Waiting for the Governor's Action on the NM House & Senate Maps

Fair Districts For New Mexico (FDNM) Summary of the Redistricting Session
A Tale of Two Chambers  
updated 12/28/21

Below was the request of FDNM to the Legislature concerning the special session on redistricting:

A.    Select the Citizen Redistricting Committee (CRC) maps which best balance:
        compliance with the Voting Rights Act; freedom from partisan gerrymandering; protection of
        communities of interest; adherence to governmental boundaries including Tribal boundaries; and no
        favoring incumbents.

B.     If the Legislature amends the maps sent to them by the CRC they should provide detailed

         explanation of why they amended the maps. This should any changes made to maps since the

         maps could not legally be amended. (We were told by the Senate leadership to file an IPRA request. To paraphrase journalist Gwyneth Doland, - that’s a hard no.

C.     During the Special Session on Redistricting all legislative meetings should follow the

          letter and spirit of the Open Meetings Act. The public’s business should be conducted in

          full public view. The actions of the public bodies should be taken openly and all

          deliberations made open to the public.

Note: Throughout the cycle from the New Mexico First Task Force in 2020, the passing of the Redistricting Act in 2021, the appointments to the CRC and throughout the CRC process, Fair Districts for New Mexico advocated for and supported the inclusion of Native American voices. CRC Senate Concept maps A-1 and C-1 both included Native American consensus. We are pleased that the New Mexico House and Senate final maps include Native American consensus.
Any criticism of the process should not be construed as criticism of that inclusion.

 

Here is where the redistricting stands at the end of the session – updated 12/28/21
Please note Fair Districts for New Mexico is interested in a fair and transparent process and does not support or oppose any specific map

HOUSE

The House initiated the NM House and PEC maps.  The House filed all CRC maps for both the House and Public Education Commission.
HB8 was based on CRC House map E-1, but incorporated Native American consensus that had not been reached before the CRC adjourned. HB 8 has passed both chambers and is on the Governor’s desk. CRC Map E-1 was evaluated by Princeton Gerrymander Project and Dr. Cottrell at the University of Georgia and found to be free of partisan bias. Since the CRC was barred by law from looking at partisan data and past election results, Research & Polling and the CRC attorneys did review the CRC map E-1 for compliance with the Voting Rights Act.  They determined it did comply.
HB9 for the Public Education Commission is based on CRC Concept E-1  passed both chambers with minor changes explained by the sponsor. It has been signed by the Governor.
The House passed SB1 – Congressional Redistricting that came over from the Senate. It has been signed by the Governor.
The House passed SB2 – The Senate map that came over from the Senate. It was agreed that each chamber would respect the other chamber’s map.

Fair Districts for NM is pleased with the respect given to the CRC maps in the House and for the transparency in the redistricting process.

SENATE
The Senate was charged with initiating the legislation for New Mexico Senate and Congressional maps. We are displeased that the Senate did not file CRC maps for either the NM Senate or Congress. At a minimum, the public had a right to see these introduced.

   SB1 – Congressional map was written behind closed doors and had to be revised after resistance from the public, including some of the Pueblos. It passed both the Senate and House and has been signed by the Governor. It most closely resembles CRC Concept map H, but the Senate did not explain what they changed.
SB2 – Senate District map was also written behind closed doors in the Democratic caucus and in our analysis was mainly devised for incumbency protection. In fact, at hearings many legislators said as much. It was stated that SB2 was based upon CRC Concept C-1 and the sponsors bragged it contained 68% of CRC Concept C-1. (In most schools that is a “D”.) The Senate noted that SB2 contained Native American consensus. That is true, but they failed to mention that both CRC maps A-1 and C-1 had included Native American consensus.
In the Senate Judiciary Committee a substitute for SB2 was proposed that eliminated the last incumbent pairing, but in the process altered Native American consensus. Luckily it was overturned with a Senate floor substitute. SB2 has passed both chambers and is on the desk of the Governor.

  
In summary, Fair Districts disapproves of the lack of transparency in the Senate process for the Congressional and Senate District maps. In addition, Senate Judiciary cut off remote public input at its hearing on the substitute for SB2. Also, Senate Rules did not allow remote public comment during its hearing on HB8 – House districts. Perhaps they were concerned that people might point out the contrast on the transparency in the House process and the lack of transparency in the Senate process.