Democrat state Rep. Andrea Romero’s short-lived stint working for the First Judicial District Attorney’s Office ended with her resignation — but the political fireworks only intensified after New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez publicly torched the Santa Fe lawmaker following her criticism of his office.
Romero resigned from the six-figure-paying part-time prosecutor’s office job after the New Mexico Department of Justice issued guidance concluding that, with narrow exceptions, it is “unlawful” for a sitting legislator to simultaneously work as an employee of a district attorney’s office, according to the Santa Fe New Mexican.
Romero attempted to defend the arrangement, saying she accepted the position only “after receiving prior guidance from the AG’s office that it was permissible.”
But she has reportedly declined to release the correspondence showing precisely what advice she received.
Torrez’s office, meanwhile, said any supposed confusion stemmed from a much narrower 2024 opinion concerning legislators serving as special assistant district attorneys on specific cases — not taking broader employment inside a prosecutor’s office.
Torrez wrote that “any district attorney’s office currently employing a sitting legislator in a capacity other than a special assistant district attorney appointment properly confined to a specific case or matter … should treat that arrangement as unlawful and correct it without delay.”
Romero’s exact job at the First Judicial District Attorney’s Office has itself been murky.
According to the New Mexican, there was no written job description, while government records variously referred to her as an “assistant district attorney,” “assistant trial attorney,” and “document review attorney.”
The controversy had already prompted ethics complaints and demands for an investigation.
House Republican Whip Alan Martinez of Rio Rancho called on Torrez to determine whether Romero’s May 23 hiring violated state laws prohibiting sitting legislators from receiving certain state compensation — violations Martinez said could potentially carry felony consequences.
“This is not a technical ethics question that can be brushed aside,” Martinez said. “State law appears clear, and the Attorney General’s own office has previously stated that a legislator cannot serve as an assistant district attorney.”
Martinez also asked Torrez to investigate First Judicial District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies’ role in authorizing Romero’s employment.
“No legislator is above the law,” Martinez said.
The DA’s office responded that it was “disappointed” with the attorney general’s conclusion but would comply.
Then Romero apparently took aim at Torrez.
According to a subsequent report, Romero criticized the attorney general’s decision and suggested the controversy could affect work involving New Mexico’s Survivors Truth Commission, which she chairs.
Torrez’s office responded with a statement that was anything but diplomatic.
“Rather than moonlighting as a part-time prosecutor, Attorney General Torrez has spent the better part of twenty-years working as a real prosecutor and standing up for victims’ rights,” his office said.
The statement then turned directly to Romero’s legislative record.
“That’s why he advocated to protect survivors of sexual assault from the abusive pre-trial witness interviews that traumatize hundreds of survivors each year — a bill that Representative Andrea Romero voted against.”
Torrez’s office did not stop there.
“We appreciate her frustration at losing her part-time job at the District Attorney’s Office, but we reject any insinuation that our recently released guidance on that issue was motivated by anything other than the law.”
And in perhaps the sharpest line of the entire exchange, the attorney general’s office added:
“We remain committed to supporting Epstein survivors through our ongoing criminal investigation and hope that Representative Romero’s newfound commitment to victims’ rights will be on full display in the upcoming legislative session, not just on social media.”
That statement transformed what had begun as a legal and ethics controversy into a remarkably public Democrat-on-Democrat feud.
Romero maintains she relied on previous guidance before taking the job. Torrez’s office says that guidance did not authorize the kind of ongoing employment arrangement she ultimately accepted.
And instead of quietly allowing Romero to blame the attorney general’s office for the fallout, Torrez effectively told the Santa Fe Democrat that the law was the law — while publicly reminding voters that her record on victims’ issues may not match the rhetoric she is now using.
For Romero, losing the part-time prosecutor job may turn out to be only the beginning of the political headache.