Constitutional Amendment 1: More Land Grant Permanent Fund money to education

Voters in the November election will have the option to approve Constitutional Amendment 1, which would invest money from a state trust in our youngest children and school systems. The Land Grant Permanent Fund is the second-wealthiest fund in the country, and advocates have pushed for years to use more of the money to address New Mexico’s historically low child well-being rankings.

The Land Grant Permanent Fund already disburses money every year for education, but this amendment would increase the amount by a little over 1.25%, making $150 million available for early childhood education.

Classroom barrack at an elementary school in the Barelas neighborhood of Albuquerque (Photo by Marisa Demarco / Source NM)

Another $100 million would go to public schools to hire more teachers and support staff, expand programs for at-risk students, and pay for building maintenance and repair.

Hailey Heinz is deputy director and senior researcher of the Cradle to Career Policy Institute at the University of New Mexico. She said that when people think of early childhood, they think pre-K, but it also includes home visits for pregnant people and families with infants, as well as child care. Heinz said those fields face a shortage of workers.

“The wages for this are historically, tragically low,” she said.

Heinz acknowledges that in recent years, the state has made funding for early childhood education a priority. But she said we need to imagine a system that has a culture of plenty rather than scarcity.

And while this additional funding could have an impact, she adds, we should set expectations. “The challenges that lead to New Mexico’s child well-being ranking being what they are, are really layered and complex and sticky,” she said. “And I think we should be clear, right, about the fact that this or any other ballot initiative won’t be the cure all that somehow fixes systemic challenges.” (Taylor Velazquez / KUNM)

Constitutional Amendment 2: The state’s anti-donation clause

Last year the superintendent of Albuquerque Public Schools had to walk back a promise to use $6 million in federal relief dollars for staff bonuses. The state auditor told him it might violate the state’s anti-donation clause, which prohibits government entities from donating or lending to “any person, association or public or private corporation or in aid of any private enterprise for the construction of any railroad, unless a constitutional exception exists,” according to the Legislative Council Service.

The issue in this case was timing. APS planned to give the extra funds at the end of teachers’ contracts. State Auditor Brian Colón said the anti-donation clause does not allow public employees to get additional compensation for work they had already done. So APS decided to pay the teachers the bonuses at the beginning of the school year.

The anti-donation clause pops up in many ways around New Mexico, from Otero County declining to pay for legal representation for former Commissioner Couy Griffin in a lawsuit to remove him from office, to restrictions on giving funds from the Gold King Mine spill settlement to individuals harmed by the pollution and the allocation of elk hunting licenses to private landowners.

The clause has not been really tested in the courts, said Kathy Brook, co-president of the League of Women Voters of New Mexico.

“It’s somewhat up in the air as to what the clause means or how it would be interpreted. It’s often just cited as ‘No, you can’t do that, because of the anti-donation clause,’” she said.

But over the years, there have been many exemptions tacked onto the clause, and now Constitutional Amendment 2 seeks to modify it further by allowing the state to provide funds and other resources for “essential services,” mostly for residential purposes. Those include infrastructure for the internet, energy, water and sewer.

The origins of this clause here and other Western states lie with the railroad boom in the late 19th century, where powerful corporations were granted public money for private ventures. But since then, other states have relaxed some of the restrictions in these clauses to allow for projects that serve the public good, according to the LCS.

In New Mexico, it has been amended six times to allow funds for things like helping sick or impoverished people, local economic development, some scholarship programs, and building affordable housing.

Proponents say this latest amendment could help boost access to essential services, especially in rural areas. It could also help the state leverage more federal money for rural development, as other states have done.

If it passes, then the Legislature would have to pass legislation to roll it out, allowing for more public input and deliberation.

But opponents say that leaves too much discretion to future legislatures and too much uncertainty about how the funds would be used. The amendment could mean public money is not adequately protected. Paul Gessing with the libertarian Rio Grande Foundation wrote in an op-ed that the amendment could lead to more corruption with public funds and more “corporate welfare,” using public funds to give special benefits to private companies.

His group wants to see the anti-donation clause made stronger rather than see more amendments to it. (Megan Kamerick / KUNM)

Constitutional Amendment 3: Judicial elections

One of the constitutional amendments on the ballot this year concerns appointed judges. It’s asking voters if they think these judges should be spared election in their first year of appointment.

Some of these appointments are done by the governor when there is a mid-term job opening in a non-election year. According to the Legislative Council Service, the appointment judge would then serve until the next partisan election – even if that election is shortly after their appointment.

Constitutional Amendment 3 would delay that election until that judge has served for at least one year following appointment. So, in essence, it postpones the public’s evaluation of their performance.

As it stands, these judges are up for election at the next general election after they’re tapped, even if that election is a couple months after appointment.

Democratic State Sen. Joseph Cervantes of Doña Ana County is the amendment’s sponsor.

“The goal here right now is to assure that the public is evaluating judges after they’ve spent some time on the bench,” he said, “as opposed to the present time when the law requires the judge to stand for election at the first election after their appointment.”

During an amendment vote in the Senate at the beginning of the year, Cervantes said this will allow more private sector attorneys to apply for the position, increasing diversity.

But opponents say the amendment would delay the electoral process. State Senator Jeff Steinborn, also a Democrat from Doña Ana County, called it a “free pass” and seemed to chafe at the idea of appointed judges being exempt in their first year, potentially serving years before appearing on the ballot.

“And to me that just takes a crucial option away from the public,” he said.

After someone is appointed to a judicial position, the judge must run in a competitive partisan election in order to serve the rest of their term. If appointed judges are then elected, at the end of that term, they run in a retention election. That election doesn’t have a competition and just asks if the public wants to keep the judge on the bench. (Emma Gibson / KUNM)

Story from sourcenm.com.

Source New Mexico staff