Political rally in New Mexico, photo by Matthew Reichbach

New Mexico has enjoyed a stunning 13 percent growth over the past decade, bringing the sparsely populated state to a total of 2,059,159 people.  The news highlights the State’s motto, “It Grows As It Goes.”  Most of this population growth occurred in small pockets of urban neighborhoods, which is why these changes may favor Democrats in the state.

Despite the increase, New Mexico will not be getting more seats in Congress.  The state will keep its three congressional districts, 70 House Assembly seats, and 42 Senate districts (the last two are for State government).  Redistricting, according to a guide put out by the State, is about changing the borders of existing districts.  It’s a political process, not a mathematical one.

Currently, most of the State legislature is Democrat, and so they are likely to lever their advantage by simple right of being in the majority.

In addition, some Republican districts are far too large geographically, and are practically busting at the seams, and need to be split.  Such is the case for Representative Sander Rue, whose district is 70 percent too large.  More than likely, Rue will lose a large chunk of his district, and those parts will merge into districts that are currently too small.

Contrarily, Democratic districts are too small geographically, since these are usually found in cities.  These districts will have to be redrawn in order to properly represent a population.  As is usually the case, there is a large political battle being fought over these boundary lines; and if the State Legislature is unable to redistrict because of political infighting, a Federal court may have to step in as a mediary and draw the new borders.

Photo from Kevin Coles, CC

In a 5-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Arizona state law that requires employers to utilize the E-verify system to assure that new employees are indeed citizens.  The Supreme Court made the decision at a May 26 hearing.

The law, called the Legal Arizona Workers Act, punishes employers who hire illegal immigrants into their companies.  Employers are required to use E-Verify, a free online federal program that checks names and identification documents.  The law also increases the punishment for identity thefts.

Opponents of the law argued that the LAWA contradicted language written in the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act, which prohibited states from enforcing federal immigration laws with state penalties.  The majority of the Supreme Court disagreed.

“While IRCA prohibits states from imposing ‘civil or criminal sanctions’ on those who employ unauthorized aliens, it preserves state authority to impose sanctions ‘through licensing and similar laws,’ said Chief Justice John Roberts.

Many news organizations are speculating that the Supreme Court’s decision signifies that the Court is positioning itself to tackle the more controversial S.B. 1070, which would empower Arizona law enforcement to verify a person’s immigration status.

Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the vote.

New cross erected, then removed by park officials – A month ago, a cross in the Mojave National Preserve made national headlines when the Supreme Court ruled that it can be displayed because “the constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of a religion’s role in society.”  That, and the government has decided to transfer the land where the cross is displayed (Sunrise Rock) into private hands.

Shortly after that on May 8 or 9, and much to the dismay of the nation, the cross was stolen by some greedy fools looking to bag an icon.  Then, on May 20 someone replaced it in the early morning, and park officials removed it, in concordance with a Supreme Court injunction that it not be displayed until the federal land has been transferred.

Is it really necessary, since the land is supposedly being transferred to private owners, to remove the new cross? I also wonder if this begins a trend of people placing a cross, and then someone removing it.

The cross was originally erected in the 1930s as a war memorial for the soldiers and sailors of World War 1.  It has been vandalized a few times in the past, even stolen.