Piñon Post

Not so honorable: New Mexico Supreme Court censures Democrat judge

In a recent development, a Democrat New Mexico judge from Las Cruces, The “honorable” James Martin of the 3rd Judicial District Court, faced public censure from the New Mexico Supreme Court for breaching six rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct. 

The censure, issued on Nov. 13, followed an acknowledgment of allegations by Judge Martin, who admitted to influencing prosecutors to pursue more severe charges against Robert “Berto” Burnham in a 2018 case.

Judge James T. Martin. Portrait via NM Courts.

The case involved Burnham, the former owner of Boots And Bourbon, who was charged with aggravated assault for allegedly pointing a semi-automatic rifle at a woman at the Las Cruces bar, identified as Martin’s daughter. The bar subsequently closed in 2018, and Burnham was convicted in 2021, with an ongoing appeal.

During Burnham’s trial, Judge Martin reportedly leveraged his authority to coerce prosecutors Samuel Rosten and Spencer Wilson into modifying the charges against Burnham. In a phone call, Martin directed the prosecutors to use language such as “brandish a firearm” in jury instructions instead of stating that Burnham “pointed a firearm” at Martin’s daughter. Following this, an amended jury instruction was submitted, alleging that Burnham “brandished and/or pointed a deadly weapon.”

After Burnham’s conviction, Martin inquired about his detention, expressing satisfaction that he was taken into custody. The court’s opinion highlighted Martin’s allowance of his daughter in his chambers during the trial, acknowledging the potential appearance of impropriety.

The Supreme Court’s censure aimed to emphasize the importance of judges avoiding any appearance of impropriety and to reassure the public of the legal system’s commitment to maintaining an independent, fair, and impartial judiciary.

NM high court sets hearing date for suit over Gov. MLG’s anti-gun order

In New Mexico, the state Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments concerning the scope of the governor’s authority to issue public health orders. 

The petition initiating this legal scrutiny has been filed by entities including the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Republican Party of New Mexico, and every Republican state legislator. The legal filing came after Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed a public health emergency order stripping Bernalillo County and Albuquerque residents of their right to concealed or open carry a firearm. 

During the signing of the blatantly illegal order, Lujan Grisham claimed that no constitutional right, in her view, including her oath, “is intended to be absolute.”

A Joe Biden-appointed judge quickly struck down that measure due to its blatant unconstitutionality, but the question about the governor’s authority to make such edicts is what the lawsuit is centered upon.

Alongside questioning the governor’s authority, the petition seeks clarity from the court on whether drug abuse and gun violence can be considered valid grounds for declaring a public health emergency. The New Mexico Supreme Court has slated the arguments for January 8, where these issues will be thoroughly examined.

Reps. John Block (R-Alamogordo) and Stefani Lord (R-Sandia Park) have begun impeachment proceedings against the governor and intend to bring them forth in the next legislative session.

ABQ Mayor Keller sides with eco-left, vetoes bill to rein in ‘rogue’ board

In a recent development, Mayor Tim Keller has vetoed Bill O-23-88 and R-23-176, sending ripples through the Albuquerque City Council. The bills aimed to repeal and replace the Air Quality Control Board and impose a moratorium on the board, restricting its ability to pass a Health, Environment, and Equity Impacts rule without scientific evidence, arguing it falls beyond its jurisdiction based on case law.

City Councilor Dan Lewis expressed concern, stating, “By vetoing these bills, the Mayor has put the City of Albuquerque and the State of New Mexico at risk of losing thousands of jobs.”

 Lewis criticized the Mayor for siding with enviro-Marxists, particularly mentioning Marla Painter, whom he accused of representing only the South Valley, and her husband Mark Rudd, a domestic terrorist associated with the Weather Underground. Lewis argued that the veto goes against economic development and the interests of numerous family-owned businesses, expressing grave concerns about the proposed rule. In a press release, Lewis wrote that the veto “puts checks and balances on rogue Air Quality Control Board.”

