. This is a problem nationally.
States are taking steps to stabilize small processors. Pennsylvania offers grants to small meat processors to help them meet federal standards. Montana and North Carolina provide grants to help small and medium-sized processors expand, according to the website FoodPrint, devoted to sustainable food production. A federal bill stalled after opposition by what’s known as the Big Meat lobby.
New Mexico plans to restore state meat inspections. Legislation this year will provide $150,000 to the state Agriculture Department to help small processors open or expand and connect consumers and ranchers. However, the state Agriculture Department has estimated that a state meat inspection program would cost $1.6 million a year, and it’s not yet clear who would bear the cost. To date, 27 states manage their own meat inspection programs.
Making it possible for New Mexico companies to process New Mexico meat falls under the heading of value-added economic development. And it just makes sense.
I’ve long thought that the state’s consumers would like to be eating New Mexico burgers and steaks. Local inspections bridge that gap.
© 2021 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES 4/12/21
Veto kills real police reform for another year
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
Out of all the police reform legislation that rumbled through the Roundhouse recently, only one bill would have made a significant difference and the governor vetoed it.
The problem is, after a police shooting or excessive-use-of-force incident, the state’s investigation takes so long that a bad officer can resign from one department and get hired by another. The backlog of cases goes back two to three years.
SB 375 would have shaken up the Law Enforcement Academy Board and changed its duties. Created in 1969, the board sets requirements for hiring and certification, investigates officer misconduct, prescribes discipline, and oversees training. The bill would have given the board responsibility for new and better training and shifted the badly backlogged disciplinary and certification process to a new, independent board.
It called for new training in crisis management and intervention, mental health issues, methods of de-escalation, peer-to-peer intervention, stress management, racial sensitivity, reality-based situational training, and use-of-force training. It banned choke holds.
And it mandated creation of a database of excessive use-of-force incidents that could be shared among agencies.
SB 375, a bipartisan bill by Sens. George Muñoz, D-Gallup, and Stuart Ingle, R-Portales, was the only police reform bill supported by law enforcement. While other bills were punitive, this one gave them the tools they need.
The New Mexico Municipal League said the board’s backlog “makes it near-impossible to remove the type of law enforcement officer who subjects the public to risk.” SB 375 addressed the backlog and offered “solutions to what ails the law enforcement community,” such as hiring the best applicants, providing better training, and holding bad cops accountable.
Local governments have asked for these changes for years, and law enforcement agencies have asked repeatedly for better training, said A. J. Forte, executive director of the Municipal League, during one hearing. “We want to make sure officers don’t quit one department and move to the one in the town next door.”
Attorney General Hector Balderas has called the board a train wreck, and he serves as its chair.
The bill passed both chambers unanimously.
The hitch was over who would serve on the academy board.
Initially, it would have included the attorney general, the director of the New Mexico Law Enforcement Academy, directors of satellite law enforcement academies, and seven governor appointees: a lawyer from a district attorney’s office, a lawyer from the Public Defender Department, one police chief, two adult education specialists, and two citizen members with no connection to law enforcement.
A House floor amendment did away with the seven governor’s appointees. The Senate concurred.
In her veto message – against the backdrop of the Minneapolis cop trial – the governor objected to eliminating the seven board members, particularly the two citizen members.
“Eliminating these members would insulate the board from any civilian oversight, a necessary accountability measure,” she wrote. “While I support many of the other proposed amendments, I cannot support SB 375 due to this provision. The board must continue to have civilian oversight.”
Either the executive wasn’t communicating with lawmakers or they weren’t listening. Either way, this bill died for a pretty flimsy reason. Civilian board members could have been added next year. Now, the entire reform will have to wait a year, and it will take some time to get it up and running.
What we got instead was the Civil Rights Act, which makes local governments liable for civil rights violations committed by police and other public employees. It eliminates qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that protects government employees from personal liability. This might give people some reassurance and make a lot of lawyers happy, but it’s a long, slow road. It won’t deliver the immediate impact of SB 375.
We’re still waiting for real police reform.
© 2021 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES 4/5/21
Bad behavior sullies predatory lending debate and kills bill
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
Predatory lending was back on the agenda during the regular legislative session. Despite the usual horror stories presented in testimony, efforts to scale annual interest rates back from 175 percent fell short.
Officially the story is that the Senate and House couldn’t agree, but there’s more to it.
Through the years various legislators have gone to the mat against storefront lenders. This year, Sens. Bill Soules, D-Las Cruces, and Katy Duhigg, D-Albuquerque, and Reps. Susan Herrera, D-Española, and Gail Armstrong, R-Magdalena, carried SB 66. It would have cut the interest rate from 175 percent to 36 percent, a level the federal government set years ago for loans to military members.
Think New Mexico, a nonpartisan think tank, published a study last fall saying, among other things, that New Mexicans paid more than $220 million just in interest and fees to storefront lenders in 2019.
SB 66 bill had the governor’s backing and support from the Navajo Nation, the New Mexico Conference of Catholic Bishops, the New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty, and AARP.
A new player this year was credit unions. They not only testified for the bill – some are making these small, unsecured loans that banks.
During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, we heard familiar stories. An elderly veteran living in his vehicle borrowed money for a medical emergency. Within a month the loan went from $382 to $4,000. A man borrowed money to buy his kid a computer and wound up losing his truck.
Karen Meyers, director of the Consumer Financial Protection Initiative for the city of Albuquerque, said the lenders make loans to people who can’t afford them. Borrowers take out second and third loans to pay off the first, a process called stacking, and wind up crushed by debt. The lenders’ business model relies on repeated refinancing.
“It’s the new debt trap with a similar name,” she said.
Meyers, serving as an expert for bill sponsors, weathered repeated interruptions, rude comments, and aggressive lawyering from Sen. Daniel Ivey-Soto, D-Albuquerque. It foreshadowed the headlines of bullying he would earn a few weeks later for doing the same thing to Senate President Mimi Stewart.
Lobbyists and some lenders said bad actors should be reined in, but 36 percent isn’t workable. Lenders would close, and borrowers would turn to online and unregulated lenders. A few said credit unions wouldn’t take up the slack.
