>> FUNDING FOR NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS PROVIDED BY THE MCCUNE CHARITABLE FOUNDATION AND THE NEEPER NATURAL HISTORY PROGRAMMING FUND FOR KNME-TV AND VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

>> Gene: THIS WEEK ON NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS, WILL LAWMAKERS DECIDE ON A BETTER WAY TO REDRAW POLITICAL BOUNDARIES?

WE TALK REDISTRICTING.

>> Page: I THOUGHT EVERYONE CAME WITH SOME EXPECTATIONS WITH THE PROCESS BEING TRANSPARENT AT LEAST IN THE WAY WE WORKED AS A TASK FORCE.

>> Gene: PLUS, THE RETURN OF OUR LAND AS WE EXAMINE HOW WE NAME AND RENAME IMPORTANT PLACES.

NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS STARTS NOW.

THANKS FOR JOINING US THIS WEEK.

I AM YOUR HOST GENE GRANT.

NOW WE HAVE PLAYED IT SAFE AROUND HERE DUE TO THE PANDEMIC AT NEW MEXICO PBS WHICH IS WHY IT IS ALWAYS NICE WHEN WE BRING YOU NEW ADVENTURES OUTDOORS.

WE'LL TAKE YOU TO THE WILDS OF GRANTS, NEW MEXICO LATER.

THE LINE TALKS REDISTRICTING THIS WEEK AS WELL, AS WE MENTIONED.

OUR LINE OPINION PANEL LOOKS AT THE FORMER REPUBLICAN PHELPS ANDERSON'S FATEFUL VOTE ON THAT ABORTION BILL, WE BEGIN WITH AN EFFORT TO BOOST BUSINESS FOR RESTAURANTS BY MAKING A CHANGE TO NEW MEXICO'S LIQUOR LAWS.

HERE IS THE LINE.

NEW MEXICO'S LIQUOR LAWS AND MAYBE MORE SPECIFICALLY IT'S LIQUOR LICENSES HAVE LONG BEEN A MAZE OF RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT APPLY TO ONE BUSINESS BUT NOT THE NEXT, DEPENDING ON WHAT LICENSE THEY HOLD.

NOW ONE RULE HOLDS FIRM, NO ALCOHOL DELIVERY.

DURING THE PANDEMIC MANY RESTAURANTS SAY THAT WILL LET THE AIR OUT OF ALREADY DEFLATED PROFITS.

A NEW LAW COULD CHANGE THAT BUT IS IT THE RIGHT MOVE?

LINE OPINION PANEL THIS WEEK, ATTORNEY AND REGULAR PANELIST LAURA SANCHEZ IS BACK WITH US.

AND RETURNING GUESTS JOIN US AS WELL, EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR FOR THE SANTA FE NEW MEXICAN, INEZ RUSSELL GOMEZ, AND OWNER AND FOUNDER OF VOX OPTIMA PUBLIC RELATIONS.

THAT WOULD BE MERRITT ALLEN.

SHE RETURNS AS WELL.

MERRITT, STAY WITH YOU.

BASED ON WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN OF THIS LEGISLATION IS NEW MEXICO PLAYING WITH FIRE HERE?

>> Merritt: ABSOLUTELY NOT.

I MEAN, THIS HAS BEEN -- THE MESSINESS OF OUR LIQUOR LICENSE REGULATIONS HAS, YOU KNOW, RESULTED IN ONE GREAT THING AND THAT IS THE RISE OF THE MICRO DISTILLERY BECAUSE IF YOU MAKE IT ON PREMISES YOU CAN SELL IT ON PREMISES.

LITTLE TOAD CREEK IN SILVER CITY IS MY FAVORITE EXAMPLE OF THIS, BUT IT IS A TREND THAT HAS REALLY EXPANDED THROUGHOUT THE STATE.

AND, YOU KNOW, IT IS TIME TO EVEN THE PLAYING FIELD.

I THINK THE CONCERNS OF EXISTING OLD SCHOOL SIX OR SEVEN FIGURE DOLLAR LIQUOR LICENSES I UNDERSTAND THEIR CONCERN, BUT, YOU KNOW, AS MANY PEOPLE GIVE THE EXAMPLE THIS IS LIKE LETTING UBER INTO A MARKET WITH TAXI DRIVERS IN A LARGE METRO AREAS.

MY THOUGHT IS IF YOU HAVE AN EXISTING OLD SCHOOL LIQUOR LICENSE YOU GET REPRIEVE FROM GRT FOR A WHOLE YEAR.

>> Gene: I WANT TO COME BACK TO THAT, THE WHOLE THING OF HOLDING A HALF A MILLION DOLLAR OR MORE LIQUOR LICENSE AND WHAT THAT MEANS NOW.

I WANT TO GET TO SOMETHING I HEAR ON THE STREET A LOT.

THAT IS THIS IDEA THAT A DELIVERY PERSON IS GOING TO BE STANDING AT THE FRONT DOOR OF SOMEONE'S HOME TRYING TO DETERMINE IF SOMEONE IS DRUNK OR NOT TO BE ABLE TO HAND THEM THAT ALCOHOL.

IS THIS ACTUALLY A DOABLE SCHEME IN YOUR MIND QUESTION WHEN YOU PICTURE THE SCENARIO?

>> Laura: WHAT MAKES -- CERTAINLY THAT IS ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE ABOUT IT.

THERE IS A LOT OF DISCRETION THAT IS REQUIRED.

YOU KNOW, DELIVERY DRIVERS OFTEN USE THIS -- I KNOW A LOT OF TEENAGERS, YOUNG ADULTS, THAT DO THIS KIND OF WORK SO I THINK WE WOULD NEED TO ADJUST THE AGE OF FOLKS WHO ARE DRIVING TO DELIVER ALCOHOL PROBABLY AND NOT JUST OVER 21 NECESSARILY BUT MAYBE 25.

THERE NEEDS TO BE A LEVEL OF MATURITY WHERE YOU SORT OF HAVE A LOT MORE TO LOSE IF SOMETHING SHOULD GO WRONG.

DISCRETION, I THINK, IS VERY IMPORTANT.

YOU DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A SITUATION WHERE SOMEBODY IS MAKING AN ORDER AND THEN THEIR BUDDIES ARE THE ONES DELIVERING IT FOR LATER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

IT IS WROUGHT WITH POTENTIAL MISUSE AND PROBLEMS.

SO, BUT, I THINK THAT ALL OF THOSE CONCERNS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED AND THERE SHOULD BE A PROCESS OF EMPOWERING THE REGULATION AND LICENSING DEPARTMENT TO DETERMINE RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT COULD DEAL WITH THAT SORT OF SCENARIO AND NOT NECESSARILY LEGISLATE IT SO SPECIFICALLY.

I DON'T THINK THOSE CONCERNS ARE A REASON NOT TO EXPLORE THIS OPTION BECAUSE I THINK IT WOULD BE A HUGE REVENUE PRODUCER FOR LOCAL BUSINESSES THAT HAVE BEEN HIT HARD AND MANY OF THE UPSCALE PLACES, YOU KNOW, DO, IN MANY CASES THEIR OWN CRAFT DISTILLERY LIQUOR OR OTHERWISE OR BEERS, AND IT WOULD BE A HUGE BOON FOR THEM FINANCIALLY.

>> Gene: INTERESTING WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT, IT IS HARD TO THINK THIS WOULD BE ANYTHING BUT A BOON AS LAURA'S DESCRIBED IT FOR RESTAURANTS.

IS THIS THE CLEAR TICKET WE THINK IT IS?

ARE WE SEEING THIS CLEARLY?

WE ARE HAVING VACCINATIONS GOING ON, A LOT OF THINGS HAPPENING THAT MAY NOT NECESSARILY MAKE FOR HOME DELIVERY, YOU KNOW, THAT IMPACTFUL.

HOW ARE YOU SEEING THIS AS IT PLAYS ALONG OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS?

>> Inez: ONCE PEOPLE CAN GO OUT AGAIN, THEY WANT TO SIT ON PATIOS IN THE SUMMER AND HAVING DRINKS AND SNACKS WITH FRIENDS AND NOT WANT TO GET LIQUOR DELIVERIES AT THE HOUSE.

THE IMPACT MAY NOT BE WHAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THEY BEEN ABLE TO DO IT SIX MONTHS AGO.

I BELIEVE THE GOVERNOR WAS HOPING IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED DURING THE SPECIAL SESSION IN JUNE.

ON THE OTHER HAND, IF YOU'RE HOME LATE AT NIGHT AND YOU WANT A NICE MEAL AND SOME WINE, BEING ABLE TO GET IT DELIVERED IS BETTER THAN GOING OUT FOR SOME PEOPLE.

SO IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT EXPANDS YOUR CHOICES WITHOUT NECESSARILY TURNING IT INTO SOMETHING WHERE PEOPLE JUST DRINK ALL THE TIME AT HOME OR ARE GREETING YOU AT THE DOOR DRUNK.

