Gov. Susana Martinez has up to 20 days to veto bills from the special legislative session, and she may use a good many of them.
Her chief of staff, Keith Gardner, drifted outside the press room after the session ended. He said she would not act immediately.
No matter. Little suspense is ahead.
Martinez already has said she will veto bills that redraw the 70 seats in the state House of Representatives and 42 seats in the state Senate.
Judges would then become the decision-makers on redrawing political boundaries.
Redistricting and government in general would be much cleaner if New Mexico did away with its House of Representatives altogether.
Having two houses in a small state leads to duplication and inefficiency.
Of course, junking the House of Representatives would be billed by politicians as paramount to tearing down the Palace of the Governors, burning an orphanage and the tagging the Georgia O'Keeffe Musuem with graffiti.
Legislators would argue that two chambers make government better. They do not.
The lethargy of state government would be cut in half by losing the House of Representatives.
With just a Senate, bills would receive more attention and debate. A unicameral system also would eliminate the insanity of a small group of legislators tying up a bill that had already cleared the other chamber.
No legislator, of course, would have the brass to introduce a bill or constitutional amendment calling for the House of Representatives to be dissolved.
New Mexico's unpaid legislators love their seats and the power that comes with them. The redistricting process proved that.
Sen. Tim Jennings, in office since 1979, said he even created a redistricting plan that would have protected all 42 incumbents in his chamber.
The fact that all 42 are not stellar senators was not important to Jennings, D-Roswell. Rather, survival of the sitting was his mission.
His plan never advanced. The public is the better for this.
Redistricting is supposed to reflect population shifts, not provide protection for incumbents.
Performance ought to determine if an incumbent stays or goes. Anybody who has watched the Legislature knows that not all lawmakers are performing at top capacity. No plan should mindlessly protect them.
In these lean times, taxpayers are especially ill-served by two houses that slog along, fighting with the executive and each other.
The public constantly hears talk from politicians about the need for a leaner, more responsive government.
Slimming down to a state Senate and eliminating the state House would be a big step toward better government.
But this would mean dozens of politicians would have to end their own careers -- a political impossibility.
Comments