Several credit union officers said they’re already making small-dollar, unsecured loans.
Paul Stull, of the Credit Union Association of New Mexico, said, “We see problems with payday lending each and every day. We are concerned about the debt trap our members can fall into. Credit unions and other agencies are ready to make these loans,” he said.
This is major, and it’s the first time credit unions have stepped forward.
The bill passed the Senate, but late in the session, the House Judiciary Committee increased the rate to 99 percent on loans under $1,100 after Herrera and four other female House Democrats offered a compromise. They were concerned that the rapid decrease would make small loans harder to get. One of the four was Rep. Patty Lundstrom, D-Gallup, who had carried earlier payday lending bills.
“For an industry like that it was too big a change and too quick,” Lundstrom told me. “We don’t have a handle on internet lending. My attitude was it was moving too fast.”
Lundstrom added that she didn’t care for the way Soules had treated Herrera. “I’ve made the comment before that the House is not the Senate’s little sister. Some of the men didn’t treat the women very well, and I don’t like it.”
Soules recommended that the Senate not concur; Herrera did the same in the House.
That’s how it died.
© 2021 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES 3/29/21
Business to lawmakers: We’re in a world of hurt
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
In the regular legislative session, we saw a lot of magical thinking.
Among Democrats, it was, “Yes, we know business is strapped, but let’s add some taxes and employee benefits.” Among Republicans, it was, “Let’s welcome the public back to the Roundhouse during a deadly pandemic.”
It was one of those sessions that kept business lobbyists hopping.
On the plus side was significant COVID relief. The governor signed bills to deliver $200 million in grants to businesses, with the hardest hit businesses getting priority, and offer long-term, low-interest loans up to $150,000.
Business groups pushed for both bills. The no votes came from Republicans who argued the relief would be unnecessary if the governor would just reopen the state. Magical thinking.
On the minus side, business fended off a slew of harmful bills. They ranged from attempts to stop oil and gas in its tracks to the well intentioned but ill-timed wish to help employees.
A bill to undo the hard-won minimum wage compromise of 2019 and raise the wage died in committee.
Then there was the tax increase adventure. One bill would have increased the corporate income tax rate, created a new tax bracket for corporations with taxable income over $1 million, and reduced the gross receipts tax rate. New Mexico has changed the corporate tax rate 10 times in the last 13 years, according to legislative analysis. Both business and the state Economic Development Department said it sends a terrible message at a time when we need new companies to relocate.
That bill stalled, but the corporate income tax piece was loaded into another bill to expand the Working Families Tax Credit and the Low Income Comprehensive Tax Rebate. It would also have raised income taxes on individuals earning more than $75,000 and reduced the capital gain exclusion.
If the idea was to soak the rich, it would also have soaked the middle class, along with doctors and medical professionals, who are in short supply. The Senate Finance Committee pruned the tax increases and the bill passed.
I’ve complained for years that governors and lawmakers keep trying to pass off tinkering and meddling as reform, and that’s what this was.
Senate Finance Chairman George Muñoz, D-Gallup, agreed that corporate tax increases and frequent changes send a poor message. He sees a need to restructure taxes and promises work in the interim. Maybe there’s hope.
The paid sick leave bill provoked hours of furious debate that lasted until the last minutes of the session. Sponsors argued that nobody should have to go to work sick; businesses argued that they can’t afford it. The bill requires businesses to offer paid sick leave starting in July 2022, when Dems optimistically assume economic recovery even though experts predict recovery will take longer. Magical thinking.
It’s now before the governor.
Last week, Rob Black, president and CEO of the New Mexico Chamber, was hard pressed to sound optimistic during a Zoom address to the Economic Forum. More than one-third of small businesses have closed.
“We are not working in a particularly business friendly environment,” especially compared to the states around us, he said.
The first challenge is increasing the state’s working-age population. That group is shrinking, while the over-50 set is increasing. “That’s not a pattern for success,” he said.
Black urged the business community to think differently, focus on equality, build non-traditional alliances, and “learn to negotiate in a blue-state environment.”
An example of nontraditional alliances is that business and unions both testified for Muñoz’s economic development bill to encourage big projects to come to the state. It’s gotten no attention but is on the governor’s call for the special session.
We don’t have time to dither, Black said. “We were, and are, in a world of hurt right now.”
© 2021 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES 3/22/21
Lawmakers pride themselves on tackling reforms; that should include the Legislature itself
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
Last week, floor sessions in the House and Senate ended in the wee hours. The next day, groggy, grumpy, sleep-deprived legislators trapped in this endurance test were more or less functional.
As legislative sessions rumble to a close, I’ve often thought, this is no way to run a railroad. New Mexico simply has too many complex issues to cram into alternating 60-day and 30-day sessions. Who in 1912 could have imagined broadband, the education funding formula, or police reform?
So it’s good to see our hardworking lawmakers thinking about modernizing the process. And “modernizing” is a good word. Roundhouse sausage-making hasn’t changed much in decades.
House Joint Resolution 13 proposed to extend the session to 45 days from 30 days during even-numbered years and keep the 60-day length for odd-numbered years. The shorter session would no longer be limited to budget-related bills and governors’ requests, and it would start later in the year to accommodate the budget process.
It passed the House and died on the Senate floor calendar for lack of time. That alone is an argument for the measure.
Cynics may not like the idea of giving legislators more time, but every year hundreds of bills die because the clock runs out. Many are good bills, carefully vetted in committee with bipartisan agreement. Many would make a material difference to education or business. Because of restrictions on short sessions, meaningful reforms can only occur during long sessions, so any pressing need is put off for two years.
The lead sponsor, House Minority Whip Rod Montoya, R-Farmington, argued in Judiciary Committee that the 30-day sessions are bad for the minority party because their bills just don’t get heard. Also, House budgeters don’t receive new revenue numbers until the session is almost over. Democrats chimed in that the short sessions are hard on everyone.
Watching them scramble year after year, I’d have proposed 60 days a year. Many Judiciary Committee members said the same.
