Bills, constitutional amendments addressing regent appointments and training move forward
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez (right) and Rep. Javier Martínez (left) discuss legal against Western New Mexico University Board of Regents and outgoing President Joseph Shepard during a news conference Jan. 9, 2025.
The Senate Education Committee unanimously advanced a proposal to overhaul oversight of university boards of regents in New Mexico Wednesday.
Co-sponsor Rep. Nathan Small (D-Las Cruces) presented House Joint Resolution 12 to members of the House Education Committee, who passed it unanimously. The resolution, supported by Attorney General Raúl Torrez, would ask voters to approve a constitutional amendment that codifies regents' fiduciary duties; moves proceedings for removing regents from the state Supreme Court to district courts; and allows the attorney general or a majority of the board to initiate removal of a regent.
HJR 12 now heads to the House Government, Elections and Indian Affairs Committee.
The resolution is one of four bills and resolutions introduced thus far addressing the role of regents, how they are chosen and how they are prepared for serving in their roles. The legislation follows Western New Mexico University board of regents' authorization of a $1.9 million payout to outgoing university president Joseph Shepard, who is accused of wasteful spending and improper use of university funds. Several regents resigned in the aftermath.
Senate Joint Resolution 7, co-sponsored by Sens. Jeff Steinborn (D-Las Cruces) and Harold Pope (D-Albuquerque), proposes an amendment to the New Mexico Constitution requiring the governor to select a regent for nomination from a list provided by a nominating committee for each university or community college.
SJR 7 was passed unanimously through the Senate Rules Committee Friday, Feb. 7. Steinborn told Source that he thinks SJR 7 is the most important of his two regents bills because it gets to the crux of who is appointed to make decisions at universities and how. He said he has been working on this initiative for many years.
'Since my very first session, when I saw just how politicized these regent positions really were,' Steinborn said. 'I felt like we needed a better system – of taking these jobs really seriously, to make it based on merit, of who actually had the most to offer our universities.'
Senate Bill 19, also sponsored by Steinborn, also passed through the Senate Rules Committee Friday with a unanimous vote and now heads to the Senate floor.
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
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Back to the Supreme Court: Alabama plans 3rd appeal in congressional redistricting suit
Rep. Napoleon Bracy, D-Prichard (left, at podium), speaks to Rep. Chris Pringle, R-Mobile during a special session on redistricting on Friday, July 21, 2023 in Montgomery, Alabama. (Stew Milne for Alabama Reflector) The Alabama Attorney General's Office plans to go to the U.S. Supreme Court a third time in an ongoing lawsuit over Alabama's congressional districts. The office filed notice of an intent to appeal Friday. Late on Monday, the office and plaintiffs who successfully challenged a 2021 state congressional map said in a court filing they had failed to reach an agreement in the ongoing lawsuit. While the state has indicated it will stick with a court-drawn congressional map that includes two districts with majority or near-majority populations of Black voters, the state and the plaintiffs disagreed on whether the court should oversee any future problems or challenges related to congressional redistricting after the 2030 Census. 'What we've always requested with respect to preclearance is that Alabama be put under preclearance for congressional maps through the post-2030 redistricting cycle, and that's to confirm that there's no backsliding after 2030 with any new district lines that get drawn,' said Deuel Ross, an attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund representing the plaintiffs, in a phone interview Tuesday. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX A three-judge panel in the U.S. Northern District of Alabama, which includes two judges appointed by President Donald Trump, has repeatedly ruled that the 2021 congressional map approved by the Alabama Legislature violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by failing to give Black Alabamians a meaningful opportunity to elect their preferred leaders. The panel has cited racial polarization of voting in the state — where white Alabamians tend to support Republicans and Black Alabamians tend to support Democrats — in ordering the state to draw districts that give Black Alabamians the ability to substantially participate in the process. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 twice upheld the lower court rulings. Federal court: Alabama Legislature intentionally discriminated against Black voters in redistricting Messages seeking comment were left with the offices of the Alabama Attorney General and Secretary of State on Tuesday. 'They're saying they're not going to redistrict before the 2030 census, but they're obviously challenging the map as well, so it's not as if they're giving up,' Ross said. Alabama has until June 16 to file a brief on the position. The plaintiffs will have until June 23 to file a response, and any reply should be filed by June 27. If the three-judge panel decides a hearing is necessary, they will schedule it for July 29. The three-judge panel has repeatedly criticized the Legislature for drawing a map in a 2023 special session that it said did not follow its guidance on drawing congressional districts. The court appointed a special master to draw the map that will now be used for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 election cycles, as well as any special election. That map was also used in the 2024 elections, when U.S. Rep. Shomari Figures, D-Mobile, won in the 2nd Congressional District last November. That election marked the first time in history that Alabama elected two Black U.S. Representatives at the same time. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Maine Democrats drop opposition to 'red flag' hearing
