Green amendment gets grilled, but moves forward
A proposed so-called 'Green Amendment' to enshrine a right to 'clean and healthy air, water, soil and environment' in the New Mexico Constitution moved through its first committee Monday, but not without bipartisan questioning signaling a possible uphill battle.
The committee voted 6-3 along party lines to approve the bill, but as a 'no recommendation' vote, which means the committee will neither endorse nor oppose the bill, which heads to the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
House Joint Resolution 3, sponsored by Sen. Antoinette Sedillo Lopez (D-Albuquerque) and Democratic Reps. Joanne Ferrary of Las Cruces, Patricia Roybal Caballero of Albuquerque and Farmington's Joseph Franklin Hernadez, if passed, would place a constitutional amendment on the next general election ballot. HJR3 would allow New Mexico voters, in turn, to adopt additional language for the state's constitution and add rights to 'to clean and healthy air, water, soil and environments; healthy native flora, fauna and ecosystems; a safe climate; and the preservation of the natural, cultural, scenic and healthful qualities of the environment.'
Maya van Rossum, an environmental lawyer and author who has pressed for green amendments in other states, as well as in New Mexico previously, said the amendment would put environmental rights on 'equal footing' with civil rights and property rights.
With the federal government poised to roll back environmental standards, HJR3, if passed by the Legislature and then adopted by voters, would provide the state more control, said Cliff Villa, a University of New Mexico environmental law professor and senior climate policy advisor.
'The New Mexico Green Amendment does not depend on the federal government to protect our health and environment,' Villa told the committee, ' it allows New Mexicans to protect New Mexicans and exercise existing authorities across our state government.'
Public comment supporting the bill came from representatives in environmental nonprofits, church groups, teachers and Democratic party members from across the state.
As in years past, critics expressed concern that a Green Amendment could thwart developments, and put the state at risk for increased financial liability from litigation. Opposition speaking on Monday included lobbyists for the New Mexico Chamber of Commerce and realtor groups, the Cattle Growers Association – which often oppose environmental bills – as well as several clean energy companies.
Both Pattern Energy, a wind, solar and transmission construction company – which is constructing the controversial SunZia transmission line – and Interwest Energy Alliance, which promotes wind and solar in the intermountain west, spoke against the bill, saying the groups are concerned the amendment could be used to block development of renewable energy projects.
'The language in the proposal is so broad, neither government-decision makers nor private developers can accurately guess what it requires, leading to incredible inefficiencies, uncertainty and legal risk in the context of renewable energy development,' said Deborah Condit, a lobbyist for Interwest Energy Alliance.
The advocates tried to counter concerns about renewable energy projects, noting that nuisance laws, not green amendments, had been used in some of the examples critics cited.
'We have to acknowledge that clean energy projects are already being challenged under a wide variety of theories,' van Rossum told the committee. 'But with the passage of HJR3, as long as government fulfills their duty to fully assess and minimize environmental impacts, government and proponents of clean energy projects would be better prepared to avoid and defend against community concerns.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Lawmakers asked about the potential for higher liability costs or increases in lawsuits against state or local governments should the constitutional amendment be adopted.
Sedillo Lopez countered by saying the amendment 'is not a way for people to get monetary damages, it's a way for people to ensure that the state of New Mexico protects our air, land and water.'
Rep. Cynthia Borrego (D-Albuquerque) voted to pass the bill, but said there may need to be further amending to assuage renewable energy industry concerns.
'I think there are significant questions in my mind still regarding local agencies, state agencies, and the questions they've raised,' she told the sponsors. 'I think those questions need to be answered, and hopefully will be, in the next committee.'
A similar version of the amendment has been introduced for the past five years, but has never made it beyond committees on either side of the Roundhouse. If passed by New Mexico voters, the state would join Montana, New York and Pennsylvania as the fourth to have a Green Amendment.
Debate and comments over the bill stretched the hearing to the full two hours, meaning the rest of the committee's agenda – which included expanding felony voting rights and installing a climate health program – got bumped to Wednesday's meeting.
