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
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Adams is polling last—here's what he has to say about it
NEW YORK - For weeks, polls have shown that New York City's Mayor Eric Adams isn't what the people want come November, at least so far. What we know A recent Siena poll of registered voters shows that Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani holds a strong lead in the race. Mamdani polls at 44%, while former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who is running as an independent after losing to Mamdani in the Democratic primary, trails at 25%. Republican Curtis Silwa stands at 12%, and Mayor Adams is at 7%. He's also running as an independent. These numbers are unusual considering the fact that in local elections, incumbency typically has positive effects. Big picture view Adams' poor numbers thus far can at least partially be attributed to his favorability ratings. Last year, the Department of Justice charged him with bribery, conspiracy and campaign finance crimes, which has contributed to a sense of distrust between the mayor and his constituents. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul even weighed removing him as mayor earlier this year. Although the case was dropped, his ratings have remained low. Adams appeared as a guest on this week's "Politics Unusual" program, where FOX 5 NY Political Reporter Morgan McKay asked him if he had any plans in the coming weeks to pump up his numbers. What they're saying "My breakout moment is when New Yorkers are going to say, 'I know this guy's record, and I know he's a working-class New Yorker,'" he said, referencing the fact that the city experienced the lowest number of shootings and murders in recorded history back in May as an example. "We're building our foundation, starting our communication," Adams said of a campaign that's already months in. Adams also admitted that he "made a lot of mistakes" during his first two years as mayor. "Yes, I made mistakes. Yes, I trusted people I should not have trusted. Yes, some people had jobs that they should not have had," he said. Additionally, Adams discussed the fact that his former staffer Mohamed Bahi pled guilty last week for his role in a scheme to funnel illegal donations to his campaign in order to get public matching funds—which are taxpayer dollars—and how that's affected his run for reelection as well. "Some people think they're helping the campaign," he said. "They do things that technically they should not have done. I think that they make mistakes, but at no time did we coordinate with anyone that told them to do something inappropriate." Mayor Adams' matching funds Dig deeper Earlier this month, the New York City Campaign Finance Board denied Adams' millions in public matching funds for the tenth time. The board said they denied his campaign for two reasons—the first being his campaign not having submitted the required paperwork, and the second being the fact that the board had reason to believe his campaign previously violated the law. "The board finds the campaign has provided incomplete and misleading information to the CFB and has impeded the CFB staff's ability to complete its investigation," Board Chair Frederick Schaffer said during a board meeting, referencing Adams' denial of funds. "With respect to the second ground, the board's conclusion is based upon its review of all of the available evidence, including, but not limited to, its own independent investigation." Without these funds, Adams' campaign will have an even harder time bouncing back. After all, matching funds incentivize candidates to seek broader support from individual donors instead of solely relying on larger contributions from wealthy donors and special interest groups. In the meantime, Adams isn't giving up. He told POLITICO that he plans to ride out the campaign to the very end to stop frontrunner Mamdani last week. "If there were people running for mayor that I believe would continue the progress of our city, that's an easy call," Adams said. "The people who are running — they are harmful to our city and the progress we've made. And I owe it to New Yorkers to get my story out to them and to run a campaign." The Source The information provided in the article above was sourced from the NYPD, previous FOX 5 NY reporting, the Siena Research Institute, the Justice Department, The New York Times, NPR, THE CITY, and POLITICO. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Fatal Brooklyn lounge shooting reignites NYC mayoral candidate clash over gun violence response
BROOKLYN, NY -- Zohran Mamdani told reporters on Sunday that the fatal shooting in New York City hours earlier was the latest example of the "scourge of gun violence" in the country's most populous city. New York Police Department Commissioner Jessica Tisch confirmed that there were 12 victims, including three fatalities, in a suspected gang-related shooting at the Taste of the City Lounge in the borough's Crown Heights section. During a canvass launch event in the Prospect Park neighborhood, Mamdani told reporters that the incident is "yet another example of the scourge of gun violence that has taken hold across so much of our city." The New York City Democratic mayoral nominee noted that just three weeks ago, the city experienced its deadliest mass shooting in 25 years when a gunman killed four people in Midtown Manhattan before taking his own life. Deadliest Nyc Shooting In Decades Takes Center Stage In Mayoral Race As Candidates Spar On Public Safety Mamdani called for investing "in the very kind of programs and services that have been proven effective at combating this epidemic" of gun violence, specifically scaling up what he referred to as New York's crisis management system. Read On The Fox News App Mamdani Dodges Responsibility For Threats To Nypd In First Presser Since Deadly Manhattan Shooting The mayoral hopeful said on Sunday that he is proposing 275% increased investment in the Department of Community Safety. Last month's Manhattan shooting propelled Mamdani's past comments, including those calling to defund the NYPD, to center stage in the race for Gracie Mansion. "My statements in 2020 were ones made amidst a frustration that many New Yorkers held at the murder of George Floyd," Mamdani responded last month when a reporter asked if he regretted any of his prior comments. Mamdani has since walked back his stance on defunding police, but his competitors, including former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, seized on such comments, telling CNN that Mamdani doesn't understand the "importance of NYPD." As details emerged on Sunday about the fatal shooting in Brooklyn, incumbent mayor Eric Adams, who is running as an independent, claimed his administration has driven down crime by removing illegal guns from the streets. "What I can tell you, we will continue our aggressive pursuit to remove these illegal guns off our streets. Every single victim of violence, particularly gun violence, is one too many," he said. In a statement on X, Cuomo called the incident "another horrific mass shooting." "My heart goes out to the victims and to their loved ones. Public safety is, and always has been, Job 1. This isn't the time to defund or dismantle the police. We need more officers, not less, to keep our communities safe," Cuomo said, in an apparent political jab at Mamdani and his past comments. Meanwhile, the Republican mayoral nominee, Curtis Sliwa, CEO of the Guardian Angels, said his "thoughts are with the victims and their families after this latest shooting." "Cuomo's pro-criminal laws created this mess, and Mamdani's radical agenda would only make it worse. The status quo has failed. I'm the only candidate with the courage to restore law and order in NYC," Sliwa said in a statement on X. Fox News' CB Cotton contributed to this report. Original article source: Fatal Brooklyn lounge shooting reignites NYC mayoral candidate clash over gun violence response
