For the second time in just over a week (here’s another), a major media outlet has talked about the serious issues facing our children related to COVID 19 (unfortunately they don’t tend to focus specifically on government response to the pandemic, but focus on the pandemic itself).

Today’s warning comes from the New York Times, a leading lockdown proponent. The story (below) outlines some of the notable issues:

As reported by the Piñon Post, a lawsuit has been filed  by the former Chief Financial Officer at Spaceport America against Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham over alleged fraud of $200 million.

The complaint names 21 individuals who participated in a conspiracy including leaders at the highest levels of state government including Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, Attorney General Hector Balderas, New Mexico State Auditor Brian Colón, Economic Development Cabinet Secretary Alicia Keys, and current managers at Spaceport America.” 

“The complaint provides evidence of extortion, bribery, illegal drug use, sex discrimination, procurement fraud, securities fraud, and multiple violations of federal law. The complaint describes how after I left, the defendants proceeded to commit over $200 million in fraud when they issued bonds under false pretenses with disclosure documents containing fraudulent information.” 

At the Rio Grande Foundation we have long criticized taxpayer support of the Spaceport and we recently expressed concern over taxes that SHOULD be collected at the facility.

A serious, systemic issue in New Mexico is that the Spaceport and similiar taxpayer-funded “enterprises” and industries provide ample opportunity for the kind of corruption New Mexico is known for. This lawsuit is only the latest “boot” to drop. We continue to look into the facility and its finances.

Welcome to 2022! While the number on the calendar may have changed, for New Mexico economically and policy-wise, we don’t foresee much positive on the horizon in terms of public policies from the current Gov. or Legislature, but we DO have questions that we believe will dominate public policy in New Mexico during 2022. Here they are:

1. 1. More of the same on MLG’s COVID policies?: Gov. Lujan Grisham has consistently been among the very most restrictive governors when it comes to COVID. And, while (so far) the Omicron variant hasn’t “blown up” in New Mexico (yet) it is likely on the way. Will Omicron or the impending election impact MLG’s COVID policies or will New Mexicans remain masked with further vaccine mandates through 2022?
   2. Will the Gov. and Legislature really increase gasoline prices in the 2022 session? MLG has proposed “Clean Fuel Standard” legislation for the upcoming session which would increase gas prices by an estimated 35 cents per gallon. With gas prices above $3.00 a gallon throughout New Mexico and heading into an election year, this seems like a politically-problematic idea to say the least.
   3. Albuquerque’s violent crime and homeless problems spiraled out of control under Mayor Tim Keller and the “progressive”-controlled City Council in 2021. Will Mayor Keller act on these issues or will a more centrist City Council be able to address the issues?
   4. Will oil and gas keep New Mexico “in the black” and will the money do any good? Yes, this is essentially two questions, but with the State experiencing unprecedented levels of oil and gas money flowing into the State budget, this is an “evergreen” question. The Legislature is expected to pass MLG’s small GRT reduction, but may modify the proposal. Will that reduction or any of the other spending alleviate any of New Mexico’s numerous problems?
   5. Will the GOP be able to unseat MLG and make gains in the Legislature or is New Mexico destined to be an impoverished version of California? MLG has been the most radical and incompetent governor in decades. And while not on the ballot himself, President Biden hasn’t covered himself in glory either. The GOP has a solid field of contenders for Gov. Can one of them break through? If not, it is hard to see a better opportunity to FINALLY (after 90 years) begin the long process of reforming New Mexico.

As usual, RGF will be working hard on behalf of greater freedom in 2022, but November’s elections will ultimately determine whether 2022 is a good year for freedom.

The following article by Rio Grande Foundation Vice President Patrick Brenner appeared in the Albuquerque Journal on December 30, 2021.

With food prices on the rise, Albuquerque is again changing the rules for shopping bags. The Mayor Tim Keller administration will now mandate that stores offer only those with “stitched handles.” But these bags have a dirty secret: the vast majority are made of plastic. All this policy is likely to accomplish is to drive up costs for struggling businesses. Those costs will be passed on to consumers.

