Press "Enter" to skip to content

Governor’s Vetoes Will Haunt Him

Despite Governor Richardson’s sad attempt at spin in a recent Opinion piece (subscription) in the Journal, the fact that he choose to veto eminent domain legislation that was UNANIMOUSLY passed by state legislators is bound to cost him a few percentage points in the upcoming election.

After all, who exactly does the Governor believe would be willing to accept his excuse that the legislation had to be vetoed because it was “overly vague”? Oh, wait a minute. He is probably counting on the same people who would buy his rationale that legislation needed to be vetoed because “of technical problems:”

Maloney, who received the transplant paid for by anonymous donors, sued Serna and Lovelace. The pending civil lawsuit charges Serna with having a conflict of interest in Maloney’s case because Con Alma, which he headed at the time, received large contributions from Lovelace.

“The public needs someplace to go when situations like this arise,” she said. “It was the clearest conflict of interest I’ve ever seen.”

Gov. Bill Richardson vetoed the original bill following the 2005 session because of technical problems, the governor’s office said [emphasis added].

Papen said she figures Richardson vetoed the bill to protect Serna’s turf because the two were close political allies.

Richardson spokesman Gilbert Gallegos said Serna has been a supporter of the governor for many years.

Ouch, that is going to hurt on campaign literature. It is one thing to veto property rights, but what kind of person vetoes to keep New Mexico’s sick from appealing the right to life saving transplants? Then again, this is the Governor who thought it was a good idea to create a bed tax on the elderly and infirm.

I’m thinking those two vetoes alone might shave seven points.