But don’t expect it to happen.
The study ordered last week by House Speaker Dustin Burrows to examine whether Texas could actually gobble up some of the counties on the eastern rim of New Mexico has some political figures seeing red.
Republican red.
Burrows, R-Lubbock, is following up on a proposal being floated in the New Mexico Legislature that would allow counties in the state that share a border with Texas to, in effect, switch sides. And it just so happens that every one of those counties voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump in 2024, while New Mexico as a whole gave its five electoral votes to Democrat Kamala Harris by a comfortable 52%-46% margin.
Let’s make clear from the outset that the annexation by Texas of one or more of the five counties looks iffy at best. It would require a vote of the people in the counties affected — and an act of Congress.
As might be expected, the Democratic leaders in charge of New Mexico are not about to willingly hand over giants swaths of land in their part of the oil-rich Permian Basin, even if it would mean ridding themselves of some or all of the 36,000 voters in those counties who cast their ballots for Trump.
“Let me put this into terms Speaker Burrows might be able to understand: Come and try to take it,” New Mexico House Speaker Javier Martínez said in a Friday report by the Santa Fe New Mexican, invoking one of Texas’ many unofficial slogans. “New Mexico isn’t afraid of a fight.”
Burrows’ direction to the committee he charged with exploring the matter stopped well short of fighting words. Actually, they were more on the lawyerly side. The panel, he said, should examine the “constitutional, statutory, fiscal and economic implications” of such an annexation.
Admittedly, 36,000 votes — plus the 10,000 that went for Harris — is just a fraction of the 11 million Texans who went to the polls in the last presidential election. But the numbers could make a difference on the margins in state legislative districts, especially around El Paso, where Democrats dominate.
More significant would be the added oil revenue that would come Texas’ way. The Permian Basin, which straddles the Texas-New Mexico border, pumps out about about 6.5 million barrels of crude a day, accounting for almost 40% of all oil production in the United States, according to the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates the industry.
And the Republican lawmakers who represent New Mexico’s side of the basin are aware of those statistics, and they want to make sure their Democratic counterparts in their state Capitol understand them as well.
The counties in question are also where some of our finest forced birth zealots have been pushing “abortion sanctuary cities” ordinances, so there’s somewhat of a cultural fit, at least in that geographical area. This county-swap thing is just not going to happen, though. Here’s a bit of context for why.
One New Mexico state representative who co-sponsored HJR10 told KOB 4 he doesn’t believe it will happen, but the goal was to send a message to New Mexico that certain parts of the state have been ignored for too long.
“You know, I feel in my heart that it would never happen,” said Republican Rep. Jimmy Mason, who represents parts of Lea, Eddy, and Chaves counties. “But hopefully it will give us some traction in negotiating what we feel is a little fairer treatment to our constitutents in Southeast New Mexico.”
The other co-sponsor, Rep. Randall Pettigrew, a Republican from Lea Co., reiterated the notion that this was introduced quickly to make a statement, but much more work would have to be done going forward.
“To be clear, this joint resolution was introduced with no conversation occurring with municipal or county leadership in any county. Those conversations would be critical,” he said in a statement to KOB 4.
Any county secession would require legislative action in both Texas and New Mexico in addition to approval from Congress.
Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez, a Democrat, whose congressional district contains at least a portion of every county on the eastern border of our state, laughed at the idea this would ever come to fruition.
“I think, once again, what we are seeing from Texas is people want to fight about things that aren’t real and don’t make an immediate difference,” she said.
Could there be a bill in the next Texas legislative session to study the “constitutional, statutory, fiscal and economic implications” of this hypothetical swap? (A swap in which New Mexico not only gets bupkis but also loses a bunch of oil revenue, by the way. I hope we study that part of it, too, to see what a fair price for the exchange might be.) Sure there could. It might even get a committee hearing. But we all know that bills introduced to study a thing often end up as the terminus of that thing. And that’s before taking into account the need for New Mexico’s Lege and the US Congress to pass bills as well. Dream big, but don’t lose touch with reality. The Trib has more.
Just put the Texas secession bill on the floor and get it over with, TxGOP.
It’s good to see that the TX House Speaker has his legislative priorities in order ! Forget the problem with TX education or property taxes – what the residents want is the barren eastern landscape of New Mexico !