>> Gene: THIS WEEK ON NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS, RECAPPING THE 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

I SIT DOWN WITH PANEL OF VETERAN REPORTERS TO ASK ABOUT THE BILLS THAT  PASSED AND FAILED IN THE ROUNDHOUSE THIS YEAR, AND... >> BURK: INDIGENOUS WOMEN HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL NOVEMBER OF THIS YEAR TO REACH THE EARNINGS THAT WHITE MEN MADE BY THE END OF LAST YEAR.

>> Gene: POLITICAL EXPERT AND AUTHOR MARTHA BURK GIVES HER IMPRESSIONS ON WOMEN'S  ISSUES TAKEN UP BY THE LEGISLATURE.

NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS STARTS NOW.

THANKS FOR JOINING US THIS WEEK.

I AM YOUR HOST GENE GRANT.

THE GOVERNOR IS CONSIDERING MORE THAN 200 PIECES OF LEGISLATION PASSED OUT OF THE ROUNDHOUSE AFTER THE 60-DAY SESSION.

COMING UP ON THE SHOW, I ASK OUR LINE OPINION  PANELISTS ABOUT WHAT PASSED AND DIDN'T AND  HOW THIS SESSION COMPARED TO YEARS PAST.

LATER ON POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT GWYNETH DOLAND SPEAKS WITH A GROUP OF UP AND COMING JOURNALISTS TO ASK ABOUT THEIR IMPRESSIONS OF THE  LEGISLATIVE PROCESS IN SANTA FE.

BUT WE START WITH A GROUP OF VETERAN REPORTERS WHO HAVE BEEN IN AND AROUND THE ROUNDHOUSE FOR YEARS.

LET'S GET TO THE LINE.

TIME TO WELCOME LINE  PANELISTS FOR THE WEEK.

HAPPY TO BE JOINED IN  STUDIO BY ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL STAFF WRITER, DAN MCKAY.

EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR AT THE SANTA FE NEW MEXICAN INEZ RUSSELL GOMEZ IS WITH US ONCE AGAIN AND FIRST TIME PANELIST AND  EDITOR AT SOURCE NEW MEXICO, SHAUN GRISWOLD IS HERE FOR THE FIRST TIME.

THANK YOU SHAUN FOR JOINING US.

WE BEGIN THIS WEEK LOOKING AT WHAT BILLS MADE THEIR WAY THROUGH THE 60-DAY LEGISLATIVE  SESSION AND HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE GOVERNOR'S DESKS.

THIS YEAR LAWMAKERS PASSED 241 BILLS AND GOVERNOR HAS UNTIL APRIL 7 TO SIGN OR VETO THAT LEGISLATION.

ANY BILLS SIGNED AFTER THAT DATE WILL BE POCKET VETOED AND MOVE NO MORE.

NOW ADDRESSING CRIME HAS BEEN KEY TO THE STATE'S ADMINISTRATION THIS YEAR.

IN HER STATE OF THE STATE ADDRESS YOU MIGHT RECALL GOVERNOR MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM CALLED FOR A BAN ON ASSAULT WEAPONS AND END TO THE STRAW PURCHASES OF GUNS AND FOR THE PASSAGE OF A SAFE STORAGE GUN BILL.

IN THE SECOND WEEK OF THE SESSION SHE ANNOUNCED THE CREATION OF A BUSINESS PUBLIC SAFETY COUNCIL AND PUSHED FOR LEGISLATION FOCUSED ON TARGETING  ORGANIZED RETAIL CRIME THAT WE TALKED ABOUT  HERE ON THE SHOW.

WE SAW SUCCESSFUL ACTION  ON ALL OF THOSE FRONTS BY THE END OF LAST WEEK.

WE'LL TALK ABOUT WHAT DIDN'T GET DONE IN OUR  SECOND SEGMENT BUT FOCUSING ON THOSE CRIME  BILLS I JUST MENTIONED THAT DID PASS, DAN, WHAT  STANDS OUT TO YOU HERE?

WERE THERE ANY  MEANINGFUL STEPS TAKEN WITH THESE CRIME BILLS,  PERHAPS A SENSE OF MAYBE TRYING TO GET TOO MUCH  DONE AT ONCE.

WHAT IS YOUR SENSE OF  HOW IT ALL SHOOK OUT?

>> Dan: I THINK THE  BIGGEST CRIME BILL THAT MADE IT ACROSS THE  FINISH LINE WAS THE ORGANIZED RETAIL CRIME.

BASICALLY THE STATE IS CREATING NEW CRIMES AND  NEW PENALTIES INTENDED TO CRACK DOWN ON PEOPLE  WHO SORT OF TERRORIZE THESE GROCERY STORES AND  BIG BOX STORES AND, YOU KNOW, WALK OUT WITH  ITEMS AND MAYBE THEY HIT A BUNCH OF STORES ALL AT ONCE.

AND THIS LAW HELPS THEM AGGREGATE WHAT THEY HAVE TAKEN AND SORT OF THE GOAL IS TO HAVE MORE APPROPRIATE PENALTIES.

I THINK THAT IS PROBABLY THE MAIN ONE THAT GOT THROUGH THAT SORT OF BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND SOME OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY FOLKS ARE REALLY LOOKING FOR.

YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE BIG CASUALTIES IS THERE IS THAT PERENNIAL DEBATE OVER PRE-TRIAL RELEASE  AND PRE-TRIAL DETENTION.

THOSE BILLS DIDN'T GO ANYWHERE.

THERE ARE DIFFERENT ATTEMPTS TO EITHER CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION OR PASS A LAW OR DO DIFFERENT THINGS.

THOSE ARE KIND OF, YOU KNOW, JUST, THEY HAVE  RUN INTO THE SAME HURDLES EVERY SESSION.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL CHANGE ON THAT FRONT BUT ORGANIZED RETAIL CRIME IS PROBABLY THE BIGGEST ONE IN MY MIND.

>> Gene: SEEMS LIKE THERE WAS A LOT OF AGREEMENT GOING INTO THE SESSION ON THAT.

ALL FACETS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.

I MEAN NOBODY WAS REALLY AGAINST THIS BILL AND IT IS A HUGE PROBLEM HERE  IN NEW MEXICO AND OF COURSE ALL OVER THE STATE.

SHAUN, INTERESTINGLY, HOUSE BILL FIVE, BENNY'S MAKES IT A CRIME FOR  ANYONE TO MAKE A FIREARM NEGLIGENTLY ACCESSIBLE  TO A MINOR.

SECOND GO FOR THIS BILL.

INTERESTING, SOURCE NEW MEXICO DID SOME GOOD COVERAGE ON THIS.

THE SENSE OF THE ARGUMENT ON THIS BILL.

IT TOOK US TWO LAPS MEANING IT CAME UP LAST SESSION.

WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM HERE?

SEEMS PRETTY LOGICAL JUST TO LOCK UP GUNS.

>> Shaun: I THINK IT STARTS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF  GUN LEGISLATION AND WHILE THIS IS A CRIME  PREVENTION MEASURE, THAT IS HOW IT IS PITCHED,  WHAT IS INTERESTING, AND PART OF OUR JOB, IS WE  GET TO FOLLOW THE MINUTIA.

YOU SEE HOW CRIME PACKAGES FALL AND FAIL  IN COMMITTEE.

SO FOR ME ONE OF THE  MOST INTERESTING WAYS TO SEE HOW THESE BILLS FAIL  IS WHEN YOU WATCH THE SENATE JUDICIARY.

ANYBODY WHO IS LIKE A LEGAL SCHOLAR OR LAW  STUDENT THAT WANTS TO FOLLOW WHY THESE BILLS  DON'T GO ANYWHERE, JOSEPH CERVANTES, A  SENATOR FROM LAS CRUCES, GIVES LIKE A  CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT AS TO LIKE WHY THESE  BILLS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND  THAT IS WHERE THEY STALL.

FOLLOWING THOSE COMMITTEES AND UNDERSTANDING LIKE THAT THOSE BILLS ARE NOT GOING TO GET THERE BECAUSE THEY DON'T MEET THE STATE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS IS KIND OF HOW WE UNDERSTAND THIS AND FOR THIS BILL TO GET PASSED, THOUGH, YOU KNOW THERE WAS NOT AN ESSENTIAL, LIKE, GUN LOBBY EFFORT THAT WAS PROPOSING AGAINST IT.

WE ALSO UNDERSTOOD, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE  EMOTIONAL CAPACITY OF BENNY HARGROVE, THE  STUDENT WHO WAS SHOT HERE AT WASHINGTON  MIDDLE SCHOOL JUST ACROSS THE STREET FROM  WHERE WE ARE HERE IN DOWNTOWN ALBUQUERQUE,  THERE WAS A QUICK SENSE OF URGENCY.

PEOPLE HAVE A HARD TIME ARGUING AGAINST MAKING  GUN SAFETY MEASURES THAT PROTECT SCHOOLS.

AND ULTIMATELY THAT WAS PART OF THE ARGUMENT BUT  ESSENTIALLY COULD PROTECT YOUTH AND MINORS  AS THEY HAVE ACCESS TO GUNS.

>> Gene: THIS WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE REPUBLICAN  SUPPORT TO PASS.

INTERESTING.

THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT WASN'T THERE?

>> Shaun: THAT DID NOT HAVE AN ISSUE WHEN IT CAME TO REPUBLICAN  SUPPORT ON IT.

>> Gene: INEZ GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE BY THE WAY.

ALWAYS.

SENATE BILL 64 ABOLISHING LIFE SENTENCES WITHOUT PAROLE FOR CHILDREN SENTENCED AS ADULTS.

IT WAS AN INTERESTING DEBATE WASN'T IT?

THIS IDEA OF HOW LONG A CHILD SHOULD SERVE BEFORE THEY BECOME ELIGIBLE WAS A REAL ANGST POINT FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE.

THAT IS A LOT OF TIME IF YOU TALK AFTER SERVING ANYWHERE BETWEEN 15 TO 25 YEARS OF SENTENCES, DEPENDING ON THE SEVERITY.

I AM CURIOUS YOUR THOUGHTS ON HOW THAT CAME ABOUT OF THE  ARGUMENT AND HOW IT EVENTUALLY GOT PASSED, ACTUALLY.

>> Inez: WHAT I FOUND INTERESTING ABOUT THIS BILL IS IT SHOWS HOW LEGISLATION IS INTRODUCED AND THEN BETWEEN SESSIONS, YOU WORK ON IT SOME MORE,  BECAUSE IT FAILED LAST TIME BECAUSE THE  DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S WERE AGAINST IT, FAMILIES OF  PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN HURT IN REALLY HORRIFIC  CRIMES WERE AGAINST IT.

AND INSTEAD OF BEING  DEFENSIVE ABOUT IT AND MAYBE TRYING TO PUSH IT  THROUGH OR WRANGLE TO GET IT PASSED, THEY  WITHDREW IT.

AND THEY CAME BACK AND  THEY WORKED ON IT TO MAKE IT MORE PALATABLE  TO EVERYBODY TO RESPECT THE PAIN OF VICTIMS AND  TO UNDERSTAND THE NEEDS OF PROSECUTORS.

BUT ALSO TO KEEP FOCUSING ON THE IDEA  THAT EVERYBODY HAS THIS LIFE TO LIVE AND WE CAN  BE REDEEMED.

AND WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT, SERVING 20 YEARS IS STILL A VERY LONG SENTENCE.

IF YOU GET SENT IN WHEN YOU ARE 15, YOU DON'T GET OUT AFTER 20 YEARS, YOU JUST GET A CHANCE AT A HEARING.

