Piñon Post

AG Torrez torches state Rep. Andrea Romero after ‘unlawful’ prosecutor job

Leave a Comment / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

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.

AG Torrez torches state Rep. Andrea Romero after ‘unlawful’ prosecutor job Read More »

Will judge follow the law? Dem ballot case puts political ties in spotlight

8 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

The judge overseeing Democrats’ attempt to force a replacement candidate onto the ballot in New Mexico House District 23 has extensive ties to the state’s Democratic political establishment — including a marriage to one of New Mexico’s most prolific progressive fundraisers and strategists.

That history is drawing fresh scrutiny as Thirteenth Judicial District Judge James A. Noel prepares to hear arguments over whether Democrat Matthew Herman can legally replace Elise Falanga Taylor on the Nov. 3 ballot.

The underlying law appears straightforward.

Section 1-8-8(A) NMSA 1978 states: “If after a primary election, but ninety or more days before the general election, a vacancy occurs” the political party may fill that vacancy through its central committee. Subsection D separately gives parties until 70 days before the election to file an appointment for a vacancy that qualifies under Subsection A.

The distinction matters. Lawmakers specifically changed the vacancy threshold from 70 days to 90 days in 2023, while preserving the separate 70-day filing deadline.

For the Nov. 3 election, the 90-day mark was Aug. 5.

Falanga Taylor did not announce her departure until Aug. 16, after alleging Republicans had used “vile tactics” involving information about an abusive former partner. Republican incumbent Rep. Alan Martinez, the House minority whip, denied that he or anyone connected to his campaign had anything to do with the alleged attacks, and Falanga Taylor’s campaign did not identify who supposedly circulated them when questioned by local media.

Sandoval County Democrats subsequently selected Herman on Aug. 23.

Sandoval County Clerk Anne Brady-Romero initially concluded that was too late under the 90-day statute.

Then Noel intervened.

He ordered Brady-Romero to place Herman on the ballot or appear Sept. 2 and explain why she had not done so. The clerk ultimately complied Friday but maintained that her original interpretation was correct and announced Sandoval County would still argue that “no replacement candidate could be submitted because of statutory deadlines.”

Now the political background of the judge handling that dispute is receiving attention.

Noel was appointed to the bench in 2020 by Democrat Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and subsequently ran for the position as a Democrat. Before becoming a judge, Noel served as a cabinet secretary under Democrat Gov. Bill Richardson and as executive director of the New Mexico Judicial Standards Commission.

More significantly, Noel is married to Amanda Cooper, a longtime Democrat political strategist with deep ties to New Mexico’s progressive political infrastructure. Contemporary reporting has repeatedly identified Cooper as Noel’s wife.

Cooper is also the stepdaughter of former Democrat U.S. Sen. Tom Udall.

Her political résumé stretches back decades.

Richardson’s own presidential campaign identified Cooper as his reelection campaign manager and fundraising director, crediting her with overseeing $14 million raised for his gubernatorial reelection and helping raise another $28 million during Richardson’s chairmanship of the Democratic Governors Association. She later became a senior figure in Richardson’s presidential campaign.

Cooper also managed Udall’s successful 2008 U.S. Senate campaign.

Perhaps more relevant to current New Mexico politics, longtime political blogger Joe Monahan identified Cooper in 2024 as one of the figures heading Better Future for New Mexico, a major progressive independent-expenditure PAC, alongside consultant Nick Voges and Jim Gollin. A strategy letter published by Monahan was signed by all three and outlined efforts to defeat centrist and conservative Democrats while advancing priorities including abortion rights, climate policy, paid family and medical leave, and other progressive causes.

The PAC remains a financial powerhouse.

Its April and May 2026 campaign-finance filings disclosed three major contributions totaling $525,000: $250,000 from the North Fund reported in its April filing, followed by $175,000 from Grove Action Fund and $100,000 from Green Advocacy Project in its May report.

The May filing shows Better Future then sending tens of thousands of dollars for “voter contact” to organizations including Planned Parenthood Votes New Mexico, NM Working Families Party PAC, CVNM Verde Voters Fund, and Native American Advocacy Fund. An earlier filing shows another $20,000 going to ProgressNow New Mexico Votes.

The PAC has also repeatedly paid Dream Train Consulting, while Voges publicly identifies Dream Train as his consulting firm.

Cooper and Voges have additionally appeared together as sponsors of Emerge New Mexico, an organization devoted to recruiting and training Democrat pro-abortion, far-left women and “nonbinary” candidates.

According to information provided to Piñon Post, former Democrat state Rep. Daymon Ely, a trial attorney who previously represented House District 23, is also meddling in Democrats’ legal push surrounding the replacement candidate, in typical fashion. He recently attacked state Rep. Rebecca Dow (R-Truth or Consequences), unsuccessfully attempting to boot her from the ballot. Public reporting has separately identified attorney Kate Ferlic as representing Herman in the case.

There is another historical wrinkle.

In 2008, Noel was tapped to become New Mexico’s elections director while Cooper was managing her stepfather Tom Udall’s U.S. Senate campaign. Republicans raised conflict-of-interest concerns over having a candidate’s son-in-law overseeing state elections. Noel ultimately withdrew from the election job and remained with the Judicial Standards Commission.

That history makes the current case especially noteworthy.

New Mexico’s Judicial Ethics Handbook states that a judge must disqualify himself or herself when the judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.” But New Mexico case law also makes clear that mere political disagreement or fear of an unfavorable ruling does not itself establish judicial bias; there must be a reasonable factual basis for questioning impartiality.

There is no evidence Cooper is a party to the HD23 lawsuit, that she has a direct financial interest in Herman’s candidacy, or that Noel has acted improperly because of his wife’s politics.

But the optics are unavoidable.

A Democrat-appointed judge, married to a longtime progressive fundraising operative connected to one of New Mexico’s most powerful left-leaning PAC networks, is now deciding whether Democrats can keep contesting a Republican-held House seat despite a statute that expressly says a post-primary vacancy must occur 90 or more days before the election.

Falanga Taylor’s vacancy did not.

The Democrats created the vacancy. Their candidate waited until after the 90-day threshold to quit. The Legislature deliberately changed that threshold from 70 days to 90 days only three years ago.

So the question heading into Wednesday’s hearing is simple: Will the court enforce the statute as the Legislature wrote it, or find a way around a deadline Democrats plainly missed?

