HOUSE EXECUTIVE MESSAGE NO. 38
The Honorable Ben Lujan and
Members of the House of Representatives
Honorable Speaker and Members of the House:
I have this day SIGNED HOUSE BILL 1, with emergency clause, enacted by the Forty-Fifth Legislature, Second Session, 2002, but pursuant to Article IV, Section 22 of the New Mexico Constitution, I have vetoed the following item or items, part or parts:
On
Page 8, Line 13 through Line 17, all of Section 10 in its entirety. This provision of House Bill 1 appropriates
$750,000 from legislative cash balances to pay for expenses relating to
litigation over the redistricting of
I have said repeatedly that
redistricting should have been resolved by the Legislature, not the courts, and
therefore I am generally opposed to using taxpayer dollars, especially in this
lean budget year, to pay for the redistricting court battles. Prior to this appropriation, I did not intend
to seek money for the outside attorney who assisted my
general counsel in defending me in the redistricting litigation. However, it is my position that if the
Legislature receives additional money on top of the $1.2 million already
appropriated for their attorneys, fairness dictates
that some of that money should be applied to the attorney who assisted my
office. Thus, I was willing to consider
signing this additional appropriation to pay for the Legislature's attorneys
and expert witnesses if the Legislature was willing to provide my outside
counsel with at least some of this appropriation.
In this discussion it is also important to note the roles
of the attorneys in this litigation. The
Legislature’s lawyers and paid expert witnesses spent more resources defending
the actions of the Legislature than my office spent defending my position
vetoing the Legislature's redistricting plans they knew I could not
accept. Let's compare: the Legislature employed four full-time
attorneys in the case. I used two, one being my in-house general
counsel. The Legislature hired three high-priced expert witnesses.
I used one. Most importantly, my desire not to split
While I have said a lot about the
appropriation for lawyers, it is not the only part of House Bill 1 that
deserves comment. First, the appropriation
for operational session expenses is flat compared to the same appropriation for
the 2000 regular thirty-day legislative session. In fact, it is my understanding that the
Senate has actually reduced the number of staff they are using for the operation
of the session. In this area, the
Legislature should be commended for applying the same principles to themselves
that we all must follow in these lean budget times.
Finally, the Legislature has once
again given itself complete budget adjustment authority; in other words, the
ability to freely transfer money between accounts within agencies. The Legislature has always given itself the
ability to freely move money between agency accounts unlike any other state
agency or branch of government. [don’t understand this last clause].
I have in the past expressed concerns with respect to this issue. In fact, I have vetoed this language
before. I still believe that
legislative, executive and judicial agencies should be on equal footing
especially in the area of transferring money between agency accounts for
operational purposes. However, I trust
that the cooperation shown by the Legislature to this point will continue and
all agencies in government will be provided this same budget transfer authority
in the General Appropriations Act.
Sincerely,
Gary E. Johnson
Governor
RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR:
Time: _____________________ By:_________________________
Secretary of State
Date: ______________________
Time:______________________ By:__________________________
Chief Clerk of the House
Date:______________________ hem038hb001
Picraux