In an interview, City Councilor Pat Davis said the new rules are necessary because stores were handing out thicker reusable plastic bags – an alleged “loophole.” So, the city came up with a solution: require bags be at least 4 mils thick and to have stitched handles.

But here’s the funny part. The reusable plastic bags that drew Davis’ ire were about half as thick as the new, seemingly random 4 mil standard. Only in Albuquerque could the government double the thickness of plastic bags as an attempt to eliminate them from stores.

Aside from being thicker, these “stitched handle” bags, the kind retailers sell for a couple of dollars at checkout counters, are made from such plastics as polypropylene, nylon and polyethylene terephthalate. Most are imported from bag manufacturers based in some of the world’s worst polluting countries. Research from Denmark’s Environmental Protection Agency actually found that these stitched bags have larger environmental impacts than the bags they are supposed to replace.

While this ludicrous ban is just another case of government intervention delivering the exact opposite of what was promised, it is no laughing matter for small businesses and struggling families.

As costs soar for everything due to supply chain disruptions, labor challenges, shortages and inflation, they can expect another hit considering that the newly mandated bags are significantly more expensive than what had been allowed previously. When retailers can get their hands on bags, consumers can expect those costs to translate to higher costs – and getting bags is no sure thing.

In recent weeks, communities as far flung as Anchorage, Alaska, and North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, voted to suspend their bag bans as stores struggle to find affordable alternative products. In Washington state, small businesses report similar issues trying to comply with their bag ban, which allows for more flexibility than Albuquerque’s new “stitched-handles” rule.

While one or two dollars every time a shopper forgets their bag may not seem like much to some, this policy represents a regressive tax on our most vulnerable neighbors. With inflation the worst it has been in at least three decades, our leaders should be focused on ways to help struggling families, not piling up additional costs on folks trying to put food on the table.

Whether from an environmental or an economic perspective, the latest diktats from the Mayor’s Office appear likely to do more harm than good. Maybe it’s time for the newly elected City Council to just throw the entire anti-environment, anti-freedom plastic bag ban out and restore consumer choice.

The Rio Grande Foundation is New Mexico’s free-market research institute and think tank. An advocate for open government, Patrick Monroe Brenner leads the foundation’s government transparency and accountability efforts.

From day one the Rio Grande Foundation has questioned the “lockdown/masking” approach to COVID 19 espoused by Gov. Lujan Grisham and numerous other (predominantly) “blue state” governors around the nation. We’ve been especially concerned about the impact these policies, including the amount of classroom time lost.

This video is absolutely worth a moment of your time because it is one of the few times we’ve seen the “lockdown” approach questioned in a national media outlet.

“They will be paying for our generation’s decisions the rest of their lives”: @JanCBS explains why she thinks 2021’s biggest underreported story was the devastating impact of COVID policies on children pic.twitter.com/AUU1f6AFNi

— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) December 26, 2021

The Arizona-based Goldwater Institute recently filed briefs asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the Rio Grande Foundation’s lawsuit against a Santa Fe ordinance that forces nonprofits to surrender their donors’ privacy rights whenever they support or oppose a ballot initiative. The case is just the latest in a series of cases in which donors to think tanks and nonprofits have been targeted by anti-privacy mandates nationwide.

The lawsuit began in 2017 when the Rio Grande Foundation announced its opposition to a proposal to impose a sales tax on sugared soft drinks in Santa Fe. The Foundation posted a video to its Facebook page—a video it didn’t make—that urged voters to oppose the initiative. That triggered a city ordinance that requires nonprofits that spend more than $250 supporting or opposing initiatives to turn over the names, addresses, and employment information of any donor who gave even a penny for that purpose. Even though the Foundation had not spent any money on the video, city bureaucrats decided that the video must have cost that much, and therefore that it qualified as an “in-kind donation.” It concluded that the Foundation was required to put its donors’ confidential information on a publicly accessible government list.