I AM REALLY MORE INTERESTED IN EXPANDING LIQUOR LICENSING BECAUSE WE CREATED A SYSTEM THAT PROTECTED PEOPLE WHO ALREADY HAD WHILE LIMITING THE MARKET TO PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO OPEN UP, LET'S SAY, A NICE RESTAURANT, THAT KIND OF THING.

IF YOU WANT, LET'S SAY, AN ALBUQUERQUE DOWNTOWN WHERE PEOPLE FROM NETFLIX ARE GOING OUT AFTER WORK TO HAVE DRINKS AND DINNER AND WALK AROUND, IT SEEMS LIKE MORE IS GOING TO EXPAND THE TIDE FOR EVERYBODY.

SO, I THINK THE LEGACY LIQUOR HOLDERS MIGHT WANT TO THINK ABOUT WHAT IT IS GOING TO BE LIKE WHEN DINNER GUESTS IS EXPANDING.

I THINK THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO GROW OR ECONOMY SO THAT EVERYONE BENEFITS.

YES, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO DO SOMETHING TO HELP THE PEOPLE WHO INVESTED MORE IN LIQUOR LICENSES BUT YOU'RE ALSO GOING TO MAKE IT MORE AVAILABLE TO YOUNG ENTREPRENEURS SO THAT THE ONLY PEOPLE IN NEW MEXICO WHO ARE BUYING LIQUOR LICENSES AREN'T BIG CHAINS OR PEOPLE WHO HAD THEM FOR 50 YEARS.

>> Gene: WHICH IS THE CASE WE HAVE NOW.

IT WOULD SHOCK MOST PEOPLE THE COMPANIES OUT OF STATE THAT OWN NEW MEXICO LIQUOR LICENSES.

BIG CONGLOMERATES.

IT IS NOT WORKABLE.

LAURA, THE IDEA OF SOMEONE BEING ABLE TO LAY DOWN THREE GRAND AND GET A LIQUOR LICENSE AS OPPOSED TO THE FOLKS THAT PAID A HALF A MILLION, THERE IS IDEAS OUT THERE TO LESSEN THE BLOW BUT CAN THIS REALLY BE DONE WITHOUT A FULL, AND I MEAN A FULL ACCOUNTING FINANCIALLY, FOR PEOPLE THAT HOLD LICENSES CURRENTLY?

IS A TAX ABATEMENT GOING TO WORK FOR THEM?

THERE IS ALL KINDS OF IDEAS OUT THERE BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THEY PAID A LOT OF MONEY FOR SUDDENLY GOING TO ALMOST ZERO OR 3,000 IN VALUE, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT.

>> Laura: I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO THINK ABOUT PEOPLE WHO HOLD THAT LIQUOR LICENSE AS A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT HAS VALUE BUT THEY HAVE ALSO HAD A LOT OF USE OUT OF THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.

SO, I KNOW, THERE ARE ALSO THOSE THAT HAVE MULTIPLE, THAT HOLD MULTIPLE LICENSES AND THEN MAY HAVE A RESTAURANT OR SOMETHING AND THEN THEY ACTUALLY LEASE OR LICENSE THE OTHER LIQUOR LICENSE TO ANOTHER NEW ESTABLISHMENT.

THAT HAPPENS A LOT.

SO WE HAVE THE SECONDARY MARKET THAT HAS BEEN FUNCTIONING FOR A LONG TIME.

THERE IS VALUE IN THE USE OF IT SO SOMEHOW THERE WILL NEED TO BE SOME CONSIDERATION FOR THAT.

WHAT HAS BEEN THE USE OF IT, HOW DO THOSE PEOPLE STILL RETAIN IT, BUT IT ISN'T JUST A STATIC THING.

LIKE WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT INCREASES IN VALUE NECESSARILY LIKE THE STOCK MARKET.

THE VALUE IS IN, YES, THE MARKET BUT ALSO THE USE OF IT.

IF YOU HAVE A LIQUOR LICENSE AND YOU ARE NOT ACTUALLY USING IT, THE FACT THAT YOU HOLD ON TO IT DOESN'T MEAN A WHOLE LOT.

IT IS YOUR ABILITY TO LICENSE IT OUT TO SOMEBODY ELSE OR USE IT TO OPEN SOMETHING THAT HAS ITS VALUE.

SOMEHOW THERE NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERATION OF ALL OF THOSE FACTORS IN DETERMINING THAT FACTOR.

LEGISLATING SOMETHING THAT SPECIFIC IS TRICKY BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE BOUND BY WHATEVER IS IN THE LAW.

I FAVOR THE BROAD STROKES OF A SYSTEM AND THEN EMPOWERING A STATE AGENCY TO DEAL WITH RULE MAKING WHERE YOU HAVE A LOT MORE TIME THAN 60 DAYS TO HAVE INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY AND BUSINESSES AND OTHERS THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED.

>> Gene: THANK YOU FOR GETTING THAT IN THERE.

WE CAN'T GET OUT OF THIS IF WE DON'T TALK ABOUT TREATMENT.

THE IDEA OF HOLDING HARMLESS OR KEEPING PEOPLE FROM HARMING THEMSELVES, THAT KIND OF THING.

HOW DOES THAT ARGUMENT FIT INTO THIS WHOLE IDEA OF HOME LIQUOR DELIVERY?

>> Merritt: TO LAURA'S POINT IT IS PROBABLY IMPOSSIBLE TO GET A PERFECT BILL IN 60 DAYS.

SO, SOME OF THIS WILL HAVE TO GO TO LICENSING AND REGULATION BUREAUS.

YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A SYSTEM IN PLACE FOR OVER-SERVING AND WE HAVE TRAINING THAT SERVERS HAVE TO GO THROUGH.

I DO THINK DELIVERY ASPECTS CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, GOES TO THE SAME THING.

FIRST ALL YOU KNOW, YOUR SERVERS HAVE TO GO THROUGH TRAINING AND SO TO BE A DRIVER FOR OF AN ENTITY THAT IS SERVING ALCOHOL AND DELIVERS ALCOHOL, YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO TO TRAINING, WHICH WOULD ADD A COST.

IT MIGHT BE MORE EXPENSIVE.

I WOULD ASSUME, TO HAVE LIQUOR DELIVERED WOULD BE A LOT MORE EXPENSIVE THAN GOING TO TOTAL WINE AND BUYING A BOTTLE YOURSELF.

THAT PREMIUM ON THAT DELIVERY BOTTLE WOULD FOLD IN ALL OF THAT TRAINING.

>> Gene: THAT IS A GOOD POINTS.

I AM ALSO CURIOUS WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN SOMEONE DECIDES, MEANING A DELIVERY PERSON, DECIDES SOMEONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY STANDING ON THEIR OWN THRESHOLD DECIDES THEY ARE TOO DRUNK TO ACCEPT A BOTTLE OF WINE OR SIX PACK OF BEER.

I DON'T KNOW.

WE'LL SEE WHAT THE COURTROOMS HAVE TO SAY.

WE ARE OUT OF TIME ON THIS.

SURE TO BE MORE DEBATE AS THESE BILLS WORK THEIR WAY THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE.

OUR LAND IS NEXT.

WE ALL HAVE A CONNECTION TO THE PLACE WE LIVE.

BUT, WHAT DO WE CALL THOSE PLACES?

WHOSE NAMES ARE CONSIDERED THE RIGHT ONES OR THE VALID ONES.

IN THIS MONTH'S EPISODE OF OUR LAND, CORRESPONDENT LAURA PASKUS TALKS WITH THE PUEBLO OF ACOMA, THERESA PASQUAL, AND REPRESENTATIVE DEB HAALAND ABOUT RECONCILING WITH THE PAST AND MAKING SURE PLACES DON'T INCLUDE RACIAL SLURS SO EVERYONE FEELS AT HOME ON THE LANDSCAPE.

WE TALKED WITH REPRESENTATIVE HAALAND IN LATE DECEMBER, BEFORE SHE WAS NOMINATED TO HEAD UP THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR FOR PRESIDENT BIDEN.

THERE IS A LOT TO COVER AND YOU CAN WATCH A LONGER INTERVIEW AT OUR LAND PAGE ON NMPBS.ORG.

>> Laura: OPEN A MAP AND READ THE PLACE NAMES LISTED ACROSS THE LANDSCAPE.

THOSE WORDS, THE PLACE NAMES ON THE MAP, THEY ARE DECIDED BY THE U.S. BOARD ON GEOGRAPHIC NAMES.

THE FEDERAL AGENCY WAS CREATED MORE THAN A CENTURY AGO TO STANDARDIZED PLACE NAMES THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES, SO WE ALL CALL PLACES BY THE SAME NAME.

BUT THE WORLD OUTSIDE IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU FIND ON PAPER OR A SCREEN.

JUST THINK OF HOW YOU DESCRIBE PLACES.

AT THE MALPAIS AND THE SANDSTONE.

MEET ME WHERE THE PORCUPINES ARE.

