Legislative leaders of both political parties said Thursday that Gov. Susana Martinez should be taken to court over controversial line-item vetoes of bills passed in this year's session.

Senate Republican Leader Stuart Ingle of Portales said Martinez overstepped her authority when she changed a $150,000 appropriation to the New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority to oversee the regional housing authorities. The governor didn't veto the entire appropriation, but she lowered the amount to $50,000 by striking the numeral "1" from the original appropriation.

"The main difficulty I have is changing a figure," Ingle said. "We can't go there. It has to be taken to court."

"We have to challenge this," Rep. Luciano "Lucky" Varela, D-Santa Fe, agreed.

Both made their remarks at a meeting of the Legislative Finance Committee.

Raul Burciaga, director of the Legislative Council Service, told committee members the Legislature as a whole couldn't sue the governor, but individual lawmakers could. Sen. John Arthur Smith, D-Deming, said he expects individual legislators to come forward as plaintiffs.

"Some of the governor's vetoes seem to impinge on the Legislature's appropriation powers and plow new ground in a governor's exercise of the veto authority," Burciaga told the committee. "... These partial vetoes can be viewed as an attempt to expand the powers of the executive branch at the expense of the legislative branch. This is not an uncommon practice by executive officers, nor is it a partisan phenomenon. But it probably should be of concern to the Legislature when one of its primary powers is usurped by another branch of government."

Later Thursday, Martinez defended the vetoes in question. "They are not unconstitutional," she told reporters. "We researched the issue to make sure it was appropriately done."

The governor said her administration would defend the actions in court if lawsuits are filed. "We knew this was defensible all along when we did it."

Martinez, who took office in January, has not fared well so far when her actions have been challenged in court.

Last month, the state Supreme Court ruled the governor lacked authority to arbitrarily remove two members of the state Public Employee Labor Relations Board, as Martinez had done early in her term.

In January, the high court unanimously decided that Martinez acted improperly when she asked the state records administrator to delay publishing greenhouse-gas emissions rules that the state Environmental Improvement Board approved shortly before she took office.

Despite Ingle's comments, some other Republicans on Thursday weren't gung ho about suing the Republican governor over questionable vetoes.

Sen. Rod Adair, R-Roswell, said he hated to go to the courts and suggested the Legislature write a letter declaring that the laws in question are unconstitutional. But Burciaga said a letter from the Legislature wouldn't carry the force of law.

The second line-item veto was a $128 million increase on unemployment taxes for businesses. Martinez struck the tax increase but signed the bill (House Bill 59), which reduced unemployment benefits. The intention of that increase was to help keep the state's unemployment fund solvent.

Burciaga said a governor doesn't have the power to line-item veto the tax increase because it's not an appropriation. He said the revenue collected for the unemployment fund doesn't go to the state treasury but instead is reverted to the federal government.

Discussion of this veto centered on the definition of appropriation.

Rep. Larry Larranaga, R-Albuquerque, challenged Burciaga on that point, saying a state agency, the Department of Workforce Solutions, was responsible for collecting those taxes.

"Does it touch the (state) treasury?" Larranaga asked about the revenue generated by the tax.

"Yes," Burciaga replied, "but it does not reside there."

Of the 284 bills the Legislature passed this year, Martinez vetoed 35 bills and included executive messages — explanations for the action — and "pocket vetoed" 63 bills without explanation, declining to act on them before the deadline to sign bills passed during the legislative session. Though some of these vetoes were controversial, Burciaga said there was nothing unconstitutional about those actions.

Contact Steve Terrell at 986-3037 or sterrell@sfnewmexican.com. Read his political blog at roundhouseroundup.com.