Goldwater took up Rio Grande’s case, filing suit to argue that stripping the Foundation’s supporters of their privacy in this way was likely to scare away donors—something lawyers call a “chilling effect” on free speech rights. And we proved at trial that when other, similar organizations, have been forced to turn over their private information, their employees and supporters have suffered intimidation and harassment. That’s not news—as the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta made clear, the risk of retaliation when people have their private information made public is a real one—and it does cause people to refrain from exercising their First Amendment rights.

But the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals threw the case out earlier this year, in a bizarre holding that said people cannot bring a “chilling effect” lawsuit unless they themselves choose not to exercise their freedom of speech. In other words, the court said that because the Rio Grande Foundation intends to speak out in the future, it’s not allowed to argue that the Santa Fe ordinance will likely scare donors into silence.

That makes no sense, because, as the Tenth Circuit itself has said in other cases, the fact that someone is willing to keep speaking despite risk of punishment doesn’t deprive that person of the right to challenge the constitutionality of punishment. For example, in a 2019 case—also from New Mexico—federal courts ruled that a professor who was retaliated against for speaking out about improprieties at her school could still sue even though she “show[ed] extraordinary persistence” and refused to be silenced.

Yet in Rio Grande’s case, the court created a new rule holding that “an element of a chilled speech injury is an actual intention not to speak,” meaning that only a person who is afraid to speak, but not afraid to sue, is allowed to bring a First Amendment lawsuit. That’s illogical—and likely to slam the courthouse doors to many people and organizations who should be allowed to defend their constitutional rights.

We urge the Supreme Court to take up this case and vindicate Rio Grande’s freedom of speech.

You can read our petition here and learn more about the case here.

Here’s the video that started it all.

Fresh off their defeat of the PNM/Avangrid merger (an effort on which we didn’t disagree with them), the radicals at New Energy Economy are pushing a far more concerning plan. They want to make ALL utilities government-run. A group of more than a dozen far-left legislators (list on page 5 of the document above) has petitioned the Public Regulation Commission to “study” the issue.

Reading through the proposal it is no surprise that this is part of a push to hasten the abandonment of “traditional” energy sources in favor of unreliable wind and solar. As frustrating as PNM’s government-regulated monopoly model may be, the thought of these people running a utility is even more frightening.

Ironically, as is so often the case with government-ownership of ANYTHING, the real question is WHO owns it. Right here in New Mexico the City of Farmington owns and manages its own utility. That is the entity pushing to keep the coal-fired San Juan Generating Station open and use  carbon capture technology to do it.

There is nothing to be done at this point. If this proposal is adopted, the PRC will study the issue. Nonetheless, the LAST thing New Mexico needs is a new area of our economy for the State to manage, especially along the lines proposed by the most radical “environmentalists.”

Perhaps the PRC should ALSO undertake a study of what a free market utility market might look like, especially one untethered from the Energy Transition Act.

New Mexico’s unemployment rate in November 2021 is now 6.2%. That’s 5th-highest in the nation and worst than each of our neighbors. The data are available here from Bureau of Labor Statistics.

No matter how interesting or promising a technology developed in New Mexico may be, it seems that government inevitably gets involved and mucks things up. Take Sceye.

The idea behind the company which is Swiss, but with major operations here in New Mexico, is to provide Internet and other services to remote locations using dirigibles or blimps. That’s a fine idea and I’d love to see it taken from concept to application (without fleecing New Mexico taxpayers).

But, in her bid to deploy broadband across New Mexico, Gov. Lujan Grisham and the Democrat-controlled Legislature are spending an astonishing $70 million for just five blimps.  Mind you this is an unproven technology as the company JUST performed its first and only test flight in October of 2021. New Mexico ALSO gave the company $3.2 million to study the concept of dirigible-based Internet service in April of 2021, so the company is cashing a lot of checks from the State.