LET'S HIKE THE TRAIL WHERE YOU SAW THE HUMMINGBIRD.

HERE IN NEW MEXICO AND ACROSS THE UNITED STATES, INDIGENOUS PEOPLE HAVE MOVED ACROSS THIS LANDSCAPE FOR A MILLENNIA.

AND NAMING A PLACE DIDN'T MEAN CLAIMING OWNERSHIP.

THERESA PASQUAL WITH THE PUEBLO OF ACOMA TALKS ABOUT THIS.

>> Pasqual: OUR TRADITION LIES IN CONNECTING THOSE VALUES, THE THINGS THAT WE SEE, OUR CORE VALUES OF WHO WE ARE THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH PLACE, THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH INDIVIDUALS AND THEN TRANSFERRING OUR HOPES, OUR PRAYERS FOR THAT PERSON OR THAT PLACE BY GIVING THAT SAME NAME.

SO, AS OUR PEOPLE MOVED ON THIS LANDSCAPE THROUGHOUT TIME, THEN IT ALSO BECAME IMPORTANT THAT OUR PEOPLE, AS THEY MOVE THROUGH THEIR MIGRATIONS ACROSS THE SOUTHWEST CONTINUED TO NOT ONLY REMAIN CONNECTED TO PLACE BUT ALSO KEEP WITH THEM THOSE VALUES OF PLACE, THOSE GIFTS OF PLACE, THAT CREATOR IMBUED WITH THOSE LOCATIONS TO TAKE THOSE WITH US AS PART OF OUR COLLECTIVE MEMORY AND CARRY THOSE NAMES FORWARD WITH US AS WE SETTLED INTO WHAT IS NOW THE ACOMA VALLEY.

>> Laura: CARRYING NAMES FORWARD IS A SIGN OF RESPECT, A SIGN OF CONNECTION.

A WAY TO GUIDE PEOPLE FROM THE PAST THROUGH TODAY AND INTO THE FUTURE.

>> Pasqual: THIS CONNECTION IS LAYERED BECAUSE OF TIME BUT IT IS ALSO COMPLEX BECAUSE IT CONNECTS US NOT JUST TO THE PHYSICAL LANDSCAPE THAT WE HAVE THAT SURROUNDS US BUT TO EVERYTHING THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITHIN THAT LANDSCAPE.

>> Laura: MORE THAN A DECADE AGO TRIBES CAME TOGETHER TO PROTECT WHAT IS CALLED MT.

TAYLOR WEST OF ALBUQUERQUE FROM NEW URANIUM MINES.

EACH TRIBE HAS THEIR OWN NAME FOR THE MOUNTAIN, THEIR OWN STORIES, THEIR OWN CONNECTION.

>> Pasqual: I HAD ONE ELDER WHO EXPLAINED TO THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE THAT THE MOUNTAIN IN A SENSE WAS ALMOST AS IF THERE WAS A BLANKET SPREAD OUT FROM THE TOP, THAT THIS COVERED NOT JUST THE PEAK OF THE MOUNTAIN WHICH MANY OUTSIDERS BELIEVE THAT THE MOUNTAIN WAS LITERALLY JUST ITS PEAK.

FROM A TRADITIONAL PERSPECTIVE IT ALSO ENCOMPASSED THE MESAS AND THE VALLEYS AND THE VALLEY FLOOR AND THAT CONNECTION BEGAN TO BE AS FAR AS THE EYE COULD SEE.

WHEN YOU ARE THINKING FROM A PERSPECTIVE THAT FORCES YOU TO DEFINE BOUNDARY.

>> Laura: THAT MEANS NOT SEEING A PLACE AS A SINGLE POINT BUT LOOKING AT A MOUNTAIN AND SEEING THE MESAS THAT SWELL FROM ITS HIPS, ACKNOWLEDGING THE SNOWS THAT FALL AND IN THE SPRING FLOW TO GARDENS AND ORCHARDS.

TO APPRECIATE THE WATERS PEOPLE DRINK AND USE AS CEREMONY.

ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE CONNECTED EVEN IF WE SEEM TO FORGET THAT TODAY.

ACROSS OUR MAPS THERE ARE ALSO PLACES WITH NAMES THAT ARE RACIST THAT MAKE PEOPLE FEEL UNWELCOME LIKE THEIR STORIES DON'T MATTER.

LAST YEAR, REPRESENTATIVE DEB HAALAND AND TEXAS REPRESENTATIVE AL GREEN INTRODUCED THE RECONCILIATION IN PLACE NAMES ACT.

>> Haaland: THESE PLACES BELONG TO ALL OF US.

THEY DON'T JUST BELONG TO ONE PERSON OR ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE.

WE FELT VERY STRONGLY THAT ALL VISITORS TO OUR PUBLIC LANDS AND OUR PUBLIC SPACES, THEY DESERVE TO FEEL WELCOME AND COMFORTABLE WHILE ENJOYING THOSE PLACES.

THESE OFFENSIVE AND RACIST PLACE NAMES, THOSE ARE SORT OF RELICS OF THE PAST.

>> Laura: HAALAND AND GREEN FEEL IT IS TIME TO RECONCILE THAT.

IF PASSED, THIS BILL WOULD BRING PEOPLE FROM ALL DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD ON GEOGRAPHIC NAMES TO MAKE CHANGES THAT ARE RESPECTFUL OF ONE ANOTHER.

>> Haaland: HOW SOME OF OUR PUEBLOS HAVE CHANGED THEIR NAME BACK TO THE ORIGINATIVE AMERICAN NATIVE NAMES.

I THINK IT MATTERS TO A COMMUNITY OF PEOPLE WHAT THINGS ARE CALLED.

EACH COMMUNITY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DECIDE.

>> Laura: A REPORT LAST YEAR FOUND HUNDREDS OF FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED PLACES WITH RACIAL SLURS.

>> Haaland: SOME OF THOSE IN NEW MEXICO, SOME LANDMARKS THAT ARE BEING TALKED ABOUT FOR RENAMING IN THE BILL, SQUAW PEAK, CHINAMAN HILL, JIM CROW SHAFT.

THOSE ARE PLACES I DON'T THINK THAT HAVE ANY RELEVANCE ESSENTIALLY TO MAYBE THOSE NEW MEXICO LANDMARKS.

THOSE BRING UP A RACIST PAST.

>> Laura: LIKE MT.

TAYLOR NAMED FOR THE 12TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, PLENTY OF PLACES BEAR THE NAMES OF PEOPLE WHO NEVER LOVED OR RESPECTED THEM, OR THE PEOPLE LIVING NEARBY.

>> Haaland: WHEN I WAS IN COLLEGE I HAD A PROFESSOR WHO USED TO SAY, YOU CAN TELL A COUNTRY BY WHO THEIR HEROS ARE.

WHO ARE OUR HEROS, RIGHT?

ARE THEY FOLKS WHO HAVE STOOD UP FOR UNDER-REPRESENTED COMMUNITIES?

ARE THEY FOLKS WHO STOOD UP AND WORKED HARD FOR VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES?

>> Laura: PASQUAL EXPLAINS THAT WHEN WE MOVE THROUGH LANDSCAPE, WE CREATE OUR OWN STORIES AND MEMORIES.

AND THOSE ARE LAYERS ON THE COUNTLESS STORIES THAT CAME BEFORE.

>> Pasqual: WHEN WE GO OUT IN PLACES, WE CARRY A RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW MORE, TO KNOW ABOUT THE PLACES THAT SURROUND US SO THAT WE CAN PROTECT THEM, SO THAT WE CAN CONSERVE THEM AND SO THAT WE CAN ALSO GIVE THAT GIFT TO OTHERS AND SAY, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A GREAT PLACE I HIKED, YOU KNOW, ON SUCH AND SUCH A DAY AND THIS IS ITS STORY.

AND I THINK YOU SHOULD GO THERE.

SO WE PASS THOSE GIFTS ON TO OTHER PEOPLE.

>> Laura: FOR OUR LAND AND NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS, I AM LAURA PASKUS.

>> Gene: LIFE-LONG REPUBLICAN AND STATE REPRESENTATIVE PHELPS ANDERSON IS STILL ONE OF THOSE THINGS BUT AFTER VOTING TO REPEAL AN UNENFORCEABLE LAW THAT CRIMINALIZES ABORTION PROCEDURES, ANDERSON'S REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES AND CONSTITUENTS SEEM TO THINK IT WAS TIME FOR HIM TO LEAVE.

MR. ANDERSON WON'T RESIGN BUT CHANGED HIS VOTER REGISTRATION AND IS NOW THE HOUSE'S ONLY INDEPENDENT.

HE WON'T CAUCUS WITH REPUBLICANS.

THE LAW COULD ONLY BE ENFORCED IF THE SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS ROE VS. WADE IN SOME WAY, BUT REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ADVOCATES SAY THAT IS A REAL POSSIBILITY WITH THE LATEST ITERATION OF SUPREME COURT.

MR. ANDERSON HAS BEEN QUIET ABOUT HIS DECISION TO VOTE TO REPEAL THE LAW.