AND IT WILL BE UP TO YOU  IN PRISON WITH HOPEFULLY SOME RESOURCES TO BECOME  A BETTER PERSON AND TO THEN LIVE YOUR LIFE IN A  WAY THAT MAKES A CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY.

>> Gene: THAT WAS PART OF THE ARGUMENT.

IF YOU'RE SPENDING 15 YEARS IN PRISON, YOUR CHANCES OF REHABILITATION, THE WAY  WE HAVE IT SET UP, NOT SAYING THE FUTURE, BUT  THE WAY IT IS NOW, IT'S NOT VERY HOPEFUL.

SHAUN, GO TO YOU.

ALSO INCLUDING VOTING  RIGHTS BILL, IS THE NATIVE AMERICAN VOTING  RIGHTS ACT TAKES A NUMBER OF STEPS TO MAKE  VOTING EASIER FOR PEOPLE LIVING ON TRIBAL LAND.

THIS HAS BEEN OUT THERE FOR QUITE A WHILE BUT IT GOT DONE.

FOR A LOT OF FOLKS THIS WAS A BIG  DEAL TO GET THIS DONE.

YOUR SENSE OF THIS BILL AS WELL.

>> Shaun: WATCHING THAT DEBATE LAST YEAR, THAT WAS THE FINAL STORY WE DID ON THE LEGISLATURE IN THE 30 DAY.

AND WE SAW THIS BILL FILIBUSTERED WITH ONE OF OUR SENATORS SPEAKING ABOUT BASEBALL AND A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER THINGS FOR A LONG TIME TO KILL THE BILL, WHICH WE SAW THIS YEAR WITH A COUPLE OTHERS.

BUT WITH THIS VOTING RIGHTS BILL THIS TIME YOU JUST SAW AN INCREDIBLE COALITION OF  INDIVIDUALS FROM ALL ACROSS THE STATE.

YOU HAD SUPPORT FROM SECRETARY OF STATE,  MAGGIE TOULOUSE, OLIVER.

SOMETHING PROMINENT ON  THE GOVERNOR'S AGENDA TO GET PASSED.

WHEN IT COMES TO NATIVE AMERICAN VOTING RIGHTS  ACT THAT IS ANOTHER PROMINENT COALITION OF  PEOPLE YOU ARE STARTING TO SEE.

PROMINENT POLITICAL STRENGTH WITH NATIVE  AMERICAN COMMUNITIES THAT ARE A COALITION OF  23 TRIBES.

IT IS HARD TO GET 23 PEOPLE TO AGREE ON ANYTHING AND YOU HAVE 23 GOVERNMENTS AGREEING THAT WE NEED THIS  LEGISLATION TO MAKE VOTING EASIER.

ONE OF THE KEY ELEMENTS YOU ARE GOING TO SEE IS  YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ALIGN TRIBAL  ELECTIONS WITH GENERAL ELECTIONS OR PRIMARY ELECTIONS.

FOR INSTANCE, THIS YEAR, YOU HAVE, OR LAST YEAR WHEN YOU HAD THE ELECTION CYCLE, YOU KNOW, THE ELECTION THAT  YOU VOTE ONE TIME WHEN VOTING FOR STATE  REPRESENTATIVE OR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE, THEN NEXT WEEK YOU VOTE FOR YOUR TRIBAL REPRESENTATIVE.

NOW THEY ARE GOING TO ALIGN THOSE DATES SO IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO  VOTE FOR NOT ONLY THEIR LOCAL COMMUNITIES BUT  ALSO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT THEY  HAVE TO SUPPORT.

>> Gene: LET ME BOUNCE  TO DAN ON THIS ONE.

FOLLOW UP TO WHAT INEZ  AND I WERE TALKING ABOUT, THIS IDEA OF  RELEASED FELONS, WHO PREVIOUSLY HAD TO  COMPLETE THEIR ENTIRE SENTENCE INCLUDING  PAROLE AND PROBATION BEFORE THEY COULD VOTE.

NOW THEY CAN.

IT IS INTERESTING, NOT  JUST THAT, NEW MEXICO VOTING RIGHTS ACT, IN CASE YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS AS VIEWERS,  ALLOWING EX-CONVICTS TO VOTE AT THEIR RELEASE  FROM JAIL OR PRISON.

A LOT OF PUSH BACK FROM THIS FROM CONSERVATIVES AND A LOT OF IDEA THAT  COULD BE A LOT OF GAME PLAYING.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT POTENTIALLY OVER 10,000 PEOPLE PERHAPS, WHICH COULD BE VERY CHANGING  IN CERTAIN DISTRICTS DEPENDING ON CLOSE VOTES  AND THINGS.

YOUR SENSE OF HOW THE  MEANDERING WATER WENT ON THIS?

THE ARGUMENTS.

WHAT DID YOU HEAR?

>> Shaun: WELL, I THINK  THERE IS A CONCERN THAT NEW MEXICO DOES ALLOW FELONS, ALREADY BEFORE THIS LAW, TO RESTORE THEIR VOTING RIGHTS BUT THAT IT WAS A CUMBERSOME PROCESS THAT DIDN'T REALLY WORK.

THAT EVEN SOMEBODY WHO  HAD BEEN IN PRISON WOULD PRESENT THEIR PAPERWORK,  YOU KNOW, SHOWING THEY COMPLETED THEIR FULL  SENTENCE AT A COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE AND STILL  THEY WOULD BE DENIED AND THEY WERE HAVING A LOT  OF TROUBLE MAKING THIS WORK IN A PRACTICAL SENSE.

SO, THIS BILL BASICALLY SAYS, YOU KNOW, AS YOU'RE LEAVING, WE CAN  MAKE SURE YOU'RE REGISTERED TO VOTE, ET CETERA.

YOU CAN'T VOTE WHILE YOU'RE IN PRISON BUT AS YOU'RE EXITING INCARCERATION, WE MAKE  SURE YOU'RE REGISTERED AND YOUR RIGHTS ARE  RESTORED AND YOU WON'T HAVE TO FOOL WITH ANY OF THAT.

IN SOME WAYS IT IS KIND OF A SIMPLIFICATION OF WHAT WE HAD BEFORE.

KIND OF THE ARGUMENT AGAINST IT FROM  CONSERVATIVES WAS, WELL, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVEN'T  FINISHED YOUR SENTENCE UNTIL YOU COMPLETE  PAROLE OR PROBATION OR WHATEVER.

SO THAT WAS KIND OF THE PUSH BACK, BUT THAT  WAS -- THAT IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE  BILL AND IT CERTAINLY COULD, YOU KNOW, INCREASE PARTICIPATION AMONG THIS GROUP.

>> Gene: TWO DROP BOXES AT EVERY LOCATION.

ISN'T THAT INTERESTING  TO ACCOMMODATE THIS.

THE IDEA THAT -- I  SHOULD MENTION 11,000 NUMBER I GOT FROM SOURCE NEW MEXICO.

I QUOTED THE OVER 10,000, SO I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THIS.

AGAIN, THIS ARGUMENT WE HAVE A LOT OF FOLKS  BLUNTLY WHO NEED A SECOND CHANCE IN LIFE SOMETIMES.

VOTING CAN BE A BIG PART OF THAT.

MAKES YOU FEEL BETTER.

MAKES YOU FEEL LIKE YOU'RE CONNECTED TO YOUR COUNTRY, NOT JUST A PARIAH BECAUSE YOU MIGHT  HAVE MADE A MISTAKE EARLIER IN LIFE.

ANY DOWN SIDE TO THIS, IN YOUR VIEW?

>> Inez: I NEVER SEE A DOWN SIDE TO MORE PEOPLE  VOTING PERSONALLY, AND I THINK THAT WHEN YOU  ALLOW FULL CITIZENSHIP PARTICIPATION, THAT  MEANS YOU'RE LESS LIKELY TO DO BAD THINGS BECAUSE  IF YOU'RE PART OF SOCIETY, WHY WOULD YOU HURT IT?

>> Gene: EXACTLY RIGHT.

SHAUN, TO YOUR REPORTING AND THE SOURCE OF THE 11,000.

THAT IS A LOT OF PEOPLE.

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?

I AM ALREADY READING THAT PEOPLE ARE WORRIED THAT THIS COULD LEAD TO SHENANIGANS.

IN THE REPORTING AT SOURCE NM, WHAT DID YOU GUYS FIND AS A POSSIBILITY ON THAT?

>> Shaun: A LOT OF PEOPLE IN NEW MEXICO ARE INCARCERATED.

THAT IS JUST THE HISTORY OF WHAT THE STATE IS.

AND WE HAVE TO ULTIMATELY COME TO TERMS  WE HAVE ENTIRE GENERATIONS OF PEOPLE  WHO HAVE SERVED TIME, LIVED INSIDE OR ARE  CURRENTLY LIVING INSIDE.

AS INEZ WAS SAYING, IT  IS VERY IMPORTANT TO BRING BACK YOUR CIVILITY.

AND SO GETTING THE RIGHT TO VOTE IS YOUR FIRST PARTICIPATION IN SOCIETY.

PEOPLE THAT ARE INCARCERATED THAT ARE INSIDE ARE ULTIMATELY -- THEY PAY ATTENTION.

THEY READ.

THEY KNOW THERE IS SO MUCH POLICY HAPPENING AROUND THEM, DISCUSSIONS, KIND OF  LIKE RIGHT NOW WHERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THESE  INDIVIDUALS BUT THEY CAN'T PARTICIPATE.

SO,  YOU KNOW, IF THERE IS GOING TO BE ANY TYPE OF  SHENANIGANS THAT IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING  THAT WILL BE INTERESTING TO FOLLOW WITH THIS  WHOLE VOTING RIGHTS BILL IS HOW IT IS APPLIED  OVERALL.

AND, SO, WE ARE NOT  GOING TO SEE THAT UNTIL AS WE FOLLOW THIS LAW  AND SEE APPLICATIONS FROM THE SECRETARY OF  STATE AND LOCAL COUNTY CLERKS,   BUT I THINK IT IS ALSO PART OF AN ELEMENT WHERE PEOPLE ARE SUGGESTING THINGS COULD GO WRONG AS PART OF THIS  WHOLE ELECTION INTEGRITY PIECE.

WHERE INDIVIDUALS ARE JUST STARTING TO QUESTION THE RESULTS OF ELECTIONS AND EVEN QUESTIONING THE  IDEA WE SHOULDN'T TRUST THEM.

AND WHERE DOES THAT COME FROM?

IT COMES FROM AN  IDEA WHERE ULTIMATELY A SECTION OF PEOPLE WHO  ARE ULTIMATELY LOSING ELECTIONS VERY CONSISTENTLY.

>> Gene: GOOD POINT THERE.

APPRECIATE THAT PICKUP.

INEZ LET'S TALK ABOUT HOW BILL 7.

WE NOW HAVE SOME CLARITY ON ABORTION HERE IN NEW MEXICO.

THIS HAS BEEN A BIG RAGING ISSUE ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

DIFFERENT STATES ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THEY STAND AFTER LAST YEAR'S FALL OF ROE V WADE.

THE GOVERNOR GOT A LOT ON THIS ISSUE.

WAS IT A TIMING THING?

TIMING WAS RIGHT?

WHAT HAPPENED HERE?

>> Inez: I THINK IT WAS  HER CLEAR LEADERSHIP AND HER APPROACH AND I ALSO  THINK THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF WOMEN IN THE LEGISLATURE.

AND WITH A LOT OF YOUNG WOMEN WHO ARE STILL FERTILE AND THEY KNOW WHAT IT IS LIKE TO BE PREGNANT, TO WANT THEIR BABY, TO MAYBE NOT BE ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF A BABY.