While Sceye is hardly the only entity working on deploying Internet service to far-flung rural areas (Elon Musk’s Starlink system is one big competitor), it is difficult to see New Mexico’s massive “investment” as cost-effective. According to Rio Grande Foundation calculations, $70 million would get 2,500 miles of deployed broadband (without the risk of investing tax dollars in an unproven technology) thus offering broadband to many rural providers for whom access is unavailable. Furthermore, based on the $1 billion hybrid model (fiber/fixed wireless) to the “un-served” areas of New Mexico in which such Internet service is unavailable, spending on Sceye comes out to $8,000 per-person.

That’s an expensive way for New Mexico to deploy broadband service!

The City of Albuquerque has some nice parks. It also has some parks that need a little “TLC” and then there are others (like Coronado Park) that have been completely overrun by “homeless” campers.

No matter what you think about the City’s homeless policy, it would seem that public parks are not an appropriate place to simply hand over to the homeless. In New York City (not known as a bastion of free market policies by any stretch) managing the limited green space is of utmost concern. So, the City works with private companies to manage the parks.

Not only are the homeless kept at bay, but there are numerous amenities available that make these New York parks economically-beneficial to their surrouning areas. Check out this short video.

On this week’s podcast conversation, Paul sits down with Jennifer Rivera, MA Ed. Jennifer is the Executive Director of Estancia Valley Classical Academy which is part of Hillsdale College’s Barney Charter School Initiative. Jennifer is a return guest and we discuss what makes her charter school unique, the fact that the school just received a 5-year extension on its charter, and the challenges students and families have been dealing with during COVID.

In this in-depth and candid discussion, we discuss lost learning (even at a high-performing school) and how teachers, families, and students alike have dealt with the mental health challenges during the pandemic, the impact of broadband access, and of course the Gov.’s masking mandates. If you are concerned about education in New Mexico, don’t miss this conversation.

New Mexico has always struggled with low workforce participation levels. It was hardly a surprise when a national study earlier this year called New Mexico the “least hardworking state” in the entire nation. The COVID 19 pandemic AND the federal/state governments’ fear mongering, mask and vaccine mandates and massive social spending programs have done nothing to lure people back into the workforce.

Alas, as the chart below shows (using data from Bureau of Labor Statistics) New Mexico’s workforce participation rate has remained depressed even relative to other state. In January of 2020 the rate for NM was 55.5%. As of October 2021 that rate was 53.3% , a decrease of 4%.

Not only did New Mexico START with lower workforce participation than its neighbors, but it has seen a the steepest decline of any of its neighboring states. No state has gotten back to January 2020 workforce participation rates, but Oklahoma and Utah have gotten close.

The Spaceport and its primary tenant Virgin Galactic have always been secretive when it comes to their finances. Perhaps the taxpayer-funded facility and its main tenant are embarrassed by the fact that the facility has open for more than a decade without having been used for its intended purpose.

In New Mexico, gross receipts tax (GRT) is applied to all financial transactions unless the Legislature specifically calls them out for an exemption or deduction.

A ruling from the State of New Mexico Tax and Revenue Department does provide a “deduction from GRT which includes receipts from launching, operating or recovering space vehicles or payloads in New Mexico.” Tax deductions cannot be taken on the assumption that someday the Spaceport will engage in these activities. Rather, if launch, operation, or recovery trigger the deduction, then ticket sales should be taxed and there should be records of those taxes being collected and distributed to the State of New Mexico.

Despite the fact that Virgin Galactic has repeatedly reported to the press and filed documents stating that it has sold (or accepted hundreds of non-refundable deposits on) seats on space launches, there have been no taxes collected or reported (using the Tax and Revenue Department’s CRS-1 form) outlining either GRT paid OR deductions taken. Virgin Galactic has already pre-sold some 700 space tickets: 600 between 2005 and 2014, and another 100 since August, when they were relisted for a price of $450,000. Approximately, 100 people have put down $150,000 in deposits since ticket sales were reopened at $450,000 per seat.

