Most of the attention on non-candidate measures on this fall’s ballot will be on the plan to tap one of New Mexico’s oil and gas-generated “permanent funds” to provide pre-K and other early childhood programs.
But, voters should be aware of and concerned over proposed Amendment 2 on their ballots.
If adopted, the Amendment would add (another) exception to the state’s anti-donation clause to authorize the Legislature to appropriate state funds for infrastructure that provides “essential services.” The amendment defines essential services as “infrastructure that allows internet, energy, water, wastewater or other services provided by law.”
The State already provides various subsidies for broadband and other “utilities,” but the anti-donation clause simply prohibits government paying to directly provide such services to people. In other words, if adopted, there is no limit on who taxpayer dollars could be handed over to and there is very little restricting what could be done with those dollars. For example, your tax money could be used to build a road or water line on private property, with the road and water line then owned by the property owner, not the state.
You can read additional pro/con arguments (on all three amendments) provided by the Legislature here. Here is an article from the Albuquerque Journal.
9 Replies to “This fall, New Mexico voters should watch out for Constitutional Amendment 2”
I’m sure the sheeple voters of NM will approve the amendment. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of bond issues and constitutional amendments that have been rejected by the voters of NM over the last 40 years.
Go to the “Ballotpedia Sample Ballot Tool” to see what your ballot will look like. Good tool. https://ballotpedia.org/Sample_Ballot_Lookup
I agree. Vote no on New Mexico amendments.
Spot on, Charles. It’s a done deal. It’s what moron “Joe sixpack” voters do here in NM. Same thing with “no increase in tax” bond amendments.
This issue should have been LOUD and CLEARLY addressed in the local “news” months ago. As always, IMPORTANT camouflaged amendments like this in this God forsaken state are NEVER exposed for what they are, and more specifically, WHO the moron(s) are who propose them. Then, after the fact, the very same whine and complain about the corruption.
Legalized corruption is rampant in New Mexico.
Your article is confusing. In one sentence you say “the anti-donation clause simply prohibits government paying to directly provide such services” and in the next sentence you claim “there is no limit on who taxpayer dollars could be handed over to”. These two statements are contradictory. Please clarify.
As currently written the anti-donation clause prohibits government paying private individuals or businesses for such services, but the Constitutional amendment would change that and allow the government to fund those items for private individuals/businesses.
They are proposing an “exception” to this law. I read it differently the first time. Your comment made me read it again.
No worries, thank you! Please spread the word!
Last I looked the oil and gas royalty rates have not even kept up with the rates in next door Texas. The money should not come from the permanent funds set aside for the future when the industry disappears.
There is a nation out there that only produces 2x what New Mexico produces yet, in their permanent fund holds over a trillion dollars. Go look what we have. Imagine if we had $500 billion instead of the pittance provided by the duopoly ruining this state.