of such partnership arrangements have in the past far outweighed the temporary benefits. Id. at 276, 161 P.2d at 881-82 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court of New Mexico distinguished the agreement of the company to pay Clovis $130,000.00 in annual installments, because the agreement did not “place any burden or charge against any of the revenues of the City, current or otherwise, and did not bring about any liability of the citizens of the City for the levy of any taxes, or bring about any burden of any kind whatsoever upon the City of Clovis or its citizens, and, therefore, does not come within the purpose of the constitutional inhibition.” Id. at 276-77, 161 P.2d at 881. See Chronis v. State ex rel. Rodriguez, 100 N.M. 342, 347-48, 670 P.2d 953, 958-59 (1983)(<HOLDING>). Likewise, the Attorney General of New Mexico
holding that even though labeled a tax on conducting retail liquor business challenged statute was nevertheless a penalty designed to punish the violation of state liquor laws holding that an appropriation to pay states share of emergency feed certificates issued to livestock owners for the purchase of hay was an unconstitutional subsidy of the livestock industry holding that legislative diminishment of tax obligation constituted an unconstitutional subsidy to the liquor industry in violation of the antidonation clause holding that a confrontation clause violation constituted harmless error holding husbands early retirement subsidy was not marital property as a vested right but an option contingent upon his continued employment and eventual qualification for the subsidy in nine years based upon value of the pension frozen at the time of dissolution