With control of legislative seats hanging in the balance — and Noel’s own family history deeply intertwined with Democratic politics — New Mexicans will be watching closely.

Will judge follow the law? Dem ballot case puts political ties in spotlight Read More »

How much fried chicken did NM legislator buy with campaign cash? See the list

15 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

The bizarre Chicago hotel incident that helped end Democrat state Rep. Joseph Hernandez’s reelection campaign grabbed the headlines.

But Hernandez’s own campaign-finance reports, as we exclusively reported last week, reveal another spectacle: more than $101,000 in reported spending, including cash withdrawals, gift cards, hotels, big-box stores — and at least $590.04 spent at fried-chicken chains alone.

A Piñon Post review of Hernandez’s filings found $101,703.30 in reported expenditures across the campaign reports examined. The records do not, on their own, prove that any particular expense was illegal or personally benefited Hernandez. Many transactions were described as fundraising, meetings, travel, lodging, meals, supplies, or other campaign expenses.

Still, some entries are difficult to ignore.

1. At least $590.04 at fried-chicken joints

Seun OG, Pexels

Yes, fried chicken gets its own category.

Hernandez’s campaign reported six separate KFC expenditures totaling $422.22.

Those included $82.16 at KFC in Farmington labeled “meetings and appearances,” $91.94 categorized as fundraising, a $50.26 travel-and-meals charge, a $58.03 meetings charge, and two KFC Shiprock transactions on June 2, 2026, for $67.90 and $71.93.

Then there was Church’s Chicken: $67.04 in Farmington, another $37.09 in Farmington, and $28.97 at a Church’s Chicken in Denton, Texas — another $133.10.

Finally, the campaign spent $34.72 at Raising Cane’s Chicken in Flagstaff, Arizona.

Grand total at those obvious fried-chicken chains: $590.04.

And that does not even count other wing or general restaurants in the ledger.

2. $6,608.02 in massive bank entries with “No Category”

Two of the most unusual expenditures did not involve a restaurant or retailer at all.

On June 5, 2024, the campaign reported $2,500 to DDA Citizens Bank, described as “In clearing Check 101.”

Twelve days later came another $4,108.02 entry described as “Direct Deposit Account Citizen Bank.”

The campaign-purpose category for both?

“00-No Category Applies.”

Together, they totaled $6,608.02.

3. $1,200 “Cash Out” to Hernandez himself

Also on June 5, the campaign listed Joseph Hernandez as the payee for a $1,200 “Cash Out.”

The purpose was listed as a fundraising-event expenditure.

Two days later, the campaign reported another $540 “Cash Out” to Hernandez, this time for candidate travel, lodging, and meals.

And the cash-style transactions did not stop in 2024.

4. Another $1,200 over-the-counter transaction

On June 8, 2026, another $1,200 went to Hernandez in an entry described as “DDK Over the Counter.”

It was categorized as candidate travel, lodging, and meals.

Other reports contain additional ATM, debit-withdrawal and over-the-counter transactions to Hernandez, including a $164 ATM withdrawal on June 2, 2026 and later $103 and $120 entries.

5. $1,724.40 in Speedway gift cards — in one day

One of the most eye-popping spending bursts happened June 5, 2024.

The campaign made four Speedway purchases:

  • $405
  • $444.75
  • $624.75
  • $249.90

The campaign itself said the transactions were for gift cards used to compensate campaign workers or volunteers.

Total in one day: $1,724.40.

6. Nearly $2,400 at Sam’s Club in one day

On June 3, 2024, Hernandez’s campaign reported three separate Sam’s Club expenditures:

$998.41, $154.93 and $1,237.43.

Total: $2,390.77.

All were reported as fundraising expenses.

And just two days earlier, another $1,237.43 Sam’s Club charge had already hit the campaign account.

7. Nearly $1,500 at Home Depot in a single day

Aug. 20, 2024 brought another spending spree.

Hernandez’s campaign reported Home Depot charges of:

$142.81, $312.31 and $1,020.81.

That is $1,475.93 in one day, all described as campaign building materials and supplies. The filing clearly lists all three transactions together.

Then, one week later, another $1,127.17 Home Depot expenditure appeared under “campaign paraphernalia/misc.”

8. Two identical $442.47 hotel charges — same day, same hotel

On May 21, 2026, the campaign reported two identical $442.47 charges at Comfort Suites in Albuquerque.

Combined: $884.94.

Both were categorized as candidate travel, lodging, and meals.

The filing does not explain whether the identical charges represented separate rooms, separate stays, or something else.

9. Hilton, La Fonda and Inn of the Mountain Gods

The campaign’s lodging trail extended well beyond Comfort Suites.

Among the larger reported charges:

$687.67 at Hilton Santa Fe.

$462.44 at La Fonda on the Plaza.

$409.47 at Inn of the Mountain Gods.

The La Fonda charge was particularly notable because Hernandez categorized it as “meetings and appearances,” rather than simply travel or lodging.

10. $800 in Porters Restaurant charges on consecutive days

Porters Restaurant, Courtesy, Facebook

Hernandez’s reports are packed with restaurant spending.

At Porters Restaurant in Farmington, the campaign reported a $400 fundraising charge on June 3, 2024 — followed by another $400 charge the next day.

Other Porters charges included $158.64 and $68.26.

That was just one restaurant.

The campaign also spent at Nataani Nez Restaurant, The Coffee Ship, Los Hermanitos, Little Caesars, Taco Bell, McDonald’s, Red Lobster, Domino’s, Sonic, Denny’s, Wendy’s, Burger King, Wingstop and numerous others.

11. $1,088 for “campaign paraphernalia/misc.”

On Sept. 24, 2024, the campaign reported $1,088 at Denetso Ink in Shiprock.

Instead of describing the expenditure as printing or campaign literature, the reported purpose was the broad category:

“Campaign paraphernalia/misc.” The company appears to be be tied to “Black Streak Apparel.”

12. The bizarre $9,074 “placeholder”

Perhaps the strangest entry in the entire packet is technically a contribution rather than an expenditure.

Hernandez listed $9,074.35 from himself with the following explanation:

“Placeholder to bring balance above negative until audit can rectify negative reported balance.”

The same amended reporting period also contains multiple “Unknown Contributor” cash entries that were later marked deleted, including amounts of $1,470.80, $2,833.38, $1,311.60 and $250.

Because they were deleted, those amounts should not be treated as valid current contributions.

