How one senator has all the clout
Talk about appearances being deceiving. On paper, the speaker of the New Mexico House of Representatives is much more powerful than state Sen. John Arthur Smith.
The majority leader of the Senate also theoretically has far more clout than Smith.
Throw those organizational charts in the trash can. They do not reflect the truth about politics in this poor, sparsely populated state.
New Mexico has 112 state legislators. Inside the Capitol, it might not matter how many votes they think they have corralled for any bill involving money. Smith oftentimes is the only vote that matters. He proved it again this week when he independently killed a proposed constitutional amendment that had already cleared the 70-member House of Representatives.
The measure would have expanded early childhood education by taking 1 percent from the state’s largest endowment, the $16 billion Land Grant Permanent Fund.
After House members approved the measure, the Senate Education Committee did the same, advancing it to Smith’s committee.
Smith, a silver-haired man with a deep, rich voice, said nothing to the 11 other members of his committee about the proposal. Then he spiked it, refusing to call the measure for a hearing.
“It didn’t have the votes,” Smith told me when I asked him why the measure was not heard.
That was not a legitimate reason for him to bury legislation.
Rep. Eliseo Alcon, D-Milan, chairs a committee known as “the cemetery” because bills go there to die. But Alcon usually gives Republican bills with little hope a fair hearing, even convening on Saturdays for high-profile measures such as reinstating the death penalty.
Countless proposals that appear to have little chance receive hearings in other committees, including the one that Smith runs with an iron hand inside a velvet glove.
One might ask how Smith knew what his fellow senators were thinking.
He had anecdotal evidence on his side. In the House, 31 of 32 Republicans voted against the proposal to tap the endowment for early childhood programs. The other Republican, Rep. Sarah Maestas Barnes of Albuquerque, was a profile in cowardice. She skipped the vote on the proposal for the second consecutive year.
And Republicans in the Senate seemed uninspired by the proposal.
Smith is forthright in his opposition to spending another 1 percent from the endowment. He calls it an idea that is financially unsound.
That is debatable. Or at least it should be debatable.
Because Smith refused to allow his committee to hear the proposal, we will never know how the arguments and votes would have come out.
Had the bill received a positive recommendation from Smith’s committee, it would have gone to the full 42-member Senate.
From there, the measure would have been voted up or down. But even if it won in the Senate it still would have been placed on the November ballot. The final decision would have been in the hands of voters.
Smith, 76, is a senator experienced at reading the mood of the public. He is afraid the measure would pass.
And so he asserted himself to the role of allpowerful politician. A measure that an entire chamber of the Legislature approved was deemed unworthy of consideration by Smith.
What did the rest of the Senate do in response once the story was reported by The New Mexican? Nothing. Senators like and respect Smith. None challenged him publicly about his work as gravedigger for the constitutional amendment.
Smith, of Deming, has been in the Senate since 1989. He can stay in office as long as he likes. Most voters in his district are happy with him.
But voters in the rest of New Mexico might have a different view. They might have appreciated the chance to vote on an amendment that first was proposed in 2011 and has slowly gathered steam.
Smith can unilaterally kill legislation for one reason only.
His fellow senators sit on their hands while holding their tongue.
Contact Milan Simonich at msimonich@ sfnewmexican.com or 505-986-3080. Follow his Ringside Seat column in Monday’s and Friday’s editions.