Deal takes shape on slimmed-down tax package as session enters final hours
Lawmakers also signed off on bills authorizing New Mexico to fund brackish water projects and making it easier for independent voters to cast ballots in primary elections.
In between that action, a few representatives and senators met behind closed doors all day trying to come to an agreement over the tax package. Amid the deliberations, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham came down from her fourth-floor office to talk with legislative leadership.
The key sticking point between the House and Senate was whether a tax hike on oil production should be included in the tax package to offset the budgetary impact of a slew of expanded tax credits and new tax breaks. The surtax would've generated about $130 million for fiscal year 2026.
The Senate stood firm after stripping the oil surtax out of the package this week, prompting a showdown with the House, in which three members from each chamber met in an open conference committee Friday morning to try to figure out an agreement.
"I don't know if we have a path forward," said Rep. Derrick Lente, D-Sandia Pueblo, during a morning negotiating meeting between appointees from the two chambers.
The initial meeting of the conference committee resulted in stripping a disaster gaming tax exemption for the Ruidoso Downs Racetrack and Casino and reallocating money from a liquor excise tax increase to a tribal treatment fund.
But the biggest issue remained: how to pay for a projected $140 million per year in proposed tax credits and breaks.
Lente made it clear he didn't want any bills used as "sacrificial lambs" to pay for the tax package.
Unable to reach a deal on the oil tax provision, the committee adjourned and planned to meet again in the late afternoon.
But a legislative staffer, 10 minutes after the scheduled meeting time, announced it was postponed to an unknown time. The committee didn't meet again until 8:30 p.m., when members announced the compromise, which was then ratified by both the House and Senate.
If approved by the governor, most of the tax changes would not take effect until the 2027 budget year, which starts in July 2026. The liquor tax increase would still take effect in July.
The new pared-package removed about $30 million in previously proposed tax credits and breaks. What remained was a package giving an additional 101,000 New Mexicans personal income tax breaks, as well as tax credits and breaks for foster parents and health care practitioners.
"Yes, we have other ideas that we would like to fund. The beauty about this is we already have a head start to next year," said Sen. Carrie Hamblen, D-Las Cruces, of the now $113 million tax package stripped of its funding mechanism.
However, Rep. Mark Duncan, R-Kirtland, said he doesn't like the idea of allocating funding now for next year's session.
"I still think this is a bad way to do business," he said. "No one would budget like this in their homes."
Trying to beat the deadline
With the session set to end Saturday at noon, lawmakers spent most of the day on the House and Senate floors in a final push to pass legislation.
As of late Friday, more than 140 bills had passed both chambers to advance to Lujan Grisham's desk for final approval, out of the nearly 1,200 filed during this year's session.
However, the fate of some bills remained uncertain.
That included House Bill 149, which was overhauled on the Senate floor to include language backed by the governor dealing with individuals deemed to pose a threat to themselves or others.
Some senators criticized the legislative maneuver, but backers pushed back against suggestions it represented a back-room deal.
"This is the way the sausage is made," said Senate Republican floor leader William Sharer of Farmington.
However, it was unclear if the House would sign off on the Senate changes to the legislation after a bill containing similar language stalled earlier in the session in a House committee.
Meanwhile, the possibility of another conference committee was brewing as the House late Friday failed to agree with Senate changes to another bill, House Bill 167, which initially started as a two-page education tests payment bill but had its length more than tripled with new language on teacher preparation programs.
Voting, water bills win approval
Among the bills passed during the final push to adjournment were measures expanding the state's anti-racketeering laws and establishing a new Medicaid trust fund.
The House also narrowly approved a bill allowing independent voters to participate in primary elections without having to change their party affiliation.
The bill, Senate Bill 16, was approved on a 36-33 vote and could affect more than 330,000 independent voters in New Mexico if signed into law by the governor.
"We were all holding onto our seats, not knowing if it was going to happen," said Sila Avcil, executive director of the advocacy group New Mexico Open Elections.
The semi-open primary bill marked the only significant elections bill to pass during this year's 60-day session, and the vote on the bill did not break down along strict political lines.
Rep. John Block, R-Alamogordo, mulled over the possibility of strategic voting as a result of the measure, while Rep. Kathleen Cates, D-Rio Rancho, praised the measure as a way to increase voter turnout rates.
"This is about democracy and strengthening our democratic republic to involve more folks in the electoral process," said bill sponsor Rep. Cristina Parajón, D-Albuquerque.
On the other side of the Roundhouse, senators debated the proposed Strategic Water Supply Act, which would allow the state to grant awards or enter into contracts for brackish water treatment and reuse projects. The tide turned for the bill that's failed before and passed 33-6.