For decades, the Legislature met every other year, according to “Politics in New Mexico,” by Jack Holmes. Legislators tried three times in the 1950s and 1960s to get an annual session, and voters finally agreed in 1964.
Pandemic duress helped streamline the session this year. Limiting the number of bills was a stroke of genius. This year lawmakers were trying to hear 800-some bills instead of the usual 1,200. And with no visitors in the chambers, they dispensed with the fluff – introduction of guests, inane memorials, small honors. Legislators and the press gallery can all agree that they don’t need to hear that a legislative intern’s favorite thing is “hanging out with friends.”
Said Rep. Matthew McQueen, D-Santa Fe, “We spend way too much time on that stuff. Way too much time.” But even with the bill limit and the near absence of ceremonial blather, legislators were still slammed in the final week, he said. “We need to look at the process.”
A second bill, HB 301, would have done that. If it hadn’t died in committee, it would have created a Legislative Process Review Commission to study everything from rules to transparency to staff support.
Committee members had more ideas about improving the process.
“A single senator can kill my bill because he doesn’t like it,” groused McQueen. This refers to committee chairs refusing to hear bills. It’s an old complaint.
House Minority Leader Jim Townsend, R-Artesia, said that Senate members, elected every four years instead of two for representatives, have time to build the relationships they need to advance their bills. He added that staff located in the districts would help with constituent support.
Proposals to pay legislators surfaced again, another old issue.
In the interim between sessions, when legislators examine issues, they should put the Legislature itself on the agenda.
© 2021 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES 3/15/21
Small towns need more flexibility to create jobs
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
Small towns want some of the same carrots bigger communities use to attract new employers. And they want to recruit retailers if that’s the local need.
Such a bill sparked a bigger discussion among legislators last week: What constitutes economic development in small towns? What financial incentives can they offer?
Clovis, once a retail center, has seen its retail sector shrink and millions of dollars bleed across the state line into Texas.
“Retail is an economic driver,” Mayor Mike Morris told a House committee. “For rural communities it’s a major factor in the quality of life. As a mayor, I’m asking for help. We need some tools.”
Right now, only cities of at least 35,000 can use LEDA (Local Economic Development Act) funding to help new businesses. SB 49 would allow communities of 15,000 and up to use LEDA. The bill would also allow communities to help businesses of their choosing, including retail, even if they might compete with existing businesses.
“The statute ties our hands,” Morris said. “We’re asking for local decision making in how LEDA is used.”
The economic development bible teaches that incentives should only be used to create economic-base jobs – high-paying jobs in an industry that sells out of state. As those dollars turn over in the local economy, they create support jobs. Economic developers typically look down on retail, but in small towns retail can, in fact, be economic development.
Rep. Jason Harper, R-Rio Rancho, quoted the gospel about economic-base jobs and observed that the LEDA program was deliberately limited to make the most effective use of its funds.
“I agree with economic-base jobs except I’ve seen it not work,” Morris said.
Republican Sen. Ron Griggs could relate. When he was mayor of Alamogordo, the town had two grocery stores, and people wanted more. A major chain considered opening a store, but there were no economic development incentives. After the town scratched up with some help, it got a third grocery store.
“It’s important to small communities to have that option,” Griggs said. “Local governments know what they need.”
Republican Rep. Rod Montoya’s own community of Farmington is struggling with lost retail and lost population, but he wasn’t comfortable with the idea of government bringing in retail that might hurt local business.
Mayor Morris, a businessman himself, said he asked the owner of a local men’s store how he’d feel about Clovis recruiting a new retailer. The man told Morris he should recruit several new retailers. The local store struggles with the public perception that there’s no place left to buy clothing in Clovis.
Montoya still wasn’t convinced. “I think we’re changing the purpose of the fund,” he said. “I hate to see the fund eroded and lose the chance to bring in a big company.”
Montoya spoke admiringly of the Texas closing fund, which gives our big neighbor a lot of options that we don’t have. Heads nodded. We can’t have a fund like that to close deals because of the anti-donation clause in the state Constitution that forbids government contributions to the private sector.
Montoya wondered if we still needed the anti-donation clause.
That’s a good question. If I had a quarter for every word I’d written on the subject, I could take a nice vacation. The anti-donation clause was born in an era when railroad barons took advantage of governments. It’s probably outlived its usefulness.
Montoya said rural communities need their own closing fund.
Rep. Javier Martinez, D-Albuquerque, said he agreed, but “we’re not there yet, so we need to give you as many tools as we possibly can.”
LEDA has been a good program, but SB 49 demonstrates that its use is limited for small towns. Legislators should give more thought to rural incentives.
© 2021 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES 3/8/21
Current governor’s controversial spending pales compared to her predecessor
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
As investigative reporting goes, the governor’s contingency fund is low hanging fruit. She could count on somebody of my ilk looking into it. So it’s surprising that Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham was so sloppy in her use of the fund, handing Republicans ammunition in their war against her.
Japanese steaks and booze sparked a letter by 14 Republican senators demanding that the State Auditor examine the account. And the Republican Governors Association takes up the subject in a social media campaign, along with Lujan Grisham’s purchase of jewelry last spring when the state’s “nonessential” retail was closed by health orders.
If we’re looking at executive spending and behavior, let’s look at the previous administration for comparison.
Gov. Susana Martinez made a big deal out of getting rid of her predecessor’s two chefs and his jet plane as a waste of taxpayer money. But then there was the infamous pizza party, in which noise and governor’s staff members tossing bottles off a hotel balcony came to the attention of the Santa Fe police, and Martinez made a fool of herself in a slurred call to the dispatcher.
Said pizza party, in fact, produced legislation in 2018 to improve scrutiny of the governor’s contingency fund.
There’s more. In the waning months of the Martinez administration, lawsuits revealed that Martinez was having a “personal relationship” with a state police officer, that the chief of the state police knew about it, and that he was using it as leverage to deal with his own problems – namely a series of sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuits that the state quietly paid off.
It cost taxpayers $1.7 million that we know of to settle lawsuits against the Department of Public Safety and its then chief. He and Martinez denied everything. The payments were supposed to be confidential for five years, but the Lujan Grisham administration refused to honor the confidentiality agreements.