AND I THINK YOU SEE THE PRIORITIES OF THE LEGISLATURE ARE CHANGING  BECAUSE OF THIS WHOLE CLASS OF REPRESENTATIVES  AND SENATORS WHO HAVE BEEN PREGNANT AND ARE  MOMS AND UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF IT.

AND THEY ALSO, I THINK, ARE VERY RESPECTFUL OF  GENDER DIVERSITY BECAUSE OUR LEGISLATION IS ALSO  PROTECTING TRANSGENDER, GAY, LESBIAN AND ALL OF THAT.

AND OTHER STATES IN THE COUNTRY ARE BECOMING -- YOU'RE A PARIAH IN THOSE  STATES, WE ARE GOING TO BE A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE  CAN BE THEMSELVES AND WELCOMED AND LOVED.

AND I COULD NOT BE PROUDER OF WHAT NEW MEXICO DID IN THAT AREA IN TERMS OF WELCOMING PEOPLE.

>> Gene: TOOK A COUPLE YEARS BUT IT GOT THERE.

DAN, ONE MORE QUICK MINUTE WITH YOU.

THIS COLLEGIALITY THING WE KEEP READING ABOUT, THAT EVERYBODY GOT ALONG  SO WELL IN THE SESSION.

I AM NOT SURE WHAT THAT  ALL MEANS AT THE END OF THE DAY.

HOW DID YOU  TAKE THAT?

WAS IT AS COLLEGIAL AS  PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO MAKE IT SEEM, OR WAS IT  REALLY THAT CUMBIA?

>> Dan: I WOULD SAY THERE IS DEFINITELY A LOT OF COMBAT.

THERE IS PROCEDURAL COMBAT, YOU KNOW, PARTISAN -- REALLY FIERCE PARTISAN DEBATES.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT ON THE HOUSE SIDE IT HAS  TYPICALLY BEEN THE MORE PARTISAN CHAMBER BUT  THERE WAS, LIKE I SAID, NEW LEADERSHIP AND THERE MAY BE LESS BRIDGES THAT HAVEN'T BEEN BURNED YET,  SO THEY ARE ABLE TO COLLABORATE, YOU KNOW.

AS INEZ WAS SAYING, THERE IS ALSO THE  COMPOSITION OF THE CHAMBERS IS CHANGING.

THE HOUSE HAS MORE WOMEN THAN IT EVER HAD BEFORE.

I THINK THAT HAS DEFINITELY SHAPED THE  ENVIRONMENT AND THEN YOU JUST TOUCHED ON THE  SECOND CHANCE BILL, THE JUVENILE LIFE BILL, THAT  WAS A BILL THAT WAS AMENDED TO PICK UP SOME  BIPARTISAN REPUBLICAN SUPPORT.

PERSONALITY-WISE MAYBE YOU'RE SEEING THERE ARE  SOME INSTANCES WHERE PEOPLE INSTEAD OF JUST  TRYING TO PUSH THINGS THROUGH WITH A FAIR MAJORITY, THEY ARE MAKING EFFORTS TO PICK UP REPUBLICANS.

>> Gene: IS IT GOING TO LAST, YOU THINK?

>> Dan: THAT IS A AN EXCELLENT QUESTION.

NEXT YEAR WILL BE AN ELECTION YEAR.

IT WILL BE ON THE BALLOT, YOU KNOW, I THINK YOU DO TYPICALLY  SEE MAYBE SOME INCREASE IN PARTISAN TENSION.

I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT WILL LAST.

>> Gene: GOOD POINT THERE.

THANKS TO THE LINE OPINION PANEL.

WE'LL BE BACK HERE TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE  MAJOR LEGISLATION THAT DIDN'T PASS, LIKE THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED BAN ON ASSAULT WEAPONS IN LESS THAN 10 MINUTES.

>> Martha: THE WHOLE THING KIND OF OPENS ITSELF UP TO LITIGATION THAT COULD LAST FOR YEARS, FOR EXAMPLE, A  PERSON WHO IS DENIED AN ABORTION OR GENDER  AFFIRMING CARE COULD BRING A LAWSUIT.

WELL, HOW LIKELY IS THAT TO HAPPEN FOR AN INDIVIDUAL?

AND HOW LONG WOULD THAT TAKE TO LITIGATE?

PROBABLY YEARS.

SO, IT IS A VICTORY BUT  IT IS NOT A SLAM DUNK.

>> Gene: EVERY YEAR STATE LAWMAKERS HEAD TO SANTA FE TO WORK OUT THE BUDGET AND EVERY OTHER  YEAR THEY CONSIDER LARGER ISSUES IMPACTING  OUR STATE.

THAT WAS THE CASE DURING  THE 2023 SESSION AND INSIDE A GROUP OF UP-AND-COMING JOURNALISTS GOT THEIR  FIRST TASTE OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.

DURING A RECENT FACEBOOK LIVE CONVERSATION NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT GWYNETH DOLAND CAUGHT UP WITH THREE YOUNG  REPORTERS TO ASK ABOUT THEIR IMPRESSIONS FROM THE SESSION AND ABOUT SOME OF THE LEGISLATION THEY COVERED IMPACTING RURAL AND INDIGENOUS  COMMUNITIES.

>> Gwyneth: YOU ARE ALL  LOCAL NEWS FELLOWS.

BELLA TWO YEARS AGO AND  MEGAN AND JEANETTE JUST FINISHED THIS NINE-MONTH  FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM IN LOCAL NEWSROOMS.

AND YOU ALL ARE NEW OR PRETTY NEW TO COVERING  THE STATE LEGISLATURE IN YOUR SANTA FE AND I WANT  TO ASK YOU FIRST, HOW DID THAT GO?

WHAT IS THAT EXPERIENCE  LIKE FOR A NEW REPORTER?

>> Davis: I REALLY  ENJOYED IT.

IT WAS GOOD TALKING WITH MORE  EXPERIENCED REPORTERS AND GETTING TIPS ABOUT  NAVIGATING THE WEBSITE AND HOW TO LIKE TRACK  BILLS MORE EASILY.

>> Gwyneth: WELL, I  THINK ALL OF OUR VIEWERS WHO HAVE EVER TRIED TO  LOOK AT THE BILLS CAN LIKE FEEL THE SAME,  TRYING TO NAVIGATE THAT WEBSITE.

THEY DO KEEP MAKING IT BETTER AND EVEN DURING  THIS SESSION, I NOTICED IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE  MAKING IT EASIER.

JEANETTE, WHILE WE WERE  UP THERE, ONE OF THE THINGS YOU COVERED WAS  THE NATIVE AMERICAN VOTING RIGHTS ACT.

AND THIS IS THE FIRST OF ITS KIND IN THE COUNTRY, A PART OF THE ELECTION CODE DEVOTED SPECIFICALLY TO THIS.

WHAT WILL THAT DO?

>> DeBois: SO ONE OF THE THINGS IT DOES IS A LOT OF THE NATIVE  COMMUNITIES ARE RURAL ESPECIALLY HERE IN THE  STATE.

WHAT IT DOES, IT CREATES OPPORTUNITY FOR  NATIVE AMERICAN VOTERS TO BE ABLE TO VOTE AT  THE TRIBAL BUILDING OR AN OFFICIAL BUILDING IN  THEIR RESERVATION, IT ALSO CREATES MORE -- IT  ALSO ALLOWS THEM TO USE P.O.

BOXES BECAUSE A LOT  OF TRIBAL MEMBERS THEY DON'T HAVE A PERMANENT ADDRESS.

THERE IS NOTHING LIKE THAT ON THE RESERVATION.

SO, THEY RELY ON P.O.

BOXES TO GET MAIL AND BEFORE NOW THAT WAS NOT CONSIDERED AN OFFICIAL ADDRESS TO VOTE.

>> Gwyneth: IN THE PAST FEW YEARS, WE HAVE SEEN MOVES IN OTHER STATES TO  RESTRICT VOTING.

TO BRING EARLY VOTING  DOWN A LITTLE BIT, TO RESTRICT OR MAKE IT MORE  DIFFICULT TO APPLY FOR ABSENTEE BALLOTS, THING  LIKES THAT.

THIS WAS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.

WHAT IS IT ABOUT?

>> Gleason: YEAH.

THE MAIN GOAL OF THIS IS  TO EXPAND VOTING RIGHTS ACCESSIBILITY AND  GENERALLY JUST MAKE IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO VOTE.

SO THERE ARE A FEW DIFFERENT THINGS IN THIS.

LIKE YOU SAID, THE NATIVE AMERICAN VOTING RIGHTS ACT IS IN THIS.

A FEW OTHER CLAUSES LIKE REQUIRING BALLOT DROP BOXES AT EVERY COUNTY, MAKING SURE THERE IS AT  LEAST TWO OF THEM.

CREATING A PERMANENT  ABSENTEE VOTER LIST SO PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO  REREGISTER AND I THINK ANOTHER IMPORTANT ONE IS  FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE CONVICTED OF FELONIES,  ONCE THEY ARE RELEASED FROM A DETENTION CENTER,  THEY ARE ALLOWED TO VOTE, WHICH THEY  CURRENTLY CAN'T DO IF THEY ARE ON PROBATION OR  OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT.

>> Gwyneth: BELLA,  YOU'RE YOUR AN INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS  REPORTER AT NEW MEXICO IN DEPTH AND ONE OF THE THINGS YOU LOOKED AT WAS A PROPOSED TRIBAL  EDUCATION TRUST FUND.

WHAT WOULD THIS FUND  HAVE DONE?

>> Davis: YEAH, SO  TRIBAL EDUCATION IS HEAVILY RELIANT IN PART  ON STATE GRANTS GIVEN OUT ANNUALLY OR I SHOULD  SAY THAT TRIBES CAN APPLY FOR ANNUALLY.

AND FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS TRIBES OFTEN  HAVE TROUBLE SPENDING ALL THE MONEY IN TIME.

AND THAT HAS MADE IT DIFFICULT FOR TRIBES TO  BUILD SUSTAINABLE EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND  ACTUALIZE A DECISION OF EDUCATING THEIR OWN CHILDREN WHICH THERE IS A PROFOUND NEED ESPECIALLY IN OUR STATE.

SO THIS YEAR THERE WAS A BILL TO CREATE A TRIBAL  EDUCATION TRUST FUND.

BASICALLY THE REVENUE  GENERATED FROM THE FUND WOULD HAVE PROVIDED  RELIABLE AND AUTOMATIC FUNDING FOR TRIBES TO  BUILD TRULY COMMUNITY-BASED PROGRAMS  FOCUSING ON LANGUAGE, COLLEGE ENCOURAGEMENT  AND MANY OTHER PRIORITIES THAT VARY FROM TRIBE TO TRIBE.

ULTIMATELY THE BILL SPONSOR SORT OF ENDED UP TABLING IT WITH THE IDEA OF WORKING IN THE  INTERIM AND COMING BACK WITH A BIGGER ASK  FUNDING WISE NEXT YEAR.

>> Gwyneth: JEANETTE,  YOU REPORTED, WE BOTH DID, ON A BILL TO  SUPPORT THE CREATIVE ECONOMY.

AND THIS HAD SUPPORTERS IN RURAL AREAS  ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OF SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF  THE MONEY IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN TO RURAL  COMMUNITIES, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> DEBOIS: YES.

ONE OF THE BIGGEST  THINGS IN INTERVIEWING WE WANTED TO NAIL DOWN  WHAT EXACTLY IS THE CREATIVE INDUSTRY AND I  KNOW IT GOT KIND OF CONFUSING AND THEY HAD  TO GO BACK AND REVISE IT.

