COMMENTARY:
I mostly support the ballot’s four Constitutional Amendments.
And please vote for the library GO Bond issue, which won’t increase tax rates. Hugely important to quality of life, our library hasn’t had a major structural update since it opened in 1979. Library usage has increased by 60% in three years! The bond would authorize a major renovation/expansion. We need it!
Some might guess the Internet makes libraries less essential; but not everyone can afford computers – or use them well; and the proliferation of “news” sources fills us with so many contradictory “facts” that some folks might need a neutrial guide
Amendment No 1 is a no-brainer. After the Legislature passes a bill, the governor either signs it into law or vetoes it. Over the years, governors have formed a bad habit: since a bill she doesn’t sign fails. governors use the “pocket veto” to overrule our elected legislature without even telling us why. Not having to explain is convenient for a governor doing something we won’t like, but it’s anti-democratic. We deserve to know her reasons – or, at least, the best excuses she can muster. So do all those who busted their butts refining the bill, and believed in it.
As with teenagers, “Because I say so!” doesn’t work real well.
Amendment 2 would eliminate the state constitutional requirement that school board elections be held separately from partisan elections. The requirement seeks to insulate these elections from partisanship. It doesn’t really succeed; but because “partisanship” has become vitriolic hyper-partisanship, it’s tempting to leave it in place. However, the change would save us money and boost voter turnout for school boards. Sadly, nothing we do will keep partisanship wholly out of school-board elections.
Amendment 3 would change how we pick university regents. The governor would have to choose her picks from lists provided by non-partisan (or bipartisan) nominating committees. This is universally viewed as a better way. I’ve seen governors appoint some great regents. But, given the important duties involved, why not give the governor back-up, since there’s no cost? Don’t expect miracles, though. Western New Mexico had a board of highly-qualified regents, but still screwed up badly.
Amendment 4 is the most widely-discussed. We remain the only U.S. state that doesn’t pay it’s legislators. Amendment 4 would provide for paying legislators up to New Mexico’s median income, currently, about $68,000.
We should do that. Now, while any wealthy person can run, finances bar a person working a normal job, without extra means, who might make a wonderful legislator. We get some retirees. But mostly we get rich folks and people like trial lawyers, ranchers, and non-profit employees to whose work or well-being laws are important. Many are fine legislators; but I’d like more diversity, fewer folks with interested employers, even a few young folks? Being a citizen legislator shouldn’t be a privilege for the few.
I favor this, but I disapprove the false advertising. Calling it a measure to limit legislator’s salaries is misleading. If they were selling medicine, the framers would get arrested. We’d initiate paying limited salaries.
Here again, don’t expect miracles.
We also must strengthen ethical rules for legislators. I’m not saying “don’t pay ‘em ‘til they make strict ethical rules cover them too.” I’m saying we absolutely should strengthen ethical standards and rules that cover legislators, paid or unpaid. But paying ‘em does make imposing stronger ethical constraints more reasonable.
In any case, please vote!
Peter Goodman's opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of KRWG Public Media or NMSU.