Another Prostitution Bill Passes House

The House just passed, unanimously another bill aimed at stopping the promotion of prostitution in New Mexico.

This was Rep. Tim Lewis' House Bill 295, which would add prostitution websites and online forums as places that promote prostitution.

Everyone knows it's Wendy.
(Breaking Bad fans will get it.)

This was sparked by a high-profile case involving a former president of The University of New Mexico.

F. Chris Garcia, a political science professor, was arrested in 2011 and accused of helping to run a website called Southwest Companions, which promoted prostitution.

But last year, a state district judge ruled that the website did not constitute a “house of prostitution.” Whitaker also said the website wasn’t a “place where prostitution is practiced, encouraged or allowed.”

That decision prompted Gov. Susana Martinez to call for legislators to update New Mexico’s prostitution laws to include websites.

Will 2013 be remembered as "The Year of the Pimp?" in the Legislature?

As I wrote about in today's New Mexican, this is one of several prostitution bills being heard in the Legislature this year.

I'm still not sure why this is such a hot topic in the Roundhouse this year. But these bills seem to be flying through.

Skandera Hearing Likely to Take Two Days

Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez just dropped by the news room and told reporters that tomorrow's Rules Committee hearing on Education Secretary designate Hanna Skandera likely won't be over until Saturday.

This sounds like the biggest public grilling this side of the world's largest free barbecue in Dalhart, Texas. (But likely not as tasty.)

Whether the committee gives Skandera's nomination a do-pass or do-not-pass, the full Senate would have the final vote.

Unless ...

Sanchez, answering reporters' questions, said there's one scenario in which Skandera's nomination would not go to the Senate floor. That's if there is a tie vote. In that case, just like a tie vote on a bill, the nomination would stay in the Rules Committee.

But even if that happens, Skandera would stay on as "secretary designate" with full pay.

Stay tuned.

Skandera to Get Confirmation Hearing

Two years after Gov. Susana Martinez nominated her for secretary of the state Public Education Department, the Senate Rules Committee has scheduled a confirmation hearing for Hanna Skandera.

The committee never scheduled a hearing for Skandera during the 2011 or 2012 sessions -- or anytime between sessions as the committee has done for some nominees.

Rules Committee Chairwoman Linda Lopez sent a letter to Skandera today informing her of the hearing.

Skandera has been acting as secretary and being paid the same as a full-fledged cabinet secretary since early 2011.

My favorite line in the letter is, "Congratulations on your appointment and the committee looks forward to welcoming you on Friday."

The hearing is scheduled for 8:30 a.m. Friday.

Gov. Johnson Signs Legal Brief Supporting Marriage Equality

Former Gov. Gary Johnson's name is among the 80-plus prominent Republicans who have signed a  legal brief to be submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a high-profile same-sex marriage case.

The list of Republicans on that list includes several ex-governors, including Jon Huntsman of Utah, Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey and William Weld, Paul Cellucci  and Jane Swift, all of Massachusetts.

There also are several former members of President George W. Bush's administration and campaigns, former GOP National Chairman Ken Mehlman, President Reagan's Office of Management and Budget director David Stockman, a couple of members of Congress and dozens more.

One technical matter though. Unless he's changed his registration since November, Johnson isn't a Republican anymore. I saw him with my own eyes change his registration from Republican to Libertarian, his first step in becoming the Libertarian Party's 2012 presidential nominee.

The Supreme Court intends to hear a suit next month that seeks to reverse the 2008 California ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage. The high court also plans to hear a case seeking to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Slate has the entire list of dignitaries who signed on to the brief.

Marijuana Day at the Roundhouse?

UPDATED BELOW

Marijuana Day? Well, not really.

However, the New Mexico Drug Policy Alliance at 11:15 a.m. today will present the results of a poll they say reflects that New Mexicans are “shifting their views on drug policy reform.”

I haven't seen the poll yet, and I don't even know which polling organization did it.

But I've got to add a big word of caution here: Results from polls commissioned by an organization -- be it a political campaign or an advocacy group -- tend to say what the organization wants. Not accusing anyone of dishonesty here, it's just a fact of life.

And if you don't believe me, ask U.S. Sen. Heather Wilson.

That being said, it's not a big stretch to think that public attitudes towards marijuana are shifting toward liberalizing the laws. New Mexico has had its medical marijuana law for years and none of the horror stories envisioned by the opponents came true. And of course there's our neighbor to the north, Colorado, where voters just last November said to legalize it.

The news conference is scheduled in Room 318 of the Capitol.

There are two major pieces of marijuana reform legislation in this session. House Bill 465, sponsored by Rep. Emily Kane, D-Albuquerque -- , which would reduce criminal penalties for marijuana possession -- is on the agenda of The House Consumer & Public Affairs Committee today. (I wrote about that a few weeks ago. Read it HERE.)

Warning, though. That committee doesn't meet until after the House floor session, so that could run late.

The other piece of marijuana legislation is Senate Joint Memorial 31, sponsored by Sen. Jerry Ortiz y Pino, D-Albuquerque. This memorial asks the state to study the fiscal effects of legalizing marijuana in the state.

SJM 31 was on the Senate Rules Committee's agenda yesterday, but it did't get heard. Maybe tomorrow.

UPDATE: 11:47 am:  I have some information on the poll, which was performed by Brian Sanderoff's Research & Polling, Inc. (a legit outfit) and commissioned by the Drug Policy Alliance.

According to the executive summary, 57 percent of New Mexico voters polled favor reducing penalties for adult possession of marijuana to a civil penalty with small fines and no jail time (much like Rep. Kane's bill would do).