But their appearance — alongside a $9,074 “placeholder” designed to correct a negative reported balance — makes the filing history even more unusual.

13. Some 2024 reports weren’t filed until 2026

Then there is the timing.

The packet includes a Fourth Primary Report due July 5, 2024 that was electronically filed March 10, 2026.

A First General Report due Sept. 9, 2024 similarly shows a March 9, 2026 filing date.

That means some disclosures covering 2024 campaign activity did not appear in their filed form until nearly two years later, or were fixed years later after failing to be in compliance.

A $101K trail after a scandal-plagued exit

Hernandez has since abandoned his reelection campaign following reports of the Chicago hotel incident involving allegations of public nudity and banging on guests’ doors.

But withdrawing from the race does not erase the campaign-finance trail.

At least $590.04 at fried-chicken chains. $6,608.02 in enormous bank entries carrying “No Category.” A $1,200 cash-out to Hernandez. Another $1,200 over-the-counter transaction. $1,724.40 in Speedway gift cards in a single day. Thousands at Sam’s Club and Home Depot. Hundreds at hotels and restaurants. And a $9,074 “placeholder” inserted to fix a negative balance.

The spending, at a glance

The individual transactions pile up quickly. To show just how frequently Hernandez’s campaign account was used at restaurants, grocery and retail stores, and hotels, Piñon Post broke out some of the most notable reported spending by vendor.

Food and restaurants: Hernandez’s filings show repeated spending at Nataani Nez Restaurant, Porters Restaurant, The Coffee Ship, Los Hermanitos, Little Caesars, KFC, and many others. That is on top of the other fast-food and restaurant charges scattered throughout the reports.

Groceries and retail: The campaign also repeatedly spent money at stores including Bashas’, Walmart, Smith’s, Dollar General, Shamrock Foods/Southwest Cash & Carry, and Costco — often under categories such as fundraising, meetings, campaign supplies, or travel and meals.

Hotels and lodging: Hernandez’s reports additionally show hundreds of dollars at a time going to properties including Comfort Suites, Hilton Santa Fe, Staybridge Suites, La Fonda on the Plaza, Inn of the Mountain Gods, and TownePlace Suites.

Taken together with the cash withdrawals, gift-card purchases, big-box spending, and unusual banking entries detailed above, the filings paint a sprawling picture of how Hernandez’s campaign account was used.

None of those entries standing alone proves wrongdoing.

But taken together, Hernandez’s own filings provide an extraordinary look at how more than $101,000 in reported campaign expenditures moved through his political account — and leave plenty of questions for the former candidate to answer.

Scandal-plagued Dem quits race after streaking, campaign cash bombshells

How much fried chicken did NM legislator buy with campaign cash? See the list Read More »

Ballot bailout? NM Dems sue to replace candidates after deadline

15 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

New Mexico Democrats are asking state judges to rescue two state House races after their original nominees bailed out too late to satisfy a key deadline in state election law — with county clerks arguing the statute simply does not allow the party to substitute new candidates under the circumstances.

The fight centers on House Districts 4 and 23, where Democrat nominees Rep. Joseph Hernandez and Elise Falanga Taylor withdrew well after the date New Mexico law establishes for a post-primary ballot vacancy that a political party may fill.

Democrats nevertheless selected former Rep. Anthony Allison to replace Hernandez in District 4 and Matthew Herman to replace Falanga Taylor in District 23. Both were initially rejected by their respective county clerks, prompting lawsuits seeking court orders putting them on the Nov. 3 ballot.

The statutory language presents Democrats with an obvious hurdle.

Section 1-8-8(A) NMSA 1978 begins: “If after a primary election, but ninety or more days before the general election, a vacancy occurs, for any cause…” the political party may fill that vacancy through the appropriate central committee.

For the Nov. 3 election, the New Mexico Secretary of State’s own 2026 Candidate Guide identifies Aug. 5 as the 90-day deadline for a vacancy on the general-election ballot occurring after the primary. The guide separately identifies Aug. 25 — 70 days before the election — as the final date for filing an appointment to fill an already qualifying vacancy.

That distinction is at the heart of the dispute.

Subsection A determines when a vacancy is eligible to be filled: it must arise at least 90 days before the general election. Subsection D then gives the party until the 70th day before the election to formally make and file its replacement appointment.

The Legislature made that distinction even clearer in 2023. Lawmakers specifically amended Subsection A by changing the vacancy threshold from 70 days to 90 days, while separately retaining a 70-day deadline for the replacement appointment paperwork.

Neither Democrat vacancy arose by Aug. 5.

Falanga Taylor announced Aug. 16 that she was abandoning her challenge to House Minority Whip Alan Martinez (R-Rio Rancho). Hernandez withdrew on Aug. 25 — the absolute final day on which a candidate could withdraw and have his or her name removed from the ballot under Section 1-10-6.

Yet Democrats are arguing that the 70-day appointment deadline should allow their substitutes onto the ballot anyway.

Attorney Kate Ferlic, representing Allison and Herman, told KOAT, “if a candidate files prior to 70 days, that candidate should appear on the ballot.”

County clerks read the statute differently.

San Juan County Clerk Alyssa Kuhn disqualified Allison under Section 1-8-8(A) and has now asked a judge to dismiss his lawsuit. Sandoval County Clerk Anne Brady-Romero likewise concluded Herman could not lawfully replace Falanga Taylor because the underlying vacancy occurred after the statutory deadline.

The Sandoval County fight has already taken an unusual turn. Thirteenth Judicial District Judge James A. Noel ordered Brady-Romero to put Herman on the ballot pending further proceedings. The clerk complied but said the county will defend its original determination at a Sept. 2 hearing, maintaining that “no replacement candidate could be submitted because of statutory deadlines,” according to the county statement reported by Source New Mexico.

The scramble began after two very different Democrat campaigns imploded.

Falanga Taylor quit her District 23 race while accusing Martinez’s campaign of exploiting a decades-old abusive relationship to connect her to crimes allegedly committed by a former partner, which, of course, is not true. Martinez flatly denied that he or anyone affiliated with his campaign was responsible. Reporting at the time noted Falanga Taylor’s campaign did not provide specifics establishing who was behind the alleged attacks when asked — further proof she just cooked up the story to exit from the race.

She explicitly said she wanted to step aside so another Democrat could take her place.

The situation in District 4 was even more explosive.

