Supreme Court rises to the occasion
The New Mexico Supreme Court did its job well Wednesday — and quickly, too, deciding after oral arguments that a governor, any governor, needs to show her work. At the heart of the case was whether in issuing a veto a governor must explain objections to the piece of legislation being blocked at the time she vetoes the bill. According to the New Mexico Constitution, when the Legislature sends a bill to the governor before the last few days of any session, the executive has three days to act. A governor can sign a bill or, the constitution says, “he shall return it to the house in which it originated, with his objections.”
Trouble was, Gov. Susana Martinez vetoed 10 bills in 2017 with no reason offered. She just said no.
Democratic legislators decided to challenge that action, and after winning at the District Court level, lawyers for Martinez appealed. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week (the laws have been on hold while the courts considered the case), discussed it and walked out with a unanimous decision.
The unanimity of the justices matters, we think, because this is a court with both Democrats and Republicans sitting on it, including Chief Justice Judith Nakamura, who was appointed by Martinez and then won election to the court as a Republican in 2016. District Judge James M. Hudson of Roswell, also a Republican, sat in as well, filling the position left vacant by the retirement of Justice Edward Chávez. (The governor still hasn’t announced her appointment for that seat.)
This was not a bunch of liberal judges blocking a GOP governor. This was a court doing its job of interpreting the constitution — just as our system allows. It is a shame the Martinez administration reacted petulantly, with a statement calling the judges “submissive” and claiming their actions “circumvent an entire branch of government.” Hardly. What this decision does, as Senate Majority Leader Peter Wirth points out, is clarify the roles of the executive and legislative branches. The Legislature passes laws, while the governor has the right to sign or veto bills. The governor, however, also must express her reasons for a veto in a timely fashion. That allows legislators the opportunity to amend or improve bills, pass them and send them back to the governor for consideration. That’s how strong laws are made.
In 2017, the governor vetoed the bills when she and the Legislature went through a particularly tense period. Many of the bills Martinez killed had broad support among Republicans and Democrats. Her vetoes made little sense; even so, had she just attached an objection as required, they would have remained dead.
Now, because the Supreme Court has ruled, New Mexico can start licensing farmers to grow industrial hemp for research purposes. High school students will be able to count computer science courses toward math or science credits needed for graduation (this bill was such a no-brainer, Martinez’s own Public Education Department supported the legislation and was going to implement it by rule). Local governments will have a new option to pay for expanding broadband access. All good bills, even if they have been somewhat delayed.
Most important, today we have a better understanding of how the back-and-forth of lawmaking should be conducted. The next governor will fight with the Legislature, even if the person is from the same party. That’s a given. However, because of the essential third branch of government — the judiciary — the next governor will better understand how to issue vetoes and treat the Legislature as a partner.
This week, our system of governing and its three equal branches worked.