According to the Company’s SEC filings, in the 3^rd quarter of 2021 Virgin Galactic reported revenues of $2.58 million, but reported no GRT payments (or deductions taken) to the State of New Mexico. RGF has also researched potential GRT payments by Virgin Galactic to the State of New Mexico and as seen no payments or accounting for those deductions.

“Lame duck” Albuquerque City Council is at it again. Fresh off a big giveaway to local labor unions, the “lame duck” progressives on city council are pushing a big subsidy for the University of New Mexico. Specifically, the subsidy is for redevelopment of property and the subsidy would be given to the university’s “redevelopment corporation.”

The vehicle for the subsidy is a “Tax Increment Development District,” or TIDD.

The deal works like this: Albuquerque diverts future property tax revenue increases from a defined area within the city toward the UNM improvement project. Because the subsidy is not appropriated directly from the city’s budget, the city will incur the immediate loss through forgone tax revenue. The funding is created by the borrowing against future increases in property-tax revenues. Long story short, it’s a bad idea: taxpayers and property owners all draw the short straw while UNM sees a major influx of cash.

Being considered is 2,491,300 square feet of building improvements–with $136,500,000 of $300,000,000 being tax-exempt and subsidized. This directly benefits UNM and its development arm at the expense of taxpayers throughout the city. Why is $136 million in “building improvements” being given to a tax-exempt university? Isn’t that the purpose of the bonds we already vote for?

The issue is being considered by vote of the city council on December 20th and I need you to write an email to Albuquerque City Council to urge their opposition to the deal. I’ve already drafted the email for you: all you need to do is click on the link and press send.

>> Click here to write an email to Albuquerque City Council. <<

Or you can write your own message using cabq@riograndefoundation.org. This email gets forwarded to all members of the city council.

A local activist has been working with the Rio Grande Foundation on this issue. He wrote an article in the Albuquerque Journal that identifies the major concerns with the proposal. I encourage you to read his piece here. (https://www.abqjournal.com/2442578/300m-for-tidd-is-public-finance-on-steroids.html)

Help us stop this “lame duck” Council from pushing through even more bad policy on its way out the door!

Last week saw the final runoff votes in Albuquerque’s City Council races. Wally and Paul discuss the results and the fact that another “lame duck” city council meeting on December 20 could result in a generous TIDD for UNM.

The special session is still going on in Santa Fe. What’s the status of those maps? Paul and Wally discuss. An issue regarding medical malpractice got added to the agenda. Wally and Paul discuss what is happening.

The full PRC has rejected the Avangrid/PNM merger on a 5-0 vote. Where to next?

A new Wallethub report highlights MLG’s ongoing failure on unemployment.

RGF files a formal complaint with the AG’s office regarding MLG’s travel to Scotland.

Covid cases really are declining now in New Mexico.

Polis: “The emergency is over.” 

MLG: Extends mask mandate to January 7. 

California re-imposes a universal indoor mask mandate. So does New York.

The ABQ Journal editorializes on vaccine mandate at Pit. While RGF does NOT support vaccine mandates, we DO question the double standard imposed by MLG regarding forced vaccination and boosters for UNM students and faculty, but no vaccine for basketball fans.

When the special redistricting session got going in Santa Fe RGF and others were fairly sure that no substantive policies would be changed during the session. The session would spend millions of dollars in federal recovery dollars and draw up the new lines and go home.

That all changed when a group of doctors spoke out regarding a bill (HB 75), sponsored in that session by trial attorney and left-wing Democrat Damon Ely, which passed the Legislature in the 2021 session.

After much negotiation during the session, HB 75 AS PASSED was a “compromise” that raised certain limit on “damages” under New Mexico’s Medical Malpractice laws.  This write up from the New Mexico Medical Society gives a pretty good explanation of the issues and compromises worked out (and who benefitted from the effort in the first place…that’s trial attorneys, one of the Democratic Party’s most powerful members). Rio Grande Foundation gave it a “-3” out of a potential score of “-8″ in our Freedom Index.