AND REMINDER, HE CHANGED HIS VOTE THE LAST TIME THIS BILL WAS IN FRONT OF HIM.

WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THIS DUSTUP?

>> Inez: I WISH HE WOULD TELL US WHY.

I AM WONDERING IF HE REALIZED THAT NOW IT IS LIKELY THAT ROE V. WADE WILL BE OVERTURNED GIVEN THE SUPREME COURT, SO BECAUSE IT WAS REAL HE CHANGED HIS VOTE OR MET A VOTER OR SOMEONE IN HIS FAMILY WHO SAID, HERE IS WHY WOMEN NEED TO HAVE CHOICES OVER THEIR OWN REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEMS.

I JUST WOULD JUST LOVE TO HEAR FROM HIM.

I REMEMBER WHEN I WAS YOUNG THERE WERE PRO ABORTION CHOICE REPUBLICANS AND ANTI-ABORTION CHOICE DEMOCRATS AND BOTH PARTIES SEEMED TO HAVE ROOM FOR A LITTLE DISSENTION ON THE EDGES EVEN IF THEY DID HAVE A PARTY PLATFORM THAT SAID WE ARE AGAINST ABORTION OR FOR ABORTION.

AND I THINK THAT BIG TENTS CAN BE TRICKY BUT WHEN THERE IS ROOM FOR DIFFERING VIEWS, SOMETIMES YOU COME UP WITH BETTER POLICY.

I AM SORRY THAT REALLY BOTH PARTIES ARE SO LIMITING TO WHAT YOU CAN BELIEVE OR NOT BELIEVE.

I MEAN, ANDERSON ISN'T GOING TO VOTE FOR DEMOCRATIC ECONOMIC INITIATIVES.

HE'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE A BIG, YOU KNOW, VOICE AGAINST GUN -- PRO GUN THINGS.

SO, HE WOULD BE A SOLID REPUBLICAN VOTE EXCEPT MAYBE THIS ONE TIME.

SO, I THINK PARTIES MIGHT WANT TO BE MORE WELCOMING TO DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS SOMETIMES.

>> Gene: PICK UP ON THAT THAT.

IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE OR IS THERE SOMETHING FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HERE IN NEW MEXICO TO THINK ABOUT?

>> Merritt: CERTAINLY, I THINK THEY DO HAVE A VOTE ON KEY ISSUES.

THE REPUBLICAN MINORITY IN THE NEW MEXICO HOUSE IS PRETTY -- IT IS PRETTY MARKED.

THEY HAVE FEWER SEATS ALMOST NOW MORE THAN EVER.

THERE IS REALLY NOT A LOT OF IMPACT UNLESS THEY BUILD COALITIONS ACROSS TO BE SPECIFIC BILLS.

>> Gene: DOES THE PARTY IN SOME WAY GAIN IN THIS SITUATION?

>> Merritt: NO.

I DON'T THINK SO.

AND I DON'T BLAME REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON FOR KEEPING HIS COUNSEL.

YOU KNOW, I THINK IT IS PRETTY CLEAR, I AM NOT AN INSIDER TO THE STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY OR THE CAUCUS.

YOU KNOW, YOU CAN ASSUME PERHAPS HE FELT SOME PRESSURE.

HE VOTED AS HE DID.

HE HAS CHANGED HIS AFFILIATION AND NUNEZ HAD DONE THIS IN THE PAST.

AND, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT I AM GOING TO DISAGREE WITH INEZ.

I DON'T THINK THAT THIS BILL FOR THE SECOND TIME IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP, I DON'T THINK THIS CHANGES THE STATE OF ABORTION IN NEW MEXICO.

I THINK THIS IS POLITICAL MANEUVERING.

I THINK IT IS A POLITICAL GRENADE THROWN.

I THINK CERTAINLY THE REPUBLICANS HAVE A DECADE'S LONG HISTORY OF WEAPONIZING ABORTION.

I THINK DEMOCRATS HAVE PICKED UP ON IT.

I THINK THEY ARE WEAPONIZING IT AT THIS TIME TO WEED OUT MODERATES OR CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS.

I THINK IT DOESN'T DO MUCH.

IT DID NOTHING IN 30-DAY SESSION EXCEPT MAKE PEOPLE MAD.

I THINK IT IS MAKING PEOPLE MAD IN THIS SESSION.

BUT I DON'T THINK THIS BILL, WHETHER IT PASSES OR FAILS, IS GOING TO CHANGE ACCESS TO ABORTION IN NEW MEXICO.

>> Gene: LAURA, MAY SEEM LIKE AN OBVIOUS QUESTION HERE, BUT DON'T DEMOCRATS DO THE SAME THING HERE?

ISN'T THERE A LITMUS TEST WITH DEMOCRATS OF A SORT.

EVEN THIS BILL HAS BEEN A LITMUS TEST FOR DEMOCRATS AND THEIR LEVEL OF PROGRESSIVENESS.

IS THIS THE SAME THING JUST THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN?

>> Laura: WE ABSOLUTELY DO THAT AS DEMOCRATS AND WE SEE ACROSS THE STATE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAST ELECTION AND THOSE WHO WERE CHALLENGED IN THE PRIMARY AND THEN LOST THEIR SEATS, AND A COUPLE WHICH FLIPPED THEN TO REPUBLICAN, WE ARE SEEING THE SAME SORT OF THING WHERE THERE IS MORE OF A POLARIZATION, MORE OF A PUSH TO BECOME, I THINK, ON THE ONE HAND IN THE REPUBLICANS, TO BE MORE CONSERVATIVE, OF COURSE, THE INFLUENCE OF TRUMP AND THAT HAPPENING ACROSS THE COUNTRY WILL HAVE THAT EFFECT, BUT YOU SEE THE SAME THING ON THE DEMOCRAT SIDE.

YOU SEE THIS PROGRESSIVE PUSH WHERE GROUPS FROM THE METRO AREAS THAT MIGHT BE MORE PROGRESSIVE IN TERMS OF THE VOTERS, GOING INTO RURAL AREAS AND ATTACKING INCUMBENT DEMOCRATS LIKE JOHN ARTHUR SMITH.

AND I KNOW THAT DISTRICT IN PARTICULAR BECAUSE IT IS MY HOME DISTRICT BUT JOHN ARTHUR SMITH WAS A CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRAT.

HE HAD DONE A LOT IN TERMS OF FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, WAS BELOVED IN THAT COMMUNITY AND THEN WHEN HE WAS TAKEN OUT BY A MORE PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT, IT FLIPPED REPUBLICAN, AND I WOULD BE SURPRISED IF IT EVER FLIPS BACK, TO BE HONEST, BECAUSE THERE IS JUST, YOU KNOW, THERE IS JUST DIFFERENT FLAVORS OF REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT ACROSS THE STATE.

I THINK THAT TO MERRITT'S POINT, WE DO NEED TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO BE MORE WELCOMING IN GENERAL OR WAS IT INEZ, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHO SAID IT, BUT WE NEED TO BE MORE WELCOMING IN BOTH PARTIES OTHERWISE WE END UP WITH THIS POLARIZED AND EVERYBODY IS GOING TO BE EXPECTED TO FOLLOW SUIT.

AND WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS REFLECT THEIR DISTRICTS AND NOT NECESSARILY SOME AGENDA THAT IS IMPOSED UPON THEM.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR NEW MEXICO GIVEN THAT URBAN VERSUS RURAL SPLIT, AND I THINK THAT IS MORE OF A CONCERN FOR ME IS RURAL VERSUS URBAN AND HOW POLARIZED THOSE ISSUES BECOME.

>> Gene: GOOD POINTS.

INEZ, LAURA MAKES AN INTERESTING POINT.

THE STATE IS FAIRLY SAFE WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT.

IT REPRESENTS PORTIONS OF CHAVEZ, LEA AND ROOSEVELT COUNTIES, MR. ANDERSON, HE FIRST GOT IN IN 2018, TWO-YEAR TERM.

HE WAS IN THE HOUSE FROM '77 THROUGH '80.

IS THERE A DANGER OF THIS SEAT GOING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER?

DOES THIS UPSET ANYTHING PARTICULARLY?

>> Inez: I WOULDN'T THINK SO.

THAT IS GOING TO BE A REPUBLICAN SEAT NO MATTER WHO HOLDS IT AND WHAT I PREFER IS THAT VOTERS PUNISH YOU IF YOU STRAY TOO FAR.

BECAUSE PART OF IT IS POLARIZATION BUT PART OF IT IS ALSO BEING ABLE TO KEEP YOUR PROMISES.

IF THE GOVERNOR RUNS IN 2018 SAYING I WILL GET RID OF THIS ABORTION BAN WHICH WILL CHANGE HOW ABORTIONS CAN BE DELIVERED IF THE SUPREME COURT RULES AGAINST ROE V WADE.

MERRITT IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, THERE IS NO CHANGE RIGHT NOW.

