A Report Card on the Session

In previous columns, I predicted that I would be unhappy with the results of the legislative session. That’s the only thing I got right. It’s because I wanted to reform the legislative process and elections. It’s hard to get good results from a flawed system. Normal people are more satisfied — or more disappointed — than I am. They wanted specific policies from the Legislature, and they either got them or they didn’t.
Some people are happy or unhappy about major legislation that passed, such as malpractice reform, protection of abortion, stronger LGBT rights and meals for schoolchildren. Other people are happy or unhappy about bills that didn’t pass, such as bail reform, a ban on assault weapons and paid family and medical leave. And still others think some passed bills — an alcohol tax and voting rights — didn’t go far enough.
And then there’s the budget. My columns were about process, rather than policy. I wanted longer sessions, a paid Legislature, better legislative staff, a better voting system for independents and majority winners in elections. Many of my ideas were proposed, but didn’t pass — possibly because of the broken process.
I wrote about a study by the University of New Mexico suggesting paid legislators, longer sessions and more legislative staff.
The first two reforms required constitutional amendments. House Joint Resolution 8 proposed an independent commission to set salaries for legislators. HJR 2 proposed a 60-day session with unlimited topics every year. If the Legislature had approved, we would have voted on them. But the only thing we’ll be voting on this fall is tax breaks for veterans — a worthy cause, but not enough.
HJR 8 on salaries actually passed the House, but Senate leaders didn’t push it to a vote. HJR 2 for longer sessions got past two House committees, but never came to a vote. It’s just as well that the salary amendment didn’t get to the ballot. Why should citizens vote to pay legislators if they don’t want to work full sessions? I think these two amendments should be combined next time. Getting paid should be tied to working longer.
But maybe it’s hopeless. One of the arguments for paying legislators is that it would enable younger people more typical of normal New Mexicans to run for office. Many talented people in the middle of their careers can’t afford to work for free, and so we get retired or wealthy legislators. But maybe this is how that sounds to current legislators: “If they’re saying we’re worthless drones, and they want to run younger people to take our jobs, why should we help them?”
A simpler explanation is that the amateur Legislature wasn’t even competent enough to pay themselves, and the session was too short to consider longer sessions.
I have written several columns about gerrymandering. I criticized the current “independent” Citizen Redistricting Committee that allows the majority party to put a finger on the scale, as they did last year. Now is the time — when no one knows which party will be in power for the next census — to make the commission truly independent and end gerrymandering for good in New Mexico. They took my advice and wrote HJR 1 to do exactly what I proposed, but the bill was tabled by the House Judiciary Committee. I can see why the majority Democrats who created the weighted committee might want to keep their work. But why would three Republicans, whose party so recently suffered gerrymandering, vote to table reform? I can only imagine that both parties are so confident and eager to cheat that they don’t worry about being cheated.
There’s still time to introduce redistricting reform again before 2030, but without a change of heart, it won’t do any better next time.
Senate Joint Resolution 7 proposed an open primary in which candidates of all parties compete, similar to Alaska. The top five primary candidates would compete in a ranked-choice general election, in which voters rank multiple candidates in order of preference. Apparently, the only supporters were me and the two sponsors. It didn’t even get a committee hearing.
We probably won’t get real election reform until good independent candidates start beating bad major party candidates. I’m ready for that, but is anybody else?
Independents can currently vote in primaries — as I do — through a complicated process, but SB 73 (cosponsored by our own state Sen. Siah Correa Hemphill) would have made it simple. The bill passed the Senate, but died in the House.
These are a few of the process reforms that stumbled this session. And as usual, many bills that might have had majority support were left stranded at the end. That’s not a coincidence; it’s the way the system works. Unfortunately, flawed systems tend to perpetuate themselves.