Hernandez withdrew after reports surfaced about a Chicago hotel incident in which witnesses and a police report described a man identified as Hernandez running naked through a hotel hallway and banging on guests’ doors. Hernandez later apologized and said he was addressing problems involving alcohol.

His withdrawal also came as the Piñon Post reported new questions surrounding his campaign-finance filings, including thousands of dollars in cash-style or self-directed transactions, extensive restaurant, hotel, and retail spending, and repeated filing issues.

Democrats then moved immediately to nominate Allison, a former District 4 representative, as Hernandez’s replacement.

The Democrat legal theory now effectively asks courts to treat the 70-day paperwork deadline as permitting replacements even though the vacancies themselves did not arise within the 90-day window expressly written into Subsection A.

Republicans and the county clerks say that reading would render the Legislature’s 90-day language meaningless.

The stakes are considerable. If the replacements ultimately remain disqualified, Republicans would be left without Democrat opponents in the two races. KOAT political analyst Brian Sanderoff acknowledged that Democrats are fighting because they want to preserve contests in both districts.

House Speaker Javier Martínez (D-Albuquerque) has publicly sided with his party’s effort, saying Democrats expect the courts to side with Democrats, despite the law being crystal clear they can’t place their candidates on the ballot past the required timeline.

But the controversy now puts judges in the position of interpreting two deadlines that the Legislature deliberately wrote differently — a 90-day threshold for the vacancy to occur and a 70-day deadline to file the replacement.

Democrats missed the first one in both races.

Now they are asking the courts to save their candidates anyway.

Ballot bailout? NM Dems sue to replace candidates after deadline Read More »

Speaker Johnson visits NM with major boost for Cunningham

21 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson made a high-profile stop in New Mexico Wednesday to rally support for Republican congressional nominee Greg Cunningham, highlighting one of the GOP’s biggest opportunities to expand its narrow House majority this November.

And Johnson arrived with a message from President Donald Trump himself.

The Louisiana Republican said he spoke with Trump by phone Wednesday morning before traveling to Albuquerque and told the president where he was headed.

“He loves the state of New Mexico,” Johnson said of Trump. “He loves the people. He loves this candidate.”

Johnson said Trump agreed Cunningham is “straight out of central casting,” adding, “He’s going to be perfect for this district,” according to the Santa Fe New Mexican.

Cunningham, a Marine Corps combat veteran, retired Albuquerque police detective, and small-business owner, is challenging two-term Democrat U.S. Rep. Gabe Vasquez in New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District.

The race has quickly emerged as one of Republicans’ most important pickup opportunities in the country.

Trump carried the district in 2024 even as Vasquez narrowly survived reelection, giving Republicans confidence that voters who backed Trump could also send Cunningham to Washington this year.

“That’s what makes this district, puts it in play,” Johnson said, according to KOB.

Johnson said Republicans see New Mexico’s 2nd District as one of a small number of seats that could ultimately determine control of the U.S. House.

The Cook Political Report currently rates the race “Lean Democratic,” but Johnson argued national handicappers are underestimating Cunningham and the enthusiasm Republicans are seeing on the ground.

Before the press conference, Johnson attended a fundraiser for Cunningham that he said drew approximately 375 people — the largest crowd he had seen during his August campaign tour across dozens of congressional districts.

“We just had the largest crowd of the entire month of August that I’ve seen anywhere in America,” Johnson said.

KOAT reported Johnson also described the amount raised at the event as “extraordinary,” although he did not disclose a total.

The gathering also included state Rep. Martin Zamora (R-Clovis), the Republican nominee challenging far-left Democrat U.S. Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández in New Mexico’s 3rd Congressional District.

Zamora’s appearance underscored Republicans’ broader effort to compete for congressional seats across New Mexico as the party works to protect and potentially grow its House majority.

After the fundraiser, Johnson joined Cunningham and law enforcement leaders for a press conference at Rio Bravo Brewing Co. in Albuquerque.

The speaker repeatedly emphasized Cunningham’s background in law enforcement and military service, contrasting it with Vasquez’s record in Washington.

“The incumbent in this district has had a shameful record,” Johnson said, according to KOB. “He voted against the tax cuts for hard working New Mexican families. He voted against border security measures over and over.”

Johnson also argued the Democrat Party is continuing to move further left, warning that Vasquez would ultimately fall in line with the party’s socialist wing if Democrats regain control of Congress.

“He will follow the DSA, the Democrat Socialists of America, takeover of the party,” Johnson said. “He won’t be able to stand up to the base.”

Johnson framed November’s election as a straightforward choice.

“The president won this district,” he said. “They are for common sense. They are not for crazy, and they’re going to get an opportunity in this election to vote for common sense.”

Cunningham, meanwhile, focused heavily on public safety and his 22 years serving as an Albuquerque police officer.

“I am not a politician that is telling police officers and detectives that I like them or I will listen to them,” Cunningham said. “I am one of them.”

“I have worked these streets. I’ve been in these alleys. I’ve gone through these doors,” he continued. “I know what these men and women need, and I am committed to getting that to them once we get elected to Congress.”

Cunningham was joined by law enforcement figures including Eddy County Sheriff Matt Hutchinson and members of the New Mexico Fraternal Order of Police.

Former New Mexico Fraternal Order of Police President Bob Martinez also took direct aim at Vasquez’s past record on policing.

“Congressman Vasquez talks a good line, but he basically was for defunding the police,” Martinez told the New Mexican, referring to Vasquez’s previous comments supporting the defund-the-police movement.

“He did not support the police,” Martinez added. “Now that it’s time to get reelected, he’s suddenly on board. But the fact of the matter is history speaks for itself.”

Vasquez responded by attacking Johnson and attempting to paint Cunningham as too closely aligned with Trump.

“My opponent since day one has said that he wants to be the representative of this district because he has Donald Trump’s approval,” Vasquez told KOAT. “Mike Johnson is here to validate that,” not mentioning that the President won the Second Congressional District.

A small group of left-wing protesters also gathered outside the event, staging a sad collection of assorted anti-Trump and anti-Johnson demonstrations while Cunningham and Johnson spoke inside.

Cunningham appeared completely unfazed.

“I’ve raised six children, have nine grandchildren, so I’m actually used to talking over stuff like this,” he joked.

The far bigger story Wednesday was happening inside: the Speaker of the House personally traveled to New Mexico, Trump sent his enthusiastic support, hundreds packed a Cunningham fundraiser, and national Republicans made unmistakably clear that they believe Vasquez’s seat is winnable.