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
GOP relishes forcing Dem votes on extending Trump DC police power
Republicans are licking their chops at the prospect that Senate Democrats will vote to block an extension of President Trump's federalization of the Washington, D.C., police force, relishing a chance to tag their opponents as soft on crime. Democrats have been angry over Trump's move, which aligns with what they see as authoritarian impulses from the president. Democrats also widely back the Home Rule Act, which allows D.C.'s local government a form of self-rule. But voting against an extension will definitely lead to attacks by Trump and other Republicans that Democrats are looking away from the problem of crime in cities — which are generally led by Democratic mayors. 'I am slack-jawed at how Democrats are sprinting into another trap set by Trump. This is so clear and yet they can't help themselves,' said Matt Gorman, a GOP strategist. 'Democrats love to quote studies and charts and academics to tell people they're not feeling what they're feeling and Republicans are contrasting that with action, and action is going to win every time.' Democrats don't appear to be all that worried about walking into a trap by voting against extending Trump's power over the D.C. police. 'No f‑‑‑ing way,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in an interview Wednesday when asked about an extension. 'We'll fight him tooth and nail. … He needs to get Congress to approve it, and not only are we not going to approve it, but there are some Republicans who don't like it either,' Schumer said. Republicans would need at least seven Democrats in the Senate to go along with the vote for the power to be extended. Whether the measure to extend passes or fails, plenty of Republicans are eager for the vote, believing it will backfire on Democrats. But Democrats say there are a number of reasons the vote won't be that hard for their side. 'I don't think it's that hard of an issue — as long as you start by saying, 'Crime is bad and we need to do more to stop crime,'' said Andrew Mamo, a Democratic operative. 'The smart Democrats out there are establishing credibility by starting there and then getting into [how] this is the wrong way to do it,' Mamo said. 'We shouldn't have the National Guard randomly stopping people in the streets. We should be funding our police departments and doing all the investments we know we need to do to keep communities safe.' 'The trap is when you don't start by saying crime is bad, and you try to say, 'Actually, there's no problems here. Actually, people aren't worried,' and you do the same kind of explain-y stuff we failed out on the economy last cycle,' Mamo continued. 'Then you can tie yourself into knots. But it shouldn't be that hard for any Democrat to just say, 'Crime is bad and we need to do more to stop crime.'' Others say most voters just aren't that focused on votes pertaining to local issues in Washington, D.C. 'Most Americans across the country do not feel any connection to the nation's capital — most will never visit, and many don't remember that beyond being the seat of government, more than a half-million citizens call the District home,' said John LaBombard, a Democratic operative at Rokk Solutions and an ex-aide to former Sens. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.). 'That dynamic prevents many everyday Americans from getting worked up about a federal takeover of policing in D.C. — but will probably also help shield lawmakers from criticism who vote against extended federal control.' Polling suggests a large swath of D.C. residents — an overwhelmingly Democratic area — believe crime is an extremely or very serious problem. According to a Washington Post-Schar School poll taken in May, 50 percent of respondents viewed crime as an extremely or very serious problem, down from 65 percent who did so two years ago when homicides and violent crimes were at their recent apex. 'Anyone who thinks crime isn't a problem in D.C. is burying their head in the sand and suffers from serious Trump derangement syndrome,' said Jesse Hunt, a GOP operative who previously served as communications director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. 'The major problem that Democrats have is that … the crime, the carjackings, the muggings, the threats of violence, the assaults — while maybe not murder — is still spilling into professional areas. Lets be real, no one wants to pay an arm and a leg to go to Nats Park to watch a game when they're concerned or not themselves and their children are going to be the victims of stray bullets at some metro stop nearby.' Schumer has argued that Trump's push to take over policing in Washington, D.C., is intended to distract from calls to release files related to Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier who died awaiting federal trial on sex trafficking charges. 'This is, again, just a distraction. He's afraid of Epstein,' Schumer continued. 'He's afraid of all that, and we are not going to give up on Epstein.' The issue of crime in D.C. has been a problem for Democrats in the past. Former President Biden two years ago blocked a crime bill the D.C. City Council was attempting to codify, citing concerns that it would scrap some mandatory minimum sentences, among other things. It led to criticisms that Biden was stepping on D.C. home rule. Trump on Wednesday said that he is seeking a 'long-term extension' of the federalization of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). He also argued that he can extend that time span via a national emergency declaration. 'But we expect to be before Congress very quickly. And again, we think the Democrats will not do anything to stop crime, but we think the Republicans will do it almost unanimously,' Trump told reporters at the Kennedy Center. 'So we're going to need a crime bill. That we're going to be putting in, and it's going to pertain initially to D.C. We're going to use it as a very positive example' 'You can't have 30 days,' he said. 'We're going to do this very quickly, but we're going to want extensions. I don't want to call a national emergency, but if I have to, I will.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
