Watching New Mexico

Watching New Mexico

Santa Fe legislature provides food for thought

Mar. 22, 2001

When it comes to state government, New Mexico does things a little bit differently. And as important as Denver is to us, it can also be instructive to watch what is happening in Santa Fe.

Much of what occupied New Mexico’s lawmakers this session would be familiar to anyone who follows the exploits of Colorado’s General Assembly. They include child-safety locks on firearms, concealed weapons permits, education reform and financing a sports stadium.

Then too, there were bills with a more distinctive flavor. A sampling of those include efforts to ban cockfighting, a bill to let felons vote, and another to provide increased penalties for hitting a sports official. The last two passed.

The Legislature also passed a "safe haven" bill that lets parents leave newborn children at hospitals (as opposed to abandoning them elsewhere) without being charged with a crime, and a bill to require health insurance plans to cover contraception. And, with an eye toward California no doubt, it approved a measure to delay deregulation of the electric industry for five years.

At the same time, New Mexico’s lawmakers killed a bill to create a "no-call" list for people who don’t want to hear from telemarketers, a proposed open meetings law and a measure to allow certain cancer patients to use marijuana.

That last was one of a series of Gov. Gary Johnson’s effort to reform the state’s drug laws. His proposal to decriminalize possession of small amounts of pot was also defeated, although he did succeed with three other "harm reduction" measures, including one that will let pharmacies sell hypodermic needles without fear of prosecution.

Johnson has taken a lot of heat for his stance on drugs, but he deserves credit. U.S. drug policy is a failure and Johnson is almost alone among elected officials with the courage to say so – and the willingness to change.

And, in an example our lawmakers should follow, the New Mexico Legislature passed a last-minute bill dealing with so-call SLAPP suits. These "strategic litigation against public participation" lawsuits are used to silence critics of new projects who speak out in public hearings. The suit itself may be baseless, but proponents can use the threat of exorbitant legal costs, lost time and hassle to stifle objections.

A bill to provide immunity against SLAPPs died in the Colorado Legislature when the inevitable reduction of the measure to a "yes" or "no" vote was used to present a false dichotomy between fairness and honesty.

New Mexico took a different approach. Lawmakers there essentially said: Go ahead and sue, but it goes to court right away. That way if the suit has no merit it gets quickly tossed. Costs to the defendant are kept to a minimum – and the pressure to shut up is reduced.

It is a sensible alternative. And, it helps to remind us that the either-or choices we are so often presented represent only one way to define the issue. As New Mexico reminds us, there are other ways to do things.