With a slew of bills assigned to the remaining agendas, the committee's chair, Rep. D. Wonda Johnson (D-Rehoboth) warned the committee may have to meet over the weekend.
van Rossum, in a call with Source NM Monday, said she was satisfied with the committee outcome, given that the ultimate goal is to place the proposal before voters.
She also said that the Green Amendment has not been used to stop any clean energy projects, calling statements otherwise a 'scare tactic.'
'Really what's happening here is there really is a misrepresentation of what are the impacts or the implications of the New Mexico Green Amendment, particularly we hear a lot about advancing clean energy,' she said. 'It's really a line of misinformation that's being used to…dissuade people from being in support based on false claims.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
18 minutes ago
- Axios
"I hate it": Redistricting arms race gives lawmakers heartburn
House members are watching with growing discomfort as Democrats in California and other blue states consider joining Texas Republicans in pursuing mid-decade redistricting to gain an advantage in the 2026 midterms. Why it matters: It threatens, as one Democratic lawmaker put it, a "race to the bottom" that will encourage both sides to test the limits of gerrymandering and further fan the partisan flames engulfing the country. But with President Trump bearing down on Texas Republicans to change their maps and California Democrats wanting to respond in political self-defense, members of both parties feel they have little choice. Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) told Axios of his state's possible redistricting: "How I feel is terribly conflicted. I hate it. I really worry about a race to the bottom on something that I consider pretty despicable." "But I understand why the governor and others are considering it. The only reason it would even be possible is what Texas and others are doing just stinks so badly that it's pissing people in California off." State of play: Texas Republicans began a special session Monday, which Gov. Greg Abbott said would include an attempt to redraw the state's U.S. House districts. Redistricting is normally only done after the decennial census — most recently in 2020 — or in response to a court order. However, Trump has put pressure on Republicans to undertake the unusual effort in the hopes of creating as many as five new GOP-leaning seats. Republicans in Ohio are also looking to redraw districts to try to unseat several Democrats. In response, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, has threatened to try to revisit his state's districts to create more Democratic-leaning seats. What we're hearing: Democrats may not stop at California, and are eyeing other blue states, including New York, New Jersey, Minnesota and Washington, senior House Democrats told Axios. Democrats are "definitely looking into what's going on and trying to level the playing field," said one House Democrat. "It's crazy what's happening in Texas." House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told reporters Thursday: "It's all options on the table at this moment." Even though California has a constitutionally mandated independent redistricting commission, several House Democrats from the state told Axios they are confident Newsom could find a legal pathway. What they're saying: While lawmakers have largely stuck by their parties' plans as a necessary evil in an increasingly existential political environment, others expressed trepidation at the escalating brinksmanship. "We're only supposed to be redistricting every 10 years," said Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.). "At some point, the partisanship gets too much. ... I just think it goes too far." A House Democrat from California, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told Axios: "It's a difficult conversation, because we're literally doing it to gerrymander — everything that we stood against, and the reason we created the independent redistricting commission." "If we do it," the lawmaker added, "let's be very upfront and transparent about it. Don't leave it to an independent commission. Everybody knows what we're doing." Yes, but: Other relative moderates in both parties said they are more than comfortable with mid-decade redistricting, pointing to the other side's actions as justification. "It's not only Texas," Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas), whose own seat could be threatened by the redistricting plan, said, noting Newsom's comments. Gonzales added that Trump is a "political genius" and that "if we can pull off squeezing five more seats out of Texas, that's a game changer." Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) said if Republicans are "going to stoop to midterm redistricting to politically advantage the party, I think it's certainly something that should be on the table." The bottom line: Even Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), an arch-centrist who represents the reddest district of any House Democrat, declined to condemn potential redistricting in California — but he did warn Republicans against what is known as a dummymander.
