Opinion ID: 891708
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Failed 1990 Constitutional Amendment

Text: {45} In addition to the Enabling Act's plain language and its historical context, the recent 1990 election further confirms that the Enabling Act does not implicitly authorize exchanges. The proposed 1990 constitutional amendment would have added the following new language to Section 10 of the Enabling Act: The State commissioner of public lands may exchange any land granted or confirmed by this Act for any land of the United States or an agency thereof, a State agency or political subdivision, a beneficiary of lands granted or confirmed by this Act, an Indian tribe or pueblo, or a private entity when the commissioner finds, after consultation with the chief administrative officer of the affected beneficiary of lands granted or confirmed by this Act, that (1) based upon appraisals of the true value thereof, the value of the land to be received by the State is equal to or greater than the land to be conveyed by the State; and (2) the proposed exchange is beneficial to the interests of the affected beneficiary. Act of June 20, 1910, Pub.L. No. 101-386, § 1, 104 Stat. 739 (1990) (amending the Act of June 20, 1910) (emphasis added) (quotation marks omitted). The amendment required first a vote of Congress, Enabling Act, § 2(I), then a vote of the New Mexico Legislature, and finally the approving vote of the people, N.M. Const. art. 19, § 4. It failed the popular vote by a substantial margin. The amendment essentially would have given the Land Commissioner the authority to enter into exchanges with private land owners, subject only to appraised value and without a public auction, authority that a 1988 New Mexico Attorney General Opinion had concluded did not exist. {46} The 1988 Opinion had concluded that the Commissioner of Public Lands may not exchange state trust lands for lands of equal value held by private persons, local governing bodies, trust land beneficiary institutions, state agencies or federal agencies other than the Interior Department. N.M. Att'y Gen. Op. 88-35 (1988). The Attorney General Opinion had also concluded that, since the Enabling Act requires that lands be assigned a monetary value, then any disposition of trust lands will be for an agreed upon value and will result in a `sale' rather than an `exchange.' Id. Continuing on, the 1988 Opinion had also concluded that, [b]ecause of the mandatory appraisal, it is not possible for the Commissioner to engage in `exchanges' of trust land for other land. The conveyances by the Commissioner will be `sales,' and moreover must comply with the Enabling Act's requirements, including appraisal, advertisement and public auction with sale to the highest bidder. Id. {47} Following the defeat of the proposed 1990 amendment, a subsequent attorney general overruled the 1988 Opinion. See N.M. Att'y Gen. Op. 91-15 (1991). The 1991 Opinion concluded that the Enabling Act's use of the word dispose gives the Land Commissioner broad authority to convey land beyond just a sale or a lease, including a private exchange. Id. (The authority of the Commissioner to `dispose' of public lands granted by the New Mexico Constitution and, with restrictions, by the Enabling Act includes the power to exchange public lands.). The 1991 Opinion also concluded that some of the sale and lease restrictions in Section 10 of the Enabling Act applied to exchanges (such as the requirement for sale at no less than appraised value), but that other restrictions (notice and public auction) did not apply. [3] Id. Thus, the 1991 Opinion advised that the Land Commissioner had the very exchange authority the people had rejected in the 1990 popular vote. {48} The proposal and failure of the 1990 constitutional amendment attests to the lack of legal authority to conduct unrestricted land exchanges with private entities under the Enabling Act. The Land Commissioner disagrees. He argues that the authority to exchange land with private parties existed even before 1990, and that the 1988 Opinion was simply misguided when it asserted the contrary. Accordingly, the proposed (and defeated) amendment was meant merely to clarify the preexisting authority. According to the Land Commissioner, the voters' rejection in 1990 meant only that, in their judgment, the Enabling Act did not need clarification because the Land Commissioner had exchange authority all along. We are not persuaded. {49} Following the Land Commissioner's logic, the legislative machineries of both the U.S. Congress and the State of New Mexico were put into motion simply to clarify an exchange authority that the Land Commissioner already had. And from there, the Land Commissioner's logic would lead us to