Cautious 'yes' on amending the anti-abortion clause
Cautious “yes” on amending the anti-donation clause
By Merilee Dannemann
Triple Spaced Again
When we vote this November, three proposed amendments to the state Constitution will be on the ballot. Two of those propose to loosen the purse strings of the state so that more money can be spent for worthy purposes.
Amendment 1 has received lots of publicity. It proposes to take an additional 1.25% out of the state’s permanent fund every year to benefit early childhood education. That’s not today’s topic.
We haven’t heard much about Amendment 2. This amendment proposes to create a new exception to the anti-donation clause of the state Constitution. The anti-donation clause has been keeping government spending in check by prohibiting direct funding to private entities. It has frustrated people with both worthy and unscrupulous intentions. It may have saved the state from deep corruption or prevented us from lifting the state out of poverty – probably some of both.
Amendment 2 is intended primarily for building broadband for underserved rural communities, including reservations – very desirable in a state with so much rural poverty.
One example is providing right-of-way for broadband lines for the “last mile,” meaning extending lines to homes. That’s what’s needed so high school students won’t have to spend their evenings accessing the wifi network in a McDonald’s parking lot to do their homework.
The amendment by itself does not apply any money to anything. If it passes, legislation will be required to appropriate money to specific projects.
I generally favor Amendment 2 because it gives the state a way to help those low-income rural folks. Before you make up your mind, I encourage you to do a few minutes of homework.
Do not walk into the voting booth unprepared. What will be on the ballot, for all three amendments, is a brief summary paragraph – not enough to understand what you are voting on.
You can read plain-language explanations of all three amendments plus some of the arguments about them. The most convenient option is vote411.org/new-mexico, published by the League of Women Voters, expected to be available online the first week of October.
You can go to nmlegis.gov/Publications and look for Constitutional Amendments 2022. The Legislative Council Service has prepared a booklet, explaining every proposed constitutional amendment, including arguments for and against.
If you’re really dedicated, you can also read analysis of the legislation as it was under consideration. Go to nmlegis.gov, click on Legislation, then read the Fiscal Impact Reports of the three proposed amendments. Look up each one individually. Click on Analysis.
Amendment 1 is House Joint Resolution (HJR) 1 of 2021. Amendment 2 is HJR 1 of 2022. Amendment 3 is SJR 3 of 2022.
I favor Amendment 2 because the infrastructure needs are genuine and very important to improving lives in our state – even contributing to the education that is the focus of Amendment 1. A great deal of planning has been done, and it is hoped that the passage of the amendment will enable the construction to move forward.
With our perennial low rank in measures of both education and economy, New Mexico needs a lot of bootstrapping, and this amendment could help considerably. The weak spot is that the language gives lawmakers a lot of wiggle room to use the new permission for items beyond the original intention.
At a recent seminar, one participant asked if this would allow money to be used, hypothetically, to build water lines for an unpopular proposed residential development near Albuquerque. The answer, also hypothetically, was, “Maybe.”
So if this amendment passes, it will be one more thing for our legislators to pledge to apply responsibly. And it will be one more thing for us as voters and taxpayers to watch closely.
Contact Merilee Dannemann through www.triplespacedagain.com.
This article originally appeared on Carlsbad Current-Argus: Cautious 'yes' on amending the anti-abortion clause