The legislation started this year on shakier ground due to its initial inclusion of produced water reuse, but legislators watered it down to give it a better shot at passing the Legislature. A gubernatorial signature is likely, as the bill is a priority of Lujan Grisham.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
29 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Why Trump continues to lie about the 2020 presidential election
The right results were given in 2020. Trump lost. But nearly five years later, whenever Trump speaks, the question isn't whether he'll find a way to switch the conversation to the 2020 election but when. Given his tendency to babble about inconsequential subjects, it's tempting to dismiss Trump's off-script ramblings. But don't overlook the method behind the madness here. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up From Trump's Advertisement That's what he's doing every time he repeats the Big Lie about 2020. He upholds it as an example of a dishonest election stolen from the people despite no evidence of widespread fraud in that presidential contest. Trump lost because American voters had enough of him. Advertisement The president's motives are clear. He needs Republicans to hold on to the House in 2026 because he knows that if Democrats regain control they'll start impeachment hearings against him as soon as possible. For all his big talk about big wins in his second term, Trump knows that voters, For years, Trump undermined election integrity. As the 2016 presidential contest entered its final weeks, he falsely claimed that the election was This was Trump's hedge against a possible defeat: He could only lose an election if it was rigged against him. Of course, all of his machinations after he lost in 2020 supercharged his baseless allegations, culminating in the deadly insurrection at the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, when he attempted to overthrow the outcome of the presidential election. But despite Trump's impeachment for incitement, he hasn't stopped promoting the antidemocratic lie that he was robbed and that election integrity must be restored, while he's doing everything to destroy it. That includes Trump's latest attempt to end mail-in voting by Advertisement Mail-in balloting garnered widespread use during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. According to a Trump remains unswayed. He Seven months into his Trump uses 2020 as a phony example of a crooked election. That's why he brings it up as often as possible and usually in places where he receives no pushback. But the voters he's targeting should also remember 2020 as the year when a historic number of people, despite a pandemic, cast their ballots and tossed this tyrant out of power. Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at
The Hill
29 minutes ago
- The Hill
California Republicans file suit to halt redistricting plan
California Republican legislators on Tuesday announced a state Supreme Court petition, an effort to stop Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) plan to redistrict House seats in the Golden State. 'Today I joined my colleagues in filing a lawsuit challenging the rushed redistricting process. California's Constitution requires bills to be in print for 30 days, but that safeguard was ignored. By bypassing this provision, Sacramento has effectively shut voters out of engaging in their own legislative process,' Assemblyman Tri Ta said on X. The petition cites a section of the state constitution that requires a month-long review period for new legislation. Democrats are working quickly to set up a special election that would let voters weigh in on the redistricting plan. Four state Republican legislators have signed on to the petition, according to a copy for a writ of mandate, shared by the New York Times. They're asking for immediate relief, no later than Aug. 20, and arguing that action can't be taken on the legislative package before Sep. 18. 'Last night, we filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to stop the California legislature from violating the rights of the people of California,' said Mike Columbo, a partner at Dhillon Law Group, in a Tuesday press conference alongside California Republicans. 'The California constitution clearly gives the people of California the right to see new legislation that the legislature is going to consider, and it gives them the right to review it for 30 days,' Columbo said. California Democrats swiftly introduced the redistricting legislative package when they reconvened after summer break on Monday, and are expected to vote as soon as Thursday. They have until Friday to complete the plan in time to set up a Nov. 4 special election. Columbo called that pace of action a 'flagrant violation' under the state constitution. Democrats are aiming to put a ballot measure before voters that would allow temporary redistricting, effectively bypassing the existing independent redistricting commission — which was approved by voters more than a decade ago and typically redistricts after each census — to redraw lines in direct response to GOP gerrymandering in other states. California Republicans have vowed to fight back. Democrats, on the other hand, are stressing that they're moving transparently to let voters have the final say on whether redistricting happens.
The Hill
29 minutes ago
- The Hill
Jeffries vows to call Kristi Noem to testify in long-overdue oversight push
When House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries promised that Kristi Noem would be one of the first called before Congress if Democrats take the majority in 2026, he wasn't just previewing political theater — he was signaling a long-overdue accountability moment. Because what we've seen under Noem's watch as Homeland Security secretary isn't just controversial policy, it's a collision between power and the Constitution. Listen, the government has every right to deport violent criminals. But what we're talking about here isn't that. These are families being ripped apart, U.S. citizen children deported to countries they've never known, and raids on churches, swap meets and sidewalks that read less like lawful arrests and more like kidnappings in broad daylight. Armed, masked agents storming neighborhoods — it looks less like 'law and order' and more like a scene from a dystopian movie. Except it's not fiction. It's happening here. And at the center of it is Secretary Noem, who, when asked to define 'habeas corpus' earlier this year — which, by the way, is a bedrock constitutional right — got it flat-out wrong. She described it as the president's power to deport people. That's not just a slip of the tongue; that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the very principle that protects all of us from government overreach. Habeas corpus is the right of a person to challenge their detention. Without it, the government could lock up anyone indefinitely. Even Abraham Lincoln had to go to Congress before suspending it during the Civil War. Yet somehow, Kristi Noem thinks she can redefine it on the fly. Meanwhile, lawsuits are piling up. The ACLU and others say these mass raids aren't about justice, they're about quotas. Three thousand arrests a day, demanded from the White House, no matter who gets caught in the dragnet. The result? Overcrowded, dungeon-like detention centers, families denied food, water and lawyers. That's not just cruel — it's unconstitutional. And it costs taxpayers millions to warehouse people who pose no threat to society. Jeffries is right: this calls for oversight. Not partisan point-scoring, but a public examination of what happens when immigration policy is driven by fear, politics and raw numbers instead of law, due process and human dignity. Because if the government can strip immigrants of rights today, what's to stop them from doing the same to citizens tomorrow? Kristi Noem may soon face Congress, but make no mistake — this is bigger than her. It's about whether America will continue to twist the meaning of justice until it serves whoever holds power, or whether we'll insist that justice, in this country, still means something. This isn't about Kristi Noem forgetting her civics lesson. It's about whether America still remembers its own.
