LWV NEWS RELEASE

Constitutional Amendment 1

PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 4, SECTION 22 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF NEW MEXICO TO REQUIRE THE GOVERNOR TO PROVIDE VETO MESSAGES ON ALL BILLS VETOED IN WHOLE OR IN PART AND TO PROVIDE THAT ALL BILLS PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE AND NOT ACTED ON BY THE GOVERNOR WILL BECOME LAW.

Explanation:

This proposed amendment would remove the “pocket veto.” The pocket veto occurs when the governor does not sign a bill that was passed during the last three days of the legislative session, stopping the bill from becoming law. Under the proposed amendment, a bill sent to the governor during the last three days of the session would automatically become law unless the governor vetoes the bill within 20 days after the legislature’s adjournment. Also, the governor would be required to provide a written, substantive explanation for any veto.

Arguments For:

·      Requires the governor to give a written explanation about why any legislation is vetoed, so that the legislature can reintroduce legislation in the future to address the governor’s concerns.

·      May bring greater balance among branches of government because lawmakers could ask the courts to determine whether the governor has provided a substantive explanation.

Arguments Against:

·      The term ‘substantive explanation’ is undefined and may lead to court action between the legislature and the governor.

·      The governor’s office might be burdened after the session by a large number of bills that would need a ‘substantive explanation’ of their veto.

·      It is unnecessary since the legislature could eliminate the pocket veto simply by enacting important legislation earlier in the session.

Constitutional Amendment 2

PROPOSING TO AMEND ARTICLE 7, SECTION 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF NEW MEXICO TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT SCHOOL ELECTIONS BE SEPARATE FROM PARTISAN ELECTIONS.

Explanation:

This amendment would allow school districts the option to add bond and mill levy questions to ballots in a partisan election, such as the regular general election. It would also give the legislature the authority to allow local school board elections to be held during the same election cycle as partisan elections.

Arguments For:

·      Currently school districts can only place bond issues and mill levy questions in local nonpartisan elections, which are held in odd numbered years. If the proposed amendment passes, school boards have the option to place bond issues or mill levy questions on the ballot in any election cycle, giving them more flexibility to manage their capital needs.

·      Allowing school districts to place a bond or mill levy question on the ballot during partisan general elections may increase the number of voters who participate in school elections, better reflecting the voice of the community.

·      School districts still have the option to hold special bond.

Arguments Against:

·      Adding school questions to the general election ballot may create voter fatigue and increase the cost of elections if a longer ballot is needed.

·      The importance of school issues on a partisan general election ballot may be diminished due to the high number of issues and candidates on the ballot.

Constitutional Amendment 3

PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 12, SECTION 13 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF NEW MEXICO TO ESTABLISH NOMINATING COMMITTEES TO PROVIDE LISTS OF NOMINEES TO THE GOVERNOR FOR APPOINTMENT OF NONSTUDENT MEMBERS TO THE BOARDS OF REGENTS OF STATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS; PROVIDING THAT STUDENT MEMBERS OF BOARDS OF REGENTS SHALL BE APPOINTED FROM A LIST PROVIDED BY AN ELECTED STUDENT GOVERNING BODY OF THE INSTITUTION; PROVIDING THAT, EXCEPT FOR A STUDENT MEMBER, MEMBERS OF THE BOARDS OF REGENTS SHALL NOT HAVE CHANGED THEIR POLITICAL PARTY REGISTRATION IN THE TWELVE MONTHS PRECEDING APPOINTMENT.

Explanation:

A board of regents governs each of the ten state educational institutions. Currently, the regents for each of these institutions are appointed by the governor and approved by the Senate. The amendment would:

●     Require the governor to appoint:

○     regents from a list of candidates selected by a nonpartisan nominating committee established by the legislature; and

○     student regents from a list provided by each institution’s student government rather than from the president of the institution.

●     Disqualify any non-student regents if they changed political party registration in the 12 months before being appointed.

Arguments For:

●     A regent nominating committee should ensure that nominees will best serve the interests of the particular institution, thereby providing more accountability in its control and management.

●     Since the nominating committee would be nonpartisan, nominees would more likely be best qualified and would not be appointed based on their relationship with the governor or the governing political party.

Arguments Against:

●     This amendment would dilute both the governor’s constitutional authority to appoint regents and the senate’s power to advise and consent.

●     The Governor and the Senate are directly responsible to voters, whereas a regent nominating committee would not be.