Republicans senators’ letter to the State Auditor is the second strike against Sen. Greg Baca, a Belen Republican who ousted the wiser and long-serving Sen. Stuart Ingle as minority floor leader. The first strike was when Baca, a lawyer elected in 2017, set himself apart from the crowd with the dumbest line of questioning in memory.
During a Senate Rules Committee hearing for Sonya Smith as Veterans Services Secretary, Baca asked, “Do you expect that in your time here, in seven years, that you’ve been immersed in this culture enough in this state that you feel comfortable entering a position?” He added that 2.6% of the state’s population is African American and 48% is Hispanic or a Hispanic mix. “Do you feel like you are comfortable adequately representing both cultures — white, Native, Hispanics?”
Smith kept her cool. “Are you asking do I feel comfortable representing the Department of Veterans Services as a Black woman? Is that what you are asking? I don’t think when Gov. Lujan Grisham tapped me for this position, she was concerned about my color. I think she was looking at my skill set and ability to lead.”
Baca’s questions set off weeks of fireworks. The governor wrote to legislative leaders about her “extreme displeasure” with questioning Smith’s “qualifications on the basis of her race.” House Majority Leader Sheryl Williams Stapleton called the episode “borderline racism and completely disrespectful.” Senate leadership said the questioning “was totally inappropriate, hurtful, and out of line.” Black leaders and organizations made their displeasure known.
Baca initially dissembled and then apologized. This is not a mistake Ingle would have made. Tellingly, Ingle didn’t sign the letter to the State Auditor either.
The State Auditor will study the contingency fund, as he studied the court settlements. Lujan Grisham’s groceries will look like chump change in comparison. But in the future, governor, buy New Mexico beef.
© 2021 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES 3/1/21
Can wild horses drag out a compromise to an old problem?
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
Two state senators have taken on one of the most controversial issues in the last decade. Taxes? Liquor laws? Marijuana?
No, wild horses.
Maybe you’ve heard about wild horse problems in Placitas, outside Albuquerque, and on the Navajo Nation. Sen. Pat Woods, R-Broadview, held up a map to show legislative committee members that herds of wild horses are scattered across the state. They’re often in competition with livestock for ever thinning range and water. Nobody knows who owns them or what state agency has jurisdiction.
“I want someone to take responsibility,” Woods said.
Woods, an East Side farmer, has tried different approaches for the last few years. This year, he may have the right combination. He has a new ally in his co-sponsor, freshman Sen. Brenda McKenna, D-Corrales and a member of Nambe Pueblo. Her district includes Placitas, where the wild horse conundrum has turned neighbor against neighbor. Before even being sworn in, she said, it was the first constituent issue in her email.
Their Senate Bill 385 would add wild horses to the statute for cruelty to animals, spell out disposition of seized animals, and clarify that wild horses are not livestock. That means they have some protection and can’t be sold, slaughtered or euthanized like stray livestock.
It allows wild horses to be captured if they’re a physical threat, need veterinary care, or the land has exceeded its carrying capacity. They can be removed permanently if the horses are too unhealthy to return to their range or if there are better options. The bill asks the New Mexico Livestock Board to conduct a herd study, implement a herd management plan, and develop proposals for removal and disposition.
Disposition is the tricky part. New Mexico has no appropriate state lands for the relocation of wild horse herds, according to a 2019 study by New Mexico State University. The Livestock Board can send a horse to one of the state’s already strained horse rescue facilities but not a herd.
Working on his 2019 bill, Woods learned that the Livestock Board had been sued for removing horses from private land because state law was unclear on “estray” (livestock running loose.) A 2015 court decision held that “undomesticated, unowned horses” were not livestock and not estrays, but the board had no authority to impound the animal.
Worse, the decision required a court to decide whether a horse was wild; the Livestock Board had to determine how domesticated a horse was to decide jurisdiction. That left unwanted horses in limbo and the board to care for them while the court deliberated.
McKenna said the horses were also a safety issue. She knew of two crashes this year, one involving a motorcycle and a horse. The motorcyclist walked away but not the horse.
“A lot of this is a people problem,” she said. Herds grow because people who can no longer care for their animals turn them out. “Everything gets hungry. Everything needs water.”
Sen. Shannon Pinto, D-Tohatchi, reflected on the Navajo Nation’s long standing problems with horses. Near her home, where wild horses compete with cattle and sheep for scarce water, somebody took matters into their own hands by shooting the herd’s stallion.
“We hope to see a solution the tribes can emulate,” she said.
The state Bureau of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Protection Voters of New Mexico support the bill, but the New Mexico Cattlegrowers and the New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau are opposed.
To Woods, even if the bill passes, it’s a partial solution.
“We can round ‘em up and put ‘em in a pen,” he said. “Do we feed ‘em forever? We really need to put our thinking hat on. We need to sit in the same room and hammer this out.”
In this drought year, doing nothing means they starve.
© 2021 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES 2/22/21
Lawmakers shoot down bill to upend state-industry collaboration
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
Two years ago, House Speaker Brian Egolf, D-Santa Fe, said: “The produced water bill, I think, is going to go down as one of the greatest environmental accomplishments to come out of the state Legislature of New Mexico.”
Produced water is the stuff that comes up during drilling – up to 8 barrels of wastewater for every barrel of oil. What’s to be done with it?
A 2019 bill, by Rep. Nathan Small, D-Las Cruces, supported industry to reuse wastewater from oil and gas production to reduce its need for fresh water. And it allowed the state Oil Conservation Division to levy fines and penalties for violations.
Small collaborated with state regulators, as well as the Environmental Defense Fund, and industry participants to write the bill. The New Mexico Oil and Gas Association and other business groups supported it; environmental groups, not so much.
In the current session two Democrats tried to re-do the landmark legisltion.
Recently, Sen. Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, D-Albuquerque, sneered at the 2019 law, saying, “The industry-drafted produced water bill that flew through the legislature two years ago is a disaster.”