WE TALK ABOUT CREATIVE INDUSTRY AND WE TALK  ABOUT FILM BUT THE FILM OFFICE HAS ITS OWN THING.

THAT IS NOT A PART OF IT.

IT IS REALLY JUST LOCAL ARTISTS.

WE TALK ABOUT GAME DESIGNERS, VISUAL ARTISTS, DANCERS, ARCHITECTS, CERAMIC ARTISTS.

THEY WOULD ALL BE ABLE TO BENEFIT FROM THIS PROGRAM.

>> Gwyneth: ON ANOTHER TOPIC, MEGAN, THERE WAS WORK DONE ON DISASTER RELIEF AND YOU HAVE DONE A LOT OF REPORTING ON THE FIRES WE SAW LAST YEAR.

WHAT DID THE LEGISLATURE GET DONE ON DISASTER RELIEF?

>> GLEASON: THERE WERE A FEW DIFFERENT MEASURES TO ASK FOR DISASTER RELIEF.

LIKE YOU SAID, LAST YEAR WE HAD A MASSIVE FIRE SEASON IN NORTHERN AND  SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO.

WE SAW THE BIGGEST FIRES WE HAVE EVER SEEN IN THIS STATE.

ONE OF THE  FIRST BILLS THAT THE GOVERNOR SIGNED WAS  SENDING 100 MILLION IN LOANS TO NORTHERN NEW MEXICO SO THEY COULD REPAIR INFRASTRUCTURE THAT THE FLOODS LARGELY WASHED OUT AND THE STATE  EXPECTS THAT WILL EVENTUALLY BE PAID BACK  BECAUSE THAT FIRE WAS CAUSED BY THE FEDS AND  THEY HAVE TAKEN RESPONSIBILITY IN PAYING FOR IT.

THERE WAS ALSO THE BLACK FIRE IN SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO WHICH HIT AROUND THE GILA NATIONAL FOREST.

THAT WAS THE SECOND LARGEST FIRE BEHIND HERMIT'S PEAK CALF CANYON IN NORTHERN NEW MEXICO.

THEY ARE GETTING -- THE BUDGET ALLOCATED TWO  MILLION FOR THEM, WHICH IS ACTUALLY ONE MILLION  LESS THAN WHAT LAWMAKERS WHO REPRESENT THOSE  AREAS REQUESTED.

AND THEY DID DISCUSS A  FEW ISSUES WITH WHY THAT ONE MILLION WAS CUT AND  SENATOR CRYSTAL DIAMOND ACTUALLY BROUGHT UP THAT  IN THE BUDGET THERE IS ONE MILLION SET ASIDE  FOR A UNIVERSITY TELESCOPE ALTHOUGH  NOBODY REQUESTED THAT THROUGH LEGISLATION.

SO THAT WAS CUT.

THE MCBRIDE FIRE, THOSE  SPONSORS ALSO REQUESTED JUST OVER  18 MILLION-DOLLARS FOR THEIR REPAIRS FOR THEIR COUNTRIES, BUT THAT WAS CUT DOWN TO JUST UNDER  SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS.

>> Gwyneth: I WANT TO  THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING AND TALKING TO US ABOUT  WHAT YOU HAVE DONE AND WE HOPE TO BE HEARING A  LOT MORE FROM YOU THIS COMING YEAR.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING WITH US.

>> Gene: THANK YOU GWYNETH AND THOSE NEW  REPORTERS FOR THEIR WORK.

YOU CAN WATCH ALL OF THE STORY FROM INSIDE THE ROUNDHOUSE THIS SESSION ONLINE IN THE NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS YOUTUBE PAGE.

BACK TO THE LINE OPINION PANEL OF VETERAN  JOURNALISTS.

NEARLY 1100 BILLS WERE INTRODUCED DURING THIS YEAR'S 60-DAY SESSION  NOT TO MENTION THE HUNDREDS OF RESOLUTIONS  AND MEMORIALS BROUGHT FORTH BY LAWMAKERS.

ALTHOUGH THE VAST MAJORITY OF THESE  PROPOSALS FAILED TO MAKE IT OUT OF THE  ROUNDHOUSE, SEVERAL FAILED BILLS HAVE CAUGHT  OUR ATTENTION.

WE RETURN NOW AGAIN TO  THE PROPOSED CRIME BILLS.

IN HER STATE OF THE STATE ADDRESS THE  GOVERNOR RECEIVED A STANDING OVATION, IF YOU  REMEMBER THIS, FOR HER CALL TO BAN ALL ASSAULT WEAPONS.

HOUSE BILL 101, WHICH WOULD HAVE BANNED THE POSSESSION, MANUFACTURING, SALE OR TRANSFER OF ASSAULT  WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINES DIED  IN COMMITTEE AND NEVER RECEIVED A VOTE FROM THE  HOUSE OR THE SENATE.

DAN, START WITH YOU.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS BILL?

WAS IT DESTINED  TO FAIL FROM THE BEGINNING OR IS  GOVERNOR -- A BAN OF ALL ASSAULT WEAPONS IS A  VERY DEEP SUBJECT.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO  WRESTLE IT TO THE GROUND 60 DAYS.

WHAT HAPPENED HERE?

>> Dan: YES, IT WAS PROBABLY DESTINED TO  FAIL FROM THE BEGINNING.

YOU KNOW, IN NEW MEXICO SOME OF THESE GUN RESTRICTIONS DEMOCRATS  LOOK SCEPTICALLY ON.

THE SAFE STORAGE BILL,  YOU KNOW, THERE WERE QUITE A FEW DEMOCRATS  WHO CROSSED THE LINE AND VOTED WITH REPUBLICANS  AGAINST IT.

THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN,  IT RAN INTO, YOU KNOW, A NEW LEGAL ENVIRONMENT  WITH THE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

AND I THINK THERE WAS SOME CONCERN ABOUT  WHETHER IT WENT TOO FAR AND VIOLATED SECOND  AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

EVEN DEMOCRATS WERE  RAISING THAT ISSUE AND THEN IT ALSO HAS A LOT  OF KIND OF TECHNICAL CHALLENGES AROUND HOW DO  YOU DEFINE ASSAULT WEAPON, YOU KNOW, HOW DO  YOU DEFINE THESE ATTACHMENTS, THINGS LIKE THAT.

THAT MADE IT JUST SORT OF REALLY TRICKY TO GET IT THROUGH.

SO, YEAH, THAT ONE IS  ONE THAT I THINK IS PROBABLY LESS LIKELY  AMONG THE GUN BILLS THAT FAILED TO ADVANCE IN THE  NEAR FUTURE.

IT JUST HAS A LOT OF  SORT OF PARTICULAR CHALLENGES UNIQUE TO  THAT ISSUE.

>> Gene: THAT IS RIGHT.

SHAUN, YOU HEAR THE LIST THAT DAN JUST LAID OUT.

HOW DO YOU GET A BILL LIKE THIS PASSED?

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?

IT WOULD BE AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF HURDLES TO GET ACROSS.

>> Shaun: IT IS SO WILD FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND LIKE THE POLITICAL  NATURE OF NEW MEXICO, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED SENATE, HOUSE, GOVERNOR,  AND SO MANY DEMOCRATIC VOTERS HERE.

LIKE A LOT OF PROGRESSIVE AGENDAS THAT  WE SPOKE ABOUT EARLIER, YOU KNOW, PASSED THROUGH  AND WHILE IT IS NICE TO CALL FOR A BAN ON  ASSAULT WEAPONS, NEW MEXICO IS STILL A GUN STATE.

AND THAT CROSSES ALL POLITICAL BOUNDARIES AND LINES, EVEN IF YOU'RE  NOT A REGISTERED VOTER OR CARE TO BE INVOLVED  IN POLITICS.

SO, I THINK THAT  LAWMAKERS ARE LISTENING TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS.

EVEN THE PROGRESSIVE LAWMAKERS THAT WE SEE  FROM ALBUQUERQUE AND SANTA FE.

THEY ALL HAVE CONSTITUENTS THAT ARE  GUN OWNERS.

SUPPORTING A GUN BAN IS SOMETHING  THAT ULTIMATELY GOES AGAINST PEOPLE THAT VOTE FOR THEM.

>> Gene: INEZ, A POST-SESSION PRESS CONFERENCE YOU WERE AWARE OF LAST WEEKEND, THE GOVERNOR SAID SHE IS, QUOTE, GOING TO KEEP TRYING, END QUOTE, ON CRIME RELATED BILLS IN THE NEAR ONLY 10 MADE IT THIS YEAR TO HER DESK, 10 OUT OF 40.

I GUESS THAT EXPLAINS HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO REPORT ON GUN STUFF,  ISN'T IT?

BUT COULD THEY SIGNAL  THIS AS SUCCESS, PERHAPS, THOSE 10?

10 PRETTY SIGNIFICANT.

>> Inez: A SUPPORTER AND YOU SAID AT THE BEGINNING WHEN YOU THINK  ABOUT IT THERE ARE 1000 BILLS INTRODUCED AND 240 PASSED, SO THAT IS NOT A BAD NUMBER.

I THINK ONE THING I HOPE EVERY ONE STOPS TO  REFLECT IS THAT LEGISLATION DOESN'T  NECESSARILY STOP CRIME AND PERHAPS THEY NEED TO  LOOK AT SOME OTHER THINGS AND I WOULD LOOK  AT THE COURT SYSTEM AND THEY ALWAYS SAY, ARE WE  ENFORCING THE GUN LAWS WE HAVE?

ARE WE FUNDING OUR COURT SYSTEM?

DO WE HAVE  PUBLIC DEFENDERS?

DO WE HAVE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS?

CAN WE GET PEOPLE CONVICTED QUICKLY?

IF WE DID THOSE THINGS, AND WE ENSURED THEY WERE SAFE IN JAIL, WE COULD  LOCK UP CRIMINALS AND THEY WOULDN'T BE OUT  DOING THINGS AGAIN.

SO, I THINK THE APPROACH  TO REDUCING CRIME NEEDS TO STOP FROM ADDING PENALTIES OR TAKING AWAY GUNS THAT YOU CAN'T PASS ANYWAY BECAUSE IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, TO MAYBE GETTING THE LAWS  IN THE BOOKS ENFORCING THEM AND LOCKING UP THE  BAD PEOPLE THAT NEED TO BE LOCKED UP.

>> Gene: GOOD POINTS THERE.

SHIFTING TO  ELECTION STUFF, GUYS.

SENATE BILL 73 WOULD HAVE OPENED UP NEW MEXICO'S PRIMARY ELECTIONS TO NONPARTY AFFILIATED VOTERS.

THIS IS A BIG ONE.

I GOT PERSONAL FRIENDS  DYING TO SEE THIS ONE PASSED.

SOME ARE DECLINED TO STATE.

A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE.

WHAT HAPPENED HERE?

IS THIS JUST TOO MUCH RIGHT TO THE STATUS QUO?

THE ARGUMENTS AROUND IT?

I AM CURIOUS WHY THIS  DIDN'T MAKE IT.

>> Shaun: I THINK YOU  HIT IT ON THE POINT THERE.

THE STATUS QUO IS REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT  THIS WOULD DO, HOW YOU WOULD OPEN THAT UP.