Fast forward to the special session and suddenly some doctors were threatening to leave New Mexico by the end of the year due to the impact of the bill on their businesses. So, during the special session a bill was introduced and passed that pushes off implementation of much of the bill for 18 months. That’s some good news, but the fundamental problem with the law remains. The legislation’s harm has only been postponed.

As we reported recently, New Mexico’s performance on employment since COVID 19 began has been terrible. A new Wallethub report further illustrates that fact. As the map below shows, New Mexico saw the 50th-most “recovery” in joblessness over the past week.

And as the image below shows, New Mexico’s increase in unemployment since the start of COVID in early 2020 has been worse than all other states beside Delaware and Rhode Island.

(Albuquerque, NM) – The Rio Grande Foundation has filed a complaint with New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas under New Mexico’s Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) alleging that Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has failed to disclose records relating to the governor’s attendance at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, Scotland.

In their official capacity, Governor Lujan Grisham and members of her administration attended the conference as representatives of New Mexico. The expenses incurred for travel, food, and lodging are subject to inspection by the public, whether the expenses were paid for with taxpayer funds or otherwise. If special interests funded this excursion, the public has a right to know.

The Foundation submitted a request for records on November 1, 2021 asking for all documents related to these costs. On November 16, 2021, the request was improperly denied. The request to inspect records was expanded and a revised request was submitted on November 18, 2021 and was wrongfully denied on November 23, 2021.

According to the Inspection of Public Records Act, “public records” means all documents, papers, letters, books, maps, tapes, photographs, recordings and other materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, that are used, created, received, maintained or held by or on behalf of any public body and relate to public business, whether or not the records are required by law to be created or maintained.

Patrick Brenner, Vice President of the Rio Grande Foundation, said “We requested all receipts and documents associated with the administration’s attendance at this international conference. Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has acknowledged that her attendance was in her official capacity as a representative of New Mexico. As such, the records related to transportation are subject to inspection, especially if they were paid for by a special interest or foreign entity. No disclosure of any in-kind contribution can be found in the latest campaign finance report. The administration’s continued devotion to anti-transparency is deeply disturbing and undermines the public trust.”

The Foundation maintains that the Office of the Governor has improperly and wrongly withheld documents that ought to have been made available for inspection by the public. We look forward to a swift response from the Attorney General.

The original complaint can be examined here: http://rgf.storytellersdigital.com/app/uploads/sites/2/2021/12/Combine-December-9-2021.pdf

This press release is available in PDF format here: https://errorsofenchantment.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Press-Release-Attorney-General-Complaint_-Gov-MLG-Travel.pdf

On this week’s interview, Paul talks to Dean Stansel, PhD. Dean is a professor at the Bridwell Institute for Economic Freedom at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. He is the lead author of the Economic Freedom of North America Report for 2021 which is published by the Fraser Institute, a free market think tank based in Canada.

Paul and Dean discuss the meaning of economic freedom and its various components and why economic freedom is a good thing. They also discuss which states and even Canadian provinces and Mexican states are the freest. Finally and most notably, Dean and Paul discuss the report’s findings and New Mexico’s backsliding on economic freedom under Gov. Lujan Grisham.

Prior to being reelected, Mayor Tim Keller claimed, “I’m 10 times the mayor going forward than I was when they elected me to take this job in the first place because of what I’ve learned and what we’ve been through.”

Unfortunately, it seems that the homeless and crime situations are “10 times” what they were when Keller took office. Now that the runoff election is in the books, we know that Keller will no longer have a “rubber stamp” council, but he also won’t have a veto-proof group ready to take him on, it will really be up to the Mayor to do “10 times better” than he did in his abysmal first term.

Also, the following photos were taken on and around 2nd Street south of Coal in an area that Keller (unwisely) had pushed for a stadium. Keller claims to be an “environmentalist” and yet the physical environment of parts of our city look like the very worst of the Third World. The photos below were taken on December 7, 2021.

n a last-ditch effort, ABQ City Council’s liberals push through a big union giveaway in the form of a Project Labor Agreement. Is it even legal?