THIS IS GETTING READY FOR WHAT IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN.

BECAUSE SHOULD ROE V. WADE BE STRUCK DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT, THERE IS A DECENT CHANCE THAT IN NEW MEXICO ABORTION WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HAPPEN THE WAY IT WOULD AND THAT IT WOULD CRIMINALIZE DOCTORS.

SO, IF YOU'RE SAYING AS A PARTY, THIS IS OUR PLATFORM BUT YOU HAVE SIX OR SEVEN DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE WHO ARE THEN SAYING WE ARE NOT GOING TO LET YOU GET TO THAT, I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT IS EVERY BIT THE VOTER'S RIGHT TO SAY, THEN WE ARE GOING TO GET DEMOCRATS WHO WILL VOTE FOR THAT.

IT IS SAME WITH MR. ANDERSON.

IF HE WANTED TO RUN AGAIN AND HIS VOTERS WOULD GO AHEAD AND SAY, YES, WE SUPPORT YOU ANYWAY OR WE DON'T SUPPORT YOU.

BUT I THINK, IN GENERAL, IT WOULD BE NICE IF THERE WAS A LITTLE MORE ROOM FOR SOME DIFFERING VIEWPOINTS AND NOT JUST ON ABORTION.

THINK ABOUT EARLY CHILDHOOD.

AND HOW SOME PEOPLE WERE MORE FISCALLY CONCERNED AND OTHER PEOPLE WERE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT DELIVERING CHILDHOOD SO YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER HOW BIG A TENT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE.

>> Gene: I SEE YOU IN AGREEMENT.

IT IS VOTERS THAT WILL DECIDE THIS, ISN'T IT?

>> Merritt: ABSOLUTELY AND THAT IS WHY I SEE ABORTION, IN PARTICULAR, IS WEAPONIZED.

I WANT TO NOTE, THE SUPREME COURT HAS BEEN MAJORITY CONSERVATIVE FOR MUCH LONGER THAN UNDER THE CURRENT PRESIDENCY AND IT HASN'T OVERTURNED ROW V WADE AND SUPREME COURT TENDS TO NOT -- IT IS NOT THEIR PRACTICE TO OVERTURN AN EXISTING DECISION.

THAT IS WHY I SAY I DON'T THINK IT IS LIKELY.

I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT.

BUT IT IS SOMETHING THE VOTERS DECIDE AND THE IMPRESSION I GET LOOKING AT POLLS IS THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS AND THE MAJORITY OF NEW MEXICANS WANT ABORTION TO BE LEGAL.

AND THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE, THERE ARE SOME PROCEDURES THAT MAYBE NEW MEXICANS AND AMERICANS AREN'T AS COMFORTABLE WITH.

AND ON THE ABORTION DEBATE IT IS EITHER ALL OR NOTHING.

THAT IS WHERE PEOPLE GET POLARIZED AND THAT IS WHY I HATE SEEING ISSUES LIKE THIS AND I KEEP SAYING, GET WEAPONIZED.

THE BILL IN QUESTION IS ONE SENTENCE LONG REPEALING AN UNENFORCEABLE LAW AND EVERYBODY HAS JUST LOST THEIR MIND OVER IT.

IT MAKES ME SAD BECAUSE TO LAURA'S AND INEZ'S POINT, THERE SHOULD BE MORE ROOM FOR EVERYBODY TO HAVE AN OPINION ON EITHER SIDE AND VOTERS SHOULD ALSO BE ABLE TO HAVE AN OPINION ON EITHER SIDE AND NOT BE SOMEHOW OSTRACIZED FOR IT.

>> Gene: GOOD PLACE TO END.

THAT WAS WELL DONE.

SPEAKING OF REPRESENTATION, WE HAVE TO SWITCH GEARS WITH BOTH THE LINE AND THE SHOW AND TALK ABOUT REDISTRICTING.

LATER THIS YEAR NEW MEXICO WILL GET OFFICIAL CENSUS DATA AND BEGIN THE PROCESS OF REDRAWING THE POLITICAL BOUNDARIES FOR BOTH CONGRESSIONAL SEATS AND THE STATE HOUSE AND SENATE.

YOU HAVE SEEN US PROFILE NEW MEXICO'S TORTURED REDISTRICTING PROCESS ON THE SHOW BEFORE.

LAST TWO TIMES IT HAPPENED, COURT MADE THE FINAL DECISION.

THE FOLKS AT NEW MEXICO FIRST CONVENED A GROUP TO STUDY THE PROCESS AND THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS, FORM A NONPARTISAN COMMISSION TO DO IT, SEEMS TO HAVE MOMENTUM IN THE FORM OF LEGISLATION.

HERE IS GWYNETH DOLAND WITH TWO MEMBERS OF THE PANEL, FORMER SUPREME COURT JUSTICE EDWARD CHAVEZ, AND GEOGRAPHER, DR. CEDRIC PAGE.

>> Gwyneth: JUSTICE CHAVEZ AND DR.

PAGE, THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US TODAY.

>> Chavez: THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>> Page: THANK YOU FOR HAVING US.

>> Gwyneth: JUSTICE CHAVEZ, YOU CO-CHAIRED THE TASK FORCE OF ABOUT TWO DOZEN PEOPLE, A BIPARTISAN GROUP WORKING ON REDISTRICTING.

WAS THERE A CONSENSUS AMONG YOU THAT THE WAY WE DO REDISTRICTING NOW IS, TO PUT IT POLITELY, IS NOT GOOD?

>> Chavez: YES.

I THINK IF THERE WAS A CONSENSUS OF ANYTHING IT IS THAT WE NEEDED TO PROPOSE SOMETHING THAT WOULD FIX THE EXISTING SYSTEM BECAUSE IT SIMPLY HASN'T WORKED.

THE LAST COUPLE OF DECADES THE COURTS DREW THE MAPS AT SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS OF TAXPAYER EXPENSE.

WE PUT OUR HEADS TOGETHER WITH A LOT OF TALENTED PEOPLE THAT CAME UP WITH GOOD SOLUTIONS ONE OF THEM WHICH IS A REDISTRICTING SOLUTION.

>> Gwyneth: I WANT TO ASK ABOUT THAT BUT BEFORE WE GET TO THAT, DR.

PAGE, YOU HAD A LOT OF RECOMMENDATIONS.

TELL ME ABOUT SOME OF THE ONES THAT YOU PARTICULARLY LIKE AND THINK WOULD BE EFFECTIVE IF THEY WERE ADOPTED?

>> Page: THANK YOU.

WELL, I CAME ON THE COMMISSION WITH A BACKGROUND IN GEOGRAPHY, SO, MY INTERESTS WERE HOW IS THE FINAL MAP GOING TO LOOK IN TERMS OF REPRESENTING THE COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST THAT EXIST THROUGHOUT THE STATE.

SO, MY FOCUS WAS ON, YOU KNOW, PROCESS.

HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET THE INFORMATION IN THE CENSUS AND OTHER INFORMATION THAT ALLOWED US TO DRAW DISTRICTS THAT WERE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE VOTERS LIVING THROUGHOUT DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE STATE.

SO THAT WAS MY PRIMARY INTEREST IN COMING ON TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST, HOWEVER, THEY ARE DEFINED BY CULTURE, LANGUAGE, CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER THE AREA WAS REPRESENTED BECAUSE THIS IS A COMMON ECONOMIC ZONE, WAS PRIMARY REASONS FOR MY INVOLVEMENT.

I ALSO REPRESENTED THE SANTA FE BRANCH OF NAACP, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, AND SO MY INTEREST THERE WAS IN EQUITY AND MAKING SURE THAT COMMUNITIES OF COLOR WERE REPRESENTED IN THE FINAL DRAWING.

I WANTED TO ASK YOU THAT, FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN WATCHING THE NATIONAL NEWS OVER REDISTRICTING THE PAST FEW TIMES, IT HAS VERY OBVIOUSLY BEEN USED THROUGH HISTORY TO DISENFRANCHISE VOTERS OF COLOR AND EVEN HERE IN NEW MEXICO THE STATE HAS BEEN SUED FOR INTENTIONALLY OR FOR HAVING THE EFFECT OF DILUTING THE VOTING POWER OF SPECIFICALLY NATIVE AMERICAN VOTERS AND HISPANIC VOTERS.

IS THERE SOMETHING MORE THAT WE CAN DO TO ENSURE THAT ALL OF THOSE VOTES COUNT THE SAME?

>> Page: WELL, I THINK ONE OF THE STEPS THAT WE TOOK ON THE TASK FORCE WAS TO INCLUDE VOICES OF THE NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNITIES PRIMARILY THE NAVAJO NATION.

I THINK YOU WOULD AGREE, JUSTICE CHAVEZ, SO, THAT WE REALLY UNDERSTOOD THE INTERESTS THAT THEY HAD IN THIS PROCESS.

AND THE CONCERNS THEY HAVE HAD ABOUT THE UNDERCOUNTED, IF YOU WILL, OR UNDER REPRESENTED IN PAST EFFORTS IN REDISTRICTING.

