New Mexico Senate focuses on redistricting maps, pandemic aid money

Dec. 7—A conflict over federal pandemic aid spending erupted in the Roundhouse on Monday just hours after state lawmakers gathered for a special session on two issues that could have critical effects on New Mexico's future: maps and money.

The session, expected to last up to two weeks, was convened primarily to draw new election district lines for seats in Congress, the Legislature and the Public Education Commission.

Legislators also plan to allocate $1.1 billion from the federal American Rescue Plan Act — or at least part of the funding. Rep. Patty Lundstrom, D-Gallup, chairwoman of the House Appropriations and Finance Committee, said she expects the Legislature to distribute about $500 million in the special session and decide on the remaining funds in the regular session that begins next month.

Some Democratic House members moved quickly to try to divvy $1.5 million of the federal aid for two state agencies, adding it to the so-called feed bill, an initial measure at the start of a legislative session that allocates funds for its operation. The money was intended to bolster the Department of Finance Administration and the Administrative Office of the Courts.

Republicans balked at the proposal.

They argued it was too much money allocated too fast and said the effort was being pushed without any documentation to back up the need.

Rep. Rod Montoya, R-Farmington, called the proposal an "inappropriate use of these funds."

The federal funding eventually was dropped from the bill, and House members voted to approve $1.6 million to run the session.

The debate followed a larger dispute between lawmakers from both parties and Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, over which branch of state government has the authority to spend federal money. Last month, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled against the governor in a lawsuit filed by lawmakers, declaring the task falls to the Legislature.

State Sen. Jacob Candelaria, an Albuquerque Democrat involved in the lawsuit, made a surprise announcement he is changing his party affiliation on his voter registration to "declined to state."

But his decision wasn't based on his suit against the governor.

Instead, Candelaria cited redistricting, a process conducted nationwide every 10 years based on updated U.S. census data to address population changes. Some voting district maps he's seen in the Senate would benefit the Democratic Party in parts of Albuquerque and would fail to adequately represent the city's Hispanic voters, he said.

Redistricting always comes with the potential for political controversy and has ended in court battles in New Mexico in most of the last several decades.

Communities, entire counties and even some lawmakers may find themselves in different voting districts when the process is complete.

Lundstrom joked about the possibility, telling colleagues she represents McKinley and San Juan counties "at least for the next month."

Earlier this year, the Legislature created a Citizens Redistricting Committee, which spent months reviewing maps and holding public forums before making recommendations to the Legislature. The committee presented some of its proposed maps to the Senate on Monday.

It has proposed three maps each for congressional districts, the state House and Senate, and the Public Education Commission, a panel that oversees state charter schools. But lawmakers can — and probably will — introduce their own maps for consideration.

Sen. Mark Moores, R-Albuquerque, raised concerns about emails from the Center for Civic Policy and the NAVA Education Project, groups advocating for particular maps, in which people were offered $50 to testify at redistricting committee meetings.

Edward Chávez, a former state Supreme Court justice who chairs the redistricting committee, told lawmakers he had heard the allegation but said "nobody's ever established for me that in fact people were paid."

He added: "All of the testimony that I heard ... that came from citizens in all parts of New Mexico, there was a lot of passion in the testimony. I don't care if you gave them a stipend so that they covered their mileage to travel 100 miles to attend a meeting. I thought that their testimony was legitimate, passionate and consistent."

Moores questioned whether the groups had disclosed their spending, which he said "pretty much taints a lot of the testimony."

While legislative sessions generally draw hundreds of spectators, lobbyists, special interest groups and other members of the public, there were few in the state Capitol on Monday.

The public galleys in the House and Senate chambers had no more than 25 people at any one time.

Nor were there any protests over new rules prohibiting people from carrying guns and other weapons into the Capitol — an issue that has drawn demonstrations in the past — or rules regarding COVID-19 precautions. Visitors must now provide proof of vaccination and walk through a metal detector at a Capitol entrance to ensure everyone is unarmed.

Security guards said they didn't face any contentious visitors as the session got underway.

Follow Daniel J. Chacón on Twitter @danieljchacon.