Carroll Leavell was a Republican who served in the New Mexico Senate from 1997 to 2018. Which meant he was on the losing end of a lot of votes in a chamber where Democrats have always been firmly in control.
But there was one issue where Leavell had sway: insurance regulation. That’s because he owned an insurance agency.
But there was one issue where Leavell had sway: insurance regulation. That’s because he owned an insurance agency.
|
I still remember the committee meeting where Leavell presented a bill he was sponsoring making changes to insurance laws. I expected Democrats to grill him, just like they had other Republicans who had come before them. Instead, they deferred.
It was at that moment I started to understand the New Mexico Legislature. In any other state legislature, that relationship would be seen as a clear conflict of interest. Here, it is seen as expertise. Earlier this year, the state Ethics Commission issued an advisory opinion that the Governmental Conduct Act does not apply to votes taken by the Legislature. For all other government bodies, the Act “disqualifies public officials from engaging in official acts, including casting votes, due to a conflict of interest.” But legislators are specifically exempted by the Speech and Debate Clause of the state Constitution. That lack of restraint was on full display this past session, with trial lawyers in the House and Senate working against legislation to reform medical malpractice laws. During a community radio interview before the session, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph Cervantes attempted to play the conflict-is-expertise card. “As a lawyer, and I do medical malpractice cases, if I botch it I can be sued for punitive damages, and there’s no cap on my punitive damages either,” he said in arguing against a cap on malpractice awards. When I asked why he didn’t have an obvious conflict of interest, Cervantes replied that he wasn't leading the effort. Asked if he should be recused from voting, he said, “This is a challenge we have in New Mexico because, for example, we have teachers voting on education salaries. This is the nature of our Legislature … everybody has a conflict of interest, potentially.” Which brings me to this year’s constitutional amendment to join with the other 49 states in paying the men and women who write our laws and set our multi-billion dollar budget. Cervantes is not wrong. When you establish a system that requires commitment without compensation, it will inherently lead to conflicts of interest. Sometimes public pressure can force lawmakers to vote against their own interests. That’s what happened this year with the medical malpractice law. Cervantes tried to neuter the bill with poison pill amendments. But when it came back to the Senate floor with those amendments removed, he joined with 39 of his colleagues in passing it 40-2. Kudos to Patients Primero, Think New Mexico and the other advocacy groups who were able to get the bill through in a 30-day session. Unfortunately, what they were able to accomplish this year was an exceedingly rare achievement. I wish the amendment did more. We need to have longer sessions without restrictions on what types of bills can be introduced. And, legislators need new rules requiring recusal on all votes where they have a clear conflict of interest. That can all come in future years. But, only if voters take this first step and stop treating the state government as if it were a volunteer fire department. Walter Rubel can be reached at [email protected] |
Listen to the audio version
|
RSS Feed