Republicans are already preparing to spend millions in the Albuquerque and Las Cruces media markets as they target the district, while Cunningham has demonstrated growing fundraising strength.

With control of Congress potentially coming down to only a handful of races, New Mexico could find itself at the center of the national battle for the House.

Johnson believes Cunningham can deliver one of those decisive victories.

Cunningham sounded equally confident.

“I look forward to seeing you all in January,” he told supporters, “at the swearing-in ceremony.”

Speaker Johnson visits NM with major boost for Cunningham Read More »

‘I think it is BS’: NM Dems rage over Trump Supreme Court victory

9 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver’s office is sounding the alarm after the U.S. Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a key victory in his push to tighten mail-in voting rules ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

In a statement posted online Tuesday, Toulouse Oliver’s office claimed the Supreme Court’s decision “creates unnecessary chaos and unsubstantiated doubt in our democratic process” just as voters begin making plans to participate in November’s elections.

The reaction followed Monday’s 6-3 Supreme Court order lifting a lower-court injunction that had blocked portions of Trump’s March 2026 executive order in 23 Democrat-led states and Washington, D.C. The unsigned emergency order split along ideological lines, with the Court’s three liberal justices dissenting.

The ruling is not the final word on the legality of Trump’s executive order. Instead, the Supreme Court concluded that the states challenging it had sued prematurely because the executive order itself had not yet caused them the concrete injuries they alleged.

That procedural distinction nevertheless amounted to a significant victory for Trump as election deadlines rapidly approach. Breitbart News noted that some states are preparing to begin sending ballots to voters in early September, giving the legal battle heightened urgency heading into the midterms.

Trump signed the executive order in March as part of what his administration has described as an effort to strengthen election integrity and prevent ineligible voters from participating in federal elections.

Among other provisions, the order directs the Department of Homeland Security, working with the Social Security Administration, to compile state-specific lists of confirmed U.S. citizens of voting age. It also directs the Justice Department to prioritize investigations and prosecutions, under applicable federal law, involving officials or others who distribute federal ballots to ineligible voters.

The order also instructed the U.S. Postal Service to begin rulemaking governing mail and absentee ballots. The administration’s proposal calls for official election-mail envelopes with unique barcodes and would require states to enroll mail-ballot recipients on state-specific participation lists before USPS transmits their ballots.

The Postal Service published its new requirements last week as the Supreme Court considered the administration’s request. The White House has defended the order as a straightforward election-security measure.

“President Trump is taking decisive action to prevent non-citizens from voting in Federal elections and to protect the security of mail-in and absentee ballots,” the White House said in its March fact sheet announcing the order.

The Supreme Court, however, made clear Monday that it was not yet blessing every eventual action the administration might take under the order.

“The Court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful,” the Court wrote. “On that score, time will tell.”

But the majority concluded the states had not shown the executive order itself had caused the injuries necessary for the Massachusetts federal court to intervene at this stage.

Toulouse Oliver’s office seized on the Supreme Court’s warning about future implementation while blasting the result.

“In an unsigned, emergency order issued Monday, the justices agreed states had not yet been harmed by President Donald Trump’s March 2026 executive order and therefore the case was not successful in blocking the order,” the office wrote.

Then came the promise of another courtroom battle.

“The Secretary of State’s Office has been working closely with the New Mexico Department of Justice in preparation of such a ruling and will challenge the executive order anew,” the statement continued. “Secretary of State Toulouse Oliver will always fight on behalf of the rights of all of New Mexico’s voters and remains committed to ensuring that every eligible voter has the information and ability to participate in the election this year.”

Her office stressed that the Supreme Court decision does not presently change how New Mexicans may vote in November and encouraged voters to consult the Secretary of State’s website and NMVote.org for current information.

The office also emphasized that other portions of Trump’s plan remain blocked through separate litigation — an important caveat because Monday’s Supreme Court order addressed only the injunction before it.

Toulouse Oliver was hardly the only New Mexico Democrat furious over the decision.

U.S. Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández posted a video calling the ruling “a really bad decision” and accusing Trump of attempting to interfere with mail-in voting.

“The Supreme Court did not make a final decision,” Leger Fernández said. “They did not decide that Trump has any legal authority to have a say in our federal elections. He does not. That is reserved to the states and to Congress.”

She then went considerably further.

“I think it is BS what the Supreme Court has done,” Leger Fernández declared.

“But let me tell you what we are going to do is we are going to continue to bring those legal cases and those battles,” she added.

Leger Fernández urged Americans to vote by mail, absentee ballot, early voting, or in person on Election Day.

“We are not going to let Trump suppress our vote,” she said. “We’re not going to let Trump make us despair and think that our vote doesn’t matter.”

Similar outrage erupted among Democrat officials elsewhere.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom vowed additional litigation and accused the Trump administration of advancing “Orwellian rules,” while New York Attorney General Letitia James described the Supreme Court action as a setback and likewise promised continued legal challenges.

The White House, meanwhile, celebrated the result. Spokeswoman Lauren Bis called Trump’s policies “commonsense measures that protect the security of mail-in ballots and ensure only Americans are electing American leaders.”

Even after Monday’s Supreme Court victory, however, the fight is not finished.

A separate injunction obtained in litigation involving voting-rights groups still blocks implementation of portions of the Postal Service rules, meaning Monday’s ruling does not automatically change mail-voting procedures nationwide. Reuters reported Tuesday that U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani criticized USPS over its rulemaking but declined to impose another block for the time being, while the separate injunction remains in force.

The new Postal Service rule includes requirements involving voter lists, ballot-envelope markings, and unique barcodes designed to allow election mail to be tracked. Those requirements are themselves now the subject of continuing litigation.

The Associated Press reported that the Supreme Court ruling may therefore produce no immediate change in the way Americans cast ballots this November, particularly with election deadlines approaching so quickly. What it unquestionably did was remove one major legal obstacle confronting Trump’s executive order and open another round in the broader court fight over presidential authority, state election administration, and mail voting.

For the Trump administration, Monday was a significant legal victory: the Supreme Court rejected the states’ attempt to keep the challenged provisions blocked on the theory presented to the courts so far.

For Toulouse Oliver and other Democrat officials, it triggered promises of yet more litigation.

