Rep. Jeff
With apologies to State Senator "Lightning Rod" Adair, we have to reassign his nickname for the 2011 legislative session to a House member. While "Lightning Sandra" doesn't have the same cachet as Lightning Rod," she has certainly earned the moniker. Now Gallup area Dem State Rep. Sandra Jeff may have earned herself a Democratic primary opponent in the 2012 election.

Jeff, a Navajo who lives in Crownpoint, is only serving her second two year term but she became a giant killer this session when she broke ranks with the House Dem leadership and voted to "blast" out of committee and onto the House floor the controversial bill to repeal driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. Because the partisan divide in the House is so narrow, Jeff's vote was a deciding factor in rescuing the Republican backed bill which was eventually approved by the House and awaits action in the Senate.

Jeff also broke with Speaker Lujan on other bills and that has roused attorney and former Gallup Mayor Bob Rosebrough ('03-'07). He confirms to us that he is seriously weighing a primary challenge to Jeff. He says he has good relationships with the Navajo community and believes they want Dem representation, not Jeff's political brand which has recently found her in the Republican camp.

Whether there is a Jeff-Rosebrough face-off will depend on the redistricting to be done later this year in Santa Fe. If the district remains made up of part of Gallup and part of the reservation, Rosebrough will be positioned for a run. If the district becomes all Gallup, he will support Dem Rep. Patty Lundstorm who could be thrown into a primary with Jeff. Those two have tangled before.

If the Dems can't enforce party discipline on the playing field in Santa Fe then it will have to be done through the election process, if at all.

LET'S MAKE A DEAL
Sen. Jennings
Can the state Senate take the heat from Governor Martinez and her political arm? We think so if Senate Dem heavy Tim Jennings votes for a an amended bill regarding driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants. Jennings said the measure that came out of committee Tuesday night and is headed to the Senate floor--possibly today--is a compromise that toughens up penalties for license abuse but does not require a Social Security number to get a license as the House passed bill does.

Jennings is from a conservative SE NM district. He says he can live with the bill. If he can live with it in light of the heat the Governor is putting on everyone, we should have a deal.

Let's face it. The Governor does not deserve a total win on this, not after uncaging her attack dogs and attempting to intimidate legislators with campaign tactics in their home districts. And Democrats do not deserve to triumph over her either as the public overwhelmingly wants these licenses either eliminated or under much tighter control.

This compromise bill gives both sides something and they each live to fight another day. The Governor, a former district attorney, calls the compromise "a sham" but hopefully she will learn that the legislative arena is not a court of law--or necessarily a court of public opinion--where everything is black and white. Maybe Senator Jennings, with over 30 legislative sessions under his belt, can help show her the way.

SAM LOSES

No, we haven't had the election for NM Dem Party chairman yet. That happens late next month, but trial lawyer Sam Bregman, challenging Chairman Javier Gonzales, was making headlines for a court loss--not a political one. Bregman's high profile client--attorney Ron Bell--was found guilty of DWI despite Sam's best efforts.

You can bet that Javier hopes that's a trend.

FOLLOWING THE MONEY

The proposal to use the state's $14 billion Permanent Funds to help cover the budget shortfall can be complicated to explain. ABQ Dem state Senator Jerry Ortiz y Pino says we and Senator John Arthur Smith mislabeled the plan:

Joe...You repeated a misunderstanding about Senator Michael Sanchez' SB1. I'd like to correct this because confusion over the measure even led usually keen Senator John Arthur Smith to misspeak on television news. Both of you referred to it as "bonding against the permanent fund," something it definitely is not.

...It is actually bonding against the general fund. It would authorize up to $300 million in short term (i.e., five years) revenue bonds, to be repaid with interest within five years out of general fund revenue. The confusion comes in because those bonds would be purchased by the permanent fund--in precisely the same way that fund buys other government securities: as an investment. It actually will earn more on this investment than the market rate. It strikes me as a fully-constitutional and creative way to deal with our need for immediate cash...

Growth in the economy will produce the extra general fund revenue we will need to pay it back. We aren't threatening the permanent fund...it just gets another investment option. I hope your readers will take a look at that bill and make their own minds up.