>> Gwyneth: JUSTICE CHAVEZ, SOME OF THE LAWMAKERS WHO ARE ON YOUR TASK FORCE ARE SPONSORING BILLS IN THE LEGISLATURE RIGHT NOW THAT WOULD TAKE THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS AWAY FROM POLITICIANS AND GIVE IT TO A COMMISSION.

YOU KNOW, FOR THE PAST FEW YEARS WE HAVE SEEN PROPOSALS LIKE THIS, MOSTLY THROUGH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

HOW IS THIS IDEA DIFFERENT?

>> Chavez: FOR ONE THING THIS IS MORE OR LESS AN ADVISORY COMMISSION SO THE LEGISLATURE STILL HAS A ROLE TO PLAY.

THEY WILL HAVE APPOINTING AUTHORITY AND THEY WILL ALSO SELECT FROM THREE TO FIVE MAPS THAT THE COMMISSION DRAWS FOR THE CONGRESSIONAL SEATS, STATE HOUSE, STATE SENATE AND THE PUBLIC EDUCATION COMMISSION.

THAT IS HOW IT IS DIFFERENT.

IT DOESN'T MEAN IN THE FUTURE WE WON'T PURSUE AN INDEPENDENT COMMISSION THAT ACTS INDEPENDENTLY ENTIRELY FROM THE LEGISLATURE BUT THAT WILL REQUIRE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

WE CAN'T DO THAT IN TIME FOR REDISTRICTING NOW FOR 2021.

>> Gwyneth: WHAT THIS WOULD DO IS AN ADVISORY BOARD WOULD CREATE THE MAPS INSTEAD OF JUST HAVING LAWMAKERS ALL OVER THE PLACE DRAWING WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DRAW AND THEN KIND OF HASHING IT OUT.

THE ADVISORY BOARD WOULD PRESENT TO THE LEGISLATURE, THESE ARE YOUR FOUR OPTIONS, PICK FROM AMONG THESE.

WHAT IF THEY CAN'T DECIDE?

>> Chavez: WE HAVE A PROVISION IN THE LEGISLATURE THAT SAYS IF THEY CANNOT DECIDE WHICH ONE TO DRAW, THE COMMISSION WILL HAVE IDENTIFIED WHICH ONE THE COMMISSION BELIEVED MOST SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL LAW, THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, PRESERVING COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST, ET CETERA.

AND THAT WOULD, THEN, BE SUBMITTED TO THE GOVERNOR FOR APPROVAL SO WE HAVE THAT FAIL SAFE APPROACH BECAUSE, FRANKLY, THE REASON MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ARE SPENT ON ATTORNEYS FEES AND COST IS BECAUSE MAPS WERE NOT DRAWN, WERE NOT ADOPTED.

>> Gwyneth: DR.

PAGE, WAS THERE IN THE ATMOSPHERE OF YOUR TASK FORCE, DID IT FEEL VERY POLITICALLY DIVIDED OR DID IT FEEL LIKE EVERYONE WAS KIND OF ON THE, YOU KNOW, THE SAME PAGE?

>> Page: NO PUN INTENDED THERE.

I THOUGHT EVERYONE CAME WITH SOME EXPECTATIONS OF THE PROCESS BEING TRANSPARENT AT LEAST IN THE WAY WE WORKED AS A TASK FORCE.

TRANSPARENCY THAT WE WERE LOOKING TO ENSURE THAT ALL THE VOICES OF NEW MEXICO RESIDENTS WERE INCLUDED IN THE PROCESS OF COMING UP WITH THE MAPS AS JUSTICE JUST MENTIONED.

SO I DIDN'T SENSE THAT THERE WAS A DIVIDE IN TERMS OF SOME WERE FOR MORE LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT AND INPUT VERSUS REPRESENTATION FROM THE BROADER COMMUNITIES THAT EXIST THROUGHOUT NEW MEXICO.

SO, I THINK TRANSPARENCY WAS A GOAL THAT WE ALL HAD IN TERMS OF HOW THE PROCESS WOULD WORK, HOW INDIVIDUALS WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A VOICE IN EXPRESSING THEIR PREFERENCE FOR A MAP OR ANOTHER TYPE OF MAP.

>> Gwyneth: JUSTICE CHAVEZ, THERE IS AN UNUSUAL KIND OF MECHANISM IN THIS PROPOSAL THAT GIVES A LITTLE BIT OF POWER TO THE SUPREME COURT.

HOW DOES THAT WORK?

>> Chavez: WHAT WE DID WAS YOU HAVE TO REDISTRICT WITHIN THE CALENDAR YEAR OF WHEN THE CENSUS COMES OUT, AND THAT HASN'T HAPPENED IN THE PAST BECAUSE OF THE APPEAL TAKES PLACE AFTER THE LEGISLATURE ADOPTS A PLAN OR PLANS.

AND SO, WHAT WE DECIDED TO DO WAS ACTUALLY TRY TO USE THE SUPREME COURT AS THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THE COMMISSION HAS DONE IF SOMEBODY APPEALS ONE OR MORE OF THE MAPS THAT WERE PROPOSED.

SO, THE APPEAL WOULD GO DIRECTLY TO THE SUPREME COURT BASED ON THE RECORD THAT WAS HELD BETWEEN THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND THE COURT COULD ONLY ANNUL OR AFFIRM THE MAP.

THEY CANNOT REDRAW THE MAP.

AND THEN THEY WOULD SEND IT BACK DOWN TO THE COMMISSION.

BUT KEEP IN MIND THAT THREE TO FIVE MAPS ARE GOING TO BE RECOMMENDED TO THE LEGISLATURE.

SO IF ONLY ONE MAP IS APPEALED AND EVEN IF THE SUPREME COURT ANNULS THAT MAP, THERE IS STILL FOUR OTHERS THAT WERE NOT APPEALED.

AND COULD BE ADOPTED.

SO WE HAVE ACTUALLY ADDED THE APPEAL PROCESS BEFORE IT GOES TO THE LEGISLATURE AND THAT IS VERY POSITIVE.

IF IT DOESN'T HAPPEN, THE SUPREME COURT WOULD ALSO HAVE POWER TO STAY THE CONSIDERATION OF THE MAP THAT HAS BEEN APPEALED AND THAT SOLVES THAT PROBLEM.

BUT I THINK THE MOST AND THE KEY, I THINK, TO THIS REDISTRICTING COMMISSION IS THE FACT THAT IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, THIS IS ABOUT GIVING VOTERS A FAIR AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE SOMEBODY WHO WILL BEST REPRESENT THEIR INTERESTS.

IT IS THEM, THE VOTERS, WHO OUGHT TO ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN THE DRAWING OF THESE PLANS AND THIS ACT ACTUALLY DOES THAT.

IT REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 12 MEETINGS.

FIRST SET IS TO IDENTIFY COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST, MINORITY GROUPS THAT HAVE VOTING BLOCK BUT THE MAJORITY ALWAYS CAN OUTVOTE THEM.

YOU LOOK AT VRA, YOU LOOK TO REDISTRICTING PRINCIPLES.

YOU KEEP COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST TOGETHER AND YOU LEARN ALL ABOUT THAT AND TAKE THAT INFORMATION AND THEN YOU GO DRAW MAPS BASED ON WHAT YOU LEARN.

YOU CATALOG THE INFORMATION AND IT IS A RECORD SO THAT THE LEGISLATURE CAN SEE AND THE PUBLIC HAS ACCESS TOO.

AND THEN YOU PROPOSE THE MAP AND YOU HOLD HEARINGS WITH TESTIMONY AND THEN YOU USE WHATEVER YOU LEARN THERE TO EITHER TWEAK THE MAPS THAT YOU HAVE DRAWN AND THEN GO TO YET ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING TO ADOPT THEM.

SO THE PUBLIC KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

YOU HAVE TO EVALUATE THE MAPS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW UNDER THE REDISTRICTING ACT AND EVERYBODY KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT YOU HAVE DONE AND WHY YOU HAVE DONE IT.

>> Gwyneth: WHAT YOU'RE SAYING DOESN'T SOUND SHOCKING BUT IT IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE WAY IT HAS WORKED IN THE PAST, JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS.

THIS MOSTLY HAPPENS COMPLETELY NOT IN PUBLIC.

THAT IS THE WAY IT HAS BEEN DONE HERE BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, DR.

PAGE, THESE MAPS ARE NOT HARD TO DRAW.

I MEAN, A COMPUTER CAN JUST SPIT OUT A PRETTY FAIR MAP; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

>> Page: THAT IS TRUE AND WE DO HAVE SOFTWARE NOW AND WE WERE ON THE TASK FORCE ABLE TO EXPERIENCE THE USE OF SOME OF THAT SOFTWARE TO DRAW MAPS, TO MEET THE ISSUES OF OUR CRITERIA OF COMPACTNESS AND OTHER CRITERIA THAT WE WANT TO ACHIEVE IN TERMS OF DRAWING FAIR DISTRICTS.