New Mexico’s secretary of state says the ruling has created “unnecessary chaos.” Leger Fernández is calling what the Supreme Court did “BS.” Democrat officials in other states are rushing back to court.

And with ballots beginning to go out in parts of the country within weeks, the battle over Trump’s mail-voting and citizenship-verification order is nowhere near finished.

‘I think it is BS’: NM Dems rage over Trump Supreme Court victory Read More »

Defying Trump, NM Dems double down on taxpayer-funded child sex-changes

18 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

New Mexico, which is run by far-left Democrats in every place of state power, plans to keep paying for transgender-related medical services for minors even after the Trump administration’s new federal rule cuts off Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program funding for such treatments.

The move means New Mexico taxpayers will be forced to continue footing the bill for puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, sex-change counseling, speech therapy, body hair removal, and other gender-transition services for minors after federal dollars are pulled.

According to The Guardian, the Trump administration finalized the rule on Aug. 13, with the change set to take effect Oct. 13. The rule ends federal Medicaid and CHIP support for the procedures and services commonly described by left-wing activists as “gender-affirming care.”

But New Mexico is apparently not backing down.

Democrat Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s New Mexico Health Care Authority “is planning to continue covering these services using state funds,” agency spokesman Timothy Fowler wrote in an email to the Santa Fe New Mexican, according to The Guardian.

That means the state is preparing to defy the federal shift by backfilling the money with state funds, keeping New Mexico on track as one of the Southwest’s most aggressive havens for transgender medical interventions on minors.

New Mexico already has a massive Medicaid and CHIP population. The Guardian reported that, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, New Mexico has the second-highest percentage of residents enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP, with 41.4% of the state’s population on the programs. The outlet also cited KFF data showing 61% of New Mexico children are insured through Medicaid or CHIP.

That makes the Trump administration’s rule especially significant in New Mexico — and makes the state’s decision to keep paying with state money even more consequential for taxpayers.

The funding fight comes as Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and legislative Democrats have worked to make New Mexico a refuge for abortion and transgender procedures while neighboring states move in the opposite direction.

In 2023, Democrats passed the so-called “Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act,” a law designed to shield abortion and transgender-related services from local restrictions. Since then, New Mexico has been promoted by the left as a destination for families seeking access to these services as other states enact protections for children.

The Guardian reported that families have relocated to New Mexico as protections for transgender-identifying youth have disappeared in neighboring states. The outlet also cited the Williams Institute at UCLA, which estimates that 4,800 transgender-identifying teenagers ages 13 to 17 live in New Mexico.

The same report described the services at issue as including “medical, social and psychological services,” such as puberty blockers, hormones including estrogen and testosterone, speech therapy, body hair removal and counseling.

Many New Mexicans argue those are not harmless political talking points, but life-altering interventions being pushed on children who are not old enough to vote, buy alcohol, or sign major legal contracts.

Far-left supporters claim the services are necessary. The Guardian wrote that major medical organizations support such care as medically necessary and lifesaving.

But the Trump administration’s rule represents a direct challenge to using federal taxpayer dollars for those services, especially when children are involved. New Mexico’s response is to shift the cost to state taxpayers instead.

The state has used this same playbook before.

Earlier this year, New Mexico announced it would use state money to cover the cost of expiring Affordable Care Act tax credits for residents who purchase insurance on the state marketplace. At the time, Lujan Grisham defended the move as a response to Washington.

“We created the Health Care Affordability Fund for moments like this – when Washington fails to protect working families and the most vulnerable among us,” Lujan Grisham said in a statement.

Now, the same state-first spending approach is being applied to transgender medical services for minors.

The difference is that this time, the issue is not just insurance premiums. It is whether New Mexico taxpayers should be required to fund sex-change-related interventions for children after the federal government has said Medicaid and CHIP dollars will no longer pay for them.

New Jersey also recently moved to fund such services through a new shield law, according to The Guardian.

But New Mexico’s situation is especially stark because so many children in the state are enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP. If the state continues covering the services with state-only dollars, the cost and controversy will remain squarely on New Mexico taxpayers.

Democrats will call it “health care.”

Parents and taxpayers may see something very different: a state government determined to keep New Mexico open for experimental and irreversible gender-transition interventions on minors, no matter what the federal government says.

Defying Trump, NM Dems double down on taxpayer-funded child sex-changes Read More »

Dem blames alcohol after alleged Chicago hotel streaking incident

12 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

New Mexico House Rep. Joseph Hernandez has broken his silence after a police report and eyewitness accounts described a bizarre late-night disturbance at a Chicago hotel involving allegations of public nudity, banging on guest doors, and a police escort off the property.

Hernandez, a Shiprock Democrat who represents House District 4, posted a public apology on social media after the Albuquerque Journal reported new details about the July 29 incident at the Holiday Inn at Wolf Point in Chicago.

“I want to sincerely apologize to my family and my community for my behavior during a recent stay in Chicago,” Hernandez wrote. “My conduct was not reflective of my role as a state representative or my duty to you – my constituents, and I accept full responsibility for my actions.”

The apology came after the Journal reported that a heavily redacted Chicago Police Department incident report described a roughly two-hour incident that began around 2:30 a.m. on the hotel’s 17th floor, where Hernandez was reportedly staying.

According to the Journal, someone called emergency services about a man “running around naked” and “banging and knocking on other guests’ doors.”

The name in the police report was redacted, but the Journal reported that identifying details appeared to match Hernandez. Two eyewitnesses also told the newspaper they were certain the man involved in the alleged disturbance was the New Mexico Democrat.

When shown another photo of Hernandez and asked to rate their certainty that the man was the state representative, one witness reportedly said “10.” The other responded, “If not an 11.”

The Journal previously reported that Hernandez checked into room 1745 on the 17th floor using a government discount code on July 26 and checked out the morning of July 29, the same day as the incident.

Chicago police officers reportedly responded around 2:44 a.m. and found the man “fully clothed” and standing with hotel security. The incident report described the man as 5-foot-6, 280 pounds, with short black hair, a light-brown complexion, and a 1987 birth date.

According to the Journal’s summary of the report, the man pulled up photos of himself on his phone and was “demanding” officers “know who he is,” while insisting he be allowed to return to his room.

Hotel staff refused. The Journal reported that staff told officers the man’s reservation had been “cancelled due to” his behavior and for breaking hotel rules.

Police then escorted the man to his room to collect his belongings before escorting him off the property. The report said officers told him he had been “formally trespassed from the property” and waited while he ordered a rideshare to another hotel.