She and Sen. Liz Stefanics, D-Cerillos, introduced SB 86. It would have banned the use of fresh water for drilling at depths lower than freshwater zones and required operators to use produced, recycled or treated water instead. It imposed fines for spills and assigned new duties to the Oil Conservation Division, such as worker safety and wildlife and domestic animal protection, which it hadn’t performed previously.
The division said it would need 22 new positions, including attorneys, environmental specialists, compliance officers, and support staff, at a cost of $2.3 million a year. The state Environment Department estimated its new costs at $555,000 a year.
Before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Norm Gaume, retired water and wastewater engineer and graduate of Hobbs High School, said the self-policing set in place by the 2019 law isn’t working.
Industry and business groups disagreed.
Rikkee Lee Chavez, of Marathon Oil, said experts collaborated two years ago to write the Produced Water Act, but SB 86 would undo that collaborative work. “Give the Produced Water Act a chance,” she said.
The New Mexico Chamber of Commerce, formerly the Association of Commerce and Industry, argued that the 2019 law made New Mexico a leader in the reuse and recycling of produced water, encouraged investment in produced water recycling and reuse, and created more regulatory oversight for produced water use.
“Senate Bill 86 eliminates most, if not all, of these benefits, and sends the wrong message to business investors,” the group wrote.
Asked in committee why she introduced this bill, Sedillo Lopez said she had her own produced water bill in 2019, wasn’t invited to participate in Small’s bill, and voted against it.
“We don’t know enough about fracking or fracking waste,” she said. She questioned why it’s a violation to not report a spill but not a violation to spill.
Sen. Daniel Ivey Soto, D-Albuquerque, noted that the bill assigned the state Oil Conservation Division an additional mission and new duties and gave it three months to come up to speed.
“I have a problem asking an agency to do things that are outside their wheelhouse,” he said. He added that if operators couldn’t use fresh water to test for leaks, “we’re asking operators to introduce pollutants. This is not proper policy for the state.”
The last word belonged to Senate President Mimi Stewart, D-Albuquerque: “I’m bothered that we don’t allow the laws we passed to take effect. We have a process in place, and this bill wants to change everything. It’s a danger to the industry” and not supported by a single state agency.
The committee tabled it unanimously.
Southeastern and northwestern New Mexico, stung by anti-industry bills this session, should be feeling some love.
© 2021 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES 2/15/21
Tampering with complex energy bill would do more harm than good
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
Several bills in this legislative session try to “improve” on the hard-won compromise of the past. They don’t. Recently, one such bill died justifiably.
SB 155, a reworking of the Energy Transition Act, was so bad it was tabled in committee on a bipartisan vote. It was so bad it drew opposition from both an electric utility AND the Sierra Club.
The sponsors are Sen. Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, the Energizer Bunny of the left, and Rep. Bill Tallman, both Albuquerque Democrats.
Two years ago, Democrats moved heaven and earth to pass the landmark Energy Transition Act, or ETA. It called for 100% carbon-free energy by 2045, took steps to give San Juan County a softer landing after Public Service Company of New Mexico closed its San Juan Generating Station, allowed PNM to recover investments by selling bonds that would be retired through a charge to customers, and provided money to retrain power plant workers.
It also handcuffed the Public Regulation Commission, which legislators regarded as an impediment.
SB 155 would have restored the PRC’s regulatory authority to refuse or allow PNM’s investment or decommissioning costs. (Disclosure: I was a PNM employee from 1978 to 1980. I’m not a shareholder.)
In the legislative analysis, the state Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department wrote that SB 155’s changes “are unnecessary and detrimental” to the ETA, which the department said was “working as designed.” Tampering with the ETA could hinder the bond sale necessary for consumer savings.
The New Mexico Chamber of Commerce, formerly the Association of Commerce and Industry, was more pointed: “SB 155 unravels and undermines the climate actions taken to ensure our carbon-emissions free future in a fair and responsible way… It also confirms the negative narrative about our state’s unstable regulatory environment by continuing to pick apart established policy and signaling developers to stay away.”
The bill’s sponsors and supporters want PNM to take the hit.
During debate on the bill in the Senate Conservation Committee, Sen. Steve Neville, R-Farmington, argued wisely that in 1970 coal was the cheapest and best energy source, and nobody could foresee the day when it would be undesirable. He doesn’t oppose the conversion to renewable, “but if we want to have wind and solar, we have to pay the tab.” Regulated entities have a right to recover their costs, but the PRC historically has allowed only 50% recovery.
Sen. Joseph Cervantes, D-Las Cruces, spoke a long time and dug deep.
As chairman of Senate Conservation in 2018, he halted the ETA bill because he believed it needed more scrutiny. When it returned in 2019, he said, it was “an extraordinarily complicated piece of legislation,” and there was much disagreement. He asked the PRC for input, but the commission waffled.
“It made it hard for me,” he said. “We didn’t get guidance.”
Since then, voters decided to return the selection of public regulation commissioners to the governor to assure technical expertise.
Referring to supporters who seemed to think removing commissioners from the ETA was an oversight, Cervantes said: “We knew damn well we were taking the PRC out of the process. “We knew it, we debated it, we discussed it a great length.”
Cervantes then raised a bigger concern, that when legislators debate questions as complicated as community solar or fracking, he wondered if they really know what they’re doing.
“We’ve gotta change the way we do our jobs – modernize the way we do business,” he said.
He makes an important point. Few legislators are engineers. How do they grapple with technical subject matter?
I sat through the often emotional debate over ETA in 2019 and wondered if the ambitious, idealistic ETA could work. The answer seems to be, so far so good. Lawmakers should leave it be.
© 2021 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES 2/8/21
Bills moving through legislative session could benefit rural areas
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
In this legislative session, Sen. Cliff Pirtle, R-Roswell, is proposing a constitutional amendment that would allow counties to secede from the state and form a new state or join an adjacent state. Pirtle told the Santa Fe New Mexican that “Santa Fe doesn’t really listen to the rural parts of the state… The people who are creating the fiber, the food and the fuel aren’t being taken seriously and respected.”
Pirtle knows that his joint resolution’s chances of passage are slim to none. He’s making a statement.