Axios
18 minutes ago
- Axios
Senate Democrats face crossroads in anti-Trump strategy
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) will consult with his caucus Tuesday before deciding whether Democrats will go scorched earth against their Republican colleagues during this year's appropriations process. Why it matters: Top Democrats have hinted the party may not play ball with the GOP on the funding proceedings, risking a government shutdown at the end of September. It would be a defiant act of revenge for a minority party that's seething with anger over everything from reconciliation to rescissions. But Democrats have been reluctant to play the shutdown card in the past — and many are on record saying it's irresponsible. Zoom out: This week will present an early test case for this fall's appropriations showdown. GOP leaders plan to bring the MilCon-VA funding bill to the floor for a vote. They'll need Democratic support to move forward and at least seven Democratic votes to break a filibuster. The bill passed committee 26-3, and Schumer said Monday it has "significant reversals to DOGE's horrible cuts." The Senate version of the bill is a higher spending level than the House version, a plus for Democrats. It's possible Democrats support a procedural vote for the measure, under the pretense they aren't guaranteed to support its passage or further appropriations bills. Zoom in: Schumer didn't tip his hand during a speech on the Senate floor Monday. Instead, he unloaded on Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and Republicans as being "obedient" to President Trump. "If Leader Thune wants to talk about bipartisanship, he should focus on keeping his side of the street clean first," Schumer said. Schumer last week warned Thune against pursuing additional rescission packages, saying the GOP would be risking a government shutdown. What we're hearing: Clear hints from the White House — and outright promises from House leadership — that they are planning more rescissions are further inflaming Senate Democrats. Trump's Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought raised the temperature last week when he suggested the government funding process should be "less bipartisan." Democrats were outraged by those comments and the attitude behind them — and they put their GOP colleagues on notice. "My Republican colleagues should understand that Russ Vought does not respect their constitutional power over federal spending," Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said last week. The bottom line: Democrats are angry with how Trump and Thune have rolled them all year.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
James Carville rips Dems as a ‘cracked-out clown car' while warning of a ‘civilized civil war'
Democratic strategist James Carville ripped Democrats for their lack of unity and warned that the party is 'steamrolling toward a civilized civil war' in a new essay. 'Constipated. Leaderless. Confused. A cracked-out clown car. Divided,' Carville wrote in a Monday guest essay published in The New York Times. 'These are the words I hear my fellow Democrats using to describe our party as of late. The truth is they're not wrong: The Democratic Party is in shambles.' Carville said that New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani's win in the city's primary 'represents an undeniable fissure in our political soul.' He pointed to Mamdani's economic policies, which include government-run grocery stores and plans to tax the top 1% of New Yorkers, admitting that he is concerned that they will actually be able to be executed. 3 'Constipated. Leaderless. Confused. A cracked-out clown car. Divided,' Carville wrote in a guest essay published in The New York Times. Getty Images 'We are divided along generational lines: Candidates like Mr. Mamdani are impatient for an economic future that folks my age are skeptical can actually be delivered,' Carville said. 'We are divided along ideological lines,' he added. 'A party that is historically allegiant to the state of Israel is at odds with a growing faction that will not look past the abuses in Palestine. From Medicare for All purists to Affordable Care Act reformists, the list goes on and on.' 3 Carville said that Zohran Mamdani's win in the city's primary 'represents an undeniable fissure in our political soul.' Paul Martinka for NY Post He said that Democrats must 'demand' a repeal of President Donald Trump's cuts to Medicaid in the 47th president's 'big, beautiful bill.' The legislation requires able-bodied adults without children to work 80 hours a month, amounting to 20 hours each week, in order to receive Medicaid benefits. 3 'We are divided along generational lines: Candidates like Mr. Mamdani are impatient for an economic future that folks my age are skeptical can actually be delivered,' Carville said. Stephen Yang He also said that Democrats must 'demand a repeal to end the endless wars, because the bill boosts military spending to $1 trillion for the very first time,' as well as help students who are losing loan protections and may no longer be eligible for Pell Grants. Democrats must also 'demand a repeal' of the cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Carville said. 'We've never had a simpler, more unifying oppositional message,' Carville said. 'Soon it will no longer be possible to avoid a brawl between the factions ignited back in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary. But for now, whether you're the progressive Mr. Mamdani, the centrist former Rep. Abigail Spanberger running for the Virginia governorship or even Elon Musk, we can all agree on one thing: We demand a repeal. Onward to the midterms.'