Hernandez initially gave the Journal a much narrower explanation, calling the episode a “negative experience” with hotel security.

“During my recent stay in Chicago, I had a negative experience with a hotel security guard that resulted in a visit from Chicago Police,” Hernandez said in his earlier statement. “The situation was resolved quickly as I relocated to a new hotel, where I stayed for the remainder of my trip.”

But after the police report and eyewitness accounts became public, Hernandez’s tone changed dramatically.

In his new apology, Hernandez acknowledged that alcohol played a role in what he described as a “regrettable lapse in judgment.”

“I take this situation very seriously and am seeking professional help to address my challenges with alcohol that ultimately led to this regrettable lapse in judgement,” Hernandez wrote. “I am truly sorry for disappointing all those who put their faith in me, and I am committed to making meaningful changes to recover my health, regain your trust, and uphold the high standards you deserve from your elected representative.”

The statement was signed, “Joseph Franklin Hernandez, NM State Rep. HD-4, Shiprock, New Mexico.”

Screenshot: Hernandez’s Facebook page, taken Monday, August 24, 2026.

While Hernandez apologized for his conduct and accepted responsibility, he did not specifically address the most explosive allegations in the Journal’s report, including the claim that he was running around naked, banging on guest doors, or that witnesses identified him as the man involved.

The Journal reported that no charges appear to have been filed in connection with the incident. The original dispatch was reportedly classified as a “sex offense call,” though the final reporting code was “criminal trespass.”

One witness also claimed Hernandez “pushed” them near an elevator while they attempted to get him back to his room. That same witness reportedly said Hernandez later accused security and the hotel of racial bias after police arrived.

The incident has already become a political problem for Hernandez, who is running for reelection in House District 4. He faces Republican Heather Ellison, a Navajo educator, in November.

Ellison previously called on Hernandez to be transparent about what happened in Chicago.

“Legislators are held to a certain ethical standard, and they have a responsibility to be transparent, especially when spending taxpayer dollars,” Ellison said. “This incident is certainly concerning, and I call upon Representative Hernandez to tell the truth and take accountability for what happened.”

Hernandez has now apologized and admitted alcohol was involved.

But for voters, the unanswered questions remain: what exactly happened inside that Chicago hotel, why did his original statement leave out so many details, and were taxpayer-related travel benefits involved in the trip? Also, to what extent is Hernandez’s alleged alcoholism affecting his job performance, including official acts while voting and serving during the legislative session at the Roundhouse?

For a lawmaker who first described the incident as a brief “negative experience,” the latest apology confirms the episode was serious enough to demand public accountability.

And the details now on the record are far stranger than voters were first told.

Dem blames alcohol after alleged Chicago hotel streaking incident Read More »

Witnesses say Dem rep was ‘running around naked’ at hotel

14 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

A newly released Chicago police incident report is raising more questions about New Mexico House Rep. Joseph Hernandez’s brief explanation of a late-night hotel encounter that reportedly involved a disturbance, public nudity allegations, and a police escort off the property.

Hernandez, a Shiprock Democrat, previously described the episode as a “negative experience” with hotel security that ended with him moving to another hotel.

But according to the Albuquerque Journal, a heavily redacted Chicago Police Department incident report and two eyewitness accounts paint a far more serious picture of what unfolded early July 29 at the Holiday Inn at Wolf Point in Chicago.

The incident reportedly began around 2:30 a.m. on the hotel’s 17th floor, where Hernandez was staying. The Journal reported that someone called emergency services about a man “running around naked” and “banging and knocking on other guests’ doors.”

The name of the individual in the police report was redacted, but the Journal reported that the descriptors appeared to match Hernandez. Two eyewitnesses also told the newspaper they were certain the man involved in the disturbance was the New Mexico lawmaker.

According to a travel log obtained by the Journal, Hernandez checked into room 1745 on July 26 using a government discount code and checked out the morning of July 29, the same day as the incident.

Chicago police officers reportedly arrived around 2:44 a.m. and found the man “fully clothed” with security. The report described the individual as 5-foot-6, 280 pounds, with short black hair and a light-brown complexion, and a 1987 birth date.

The report also said the man pulled up photos of himself on his phone while “demanding” that officers “know who he is,” and insisted he should be allowed back into his room.

Hotel staff apparently disagreed. According to the Journal’s summary of the report, the hotel told officers the man’s reservation had been “cancelled due to” his behavior and for breaking hotel rules.

Police then escorted him to his room to collect his belongings before escorting him out of the hotel. The report said officers explained he had been “formally trespassed from the property” and waited while he ordered a rideshare to another hotel.

Hernandez’s earlier statement did not mention the nudity allegations, banging on doors, or being formally trespassed.

“During my recent stay in Chicago, I had a negative experience with a hotel security guard that resulted in a visit from Chicago Police,” Hernandez said in the statement. “The situation was resolved quickly as I relocated to a new hotel, where I stayed for the remainder of my trip.”

The Journal reported that Hernandez has declined multiple requests to explain what happened and why the incident escalated. When reached by phone July 31, he reportedly referenced “a security guard,” then claimed he was losing signal, despite no apparent interference on the call. He said he would be available later but did not answer again or respond to follow-up requests.

The incident occurred while legislators from across the country were in Chicago for the National Conference of State Legislatures summit. The Journal reported that Hernandez had not filed travel receipts related to the trip as of Aug. 14, according to the Legislative Council Service.

The two eyewitnesses, who spoke anonymously to protect their employment, told the Journal that hotel staff and security searched the man’s name online and were surprised when the search led them to Hernandez’s page on the New Mexico Legislature website.

When shown another photo of Hernandez and asked to rate their certainty that the man involved was the lawmaker, one witness said “10.” The other said, “If not an 11.”

One witness claimed Hernandez “pushed” them near an elevator while they tried to get him back to his room. That witness also said that once police arrived, Hernandez had put his clothes back on and accused security and the hotel of racial bias.

The Journal reported that the original dispatch was classified as a “sex offense call,” though the Illinois reporting code on the final police report was “criminal trespass.” No charges appear to have been filed, and Hernandez was not listed in Chicago First Municipal District court records.

The witnesses also claimed security had been called on a different night during Hernandez’s stay after he allegedly “passed out” with his shoes off on a couch in the hotel lobby.