SO, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK THE TASK FORCE REALLY CAME TOGETHER ON IS MAKING SURE THAT WE HAD MAXIMUM PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN COMING UP WITH AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS, BUT ALSO IN HOW THOSE MAPS COULD BE REDRAWN TO REFLECT THE COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST THROUGHOUT THE STATE.

SO, THE SOFTWARE IS OUT THERE.

THERE ARE SEVERAL APPLICATIONS THAT WE KNOW THAT WE CAN GET OUT TO THE PUBLIC AND HAVE THEM COME UP WITH MAPS THAT REPRESENT THE INTERESTS IN THEIR LOCALES.

>> Gwyneth: SO, LET ME ASK BOTH OF YOU, GOOD GOVERNMENT GROUPS HAVE TRIED FOR A LONG TIME TO TAKE THIS POWER AWAY FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS AND PUT IT IN THE HANDS OF SOME OTHER LESS INTERESTED, LESS SELF-INTERESTED PARTY.

WHY DO YOU GUYS THINK THAT YOUR PLAN HAS A BETTER CHANCE THIS YEAR THAN THOSE HAVE IN THE PAST?

>> Chavez: I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT WE HAVE A BETTER CHANCE BUT I WILL TELL YOU THE WAY THIS ACT IS DRAWN, IT NOT ONLY BENEFITS THE PUBLIC, IT ALSO BENEFITS THE LEGISLATURE, BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE IN THE PAST HAS GONE OUT, MET WITH GROUPS IN DIFFERENT REGIONS OF THE STATE, BUT THEN THEY GET BACK AND WHATEVER WAS TOLD TO THEM IS REALLY NOT SYNTHESIZED OR COMPILED FOR THEM.

AND SO THEY SORT OF IGNORE IT.

WE ARE REQUIRED, OR THE COMMISSION WOULD BE REQUIRED, TO KEEP A RECORD OF ALL OF THE HEARINGS, TO SUMMARIZE THE INFORMATION, TO INDEX IT, TO MAINTAIN IT AND MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AND TO THE LEGISLATURE.

NOT ONLY THAT, WHEN THE MAPS ARE DRAWN, THE COMMISSION HAS TO EVALUATE EVERY MAP IN WRITING, SUMMARIZE THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE MAP, SUMMARIZE WHY IT IS KEEPING TO TOGETHER COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST, WHY THE MAP DOES NOT DILUTE MINORITY VOTING POWER, WHY THEY ARE COMPACT, CONTINUOUS, ET CETERA.

SO, EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE PROVIDED TO THE LEGISLATURE, AND, OF COURSE, THEY CAN STILL HOLD HEARINGS.

PEOPLE CAN SHOW UP AND TESTIFY ABOUT WHY THEY SUPPORT ONE OF THE FIVE MAPS OR OTHER MAPS, ET CETERA.

SO THEY ARE GOING TO BE BETTER INFORMED.

AND, FRANKLY, YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T GET TO CHOOSE WHO MOVES INTO THE DISTRICT OR OUT OF THEIR DISTRICTS OR WHAT COMMON INTEREST NOW EXIST IN THEIR DISTRICTS.

IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THEM TO ADOPT TO A CHANGE IN SOCIETY.

>> Gwyneth: FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 30 YEARS DEMOCRATS THEY CONTROL BOTH THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE AND PATH IS VERY CLEAR FOR THEM TO GERRYMANDER PRETTY HARD.

WHY SHOULD DEMOCRATS GIVE UP THAT POWER NOW WHEN THEY FINALLY HAVE IT?

>> Chavez: I WOULD SAY TO AVOID BEING SUED FOR GERRYMANDERING.

THAT IS THE PRIMARY REASON.

A PUBLIC OFFICIAL SHOULD NOT THINK OF YOURSELF AS SOMEBODY WHO HAS OFFICIAL POWER BUT AS SOMEBODY WHO IS A PUBLIC SERVANT.

YOU SERVE THE PUBLIC AND YOU OUGHT TO HONOR OUR DEMOCRACY BY MAKING SURE ALL PEOPLE HAVE FAIR AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO ELECT SOMEONE OF THEIR CHOICE.

THAT IS THE ONLY THING WE HAVE GOING FOR US AND A LOVE FOR OUR COUNTRY AND LOVE FOR OUR DEMOCRACY IS WHAT SHOULD GUIDE THEM.

>> Page: AND A COMMITMENT TO THE PROCESS OF VOTING AND ACCESS TO VOTING.

SO, YEAH, THAT IS AN INTERESTING QUESTION AND I WOULD AGREE WITH JUSTICE CHAVEZ.

>> Gwyneth: JUSTICE CHAVEZ, DR.

PAGE, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING WITH US TODAY.

>> Chavez: THANK YOU.

>> Page: THANK YOU.

>> Gene: OKAY, WE HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO WATCH THE INTERVIEW, THE OBVIOUS QUESTION HERE, LAURA SANCHEZ, DOES THIS IDEA HAVE A CHANCE?

>> Laura: I REALLY THINK IT DOES.

I THINK THE TIME IS RIGHT AND ONE THAT WE NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO AND LEGISLATORS NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO.

WE HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TAXPAYER MONEY IN THE PAST IN DEFENDING AND WORKING THROUGH THE SYSTEM THROUGH THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM TO HAVE THE COURTS ESSENTIALLY DECIDE THE LINES AND THAT IS BECAUSE THE MAPS THAT COME OUT END UP BEING SO PARTISAN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, WITH SO MUCH INFIGHTING AND THEY CAN'T AGREE TO ANYTHING REASONABLE, SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE A COURT COME IN AND MAKE A DECISION.

THAT IS VERY, VERY COSTLY.

I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT APPROACH THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED AND HOPEFULLY IT WILL PREVAIL IN TERMS OF A BILL THAT GETS PASSED THROUGH THIS SESSION.

>> Gene: MERRITT, YOU'RE ON THE TASK FORCE.

I AM GRATEFUL THAT YOU ARE, HONESTLY.

YOUR BRAIN POWER IN THIS SITUATION IS NEEDED.

WE HAVE THE COMMISSION, TWO DEM'S, TWO R'S, TWO NONPARTISAN PEOPLE CHOSEN BY THIS COMMISSION, AND A FORMER SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.

IS THAT THE RIGHT MIX IN YOUR VIEW?

>> Merritt: ABSOLUTELY.

AND THE DEMOCRATS SHOULD BE CHOSEN BY THE LEGISLATIVE MAJORITY -- THEY BE CHOSEN BY THE LEGISLATURE, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS BE CHOSEN BY THEIR CAUCUS LEADERS.

THE THIRD PARTY, DECLINE TO STATE, INDEPENDENT, WOULD BE CHOSEN BY THE ETHICS COMMISSION AND THEN A RETIRED SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.

SO, THAT IS SOME SERIOUS, I THINK, FIRE POWER AND YOU CANNOT BE A FORMER CANDIDATE OR A FORMER ELECTED OFFICIAL.

SO, IT ALSO NONPOLITICAL.

I REALLY LIKE THAT.

>> Laura: THAT TAKES YOU OUT OF THE RUNNING UP.

AND ME I WAS IN FOR LIKE 30 DAYS.

>> Gene: WHICH IS ENOUGH, RIGHT?

>> Laura: YES.

>> Merritt: THE OTHER PART I REALLY LIKE IS, I THINK IT IS THE LAST LINE OF LEGISLATION IS SHOULD DESPITE ALL THE PRECAUTIONS TO THIS EFFECT, SHOULD ANY OF THE MAPS BE TAKEN TO COURT, NO ATTORNEY FEES SHALL BE AWARDED AS A RESULT OF ANY LITIGATION.

HA, HA.

>> Gene: THAT IS INTERESTING.

HAVE TO SEE HOW THAT PLAYS OUT.

>> Laura: THAT TAKES OUT THE MOTIVATION OF ATTORNEYS TO TAKE ON THESE CASES.

THAT IS REALLY AN IMPORTANT CLAUSE.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE ATTORNEYS WILLING TO TAKE THIS ON AND KNOWING THEY ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO RECOVER FEES, IT BECOMES A DIFFERENT BALLGAME IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO PAY FOR THOSE THINGS.

>> Gene: THAT IS FASCINATING.

INTERESTINGLY, IF YOU'RE A POWERFUL DEMOCRAT LIKE BRIAN EGOLF, WHY WOULD YOU GIVE UP THIS LEVERAGE.

PUT IT IN THE HANDS OF OTHER PEOPLE.

THESE ARE POLITICIANS.

THIS IS WHAT THEY DO.

>> Inez: THEY MAY NOT.

WE'LL SEE HOW THEY GO.

SOMEONE LIKE THE SPEAKER WANTS TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

EVEN POLITICIANS WHO ARE THERE FOR POWER, THEY HAVE TO REALIZE JUST BECAUSE DEMOCRATS ARE IN THE MAJORITY NOW, SOME DAY THEY'LL BE IN THE MINORITY.