A slightly smaller number, 52 percent say they would support legalizing marijuana for adults so it could be taxed and regulated.

Nearly 40 percent said their legislator's position on the issue would not be likely to make a difference in how they vote. 31 percent said they'd be more likely to vote for a legislator who voted to reduce penalties for marijuana possession.

The firm polled 514 voters. The margin of error is 4.4 percent.

UPDATE: 1:40 pm Embedded below is the poll, with crosstabs.

2013 Drug Policy Alliance re: Marijuana Law Reform by

More in tomorrow's New Mexican.

ROUNDHOUSE ROUNDUP: Dog Days at the Roundhouse

A version of this was published in The Santa Fe New Mexican 
Feb. 24, 2013


The New Mexico Legislature is going to the dogs.

Shockingly, the budget bill so far contains
no funds to beef up regulation of dog poker.

Also, lawmakers are moving several bills through dealing with those of the canine persuasion. And some might even argue that the Legislature is being kinder to dogs than most other interest groups in the Roundhouse.

The Senate early this month unanimously passed Senate Bill 139, sponsored by Sen. Mark Moores, R-Albuquerque. Under this bill, K-9s — police dogs or dogs used by corrections officers — would be offered for free to their trainers or handlers when the animals retire from service.

Moores said in a news release that if the trainers or handlers don’t take the dogs, the animals would then be offered to a nonprofit organization, “if they are not a threat to public safety.”

“Currently, these dogs are treated like all other state-owned property, ” Moores said. “They are auctioned off or destroyed like an old computer or rundown vehicle.”

Moores told the Senate that many of the dogs have been trained as drug-sniffing dogs, and he doesn’t want them auctioned off to drug dealers.

Maybe I’m missing something here. Why would a drug dealer want a drug-sniffing dog around his house. To help him find misplaced dope? But I’ve known enough cops who have trained and worked with K-9s and I know what a strong bond there is between them. So I can’t see how this bill would be a bad thing.

Speaking of police dogs, there are a couple of bills that would allow local law enforcement agencies to use funds from the Law Enforcement Protection Fund to buy protective vests for K-9s. The bill doesn’t earmark any extra money for doing this.

Normally I hate it when I see a self-respecting dog wearing a sweater or some other kind of weird clothes. But this is different.

The Senate last week unanimously passed SB 141, sponsored by Sen. Howie Morales, D-Silver City. A similar bill, House Bill 152, sponsored by Rep. Don Tripp, R-Socorro, got through its first committee and now is in the House Appropriations Committee.

House members also seemed to like this Dog.

Then there’s SB 320, sponsored by Sen. Nancy Rodriquez, D-Santa Fe, under which a person with a disability who uses a qualified service dog would have to be admitted to public buildings and public accommodations if the critter is under control. A disabled person would not be required to pay additional charges for the animal, but could be liable for damage done by the dog if a non-disabled person would be so liable.

Rodriquez’s bill would make it illegal to intentionally interfere with the use of a qualified service animal, unless there was a good reason for doing so. It also would be a misdemeanor to try to pass off an unqualified dog as a service animal.

That bill made it with no dissenting vote through the Senate Public Affairs Committee.

None of these dog bills have been controversial. However, HB 63, sponsored by Rep. Yvette Herrell, R-Alamogordo, as originally written, would prohibit all local governments from adopting ordinances to regulate dogs in a “breed-specific way.” The purpose was to stop cities from adopting bans on pit bull terriers.

(Full disclosure: My daughter and her husband are proud owners of a pit bull. Omar is a little rambunctious, but he’s real sweet to my toddler grandson.)

The bill -- which has its own website -- passed the House last week with bipartisan support on a 48-14 vote. But before it got to the House floor, the House Judiciary Committee stuck on an amendment that would exempt home-rule cities from the law. Home-rule cities include the larger cities in the state, including Santa Fe.

Herrell told Capitol Report New Mexico that Sen. Peter Wirth, D-Santa Fe, will carry the bill in the Senate.

Wirth is a veteran of pooch legislation. A couple of years ago, he convinced the Legislature to pass a bill allowing restaurants to allow dogs in outdoor areas.

All in all, this year, if you say the state Legislature treated you like a dog, that means they treated you pretty good.

Committee Tables Marriage Equality Amendment

A House Committee voted Thursday to effectively kill a proposed constitutional amendment to make same-sex marriage a constitutional right.

The House Voters & Elections Committee voted 7-4 to table House Joint Resolution 3 sponsored by Rep. Brian Egolf, D-Santa Fe.

All Republican members of the committee were joined by Democrats Debbie Rodella of Espanola and Mary Helen Garcia of Las Cruces to table the legislation.

Immediately before the vote, Egolf's voice was full of emotion when he said, "If this doesn't go forward, it's an extraordinary shame that people have to come here to ask for permission under the law to be treated equally.

Among the supporters for the measure was House Speaker Kenny Martinez, D-Grants, who compared the issue to interracial marriage, which was illegal in many Southern states before the 1967 Loving vs. Virginia case in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared such laws to be unconstitutional. Martinez noted that many of the arguments against interracial marriage at the time were based in religion.

That also was the case with the arguments against Egolf's proposed amendment. Many of those who testified against HJM 3 were clergy. One opponent told the committee, "Rome burned while men lusted over one another. ... Sodom and Gomorrah were ripped from the face of the Earth while men lusted over men. ... Can we expect (God) to bless America if we sanction this experiment? "

Had the resolution passed the Legislature, there would have been a proposed constitutional amendment on the state's general election ballot in November 2014.

More in tomorrow's New Mexican.