The report is politically damaging for Hernandez, who is seeking reelection in House District 4. He first took office in 2025 after winning the seat formerly held by retired Democrat Rep. Anthony Allison.

Hernandez will face Republican Heather Ellison in November. Ellison, a Navajo educator, previously called on Hernandez to explain the Chicago incident.

“Legislators are held to a certain ethical standard, and they have a responsibility to be transparent, especially when spending taxpayer dollars,” Ellison said. “This incident is certainly concerning, and I call upon Representative Hernandez to tell the truth and take accountability for what happened.”

House Speaker Javier Martínez told the Journal earlier this month that he planned to ask Hernandez about the incident, but could not say whether an ethics investigation had been or would be opened.

For now, the public still has more questions than answers.

Hernandez called it a “negative experience.” The police report and witnesses describe something much more serious.

Witnesses say Dem rep was ‘running around naked’ at hotel Read More »

NM Dems have panic attack because Hull says he will talk to other governors

19 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

New Mexico Democrats are sounding the alarm over Republican gubernatorial candidate Gregg Hull after he suggested he would work with other governors in the region, including Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, on policy — a prospect that apparently has the Democratic Party of New Mexico in full fundraising panic.

In a recent DPNM email, Democrats attacked Hull as a “MAGA Mayor” — despite his very middle of the road approach — and claimed he had “revealed his opposition to abortion access in New Mexico.” The party cited a New Mexico Political Report article and accused Hull of saying he would not support New Mexico’s status as a “safe haven” for abortion and would work with Abbott to “prevent Texans from being able to access abortion and reproductive care in New Mexico,” a stretch of a claim. 

The email went further, warning supporters that “there’s no doubt” Hull would try to undo New Mexico’s abortion policies and claiming he would put “patients and providers” at risk. There is likely no chance of such policy, since far-left, pro-abortion Democrats control both chambers of the state legislature.

But the panic says more about Democrats than it does about Hull.

The Democratic email treats any conversation with a neighboring Republican governor as an existential threat, as if Hull merely speaking with Abbott means New Mexico would automatically adopt every Texas policy overnight. That is the political leap Democrats want donors to make: Hull talks to Abbott, therefore New Mexico loses everything. They never claimed this the numerous times current Democrat Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham has collaborated with the likes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom or Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, both Democrats.

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham pictured with California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The email also reveals how central abortion has become to Democrats’ 2026 playbook. Rather than defending New Mexico’s extreme abortion regime on the merits, DPNM is trying to scare supporters into donating by claiming Hull would destroy “reproductive freedom” and end New Mexico’s status as an abortion destination.

That “safe haven” status is exactly the problem for pro-life New Mexicans.

New Mexico has the most permissive abortion laws in the country. Guttmacher lists New Mexico as a state where abortion is “not restricted based on gestational duration,” and other abortion-access guides likewise describe abortion as legal throughout pregnancy in the state.

That means New Mexico has no gestational limit — no 15-week limit, no 20-week limit, no viability limit, and no general late-term ban. That is abortion up to birth.

Democrats do not like that phrase, but the policy reality is clear: New Mexico law does not set a gestational cutoff.

The state has also moved aggressively to block local communities from restricting abortion. The New Mexico Supreme Court struck down local abortion restrictions in conservative cities and counties, holding that state law precludes local governments from regulating abortion clinics or limiting abortion access. AP reported the ruling reinforced New Mexico’s position as a state with some of the most liberal abortion laws in the country.

Democrats call that “protecting access.” Conservatives call it wiping out local protections.

DPNM’s email insists New Mexico has “stepped up” to protect patients and providers. But the abortion industry’s record in New Mexico is not spotless.

The most notorious example is Keisha Atkins, a 23-year-old woman who died after a late-term abortion in Albuquerque. The Albuquerque Journal reported that UNM Health Sciences Center and Southwestern Women’s Options agreed to pay her estate a combined $1.26 million to settle a wrongful death and medical malpractice lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged providers failed to identify, diagnose and treat signs of sepsis during the abortion process.

Another lawsuit, filed by Nichole Atkins, alleged she went to Southwestern Women’s Options in 2010, signed consent forms related to abortion and fetal tissue use, and later claimed injuries from the abortion that left her unable to bear children. Court-linked complaint materials say she alleged the clinic did not properly disclose its relationship with UNM and did not fully inform her about use of fetal tissue.

A separate case involving Jessica Duran accused Southwestern Women’s Options of deception over fetal tissue and UNM research; New Mexico Alliance for Life reported that a district judge allowed Duran’s claims to proceed after denying a motion to dismiss. There are many others, including those pending.

Those cases are exactly why Democrats’ “safe haven” language deserves scrutiny. Safe for whom?

New Mexico Democrats have built a system with no gestational limit, no parental involvement requirement, taxpayer-funded abortion through Medicaid, strong state protections for abortion providers, and preemption against local pro-life ordinances. The Center for Reproductive Rights notes that New Mexico repealed its pre-Roe ban, repealed parental consent, repealed the physician-only surgical abortion restriction, and in 2026 repealed abortion reporting requirements.

Pro-lifers also point to repeated failed attempts to pass born-alive protections in New Mexico. A 2024 legislative analysis noted federal law recognizes a fetus that survives an abortion as a human being who must be cared for, while New Mexico criminal statutes have been applied to infant deaths after birth. But specific state-level born-alive abortion survivor protections have still not become law.

That is the backdrop Democrats do not want to discuss.

Instead, DPNM is trying to turn Hull’s comments about working with Abbott into a fundraising emergency. The email calls Abbott’s policies “extreme,” labels Hull “anti-choice,” and urges supporters to donate to elect Democrats such as Deb Haaland.

The message is obvious: Democrats know New Mexico’s abortion laws are far outside the mainstream, so they are trying to frame any effort to add limits, transparency, or cooperation with neighboring states as an attack on “healthcare.”

But voters may see it differently.

Many New Mexicans may support some abortion access while still opposing abortion without gestational limits, abortion tourism, taxpayer-funded procedures, lack of parental involvement, and a system where high-profile lawsuits have raised serious questions about patient safety.

Hull’s position gives voters a chance to debate whether New Mexico should remain the abortion capital of the Southwest — or whether the state should finally consider protections for unborn babies, mothers, local communities, and taxpayers.

No wonder Democrats are panicking.

NM Dems have panic attack because Hull says he will talk to other governors Read More »

1 2 3 4 5 6 … 115
Scroll to Top