His immediate grievances are state health orders related to COVID-19 and attacks on the oil and gas industry. It doesn’t help that Democrats control the executive and legislative branches of state government. The election left raw feelings on both sides.
I will agree with Pirtle that oil and gas is picked on in this session, but I doubt the most harmful bills will survive. The sponsor of some of those bills is Sen. Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, the declared enemy of fossil fuels. She represents a liberal district in Albuquerque so she can afford to be impractical. Every session she runs extreme bills that typically go nowhere.
I disagree that there’s any bias against agriculture. Both sides value the state’s agricultural communities, and rural legislators have never been shy about introducing bills.
One of my favorites so far is Senate Bill 193 by two freshman legislators. Sens. Crystal Diamond, R-Elephant Butte, and Siah Correa Hemphill, D-Silver City, ask the state to employ a rural equity ombudsman in the Local Government Division to work on rural issues with the governor’s office, the Legislature, state and federal agencies, and local governments. This person would be a helper, advocate, and mediator.
Estimated cost of the position is $90,000.
At least 19 states have statewide ombudsman offices or other ways of investigating and mediating complaints, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, but how many specialize in rural equity issues is unknown. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality employs a rural ombudsman who is the liaison with rural communities.
“It’s important because rural New Mexico communities are often underserved or unserved,” Hemphill said during a meeting of the Senate Indian, Rural and Cultural Affairs.
Diamond said, “I represent the boot heel of New Mexico. The impact on rural areas is often ignored, not intentionally. This would give a voice to rural New Mexico.”
One of the points they were making was about the lack of rural broadband. Just then the system crashed, interrupting their presentation and making the larger point that even in the Roundhouse, we lack the broadband we need.
A similar bill is SB 172, by Shannon Pinto, D-Tohatchi. She proposes that the state Indian Affairs Department receive $50,000 to hire a tribal natural resources specialist. Natural resources are important to tribal economic development and for climate work, but tribes, which are also rural communities, don’t have that kind of expertise.
Committee members told Pinto she low-balled her request and needs to ask for more money.
Another bill moving through the session is HB 48, by Rep. Martin Zamora, R-Clovis, to increase the number of rain gauges to improve the accuracy of rainfall data. Among other things, this makes a difference to farmers and ranchers who apply for drought relief. New Mexico has 26. Oklahoma has 120. The cost for 111 new weather stations: $3.5 million. They would update weather data every five minutes and monitor high winds and hail.
When you have a problem, you can either complain about it or you can come out and say what you need. The direct approach will probably work better.
© 2021 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES 2/1/21
Let independents vote in primaries
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
If you look out at the political landscape and see mostly the wacky right and the wacky left and not much in between, you should get behind House Bill 79.
The bipartisan measure would open primary elections to all registered voters and not just those affiliated with the major political parties. Independents and members of minority parties could ask the Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian parties for a ballot without having to change their registrations. Democrats couldn’t vote in the Republican primary and vice versa.
This could expand New Mexico’s primary participation substantially. Independents number 299,000, or 23.4% of registered voters. This up from 7% in 1982. Only 9 states don’t have open primaries.
Last week the bill, which has been through the legislative hammermill before, came up in the House State Government, Elections and Indian Affairs Committee. Listening to the debate, I could hear a lot of reasons for opening the process and no substantive reasons not to.
“This is all about democracy,” said Bob Perls, founder of New Mexico Open Elections. “Political parties aren’t mentioned in the New Mexico or the U. S. constitutions. We shouldn’t have a system requiring somebody to join a party to vote in the primary. It allows political parties to control who can vote. They shouldn’t be setting the rules. It excludes 60% of millennials who don’t declare a party.”
John House, president of the nonprofit Represent Us New Mexico, said that many registered voters identify as independents. The outcome of the general election is decided by the results of the primary, and yet a large number of registered voters are unable to vote. “It’s dominated by voters on the political extremes and contributes directly to division.”
Albuquerque attorney Jay Edward Hollington, who filed the lawsuit in 2014 to allow independents to vote in primaries, said, “This is an opportunity for the Legislature to defer to the right to vote,” he said.
Committee Republicans Greg Nibert of Alamogordo and Bill Rehm of Albuquerque argued that independents have the option of changing their party registration before the primary and then changing it back again.
“Should we be forcing people to do that?” asked Perls, who is a former legislator.
Rehm also said opening the process would increase a candidate’s cost of campaigning.
HB 79 passed 6 to 3, with same Republicans as last year in opposition. It’s headed to the House Judiciary Committee, where last year’s bill died.
This isn’t necessarily a partisan issue. There are Democrats who don’t like the idea either. Party diehards tend to see the primaries as their turf. If you want to play, you have to join the club.
Maybe the discomfort stems from the increasing numbers of independents and their potential influence in choosing centrist candidates.
We talk a lot about involving young people in the political process, but they aren’t enamored of either major party. Liam Paul, of the UNM College Democrats, said he does voter registration work, and most young people are independents. He testified that the bill would increase participation among younger people.
Another trend is defecting Republicans. Recently The Hill, an online news site, reported that more than 30,000 registered Republicans changed their voter registration in the weeks after a mob of Trump supporters attacked the Capitol. And those numbers come only from the few states that report voter registrations weekly. The Hill thought those numbers were the tip of the iceberg. About a third register as Democrats, but most become independents. Democrats have also lost members but in smaller numbers.
On the national news, I heard one lawmaker describe himself as “happily tribeless.”
About a quarter of registered voters in New Mexico are also happily tribeless, and they have no say in their representation under current laws.
© 2021 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES 1/25/21
The elephant in the room
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
Democrats and Republicans spent four hours arguing about rules governing how the House will operate during this legislative session. After four hours of testy exchanges, the Dems prevailed in an 11-5 party line vote. This gives you an idea how the session will go.
The issue was, ostensibly, transparency, but the elephant in the room was, uh, the elephant in the room. The Rs in the House Rules and Order of Business Committee were expecting to debate rules as if Jan. 6 and the events of the past year never happened.