I WAS SURPRISED THAT IT DIED QUICKLY, THAT IT  DIDN'T MAKE IT VERY MUCH, YOU KNOW, AS FAR  AS WE HAD AND THE DEBATE ON IT DIDN'T GO TOO  SUBSTANTIAL, BUT I AM STILL CURIOUS TO KNOW  WHY SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS NOT POPULAR WHEN I  BELIEVE THERE ARE LOT OF INDEPENDENT NEW MEXICO VOTERS WHO WANT TO PASS OPEN PRIMARY ELECTIONS HERE.

THAT IS THE IDEA, WHO IS SUPPORTING THIS, YOUR CONSTITUENTS OR YOURSELF  AND IT SEEMS LIKE THIS ONE LAWMAKERS ARE OUT  THERE FOR THEMSELVES.

>> Gene: WE'VE GOT NUMBERS  FROM NM POLITICAL REPORT.

NEARLY 23% OF ALL REGISTERED VOTERS, GUYS, IN THE STATE ARE NON-PARTY AFFILIATED.

I WOULD THINK, DAN, THIS WOULD HAVE SOME TRACTION,  SOME BACK STOP, SOME DRAFT, SOME SOMETHING TO GIVE  COURAGE TO LAWMAKERS TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS.

WHAT WAS YOUR SENSE OF THE ARGUMENT AND WHY THIS DIDN'T  HAPPEN?

>> Dan: WELL, I THINK IT'S  KIND OF A GLASS HALF FULL, GLASS HALF EMPTY THING.

FIRST OF ALL, OPEN PRIMARIES DID PASS THE SENATE, A FULL CHAMBER.

THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE.

>> Gene: FAIR POINT.

>> Dan: SO I THINK IF YOU'RE A SUPPORTER OF THE IDEA, YOU CAN  ARGUE THAT MAYBE THERE'S A LITTLE MORE MOMENTUM.

ON THE OTHER SIDE, I THINK THAT AS SHAUN MENTIONED,  LEGISLATORS, THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN ELECTED  UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM AND THEY'RE USED TO TALKING TO,  YOU KNOW, VOTERS IN THE PRIMARY.

THEY KNOW THAT THIS SYSTEM WORKS FOR THEM, AND THERE'S  GOT TO BE SOME ANXIETY ABOUT,   OH, DO I NEED TO START TAILORING MY  ADVERTISING TO SOME BROADER GROUP OF VOTERS.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S PROBABLY JUST, I THINK, SOME SENSE OF, WELL, I DON'T -- YOU KNOW, THIS IS UNKNOWN.

I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS GOING TO BE RIGHT FOR ME  MUCH LESS FOR THE STATE.

ANYWAY, I THINK IT'S AN  ISSUE THAT'S NOT GOING AWAY.

IT DID ADVANCE A BIT THIS SESSION.

YOU KNOW, AS SHAUN MENTIONED, IT DIDN'T REALLY TAKE OFF ON THE HOUSE SIDE AT ALL, BUT THERE ARE SOME SIGNS THAT MAYBE THE  LANDSCAPE IS CHANGING.

>> Gene: SOMETHING TO BE SAID  FOR GETTING OUT OF THE SENATE.

I MEAN, THAT'S NO SMALL  THING, SOMETHING TO BE SAID FOR THAT, CERTAINLY.

DAN, WHEN WE HAD YOU HALF WAY THROUGH THE SESSION DO  THE FACEBOOK LIVE WITH ME, WE'RE VERY APPRECIATIVE OF  THAT, BUT AT THAT POINT, I'M SO INTERESTED TO TALK ABOUT  THIS, WE TALKED ABOUT THE MODERNIZATION OF THE STATE  LEGISLATURE, AND AT THE TIME YOU SAID, IT WAS A PARTISAN  ISSUE WITH DEMOCRATS LOUDLY IN FAVOR, AND YOU ALSO  MENTIONED THE PROPOSAL FOR LENGTHENING SESSIONS DURING  EVEN NUMBERED YEARS HAD A LITTLE MORE MOMENTUM AT THAT  TIME.

BUT IT DIDN'T QUITE CARRY.

NONE OF THESE THINGS SEEMED TO WORK DESPITE THE PUBLIC  IN MANY POLLS SAYING, WE WANT SOME CHANGE HERE.

WHAT HAPPENED?

WHAT'S THE DISCONNECT HERE?

>> Dan: I THINK THAT THIS IS ANOTHER THING WHERE THERE'S  KIND OF A SPLIT BETWEEN THE CHAMBERS.

THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS REALLY SEEMED TO BE PUSHING THIS IDEA.

THEY ARE YOUNGER, I THINK, IN GENERAL.

THEY ARE ALSO MORE WOMEN, AS INEZ MENTIONED.

THE SENATE IS A LITTLE OLDER, A LITTLE MORE MALE  DOMINATED.

AND SO YOU SAW LIKE THE  PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH A SALARY COMMISSION, THAT ONE  RAN AGROUND IN A SENATE COMMITTEE.

SO IT DID ADVANCE THROUGH THE HOUSE.

I THINK THEY HAVE A LITTLE MORE CONVINCING TO DO WITH  SOME OF THESE OLDER LEGISLATORS LIKE GEORGE  MUÑOZ, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE.

THEY'VE GOT SOME CONVINCING TO DO ON THAT SIDE.

SO THIS IS, YOU KNOW, NOT JUST PARTISAN DYNAMICS AT  PLAY, BUT ALSO DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO CHAMBERS.

AND THEN THE LENGTHENING OF THE SESSIONS, YOU KNOW,  THAT'S AN IDEA THAT HAS SOMETIMES PICKED UP  REPUBLICAN SUPPORT IN THE PAST.

THIS YEAR, YOU KNOW, IT ADVANCED, AND I THINK THAT  THE LEADERSHIP JUST DECIDED NOT TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME  ON IT THIS TIME.

IN SOME CASES, THEY CAN WAIT, BECAUSE THESE ARE  CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS THAT WOULDN'T GO ON THE  BALLOT UNTIL 2024 ANYWAY, SO THERE MAY BE SOME SENSE, WELL, MAYBE THEY'LL TAKE ANOTHER STAB AT THEM, YOU  KNOW, NEXT YEAR.

>> Gene: YES.

INEZ, SPEAK ABOUT THAT, IF YOU WOULD.

AGAIN, IS THIS TOO BIG OF A BITE FOR OLDER LEGISLATORS TO EVEN CONSIDER SOMETHING LIKE THIS?

>> Inez: I THINK A LOT OF  PEOPLE, ONCE THEY GET ELECTED -- YOU KNOW, THEY GOT  ELECTED UNDER THIS SYSTEM, IT WORKS FOR THEM, AND THEY DON'T  SEE A NEED TO CHANGE.

AND I THINK THE PEOPLE WHO  WANT TO MODERNIZE THE LEGISLATURE ARE GOING TO  HAVE TO MAKE A BETTER CASE, NOT JUST THAT THEY ARE  ENRICHING THEIR POCKETS, BUT THAT IT'S FAIR TO BE PAID  FOR WORK, AND I'D MAYBE START WITH SOME MIDDLE  REFORMS.

WE HAVE SOME COLUMNISTS THAT  WROTE ABOUT, YOU NEED MORE STAFF MEMBERS, BECAUSE THEY  DO A LOT OF THE WORK, SO CAN YOU EXPAND THE STAFF.

CAN YOU FOCUS ON INTERIM COMMITTEES AND PAY PEOPLE  MORE FOR WHEN THEY'RE WORKING DURING THEIR TIME  OFF, BECAUSE THEY DO A LOT OF WORK FOR NOT MUCH  RECOMPENSE.

>> Gene: THERE SEEMED TO BE  GENERAL AGREEMENT ON THIS ISSUE BEFOREHAND.

I CAN'T THINK OF ANY REPUBLICAN ELECTED WHO  DIDN'T HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM AS DEMOCRATS, NOT ENOUGH STAFF.

AND THAT WAS THE BETTING MONEY GOING IN, IF THERE WAS ONE THAT WAS GOING TO PASS,  IT WOULD BE THAT ONE.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE  CAN'T HAVE STAFF.

THERE'S SOMETHING VERY WEIRD  ABOUT THAT.

GO AHEAD AND PICK UP ON THAT  IF YOU WOULD, SHAUN, AS WELL.

>> Shaun: IT WAS SO FASCINATING TO WATCH THAT DEBATE AND WATCH IT DISSOLVE,  BECAUSE -- ALSO, WE HAVE TO REMEMBER, THE VOTERS WERE  GOING TO HAVE TO APPROVE THIS.

THIS WAS AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE  A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

AND SO AS I'M WATCHING THE  DEBATE, I'M SEEING THESE LAWMAKERS NOT EVEN AGREEING  AND MUDDLING IT ALL, AND I'M LIKE, IF YOU CAN'T SOLVE  THIS PART AND FIGURE IT OUT, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PITCH  THIS TO VOTERS?

SO I WONDER IF AT SOME POINT  THEY RECOGNIZED, HOW ARE WE GOING TO ASK FOR A RAISE IN  THIS ECONOMY IN OUR NEXT ELECTION CYCLE?

>> Gene: THAT'S A BITTER PILL, THE IDEA OF PAYING ALL THESE  MEMBERS LIKE EIGHTY GRAND EACH.

THAT'S JUST A BIG PILL FOR NEW MEXICO.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CHOMP AT THIS ONE.

THANKS AGAIN TO OUR PANELISTS.

WE'LL BE BACK FOR ONE FINAL CONVERSATION ON THE BUDGET  AND SOME TAX CHANGES IN LESS THAN 15 MINUTES.

FIRST, A CONVERSATION ON HOW THIS LEGISLATIVE SESSION  FAIRED IN WOMEN'S ISSUES.

EARLIER THIS WEEK, I SAT  DOWN WITH MARTHA BURKE, POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGIST,  AUTHOR, AND HOST OF THE PODCAST "REALTIME WITH  MARTHA BURKE" TO TALK ABOUT ABORTION RIGHTS, REBATE  CHECKS, AND THE FAILURE OF PAID FAMILY LEAVE.

>> Gene: MARTHA BURKE, THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US TODAY TO COVER SOME ISSUES AFFECTING WOMEN'S ISSUES HERE IN NEW MEXICO, TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THOSE THINGS.

ONE OF THE BIGGEST HEADLINES IS NEW MEXICO'S CODIFIED ABORTION LIGHTS.

YOU'VE BEEN ON THE SHOW MANY  TIMES TALKING ABOUT THIS OVER THE YEARS.

I'M CURIOUS, HOUSE BILL 7 PASSED.

IT WAS SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR, OF COURSE, BEFORE  THE SESSION ENDED, WHICH WAS VERY INTERESTING TO ME.

DID YOU FEEL IT WAS GOING TO PASS THAT EASILY, LOOKING BACK?

>> Martha: YEAH, I DID.

THE GOVERNOR HAS ALWAYS BEEN STRONGLY PRO CHOICE, AND OF  COURSE THE DEMOCRATS HAVE A GOOD STRONG MAJORITY IN BOTH  HOUSES OF THE LEGISLATURE, SO I WAS NOT SURPRISED THAT  IT PASSED.

I WAS A LITTLE SURPRISED  THAT THERE WAS NOT MORE OVERT PROTEST AT THE ROUNDHOUSE.

>> Gene: BY WHO?

>> Martha: WELL, BY THE ANTI-ABORTION FOLKS.

MAYBE THE BILL SNUCK IN, I DON'T KNOW, BUT IT SEEMED TO  GET PLENTY OF PUBLICITY.

>> Gene: WOULD YOU CONSIDER  THIS A MAJOR WIN FOR GOVERNOR LUJAN-GRISHAM?

SHE'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT THIS FOR A WHILE, BUT IT HAPPENED.