conclude that the voters' decisive rejection of the proposed amendment was actually an endorsement of his exchange authority. {50} We operate from a working assumption that the Legislature (and for that matter the U.S. Congress) is well informed about the law and that its legislation is usually intended to change the law as it previously existed. Bird, 91 N.M. at 284, 573 P.2d at 218; see also Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 397, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995) (When Congress acts to amend a statute, we presume it intends its amendment to have real and substantial effect.). We conclude that this intention is especially true for amendments to the State Constitution and the Enabling Actour most fundamental law. {51} When New Mexico Senator Domenici addressed the U.S. Senate in support of the proposed amendment, he explained that it would permit the State of New Mexico to exchange . . . lands granted . . . by the United States, and that without the proposed amendment [u]nder the Enabling Act, the Public Lands Commissioner can only dispose of trust lands by sale or lease to the highest bidder at a public auction. 136 Cong. Rec. 21,234, 1990 WL 110523 (emphasis added). Senator Domenici went on to explain that New Mexico has not amended its Enabling Act to permit such exchanges, except for the limited purposes of exchanging trust lands for National Forest Lands. Id. {52} Congressman Vento of Minnesota, Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, described the proposed amendment as a noncontroversial measure dealing with a technical . . . problem. 136 Cong. Record 23,619 (1990), 1990 WL 129809. He admitted that the amendment was necessary because of doubt as to the legal ability of the State, under the enabling act, to carry out . . . exchanges. Id. {53} New Mexico Congressman Skeen urged passage of the essential amendment because current authority is too restrictive to allow the land commissioner to properly carry out his responsibilities. Id. at 23,620. In fact, Congressman Skeen advised that [t]o remedy this void, Congress must pass this legislation allowing a change in the State's Enabling Act. The voters of New Mexico must then approve a constitutional amendment. Id. These excerpts suggest that New Mexico's members of Congress knew, and that Congress was surely advised, that without a change in the Enabling Act, the Land Commissioner could not legally engage in private land exchanges no matter how advisable or beneficial they might be. {54} The voters likely understood the proposed amendment in similar terms. Despite its title, To clarify the authority of the Commissioner of Public Lands to exchange lands under his control, the thrust of the proposed amendment was a grant of new authority to the Land Commissioner. The 1990 proposed amendment was not the first time the Land Commissioner had attempted to expand his authority, and it was not the first time such an expansion was rejected by the people. Former Land Commissioner Humphries was well aware of this trend when he addressed the Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks and Forests in support of the amendment: [H]istory clearly reveals that the people of New Mexico have acted upon several exchange amendments and have clearly limited the commissioner's authority to exchange. 136 Cong. Rec. 21,235, 1990 WL 110523 (adopting Humphries' earlier subcommittee statement into the record on the Senate floor). {55} In 1990, the people of New Mexico once again acted upon an exchange amendment[], and once again they clearly limited the commissioner's authority to exchange. Id. We have no basis to conclude that the way people voted on the issue of the Land Commissioner's exchange authority in 1990 was any different than the way they have always voted. If the Land Commissioner wants exchange authority, then he must ask the people, and if the people turn his proposal down, then he does not have the desired authority. The Land Commissioner would have us engage in logical and semantical gymnastics. Instead, we subscribe to the reasoning that, if the Enabling Act had always granted the Land Commissioner authority to conduct exchanges, there would have been no need for the amendment. [4] Fain Land & Cattle Co. v. Hassell, 163 Ariz. 587, 790 P.2d 242, 248 (1990) (in banc); see also Thompson v. Legislative Audit Comm'n, 79 N.M. 693, 696, 448 P.2d 799, 802 (1968) ([T]he [constitutional amendment] was defeated, thus showing that the people were not willing to allow [an amendment] to sanction the legislative [action providing the same as the amendment that] would not only thwart the constitutional provision but would circumvent the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box.).