Before we take a closer look at this initial skirmish, let me say that good government in New Mexico and the nation requires the Republican Party. No single party has all the answers, and we have always needed one party to counter the excesses of the other. That the Republicans are crumbling before our eyes should be as worrisome to Democrats as it is to loyal Republicans who remember better days.
So the question before the committee was: How do we meet, debate, and vote without exposing ourselves needlessly to the virus? How do we filter the process through Zoom and still allow the public to see what we’re doing and participate?
House Minority Leader James Townsend, of Artesia, threw down the first challenge by asking why all the members had to speak through Zoom, as Democrats proposed, if they were seated on the chamber floor. The answer, Townsend said, was that Dems didn’t like the optics of Republicans debating on the floor as Democrats debated over Zoom from their offices.
“That is the real issue,” he said.
Do Townsend’s constituents really want to see him on the floor? After 400,000-plus U. S. deaths, the Democrats’ constituents and probably some Republicans understand the risks and hazards of COVID-19 and hope they will act accordingly. Townsend enjoys needling House Speaker Brian Egolf, but it’s Egolf’s duty to protect the health of all members in the chamber.
Most of us are aware by now that the virus, especially the new more contagious variant, sees any group of people as lunch. I don’t want to harp on this – OK, maybe I do want to harp on it – but as of Sunday, we’ve lost 3,115 New Mexicans. The plague will not somehow pass over the Roundhouse in biblical fashion.
That is the real issue. How is it that informed people can choose to behave like they’re uninformed? How can they debate when debates rely on facts and not “alternative facts,” as the former president’s spokeswoman so artfully put it?
Republicans entered the session with a credibility problem. The Party of Lincoln has become the Party of Lemmings, and the Lemming-in-chief took a leap on Jan. 6. New Mexico’s Republican Party chairman issued a tepid statement about not condoning violence.
Meanwhile, Democrats have gleefully sent daily news releases about how many days have passed without the state’s Republican leaders condemning the Capitol riot. Beneath this crust of awkward silence is the cavernous Big Lie about “rigged elections” that precipitated the riot.
How does that square with transparency?
Newly elected Rep. Yvette Herrell is still silent on her Cowboys for Trump pal Couy Griffin, who’s in jail in Washington, D. C., for promising that blood would run from the Capitol on Inauguration Day. The Las Cruces Sun-News reported that Herrell’s Facebook page has been quietly scrubbed of all mentions of Griffin. She has yet to explain how she won but Trump lost in New Mexico.
Yes, legislative transparency is a concern, and we should hold lawmakers accountable for operating in the open and making sure members of the public get their say. But in light of the shocking events this month (and the shocks are still coming), the Republicans should demonstrate transparency beginning with themselves.
© 2021 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES 1/18/21
Cannabis entrepreneur sees New Mexico as a major producer
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
As the legislative session gets rolling, one of the big questions is whether any of the dozen or so marijuana legalization bills will pass this year.
Duke Rodriguez, president and CEO of Ultra Health, the state’s largest medical marijuana provider, is banking on it. He’s dangled retail sales of more than $800 million and tax revenues of $120 million a year before lawmakers in committee hearings. And during a recent talk he made a strong case for marijuana as a cash crop.
It wouldn’t match oil and gas, he told New Mexico Press Women, but it would be larger than green chile, peanuts, and alfalfa combined.
“Cannabis cannot be successfully grown everywhere in the country,” he said. “I think New Mexico will be among the top three producers.”
New Mexico has the climate, land, and water. Cannabis consumes one-third less water than other crops, he said, and energy needs would be modest. “We can run a greenhouse for $50,000 a year,” he said. “Denver can spend $50,000 in a month.”
He sees the potential to establish a brand here like Hatch chile. “You will want to get your legal grass from New Mexico,” he said.
But are there that many pot smokers in New Mexico? Maybe. “We have one of the most envious positions. We have contiguous borders with the second most populous state.” He predicts 40 to 42% of purchasers will come from Texas. “We have the opportunity, before Texas wakes up.”
Currently, 15 states have legalized recreational marijuana, and 35 have medical marijuana.
Ultra Health has purchased land in Tularosa with 1,000 acre-feet of secure water rights. He believes that every producer should have legitimate water rights.
The industry gained good experience with medical marijuana, but even medical marijuana regulation needs “a few more fixes,” Rodriguez said.
He wants people to know that the state’s medical cannabis bill passed in 2007, but sat idle for years because former Gov. Susana Martinez made a campaign promise to dismantle the medical cannabis program. “We had eight years with Susana when we had real limits on programs. Despite her opposition we managed to work around it using the courts to build a robust model,” he said.
Now there are 101,000 card holders, or 5% of adults, and 123 dispensaries statewide. The cities have plenty of outlets but not the rural areas, and that too is changing. Medical marijuana is now a $200 million industry with 34 licensed producers.
Ultra Health, which covers seeds to sales, employs 250 people statewide, and with legalization that could jump ten-fold. Legalized recreational marijuana could create “15,000 new good paying jobs.”
Rodriguez said he’s not favoring any particular bill, but the major considerations are taxation, social justice, licensing, and timing. And the medical program must be protected.
Medical marijuana still bumps up against the state’s limit on plants, and those limits would likewise constrain recreational marijuana. “We have to grow more plants,” he said. “New Mexico is the most restrictive state in the country in the number of plants allowed.” Limited production drives up the price and sends customers to Colorado.
Pricing will also depend on taxation. Legalization presents the opportunity to tax and regulate cannabis, but taxes can’t be so high that legal products can’t compete with the illegal market. Rodriguez also wants the state Department of Agriculture to be involved. “They’ve done a good job with hemp,” he said.
We’ve kicked this ball around the field for years and examined every side of the issue. Repeated polls make it clear the public supports legalization. Colorado just reported $2 billion in revenues last year. Instead of resisting, why not learn from other states and craft the best bill possible?
© 2021 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES 1/11/21
Disinformation campaigns spark Capitol riot and tear Republicans apart
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
On Jan. 6, before all hell broke loose in Washington, D. C., I had a dental appointment. When I asked my dentist if he was taking new patients, he said, “Yes, if they’re nice.”