>> Martha: WELL, I THINK IT WAS A WIN.

HOW MAJOR, WE WILL SEE, BECAUSE WHAT HAS HAPPENED, GENE, IS THEY HAVEN'T REALLY STOPPED THE JURISDICTIONS FROM PUTTING THESE BARRIER UP, THEY'VE SLOWED IT DOWN.

>> Gene: RIGHT.

>> Martha: SO I DON'T KNOW, YET, WHETHER IT WILL BE A  MAJOR WIN OR WHETHER IT WILL BE A BARRIER.

THE WHOLE THING KIND OF OPENS ITSELF UP TO  LITIGATION THAT COULD LAST FOR YEARS.

FOR EXAMPLE, A PERSON WHO IS DENIED AN ABORTION OR GENDER  AFFIRMING CARE COULD BRING A LAWSUIT.

WELL, HOW LIKELY IS THAT TO HAPPEN FOR AN INDIVIDUAL?

AND HOW LONG WOULD THAT TAKE TO LITIGATE?

PROBABLY YEARS.

>> Gene: RIGHT.

>> Martha: SO IT IS A VICTORY, BUT IT'S NOT A SLAM DUNK.

>> Gene: IT'S AN INTERESTING SITUATION WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT  WHAT HOUSE BILL 7 DOES, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY EMPOWERS THE  STATE AG OR A LOCAL DA THE RIGHT TO INITIATE A CIVIL  LAWSUIT IN DISTRICT COURT.

IT'S VERY HARD TO PREDICT  THE FUTURE, AS YOU JUST MENTIONED, BUT I'M CURIOUS  HOW YOU SEE LOCAL DAs APPROACHING THIS.

IT'S BEEN DROPPED IN THEIR LAP IN SOME PLACES,  ROOSEVELT COUNTY, EUNICE, OTHER PLACES THAT HAVE  PASSED THESE ORDINANCES.

HOW DOES A DA MANAGE THIS?

THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT POSITION.

>> Martha: WELL, I THINK IT'S INTERESTING, BECAUSE THE WAY  IT'S WORDED IS IT ALLOWS THE DAs TO DO IT, IT DOES NOT COMPEL.

>> Gene: GOTCHA.

>> Martha: SO MANY OF THEM, OR SEVERAL OF THEM, MAY DECIDE BASED ON LOCAL POLITICS OR THEIR OWN PROCLIVITIES THAT THEY'RE JUST NOT GOING TO TOUCH IT.

AND THAT AGAIN, GENE, PUTS IT BACK DOWN TO THE VICTIMS  OF THIS RESTRICTIVE LEGISLATION THAT THE  COUNTIES AND SOME CITIES ARE TRYING TO -- OR HAVE PASSED.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE INTERESTING TO SEE.

BUT I DON'T SEE THE DAs JUMPING INTO THIS WITH BOTH FEET.

>> Gene: HOW ABOUT OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL?

AGAIN, IT'S HARD TO PREDICT, BUT THESE ARE POLITICAL ISSUES, AND DEPENDING ON IF  IT'S A CAMPAIGN SEASON OR NOT, DO YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN,  THERE'S ALL KINDS OF WAYS THIS COULD KIND OF FLOW BACK  AND FORTH.

NOT TO ASK A PREDICTION, BUT  CAN YOU SEE A SITUATION WHERE A DA WOULD WANDER INTO  -- I'M SORRY, AN ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD WANDER INTO A  DA'S DISTRICT WHO DOES NOT WANT TO DO THIS?

>> Martha: YES, I CAN SEE THAT.

AND AGAIN, IT'S GOING TO BE A PUSH ME/PULL ME.

THE DA IS GOING TO BE CONFLICTED MAYBE NOT ON  PERSONAL VIEWS, BUT JUST ON HOW FAR SHOULD THEY GO.

WE ALREADY KNOW THAT ABORTION IS LEGAL IN THE  STATE OF NEW MEXICO, AND WHAT THESE COUNTIES AND CITIES HAVE DONE IS THEY HAVEN'T PROHIBITED ABORTION,  WHAT THEY'VE DONE IS MAKE IT SO HARD FOR A CLINIC TO COME  IN THAT THE CLINIC IS GOING TO SAY, WE DON'T NEED THIS.

WE'VE GOT PLENTY OF OTHER PROBLEMS WITHOUT HAVING TO GET INTO YEARS OF LITIGATION WITH A CITY OR COUNTY.

SO IT'S EFFECTIVELY LIMITING ACCESS TO ABORTION WITHOUT  DOING SO DIRECTLY.

>> Gene: RIGHT.

WE'LL SEE HOW THAT PLAYS OUT.

LIKE YOU SAY, IT'S GOING TO BE VERY INTERESTING.

ANOTHER, FOR FAMILIES, ANOTHER IMPORTANT ISSUE WAS,  OF COURSE, THE WIDE RANGING TAX PACKAGE THAT DID PASS  THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE.

IT INCLUDED $500 TAX REBATE PAYMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS AND $1,000 PAYMENTS FOR COUPLES.

IT'S LESS THAN THE $750 THAT THE GOVERNOR WANTED, BUT I'M CURIOUS HOW YOU FEEL THIS IS IMPACTFUL ON -- WE HAVE SO  MANY HOUSEHOLDS HERE HEADED BY WOMEN.

>> Martha: ABSOLUTELY.

>> Gene: SO MANY, AS A  PERCENTAGE.

IS $500 A GAME CHANGER FOR THEM?

>> Martha: FOR SOME PEOPLE, IT WILL BE, GENE.

FOR SOME PEOPLE, IT'S GROCERIES FOR A MONTH, YOU KNOW, GASOLINE TO GET TO WORK.

SO YES, IT WILL.

AND YOU'RE VERY CORRECT, BECAUSE MOST LOW WAGE WORKERS ARE WOMEN, AND THE LOWEST LOW WAGE WOMEN ARE WOMEN OF COLOR, WHICH AS WE KNOW IN THIS STATE MEANS  MOSTLY HISPANIC AND INDIGENOUS WOMEN, WHO ARE SO  FAR BEHIND ON PAY EQUITY.

INDIGENOUS WOMEN HAVE TO  WAIT UNTIL NOVEMBER OF THIS YEAR TO REACH THE EARNINGS THAT WHITE MEN MADE BY THE END OF LAST YEAR.

>> Gene: WOW.

>> Martha: NOW, THAT IS A SHAMEFUL STATISTIC.

SO YEAH, $500 MAYBE TO SOME OF US THAT ARE A LITTLE MORE FORTUNATE IS NOT A GAME CHANGER, BUT IT COULD BE FOR  A SINGLE MOM WITH A COUPLE OF KIDS TRYING TO KEEP THEM  IN SCHOOL, MAKE SURE THEY HAVE DECENT CLOTHING TO WEAR  AND SO FORTH.

>> Gene: I APPRECIATE THAT,  ABSOLUTELY.

$500 IS A LOT OF MONEY FOR A LOT OF HOUSEHOLDS HERE, FOR SURE.

WHAT DIDN'T PASS, WHAT WAS INTERESTING, WAS THE PAID  FAMILY LEAVE BILL, AND THAT COULD HAVE BEEN A GAME  CHANGER, I'LL USE THE WORD, FOR FAMILIES, CERTAINLY.

WAS THERE TOO BIG A BITE TRYING TO BE TAKEN HERE, OR  IS THIS SOMETHING WE CAN SNEAK UP ON, PERHAPS, IN  LEGISLATURES OF THE FUTURE?

>> Martha: WELL, I THINK IT'S  BOTH.

I THINK IT'S BOTH.

IT SEEMED DRACONIAN TO THE BUSINESSES THAT DID NOT WANT IT.

WE ONLY HAVE, IN THE WHOLE UNITED STATES, 11 STATES THAT HAVE PAID FAMILY LEAVE.

NOW, IT HAS BEEN SHOWN, ALTHOUGH THIS IS APPARENTLY  NOT CONVINCING TO EMPLOYERS, THAT IT DOES FOSTER MORE  LOYALTY TO THE COMPANY, THE WORKERS ARE MORE SATISFIED  AND DON'T TEND TO LEAVE AND GO FOR ANOTHER JOBS AND THAT  SORT OF THING.

THEY SAY THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT.

WELL, GENE, WE HEAR THIS ARGUMENT ALL THE TIME, BUSINESSES HAVE A RIGHT TO MAKE A PROFIT.

THAT ISN'T TRUE.

THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO TRY TO  MAKE A PROFIT.

IF THEY HAD AN ABSOLUTE  RIGHT TO MAKE A PROFIT, WE COULD JUST GO BACK TO SLAVERY.

SO THERE HAS TO BE SOME PUSH AND PULL.

I THINK IT WAS GOOD THAT THE BILL CAME UP.

I THINK IT WILL BE BACK, OF COURSE.

MOST OF THE STATES THAT HAVE IT NOW, IT TOOK SEVERAL YEARS, AND PEOPLE HAVE TO GET USED TO THE IDEA, OH, GEE, COULD WE REALLY HAVE THAT.

>> Gene: I MEAN, 12 WEEKS IS A BIG, BITTER PILL FOR A LOT OF EMPLOYERS.

>> Martha: 12 WEEKS IS BIG, AND THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE BARGAINED DOWN, BECAUSE IF YOU STARTED WITH,  SAY, FOUR WEEKS, THAT WOULD STILL BE HUGE TO MOST OF THE  WORKERS IN THIS STATE.

AND I THINK 12 WEEKS WAS A BIG BITE, AND THAT PROBABLY WAS A BIG FACTOR IN THE  EXTREME OPPOSITION.

>> Gene: WAS THERE SOMETHING  TO BE GLEANED FROM THE AMOUNT OF OPPOSITION THAT COALESCED  VERY QUICKLY ON THIS BILL AND WAS VERY LOUD?

I MEAN, WE KNOW THE LOBBY SYSTEM, BUT BUSINESS REALLY  DID COME TOGETHER.

DOES THIS SPEAK TO THE  NATURE OF THE FIGHT IN THE FUTURE?

>> Martha: ABSOLUTELY IT DOES, BECAUSE BUSINESSES -- I MEAN,    LET'S FACE IT, I'M NOT 40 ANTI-BUSINESS.

I KNOW YOU'RE NOT, EITHER.

AND COVID HAS TAKEN A BIG  BITE OUT OF NOT ONLY PROFITS, BUT JUST THE  ABILITY TO STAY IN BUSINESS.

SO I DO UNDERSTAND WHY WHEN  THEY HEAR 12 WEEKS, THEY THINK, THAT'S A FOURTH OF THE YEAR AND WE CAN'T AFFORD THAT, AND I THINK THEY'RE  CORRECT.

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, THE  FAMILIES WHO DO GIVE THEIR TIME, BLOOD, SWEAT AND  TEARS, AND SO FORTH, TO THE COMPANIES DO DESERVE SOME  CONSIDERATION.

SO THERE'S GOT TO BE A  MIDDLE GROUND.

I THINK THAT WILL COME BACK.

IT WILL COME BACK WITH A LESSER PERIOD OF TIME.

IT MAY TAKE TWO OR THREE SESSIONS, BUT EVENTUALLY  IT'LL HAPPEN.

>> Gene: ANOTHER ISSUE, A  FINAL ISSUE THAT'S DEVELOPED INTO A WOMEN'S ISSUE, IF I  MIGHT BE SO BOLD, IS THE GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEE FOR  SECRETARY OF INDIAN AFFAIRS.

WE TALKED ABOUT IT ON THE SHOW  A FEW WEEKS AGO.