Runoff elections are today. Perhaps if they go well the ordinance can be repealed?

The redistricting special Session kicks off in Santa Fe with mandatory vaccines, metal detectors at the doors, and no guns. Also, Sen. Jacob Candelaria is now an Independent, but the good news is that they are focused on drawing lines and not much else.

After a brief drop, NM’s COVID case count has suddenly jumped again. 

MLG unveils the details of her plans to increase gas prices in the January legislative session. 

NM’s budget is more dependent than ever on oil prices. Here’s the data on oil production which has skyrocketed in recent years. 

This news story about “homeless” will make your blood boil. What ARE we paying taxes for anyway? 

More info on learning loss during the pandemic. 

The latest film subsidy report shows (again) that subsidies are a dud.

Acting VERY quickly and at the behest of some of New Mexico’s most entrenched and powerful special interests (labor unions), the Albuquerque City Council passed its own Project Labor Agreement (PLA) law on Monday evening.

The bill was formally introduced after the election on November 15 and was not heard by a city council committee ahead of December 6 vote.

The bill passed 6-3 with the leftists and lame-duck councilors all voting “YES.” The bill was sponsored by outgoing councilors Borrego and Sena with Davis, Benton, Gibson, and Peña supporting.

Assuming Mayor Keller signs it, the legislation would require union labor be hired for public works projects if any part of them are paid for by the city. One study found that such agreements increase construction costs by 13 percent. Numerous other studies show that such agreements are unfair to the 92% of workers who are NOT union members and they jack up construction costs for no benefit.

There MAY be legal challenges due to the way it was passed without the usual procedures being followed, but the easiest way to overturn the law is for a 6-3 “conservative” majority to repeal it outright.

Yet another report makes it abundantly clear that locking kids out of classrooms during the Pandemic has had an incredibly detrimental impact on student outcomes.

As we’ve noted repeatedly, New Mexico students lost more classroom time than students in all but 5 other states last year. The new report which is discussed in this Politico article is based on Performance on the iReady test administered nationally by Curriculum Associates.

Quoting from the piece, scores “plummeted for all students compared to the last time it was given before the health crisis began. Nearly three million students took the test both times. But achievement among children who attend schools with large proportions of Black and Latino students suffered the most, the data shows.”

“In reading, declines were nearly twice as steep for students at majority Latino schools as they were for children at majority white schools.”

A study OAK NM reported on just last week ALSO highlighted learning loss thanks to the abandonment of in-person learning. 

Starting today and for the next two weeks (hopefully JUST two weeks), the New Mexico Legislature will be in a special session to redraw New Mexico’s political boundaries for all manner of public offices.

The good news is that the session MOSTLY will focus on the task at hand which is to draw those political lines as opposed to passing a bunch of extraneous legislative priorities.

The most notable districts to be drawn involve the Legislature and members of Congress. Speaker Egolf said he’d work to eliminate Rep. Yvette Herrell from Congress, but considering this is a partisan process and Democrats are in charge of it all, they’ll likely work to make sure that they hold on to power in Santa Fe as well.

Of course, New Mexico is a “blue” state. It has been for some time legislatively and in the last decade or so it’s Congressional representation has shifted to the Democrats as well.

But, as we just saw in Virginia, no party has a “lock” on voters. Republicans can win if they provide a solid alternative to 90 years of failed Democrat policies. It also helps that Gov. MLG and Joe Biden are not especially popular. In other words, draw the lines. It will be partisan. It always has been. It is time to convince New Mexicans to change their state. It CAN happen.

In addition to redistricting, the Legislature will have a chance to allocate money from the American Rescue Plan Act (the Biden “stimulus” bill) which a coalition of GOP and Democrat legislators won the right to distribute (as opposed to MLG acting alone).

There WAS a redistricting commission and here are some of the options they provided, but the Legislature and Gov. (controlled by Democrats) ultimately draw the maps.