Veto, veto — just tell us why
The New Mexico Constitution is clear — when a governor vetoes legislation with at least three days remaining in a legislative session, he or she is supposed to return the bill to its chamber of origin with the reasons why it was vetoed.
The logic being, by giving reasons for a rejection, legislators then might seize an opportunity to improve or change the statute and send it back. The governor could sign the revisions, pleased the objections were handled. Or not, but there would remain a possibility for compromise. Only if fewer than three days are remaining can a governor simply kill bills for no stated reason.
At least, that is the apparent wording of the constitution. Now, after a District Court judge’s ruling last week, it also is the legal interpretation unless a higher court reverses Judge Sarah Singleton.
What is at stake in the lawsuit by Democratic legislators against GOP Gov. Susana Martinez is more than the fate of the 10 bills she vetoed earlier this year without stated reasons. This case — and the District Court might not be the last word — will help guide how bills become law from here on out.
The governor has indicated the case will be appealed, leaving the final outcome to be determined. It should be pointed out that, while the suit has pitted Democrats against Republicans, the dispute is less about party than policy.
The legislation in question is almost beside the point. This lawsuit is about the process required by the constitution, not whether these specific bills are worthwhile. Making clear what needs to happen during the confusion of a legislative session can only benefit future governors and legislators, whatever their politics.
Still, Martinez’s method of rejecting the 10 bills offers a cautionary tale for future governors on what not to do. Start with vetoing legislation with wide, bipartisan support. For that reason alone, many of the governor’s vetoes made little sense.
Why veto a law to allow computer science count toward math and science credits for graduation? This is legislation that would help prepare young people to enter the competitive world of technology. It passed the Senate 33-4 and the House 67-0.
Vetoing bills with bipartisan support never has bothered Martinez, though. She’s the governor. Yes, it’s her prerogative to veto bills she sees as bad legislation. To do so without explanation, however, especially when lawmakers from both parties have come together to pass legislation, is either sloppy or arrogant. If a bill has unanimous support, the least a governor can do is explain why she — and she alone — knows better. Even without the constitutional requirement, that’s just smart governance.
Should the district judge’s ruling be affirmed, the 10 bills will become law. That would mean, among other things, that New Mexico would allow the planting of industrial hemp for research and allow local governments to find more ways to expand broadband access, both of which we supported as important paths to better economic development. There is a reason why many of the vetoed bills had broad support. They are good pieces of legislation.
In the end, though, the case is less about the worth of the laws vetoed as much as it is about the way Martinez went about rejecting legislation. She failed to communicate, a problem throughout her two terms in office.
Even if a higher court reverses Singleton — perhaps no message will be deemed to be the message — this lawsuit clarifies the process of how a governor should deliver her vetoes. That’s needed clarity in this messy business of passing laws.