JAMES MOUNTAIN'S DAUGHTER  WROTE AN OP-ED DEFENDING HER DAD AND ASKING FOR HIS  SUPPORT FOR THE POSITION, AND OF COURSE THE GOVERNOR  IS KEEPING HIM ON.

HE IS NOW IN THE POSITION,  JUST NOT CONFIRMED, AND WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

I'M CURIOUS, DO YOU WANT TO PULL BACK THE LENS A LITTLE  BIT ON THIS WHOLE THING, I'M CURIOUS YOUR TAKE ON IT.

WE'VE GOT THE LETTER FROM THE DAUGHTER, BUT THE INITIAL SHOCK OF THE GOVERNOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF THIS APPOINTMENT WAS JUST HEARD AROUND THE STATE.

I'VE NEVER REALLY SEEN  ANYTHING LIKE IT.

I'M CURIOUS WHAT YOU MADE OF THAT.

>> Martha: I WAS PUZZLED AS HECK ABOUT IT.

I DON'T SEE THE UTILITY OF IT FOR THE GOVERNOR.

I THINK IT MAKES HER LOOK BAD.

IT MAKES IT LOOK LIKE A PATRONAGE DEAL, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE OPPOSITION SURFACED.

AS FAR AS THE DAUGHTER, WELL, FINE.

WE ALL LOVE OUR DADS.

WE TRY TO SHOW OUR DAD AND MOM'S BEST SIDE TO THE WORLD.

I DIDN'T BLAME THE DAUGHTER FOR WRITING THE LETTER.

I DO HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE  GOVERNOR FOR STICKING -- WELL, FOR DOING IT IN THE  FIRST PLACE.

THERE WAS NO REASON TO DO  THIS CONTROVERSIAL APPOINTMENT, OR NEAR  APPOINTMENT, IN THE FIRST PLACE.

WHY DO THAT?

AS IT WAS SAID ON OUR LAST  DISCUSSION OF THIS, THE OPTICS ARE TERRIBLE.

WHAT WAS THE REASON?

WE DON'T KNOW.

THE INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY IS UP IN ARMS ABOUT IT,  APPROPRIATELY SO.

HE CAN SERVE NOW WITHOUT  BEING CONFIRMED.

THE NEXT OPPORTUNITY IS  JANUARY 2024.

SO THAT IS MORE THAN HALF THE YEAR HE'S GOING TO SERVE UNDER WHAT I MIGHT CALL A PUBLIC INDICTMENT FOR WHAT HE HAS DONE, BUT NOT BEEN  CONVICTED OF.

AND THAT'S THE OTHER THING,  GENE, PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO EQUATE LACK OF SUFFICIENT  EVIDENCE WITH EXONERATION.

IT IS NOT THE SAME THING.

THERE'S STILL A CLOUD OVER THIS GUY.

THE INDIGENOUS WOMEN'S COMMUNITY PARTICULARLY HAS  ASKED THAT AN INDIGENOUS WOMAN BE APPOINTED TO THIS  POSITION, AND I THINK THEY'RE ON TO SOMETHING THERE.

>> Gene: REMIND THE FOLKS, HE'S IN THE POSITION PAYING $169,000 A YEAR, AS A MATTER  OF FACT, AND HE'S UNCONFIRMED.

IT'S ACTUALLY AN INTERESTING  SCENARIO.

THE PROCESS, I'VE GOT TO GO  BACK TO THIS PROCESS OF NOT HAVING THAT SENATE VOTE.

SHOULD THE GOVERNOR PERHAPS HAVE ANTICIPATED THAT THE  LEGISLATURE WAS JUST NOT GOING TO TOUCH IT AS SOON AS  IT CAME OUT, AND WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HER BETTER MOVE,  IN YOUR VIEW, AS OPPOSED TO LETTING HIM JUST KIND OF  DRIFT THROUGH THE PROCESS, SO TO SPEAK?

>> Martha: WELL, HER BETTER MOVE WOULD HAVE BEEN NOT TO DO  IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

THAT SHOWS EITHER A LACK OF  DILIGENCE OR A LOYALTY ISSUE THAT WE ARE UNAWARE OF,  GENE, AND I THINK THE GOVERNOR NEEDS TO ANSWER FOR THAT.

SHE'S BEEN PRETTY MUCH RADIO SILENCE SINCE THIS.

SHE'S JUST LETTING IT RIDE.

DID SHE KNOW THAT HE WOULD NOT BE CONFIRMED?

DID SHE KNOW THAT HE COULD SERVE ANYWAY?

THE BIG SALARY IS AN ISSUE TO ME.

IS THERE A PERSONAL INDEBTEDNESS HERE OF SOME KIND.

WHO KNOWS?

OR IS IT MERELY NOT PAYING CLOSE ENOUGH ATTENTION, AND  THEN ONCE YOU MAKE A MOVE LIKE THAT, FEELING THE NEED  TO DEFEND IT EVEN IF IT'S WITH SILENCE, WHICH IS  WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.

>> Gene: THANKS AGAIN TO  MARTHA BURKE FOR THAT INTERVIEW.

WE GOT INTO A FEW MORE TOPICS, INCLUDING SOME OF  THOSE FAILED FIREARMS BILLS.

YOU CAN WATCH THAT  CONVERSATION ON THE NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS YOUTUBE PAGE.

NOW, LET'S RETURN ONE LAST TIME TO OUR LINE OPINION PANEL.

BEFORE THIS YEAR'S SESSION BEGAN, ONE THING CAUGHT THE ATTENTION OF LAWMAKERS ACROSS NEW MEXICO, THE STATE'S RECORD SETTING SURPLUS OF $3.6 BILLION IN "NEW MONEY."

NOW, FLASH FORWARD TO MARCH  AND THEIR LAST WEEK OF THE SESSION, AND LAWMAKERS  PASSED A $9.57 BILLION BILL TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE.

THIS RECORD SETTING SPENDING BILL MARKED A ONE BILLION  DOLLAR INCREASE FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR'S BUDGET, AND  INCREASED RECURRING EXPENSES, ABOUT 30%, ON TOP OF THAT, A FACT THAT SENATOR GEORGE MUÑOZ HAS BEEN QUOTED  BY THE SANTA FE NEW MEXICAN AS BEING "AN UNSUSTAINABLE NUMBER."

AND INEZ, WHAT HAPPENED IN  CREATING THIS YEAR'S BUDGET?

IS THE SENATOR ON TO  SOMETHING HERE?

THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY IN ONE  YEAR, A BILL.

>> Inez: WELL, HE'S ON TO  SOMETHING IN THE SENSE THAT IF YOU KEEP INCREASING BY 14% A YEAR, 12% A YEAR, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT MUCH MONEY, BECAUSE OIL AND GAS EVENTUALLY WILL RUN DOWN.

WHAT HOPEFULLY THEY DID STRATEGICALLY ENOUGH WAS  THEY DEDICATED MONEY -- THE WAY THEY DESCRIBED IT WAS,  IT'S NOW MONEY FOR THE FUTURE.

SO THERE'S $100 MILLION THAT'S GOING TO START THE  ENCHANTMENT LEGACY FUND, WHICH IS GOING TO DO  CONSERVATION PROJECTS.

THAT'S NOT A RECURRING,  APPROPRIATION NECESSARILY.

AND THEY'RE TRYING TO USE  THIS SURPLUS IN STRATEGIC WAYS THAT WILL KEEP US GOING  FOR THE LONG RUN.

AND ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT, I  THINK, IS GROWING THE FILM INDUSTRY, GROWING THE  MEDICAL INDUSTRY.

THE MALPRACTICE FIX WAS IN  PART TO MAKE SURE DOCTORS STAYED IN NEW MEXICO, WHICH IS A HEALTH CARE ISSUE, BUT IT'S ALSO AN ECONOMIC ISSUE.

SO IF YOU CAN KEEP ALL OF OUR DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES  THRIVING, OUR SMALL BUSINESSES, ETC., THEN WE'RE  GOING TO HAVE TAX REVENUES SO WHEN OIL AND GAS GOES  AWAY, THERE WON'T BE AS MUCH TO REPLACE IT, BUT THERE  WILL BE A DECENT CHUNK OF MONEY.

>> Gene: SURE, ABSOLUTELY.

SHAUN, ACCORDING TO SOURCE NEW MEXICO, YOUR PUBLICATION, THE FOLLOWING RECEIVED HUNDREDS OF  MILLIONS MORE IN FUNDING COMPARED TO THE LAST FISCAL YEAR.

MEDICAID, THE STATE'S NATURAL RESOURCE AGENCIES, PUBLIC EDUCATION, HIGHER EDUCATION, EARLY CHILDHOOD ED.

$4 MILLION MORE HAS BEEN SET ASIDE FOR TOURISM, AS WELL AS NEARLY $2 MILLION MORE IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S EASY TO PULL THESE THINGS OUT INDIVIDUALLY AND  SORT OF CRITICIZE THEM, BUT IN THE OVERALL, WE'VE BEEN  CALLING FOR INCREASES IN ALL THESE PLACES FOR YEARS.

IT'S AMAZING WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DO MEET THAT  DEMAND, YOU'RE SUDDENLY THE BAD GUY.

BUT AGAIN, IT'S A LOT OF MONEY.

WOULD IT BE A SURPRISE THERE ARE CONSERVATIVES OUT THERE  WHO ARE VERY, VERY WORRIED THAT THIS IS UNSTAINABLE FOR  THIS KIND OF INCREASE?

>> Shaun: YOU KNOW, VOTERS  ASKED FOR THIS.

THEY WANTED TO SPEND THE MONEY.

THE MESSAGING HAS BEEN CONSISTENT, EVEN BEFORE THE SESSION, THAT NEW MEXICO HAS MONEY AND BUSINESS IS BOOMING, AND SO, LIKE, LET'S SPEND THAT MONEY ACROSS THE  BOARD.

AS YOU SAW, STATE AGENCIES  ACROSS THE BOARD SAW AN INCREASE IN THEIR BUDGETS OVERALL.

ONE THING THAT I'M VERY CURIOUS TO CONSIDER AS WE LOOK AT THIS GOING FORWARD, I LOOK AT EDUCATION, AND  EVERYTHING IN EDUCATION GOES BACK TO YAZZI-MARTINEZ AND  THE EDUCATION REFORM, AND WE'VE SEEN OVER THE PAST  SEVERAL YEARS SINCE THAT MANDATE HAPPENED IN 2018, OVER A BILLION DOLLARS OF STATE INVESTMENT INTO PUBLIC  EDUCATION, EVEN BEFORE LAST YEAR, AND THERE WAS MORE  MONEY THAT CAME THROUGH THIS YEAR.

BUT THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN A CONCERN ABOUT, IS THAT MONEY  BEING SPENT APPROPRIATELY.

THERE'S ACTUALLY SCHOOL  DISTRICTS THAT HAVE UNSPENT MONEY, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE  GETTING MORE MONEY, BECAUSE THERE'S NOT QUITE THE  EXPERTISE IN NEW MEXICO TO BE ABLE TO SPEND IT PROPERLY.

YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TEACHERS TO SPEND IT ON.

SO WHEN I LOOK AT IT JUST  LIKE FROM THAT MICROISM OF HOW PUBLIC EDUCATION HAS  BEEN SPENDING THEIR INCREASE IN FUNDING, WHICH IS, OF  COURSE, THE MAJORITY OF THE BUDGET BILL, I'M CURIOUS TO  KNOW, ARE STATE AGENCIES GOING TO BE ABLE TO KEEP UP  WITH ALL THIS NEW MONEY.