Jun. 10—Under intense pressure — and threats of a lawsuit — from Republicans and gun rights groups, Democrats reversed course and agreed to hold a public hearing on a citizens initiative that would make it easier to temporarily remove access to firearms from people who are in a crisis. Republicans announced the public hearing shortly before 11:30 p.m. Monday — only moments after Senate President Mattie Daughtry, D-Brunswick, told state senators to expect an additional public hearing to soon be announced, though she didn't provide details. The hearing, scheduled for 3 p.m. Wednesday, will focus on a citizen initiative for extreme risk protection order, also known as a 'red flag law," which would allow a family member to petition a court to temporarily remove access to firearms of someone deemed a danger to themselves or others. Maine currently has a "yellow flag" law, which can only be initiative by police, who can only seek a court order after taking that individual into protective custody and provided them with a mental health evaluation. Republicans have been pushing for a public hearing ever since Democrats, who control both chambers, decided not to hold a hearing, citing a hearing on a similar bill last session that did not get a floor vote and the fact that it would ultimately be decided by voters. Republicans accused Democrats of violating a state law, enacted in 2019, requiring a hearing on any citizen initiative that is received when lawmakers are in session. "I'm relieved that my Democrat colleagues finally realized they could not get away with silencing the voices of Maine citizens to limit criticism of this radical gun-control proposal," Senate Republican Leader Trey Stewart, R-Presque Isle, said in a written statement Monday night. "Even the most rabid gun-control activists realized that breaking the law to silence their opposition was not an acceptable way to move their agenda forward." The citizens initiative came forward in the wake of the mass shooting in Lewiston in October 2023 and is certain to generate intense debate over gun rights and restrictions ahead of the November vote. Tensions over the call for a public hearing escalated during a late-night session in the Senate last week in which Republicans tried to force the issue through a series of floor votes. The votes fell along party lines with Republicans voting to move forward with a series of motions aimed at forcing action on a public hearing while Democrats voted against them. Democrats resisted holding a hearing, saying it's not required in the Maine Constitution. And last week, Daughtry said that a law enacted by a prior legislature could not bind the current group of lawmakers, which Republicans decried as "a dangerous ruling." The National Rifle Association announced last week that it was joining a planned lawsuit with the Sportsmen's Alliance of Maine and the Gun Owners of Maine. In a fundraising appeal, SAM speculated that Democrats don't want to hold a hearing because it will highlight opposition, including from Gov. Janet Mills, law enforcement and other Democratic lawmakers. Mills, a former attorney general, help negotiate the state's current "yellow flag" law and has opposed previous attempts to enact a "red flag" law, which exist in 21 other states. Copy the Story Link
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Social Studies: Two things that are bad for business; rethinking a computer science major
Advertisement Major malfunction Students have always been more interested in going into fields that are hot (i.e., they're featured in the news and/or high-paying). In the 1960s, it was aerospace engineering; in more recent decades, it has often been computer science. But a new study suggests students should be more cautious about following the herd. The study finds that the existence of superstar industries — defined as those that have a small subset of prominent companies with exceptional stock price performance — does indeed spur students to major in related subjects. However, this surge is associated with a decrease in pay for entry-level employees in the superstar industry, because net hiring is not necessarily greater in those industries than in others. Moreover, students who are seduced into a major associated with a superstar industry are more likely than people with other majors to end up in a job unrelated to their major and to earn less, with lower job satisfaction, even many years later. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Choi, D. et al., 'Superstar Firms and College Major Choice,' Journal of Political Economy Microeconomics (forthcoming). Advertisement Safe business districts Gerrymandering might be good for business. A study found that a company's stock market value tends to suffer if congressional redistricting puts its headquarters into a House district that is closely balanced between Democrats and Republicans instead of assigning it to one that is safe for one party or the other. The hypothesis is that being in a safe district allows a corporation to build a long-term relationship with its representative in Congress, whereas a representative in a competitive district faces a greater threat of losing reelection and has to be more responsive to voter concerns. Artés, J. et al., 'The Value of Political Geography: Evidence From the Redistricting of Firms,' Journal of Law and Economics (May 2025). The psychology of psychology In theory, evidence should resolve scientific uncertainty. But this is often not the case, especially in the social sciences. In fact, these fields can be riven by sharp differences in worldview akin to those in politics and culture. A study of thousands of researchers in psychology explores this phenomenon by examining how the researchers' own psychology shapes their views of their field. For example, psychologists with a high personal tolerance of ambiguity are less likely to believe that human behaviors can be explained by rational self-interest, evolution, or neurobiology and more likely to believe in social, contextual, and holistic explanations. The authors of the study conclude that many debates in this field can thus be explained largely by the personality traits of the psychologists involved. 'In the worst-case scenario,' they write, 'cognitive differences could be exploited to prop up or even canonize an evidentially weak position that is intuitively attractive to researchers in positions of power.' Advertisement Sulik, J. et al., 'Differences in Psychologists' Cognitive Traits Are Associated with Scientific Divides,' Nature Human Behaviour (forthcoming).
