If At First You Don’t Succeed…January 25th, 2013 at 5:45 pm by Alex Goldsmith under Latest Posts
As I mentioned in my blog entry yesterday, for every seven bills that get introduced in Santa Fe, just one is signed into law by the governor.
There’s a number of reasons for that.
Typically, for a bill to become law it has to be heard in 2-6 committees, get a floor vote in both chambers, pass that vote with identical bills and get the governor’s approval.
But there’s another reason… repetition.
Gov. Susana Martinez’s push for a repeal on the law that allows illegal immigrants to get driver’s licenses is the most high-profile example of that. It’s been tried in three previous sessions without success, and two bills dealing with the issue are in committee next Tuesday.
That’s not the only clear case of this though.
Statewide texting-while-driving bans have repeatedly failed, usually due to debate over just how much it should cost a driver who texts, drives and gets caught.
Since the 2007 session, Republican lawmakers have tried to get a voter ID requirement for state elections with no success.
Albuquerque Republican Rep. Bill Rehm has made two attempts to ban “golden parachute” buyouts in some cases of ending state employment contracts.
But he’s trying for a third time with a hope that a buyout cap instead of a ban will make the bill more palatable to House Judiciary, where the bill died both times before.
And if history is any indication… if that doesn’t work, expect to see that idea and many other ideas that have been tried before add to the bill count this session.
Bill of the Day: House Bill 63
Unlike the theme of today’s blog entry, Rep. Yvette Herrell, R-Alamogordo, has an idea that hasn’t been tried in New Mexico before.
One of her bills is a ban on bans. It would prevent any local municipality in New Mexico from passing breed-specific laws.
That would include the long-held ban in Tijeras on pit bulls or any law requiring owners of “dangerous” breeds to get liability insurance. A similar law has already been passed in Massachusetts.
Supporters of HB 63 say it would protect pet owners from dog discrimination and burdensome, heavy-handed city ordinances. Opponents say it would be overreach by the state and would prevent communities from passing laws against what they see as a clear and present threat.
HB 63 has two committees to clear in the House, starting with the House Health, Government & Indian Affairs Committee.