IF THEY SET A SYSTEM FAIR THAT ALLOWS POLITICIANS TO STOP PICKING THEIR VOTERS AND LET VOTERS PICK THEIR LEADERS, THEY ARE GOING TO BE BETTER OFF OVER THE NEXT 20, 30, 40 YEARS.

AND WE HAVE BECOME SO PARTISAN, IN PART, BECAUSE OF GERRYMANDERING AND REDISTRICTING IN OTHER STATES WHERE THE SMALLER POPULATIONS HAVE WAY MORE POWER THAN THEY SHOULD.

AND WE HAVE GOT TO FIX IT.

SO EVEN IF YOU'RE GIVING UP SOME OF YOUR POWER THAT MEANS IT IS GOING TO BE BETTER FOR EVERYBODY AND WE HOPE THAT LEADERS LIKE SPEAKER EGOLF AND REPUBLICAN LEADERS ALL BELIEVE WE HAVE TO DO WHAT IS BEST FOR VOTERS AND FOR CITIZENS NOT JUST FOR THEMSELVES.

>> Gene: MERRITT, IT HAS TO BE SAID, THOUGH, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IN THREE CYCLES, WE HAVE DEMOCRATS IN THE GOVERNORSHIP, BOTH SIDES OF OUR HOUSE.

DOES THIS CHANGE ANYTHING IN THIS DISCUSSION OR DOES THAT CHANGE ANYTHING IN THIS DISCUSSION.

>> Merritt: THAT IS THE QUESTION.

WHY WOULD THEY WANT TO?

THAT IS ONE THING THAT STRUCK ME SITTING IN ON THE TASK FORCE, WE HAD BOTH DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS SITING ON THE TASK FORCE.

IT IS NOTABLE THAT IT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY THROUGH THE FIRST HOUSE COMMITTEE.

IT HAS GOT APPEARS SUPPORT OF OVER HALF THE HOUSE RIGHT NOW.

AND THE SENATE IS SPONSORED BY ORTIZ Y PINO AND SENATOR MORRIS.

I SAT IN ON AN INTERVIEW WITH KRWG ASKED, WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS?

AND SENATOR ORTIZ Y PINO SAID, BECAUSE IN 2031 WE DON'T KNOW THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE BOTH HOUSES AND GOVERNORSHIP.

WE MAY NOT HAVE THIS POWER.

SO, WHY NOT DO THIS FOR THE RAINY DAY.

>> Gene: ISN'T THIS THE GAME AS IT IS PLAYED?

LET ME GO TO YOU ON THAT.

I JUST GOT TO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, FOLKS -- PEOPLE TALK ABOUT FAIR REDISTRICTING ALL THE TIME, BUT THE SIMPLE FACT IS, THIS IS POLITICS.

YOU ALWAYS WANT TO HAVE AN EDGE.

YOU DON'T CARE WHICH PARTY YOU ARE IN, YOU WANT AN EDGE.

CAN WE SIT DOWN AND DO THIS EQUITABLY FOR BOTH SIDES AND HAVE AGREEMENT ON THIS?

>> Laura: THIS IS THE WAY IT HAS BEEN DONE, NOT THE COMMISSION, BUT WHAT THE WAY CURRENTLY IT IS DONE IS THE WAY IN NEW MEXICO.

I DON'T THINK THAT IS THE BEST WAY OR THE ONLY WAY.

IF YOU LOOK AT OTHER STATES, THEY DO IT DIFFERENTLY AND DO CONSIDER OTHER COMMUNITIES IN TERMS OF THE, YOU KNOW, THEY TALKED ABOUT IN THE INTERVIEW, DILUTION OF VOTING POWERS.

THAT IS A HUGE ISSUE AROUND MINORITIES IN PARTICULAR.

THERE IS A LOT OF GAMES PLAYING GOING ON AND I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.

EVEN LEGISLATORS FROM ONE HOUSE OR THE OTHER, I AM NOT GOING TO NAME NAMES, BUT LET'S JUST SAY IF THERE IS AN OPEN SEAT AND A LEGISLATOR WHO PERCEIVES THEY MAY WANT TO RUN FOR THAT SEAT IS JUST OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES, THEY'LL DO WHAT THEY CAN TO GET INTO THAT SEAT SO NOW THEY ARE ABLE TO RUN FOR AN OPEN SEAT IN THE OTHER HOUSE WITHOUT TOO MUCH, YOU KNOW, NOW YOU ARE AN INCUMBENT RUNNING BUT IT IS A NEW SEAT FOR YOU, BUT YOU HAVE JUST DRAWN YOURSELF INTO THAT SEAT.

THAT HAS HAPPENED MULTIPLE TIMES IN PAST DISTRICTS AND THAT MEANS A PERSON WHO DIDN'T LIVE IN THAT DISTRICT PREVIOUSLY, HAD NO TIES TO THAT COMMUNITY, PER SE, SUDDENLY WAS ABLE TO INSERT THEMSELVES INTO IT AND PEOPLE WHO MAY HAVE WANTED TO RUN OR HAD THE ABILITY TO RUN OR HAD BEEN COMMUNITY LEADERS THERE, AREN'T ABLE TO DO SO BECAUSE THEY ARE NOW FACING ESSENTIALLY AN INCUMBENT, SOMEBODY WHO ALREADY HAS A WAR CHEST OF FUNDING TO POUR INTO THIS NEW RACE.

THAT IS THE SORT OF THING WHERE IT IS GOING TO TAKE A LOT OF SELFLESSNESS WHICH, YOU KNOW, CYNICS WILL SAY DOESN'T EXIST AMONG OUR ELECTED, BUT IT IS ALSO NOT THE MOST GLAMOROUS JOB TO BE AN ELECTED OFFICIAL.

YOU RUN AND YOU GET -- YOU FALL ON YOUR FACE A LOT.

YOU GET CRITICIZED FOR EVERYTHING, YOU'RE NOT GETTING PAID.

IT IS NOT A SUPER GLAMOROUS JOB, BUT AT THE SAME TIME I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF PRESTIGE AND STATUS THAT COMES WITH IT.

AND THEY NEED TO BE SELFLESS ENOUGH TO REALIZE LONG-TERM WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

AND HOW DO YOU WANT NEW MEXICO TO BE REPRESENTED.

DO WE WANT NEW VOICES?

DO WE WANT THOSE SEATS TO REFLECT THE COMMUNITY?

OR DO WE WANT JUST PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN IN POWER TO REMAIN IN POWER FOR GENERATIONS WITHOUT ANY NEW VOICES OR, YOU KNOW, NEW IDEAS TO COME INTO IT?

THIS IMPACTS WOMEN, PEOPLE OF COLOR, PEOPLE IN THE INTERSECTION OF FEMALES AND MINORITIES AND IT IS ALL ABOUT TRYING TO LOOK, BE FORWARD THINKING IN TERMS OF DETERMINING THESE LINES.

>> Gene: GREAT WAY TO FINISH.

GOOD SEGMENT THERE.

THANKS AGAIN TO ALL OF YOU.

I'M BACK IN A MOMENT WITH FINAL THOUGHTS.

PROBABLY BECAUSE THE SUPER BOWL IS LESS THAN A WEEK PAST, I CAN'T HELP A FOOTBALL CLICHE IN CONCERNING THE NEW NUMBERS FOR COVID-19 CASES IN THE STATE AND WITH IT YELLOWING AND GREENING OF COUNTIES ACROSS THE STATE.

I HAVE SEEN POSITIVE NUMBERS AFTER A YEAR PLUS SLOG WITH METRICS HEADED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND EVEN BETTER, BLESSED RELIEF FOR HEALTHCARE WORKFORCE.

IT REMINDS ME THAT SOME GAMES, AS THE CLICHE GOES, ARE WON IN THE TRENCHES.

OTHER CONTESTS YOU CAN MOVE THE BALL DOWN THE FIELD DOWN FIELD BUT NOT COVID, NOT THIS OPPONENT.

WE HAVE TO GRIND THIS OUT A DAY AT A TIME UNTIL WE CAN GET VACCINATIONS IN ARMS STATE-WIDE, NOW THAT IS THE NATURE OF THIS GAME BUT I'LL ALSO ADD THIS.

MAYBE WE HAVE DONE SOMETHING WELL HERE.

MAYBE WE CAN AFFORD OURSELVES A QUIET LITTLE PAT ON THE BACK FOR A JOB ON ITS WAY TO BEING WELL DONE.

THE NUMBERS LOOK THAT GOOD.

THANKS AGAIN FOR JOINING US AND STAYING INFORMED AND ENGAGED.

SEE YOU AGAIN NEXT WEEK IN FOCUS.

>> FUNDING FOR NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS PROVIDED BY THE MCCUNE CHARITABLE FOUNDATION AND THE NEEPER NATURAL HISTORY PROGRAMMING FUND FOR KNME-TV AND VIEWERS LIKE YOU.