When the virus struck, dentists, who get closer to us and our germs, were at high risk. My dentist set up the protocols I’ve seen across medical practices: Patients wait in their cars to be called in, have their temperatures taken, answer questions about travel, and get a squirt of hand sanitizer. Dental patients remain masked until the hygienist, wearing full face protection and gloves, is ready to begin.
This has become standard, but some patients were so nasty to him and his staff that he wrote a letter to all his patients saying, politely, that if they had a problem with the new protocol they could take their business elsewhere.
So if patients respect this dentist enough to seek his services, why would they object to measures that he, as a healthcare professional, thinks are necessary? If he finds a cavity, will they dismiss that too as a hoax?
It’s a tip of the information conundrum we find ourselves in. The United States has distinguished itself by having the highest number of COVID-19 cases and deaths by far in the world because the president and millions of people have blown off the advice of medical experts.
Just as he undermined the medical community, the president undermined the credibility of the election process by falsely claiming the election was stolen. With the near hypnotic power of social media, some people believe the virus is a hoax and think widespread election fraud changed the outcome. All it took was the president’s speech to light the fuse. We all watched mob violence at the nation’s capitol that turned the United States into a banana republic for a day and shocked the world.
As Congress dusted itself off and reconvened, eyes turned to the Republican Party. The most remarkable speech of the night came from Sen. Lindsay Graham, the president’s close ally and golf buddy. He questioned allegations of fraud: “They said there’s 66,000 people in Georgia under 18 (who) voted. How many people believe that? I asked, ‘Give me 10,’ and had one. They said 8,000 felons in prison in Arizona voted. ‘Give me 10.’ I got one…”
Graham agreed with Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul that if “you’re a conservative, this is the most offensive concept in the world that a single person could disenfranchise 155 million people… To the conservatives who believe in the Constitution, now’s your chance to stand up and be counted.”
In her first vote in the House, freshman Rep. Yvette Herrell objected to the certification.
The next day, Steve Pearce, chairman of the Republican Party of New Mexico, said the party recognized the certification of electoral votes by Congress but continued to insist that “there are still too many unanswered questions.” He claims “there have been anomalies and issues that were never addressed that should have been.”
As usual, the allegations aren’t supported by evidence. And New Mexico’s paper ballots can be recounted if Pearce wants to pay for it.
Political pundits keep probing the Republican Party’s divisions, with some even predicting its demise. I wouldn’t go that far, but the numbers reflect profound divisions. According to a YouGov Direct poll, 93% of Democrats, 55% of Independents, and just 27% of Republicans consider the storming of the Capitol a threat to democracy. Republicans were about evenly divided in supporting (45%) or opposing (43%) the violence at the Capitol.
Our democracy depends on an exchange of ideas and flow of valid information. If citizens doubt what they hear from medical professionals and from election officials of their own party, the healthy debate ends and chaos takes its place.
© 2021 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES 1/4/21
Present looks dismal but New Mexico’s future is better
By Sherry Robinson
All She Wrote
For the first column in 2021, I wanted to look ahead and not just dwell on the losses, serious as they are, of 2020.
All year long, we’ve had some bright spots buried in the bad news – namely, the steady pace of new developments and expansions in the state. I don’t recall seeing this in the Great Recession. And all of them signal that economic diversification everybody keeps talking about.
For example, there’s Netflix expanding its footprint in Albuquerque, and Ascent Aviation Services’ landing in Roswell. Ascent plans to hire 360 employees for airplane repair and maintenance services in the next five years. Santa Teresa continues to draw companies.
And there are dozens of projects seeded by the state Economic Development Department.
The 48-year-old Job Training Incentive Program, or JTIP, is probably the best incentive New Mexico lawmakers ever created and one embraced by both parties, as well as business and labor. JTIP reimburses more than half of employee wages for classroom and on-the-job training in new jobs for up to 6 months.
In 2020 75 businesses, rural and urban, received grants to support 2,380 jobs with an average wage of $18.61 an hour. This is up from 2,100 jobs at 71 companies in 2019.
LEDA (the Local Economic Development Act) money helped 18 companies that will invest $761 million in the state over 10 years and create 2,500 jobs. This too is up from 11 companies set to spend $740.6 million in 2019.
One of the better lemonade-from-lemons stories is in Gallup. There LEDA funding helped the McKinley Paper Company survive after the Escalante Generating Station closed. Because the paper company relied on the power plant for steam, it too was facing closure. LEDA money will enable McKinley Paper to install new equipment and keep 125 jobs in McKinley and Cibola counties.
The new Outdoor Recreation Division saw its first year of operation, investing in trails and outdoor infrastructure and teaching new outdoor entrepreneurs how to grow their businesses. The Outdoor Equity Fund made grants to 25 applicants.
Now for the bad news. We already know that the hospitality industry took a huge hit, along with oil and gas. Hardly any sector was untouched.
Altogether, the state’s gross receipts increased a scant 1% ($228 million) between the last quarter of fiscal 2020 and the first quarter of 2021 (July, August, and September 2020), but over the year, gross receipts declined 9%, according to the Economic Development Department’s quarterly report.
“The three months making up FY21 Q1 were the worst three months of the state’s economic impact from COVID-19,” wrote department economists on Dec. 18. “The impacts were significantly worse due to lapsing federal support and no new federal aid package. Importantly, the federal bonus for unemployment benefits of an additional $600 per week expired, reducing consumer spending power.”
Arts, entertainment, and recreation plunged 57% over the year (72% in Santa Fe), and oil and gas dropped 47%. Healthcare and transportation were both down 30%. However, retail trade was up $262 million, the department said, and 14 counties posted gains.
Secretary Alicia Keyes and her people deserve a shout out for data like this to help us navigate and for their steady supply of helpful information to the state’s businesses.
Another agency that gets a shout out is the New Mexico Finance Authority, which wasted no time putting $100 million in Small Business CARES Relief Grants in the hands of 6,642 of the state’s small businesses. Sadly, they had 14,125 applications.
The first set of numbers represent the future, while the second set represent the past. Without minimizing our current doldrums, it’s possible to remind ourselves of the companies that want to be here and the future jobs they represent.