>> Gene: INTERESTING POINT THERE.

DAN, AFTER HOURS OF DEBATE ON THE BUDGET THAT YOU WATCHED, THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE PULLED THE  SPENDING PLAN BACK TO MAKE AMENDMENTS AFTER ALREADY  APPROVING IT, AND THAT CAUSED ABOUT 48 HOURS, 36 HOURS OF ANGST ABOUT PROCESS.

IS THERE ANY FOLLOW-UP TO THAT?

A LOT OF FOLKS WERE PRETTY EMBITTERED ON HOW THAT WENT DOWN.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

>> Dan: YEAH, THE SAUSAGE  MAKING CAN BE KIND OF UNPLEASANT TO WATCH SOMETIMES.

BUT IN THIS CASE, I THINK THAT THE SENATE FINANCE  COMMITTEE WAS TRYING TO COME UP WITH AN AGREEMENT THAT  WOULD AVOID A VETO BY THE GOVERNOR, THAT WOULD NOT  PROMPT THE HOUSE TO REJECT THE CHANGES THAT THE SENATE  HAD MADE.

SO THERE WERE ALL KINDS OF  COMPROMISES THAT LOOKED A LITTLE STRANGE AND THAT  MAYBE DIDN'T FIT, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE SENATE FINANCE  COMMITTEE ITSELF WANTED TO DO.

SO YEAH, I THINK THERE IS SOME BAD BLOOD ON THAT  FRONT, AND THERE COULD BE CHANGES.

YOU KNOW, THE SENATE HAS BEEN TRYING TO MAKE THE  PROCESS A LITTLE MORE OPEN.

ON THE HOUSE SIDE, WE SAW A  LEADERSHIP CHANGE WITH NATHAN SMALL, WHO HAD PUBLIC  HEARINGS, ACCEPTED PUBLIC TESTIMONY, KIND OF TRYING TO  OPEN UP THE BUDGET PROCESS A LITTLE BIT.

SO SOME OF THOSE THINGS MAY STICK AROUND.

BUT YEAH, THERE ARE A LOT OF COMPROMISES AND TRADE-OFFS  THAT GET MADE, AND NOT EVERYONE'S GOING TO BE HAPPY  ABOUT IT.

>> Gene: WHO WAS IT THAT  MENTIONED, OUT OF FRUSTRATION, THE NEXT TIME YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FILE A BILL INSTEAD OF LOOKING FOR AN AMENDMENT BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

WHY AREN'T WE JUST DOING  THAT ANYWAY?

WHY ARE WE ALLOWING  AMENDMENTS IN THE FIRST PLACE, WHY CAN'T WE JUST  HAVE PEOPLE FILE BILLS.

INEZ, INTERESTINGLY, THE  STATE'S OMNIBUS TAX BILL WENT DOWN TO THE WIRE AGAIN  THIS SESSION, PASSING THE HOUSE AND SENATE WITH A  LITTLE MORE THAN TWO HOURS REMAINING, BUT THE GOVERNOR,  EARLIER IN THE WEEK, SAID THE PROPOSED TAX PACKAGE --  YOU SAW THIS, OF COURSE -- "CUTS TOO DEEP TOO QUICKLY"  AND ASKED FOR LAWMAKERS TO TRIM THE BILL.

WE DON'T USUALLY HEAR THE GOVERNOR WEIGH IN ON THINGS  LIKE THIS IN PROCESS.

WHAT DID YOU MAKE OF THAT,  AND WAS SHE EFFECTIVE?

>> Inez: I THINK SHE WAS,  BECAUSE THEY WENT BACK AND ADJUSTED IT.

AND I THINK WHAT SHE'S SAYING IS, YOU CAN'T SPEND  IT ALL AT ONCE, WHETHER BY GIVING REBATES OR SENDING  THE MONEY OUT OR CUTTING WHAT'S COMING IN.

I MEAN, PART OF THE PROBLEM WITH THE IDEA THAT THEY  WANTED TO RAISE, LET'S SAY, THE TAX BRACKETS FOR HIGHER  WAGE EARNERS, PEOPLE WERE SAYING, WHY ARE YOU RAISING  TAXES WHEN WE HAVE SO MUCH MONEY?

WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS SETTING UP A STRUCTURE SO THAT WHEN  YOU DON'T HAVE AS MUCH MONEY, YOU HAVE ADEQUATE  REVENUES COMING IN, BECAUSE THE BUSINESS OF THE STATE    HAS TO BE DONE WHETHER OIL AND GAS IS BOOMING, OR WHETHER IT'S NOT BOOMING.

AND WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO  HAPPEN IS TO HAVE HORRIBLE CUTS LIKE WE HAD TO WHEN  SUSANA MARTINEZ WAS GOVERNOR, THROUGH NO FAULT  OF HER OWN, BECAUSE THE OIL AND GAS CRASHED.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO SET A SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY FOR NEW MEXICO.

>> Gene: RIGHT.

SHAUN, ANOTHER BIG ONE WAS THE APPROVED ALCOHOL TAX  INCREASE.

IT'S A FAR CRY FROM WHAT WAS  ORIGINALLY PROPOSED.

INTERESTING, THE LOBBY, THE  ALCOHOL LOBBY, THEY CAME OUT, AS YOU WOULD EXPECT.

IT'S WHAT THEY DO.

IT'S THEIR   RIGHT TO DO IT.

BUT WHO WON HERE?

BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A MAJOR PROBLEM WHEN IT  COMES TO ALCOHOL HERE AND ITS EFFECTS ON ALL OF US  STATEWIDE.

>> Shaun: THAT'S AN  INTERESTING QUESTION, AS TO WHO WON WITH THAT.

I MEAN, I GUESS IT'S GOING TO BE DETERMINED WITH WHAT WE SEE.

YOU KNOW, THIS INCREASE IN ALCOHOL TAX, I BELIEVE IT WAS A 50 CENT TAX -- EXCUSE ME, DAN, I HAVE TO ASK YOU.

>> Dan: IT WAS PRETTY MODEST.

I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT PERCENTAGE.

IT'S LIKE A NICKEL OR LESS.

>> Shaun: THE INITIAL PROPOSAL  WAS AT 50 CENTS, AND THAT GOT KNOCKED DOWN.

>> Gene: A PENNY PER DRINK, YEAH.

>> Shaun: EXCUSE ME; I APOLOGIZE.

BUT, YES, I THINK AT THIS POINT WE'RE GOING TO SEE THAT THAT MONEY IS SUPPOSED TO GO TOWARDS SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT PROGRAMS AND  KIND OF HARM PREVENTION PROGRAMS TO SUPPORT PEOPLE  WHO ARE DEALING WITH SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS.

AND SO YOU WOULD ASSUME THAT THOSE INDIVIDUALS WILL BENEFIT.

BUT I'M REALLY NOT QUITE SURE WHERE IT'S GOING TO GO FROM THERE, BECAUSE IT SEEMS  LIKE ULTIMATELY THE CONSUMER IS GOING TO HAVE TO PAY  MORE, PEOPLE MIGHT BE DRINKING LESS.

BUT THAT'S KIND OF YET TO BE SEEN.

ONE THING THAT I DID NOTICE OUT OF THAT TAX BILL, TOO,  IS THAT WITHIN IT THAT KIND OF GOT LOST -- WE SPENT SO  MUCH TIME TALKING ABOUT ALCOHOL -- BUT THERE WAS  ALSO A CIGAR TAX THAT I SAW THAT HAD AN INCREASE IN  THERE, WHICH MEANS FOR A LOT OF OUR PEOPLE WHO IMBIBE IN  CANNABIS, THE PRICE OF THE BLUNT IS GOING TO GO UP.

>> Gene: THAT'S A GOOD POINT THERE.

BUT THERE WERE SOME CARVE-OUTS, AS WELL.

I THINK THE LOCAL BEER PEOPLE GOT A CARVE-OUT.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY THIS.

DO I HAVE THAT RIGHT, INEZ?

>> Inez: YES.

>> Gene: THE TAX REBATES, INEZ, THE 500 FOR SINGLES, THOUSAND FOR COUPLES, LESS THAN WHAT THE GOVERNOR  PROPOSED, I TALKED ABOUT THIS WITH MARTHA BURKE DURING MY ONE-ON-ONE EARLIER THIS WEEK, $500 IS STILL A LOT OF MONEY IN NEW MEXICO.

SHOULD WE FEEL GOOD ABOUT THAT?

IS THAT A VICTORY FOR THE GOVERNOR?

>> Inez: I THINK IT'S A VICTORY BECAUSE SHE WANTED TO GIVE SOME MONEY BACK.

PERSONALLY, IF YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT MONEY FOR THE FUTURE AND YOU START GIVING IT BACK, WILL YOU HAVE ENOUGH MONEY WHEN YOU  NEED IT?

I ALWAYS WORRY ABOUT THAT.

BUT I KNOW PEOPLE ARE STRUGGLING, AND THAT'S A  COUPLE OF WEEKS OF GROCERIES AT LEAST.

IT'S A CAR PAYMENT.

IT'S YOUR RENT, OR HALF YOUR  RENT IF YOU LIVE IN SANTA FE, OR A THIRD OF YOUR RENT.

SO PEOPLE NEED CASH.

>> Gene: DAN, YOUR SENSE OF  THAT ONE.

IT WAS A DEBATE, BUT IT  DIDN'T MOVE THAT FAR.

IT WASN'T LIKE WE WENT FROM  $3,500 DOWN TO $500.

I MEAN, $750 TO $500 MAY SEEM LIKE A LITTLE BIT, BUT $250 IS A LOT OF MONEY AROUND HERE, IT'S A LOT OF DOUGH.

BUT WE'VE GOT SOMETHING COMING.

AGAIN, VICTORY FOR THE GOVERNOR?

SHE WANTED THIS TO HAPPEN LAST YEAR, AS WELL.

>> Dan: YEAH, I THINK SO.

I MEAN, THE INITIAL HOUSE  LEGISLATION I THINK HAD EVEN SMALLER REBATES, SO SHE DID  GET THEM TO MOVE THE NUMBER UP A BIT.

SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT SHE'S SATISFIED WITH.

AS INEZ MENTIONED, KIND OF THE TENSION HERE IS LIKE, HOW MUCH MONEY DO YOU WANT TO GIVE PEOPLE NOW VERSUS  MAKING SORT OF RECURING CHANGES TO THE TAX SYSTEM.

AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S SAFER IN SOME WAYS TO JUST GIVE  PEOPLE A REBATE CHECK NOW, BUT WE DON'T KNOW IF THAT  REBATE CHECK WILL BE THERE IN THE FUTURE.

THIS MAY BE THE LAST TIME YOU GET ONE, IT'S HARD TO SAY.

>> Gene: THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT.

DURING THE PANDEMIC, THERE WAS AN IDEA THAT MAYBE THESE THINGS WOULD JUST SORT OF KEEP ROLLING FOR A WHILE,  BUT THEY HAD TO END AT SOME POINT.

THANKS AGAIN TO OUR LINE PANEL AS ALWAYS THIS WEEK.

BE SURE TO LET US KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT ANY OF THE  TOPICS THE LINE COVERED ON OUR FACEBOOK, TWITTER, OR  INSTAGRAM PAGES.

AND CATCH ANY EPISODE YOU  MAY HAVE MISSED ON THE PBS APP, IT'S REALLY COOL, OR  YOUR ROKU OR SMART TV.

THANKS AGAIN FOR JOINING US.

WE'LL SEE YOU NEXT TIME.

>> FUNDING FOR NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS PROVIDED BY VIEWERS LIKE YOU.