Constitutional Amendment 4

PROPOSING TO AMEND ARTICLE 4, SECTION 10 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF NEW MEXICO TO ALLOW LEGISLATIVE COMPENSATION THAT IS LIMITED TO THE MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME FOR NEW MEXICO, TO REQUIRE LEGISLATIVE COMPENSATION TO BE REDUCED IF THE MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME FOR NEW MEXICO FALLS, TO ALLOW LEGISLATIVE COMPENSATION TO BE

INCREASED ONLY IF THE MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME FOR NEW MEXICO RISES AND TO PROVIDE FOR DELAYED IMPLEMENTATION.”

Explanation:

Currently, New Mexico state senators and representatives only receive daily limited compensation for mileage and per diem for meals and lodging.

This amendment would allow legislators to receive a salary equal to the median household income for New Mexico, currently approximately $68,000. This amount could be adjusted by the legislature in the future. The amendment would go into effect in January 2029.

Arguments For:

·      A more diverse group of people might run for the legislature if they have less financial pressure to prioritize their other jobs and don’t have to choose between earning a living and public service, giving voters more candidates choices that better represent communities they serve.

A more diverse group of people might run for the legislature if they were paid, relieving them of the need to choose between earning a living and public service.

·      Positions the legislature to serve as a co-equal branch of government with the governor and judicial branches since they will be able to dedicate more time to their duties.

·      Legislators actually work year-round, beyond the 30 or 60-day sessions, by serving on interim committees, drawing up legislation, and handling constituent needs.

Arguments Against:

●     The salary proposed is higher than many other states, especially considering the number of days the legislature is in session and the poverty level in the state.

Considering the short legislative sessions and the state’s level of poverty, the salary proposed is higher than that of many other states

●     Legislators receiving salaries would have an unfair advantage against opposing candidates who must campaign and raise funds that could require them to lose employment income, while incumbent legislators would be paid while they run for office.

●     Incumbent legislators would be paid while they run for office, giving them an advantage over candidates who must report to work and still find time to campaign.

●     Paying legislators would add more than $7 million each year to public spending.

COUNTY QUESTION NO. 1

AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER OF THE INCORPORATED COUNTY (COUNTY) OF LOSALAMOS, PURSUANT TO COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 755, TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OFTERMS A PERSON MAY SERVE ON THE SAME STANDING BOARD OR COMMISSIONFROM TWO TERMS IN SUCCESSION TO THREE TERMS IN SUCCESSION

Shall Article III, Section 305, Subsection 305.4, of the Charter of the Incorporated County of Los Alamos, relating to Standing Boards and Commissions and Ad Hoc Advisory Committees, be amended to allow a person to serve on the same standing board or commission from no more than two (2) terms to no more than three (3) terms in succession?                  YES                             NO             

Explanation:

Currently all Los Alamos County Boards and Commissions are limited to two terms and require one year off the board before re-applying. The proposed change would permit board members to serve a third consecutive term on the board to which they have previously been appointed if they desire to continue serving.

COUNTY QUESTION NO. 2

AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER OF THE INCORPORATED COUNTY (COUNTY) OF LOSALAMOS, PURSUANT TO COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 757, TO AMEND THE POLITICAL PARTY COMPOSITION OF STANDING BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Shall Article III, Section 305, Subsection 305.3, of the Charter of the Incorporated County of Los Alamos, relating to Standing Boards and Commissions and Ad Hoc Advisory Committees, be amended to remove the political party composition requirements for all standing Board and Commissions with the exception of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of PublicUtilities, and the Personnel Board?

YES                             NO             

Explanation:

Currently in the Los Alamos County Charter there is a requirement that the composition of a County Board or Commission not exceed a simple majority of members of one political party.  The change does not apply to the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Public Utilities, and the Personnel Board, as they are quasi-judicial or operational management boards. In past years, some board and commission positions, especially for the larger boards, have gone unfilled. The proposed change would allow for the appointment of candidates based upon their merits and experience, regardless of political affiliation.

COUNTY QUESTION NO. 3

AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER OF THE INCORPORATED COUNTY (COUNTY) OF LOSALAMOS, PURSUANT TO COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 758, TO AMEND THE PRIORITY OFTHE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES (DPU) BUDGETED EXPENDITURES

Shall Article V, Section 509, of the Charter of the Incorporated County of Los Alamos, relating to thepriority of the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) budgeted expenditures, be amended to omit theprovision for all remaining Department of Public Utilities operating profits to be transferred to theCounty General Fund?                YES                             NO             

Explanation:

Municipal utilities like Los Alamos’s cover costs with user fees and charges but do not generate profits. Current provisions require excess amounts to be diverted to the County General Fund. Since 2020, County Councils have transferred these surplus revenues back to the utility funds to be used for infrastructure replacement projects. The proposed amendment in Question #3 would remove the provision requiring these offsetting transfers. It would have little to no net effect on utility rates.