According to Lewis, the Air Quality Control Board intends to implement regulations that would make it extremely challenging, if not impossible, for companies to obtain air permits in Albuquerque. Despite the Mayor expressing serious concerns with the proposed rule, he chose to veto the legislation, preventing the board from moving forward with these regulations.

The Albuquerque Journal characterized the proposed Health, Environment, and Equity Impacts rule as “perhaps the most restrictive regulatory rule in New Mexico history,” with environmentalists supporting its broad application to various businesses requiring air quality permits, from small enterprises to schools, hospitals, and more.

The University of New Mexico voiced its apprehension, stating that the proposed regulations could negatively impact UNM operations on the main campus, the Health Sciences Center, UNM Hospital, and anticipated developments like the South Campus TIDD and UNM Health infrastructure.

Even the City’s Environmental Health Department expressed concerns, noting that the proposed rule seemingly applies to a wide range of entities, including small businesses, schools, hotels, office buildings, gas stations, and larger corporations.

The undemocratic decisions and alleged behind-the-scenes deals of the Air Quality Control Board are now a cause for concern, potentially harming major employers and jeopardizing the city’s ability to attract businesses crucial for job growth. The Air Quality Control Board is set to review the proposed rule from December 4th to 8th. The City Council will have an opportunity to override the Mayor’s veto with six votes at the regular meeting on December 4th.

New Mexico ranked one of the least free states

In the “Freedom in the 50 States 2023” report by the Cato Institute, New Mexico finds itself ranked 35th, indicating its position as one of the less free states in the country. The comprehensive evaluation conducted by the libertarian think tank scrutinized policies affecting economic and social freedoms across all 50 states.

While New Mexico secured favorable marks for personal freedom, its economic performance was subpar, reflected in its overall score of 0.04. The report noted that the state has historically possessed more personal freedom than economic freedom, with recent improvements in fiscal policy. Despite moving up to 39th place on fiscal policy, up from a prolonged stint at 48th, and achieving a 36th-place rank on regulatory policy, its 41st-best score on economic freedom weighed down its overall standing.

New Mexico faced criticism for government consumption (48th), government employment (48th), and labor market freedom (44th), among other categories. The report highlighted that the state’s overall tax burden, although below the national average, did not significantly contribute to government choice due to limited competing jurisdictions.

Despite its economic challenges, New Mexico garnered commendations for marriage freedom (No. 1), asset forfeiture (No. 1), and cannabis policies (No. 8). The state also boasted an above-average ranking for incarceration (13th), with low victimless crime arrests and favorable asset forfeiture laws.

However, areas for improvement were identified, with recommendations to enhance school choice and liberalize smoking laws to boost the personal freedom score. The report acknowledged New Mexico’s strong stance on religious freedom and equal rights but criticized weaknesses in tobacco and educational freedoms.

The Cato Institute’s report crowned New Hampshire as the freest state, followed by Florida, South Dakota, Nevada, and Arizona. Conversely, the least free states were identified as New York, Hawaii, California, New Jersey, and Oregon.

Read the report here.

NM Supreme Court holds fate of swing district in balance

The Republican Party in New Mexico is fervently urging the state Supreme Court to invalidate a congressional map that has dissected a politically conservative oil-producing area into multiple districts while reshaping a swing district along the U.S.-Mexico border to favor Democrats.

The court heard oral arguments on Monday but did not issue a ruling. The map in question, crafted by far-left Democrat state lawmakers, is contested by Republicans who argue that it disproportionately affects the representation of their political minority in the state.

The stakes are high as the court’s decision could sway which party ultimately holds the reins in the state’s Second Congressional District, where Democratic Representative Gabe Vasquez seeks a second term. This district has become a focal point in national politics as Republicans strive to maintain their slim majority in the U.S. House in the upcoming 2024 elections.

Similar battles over congressional maps are unfolding across the country. Recent court rulings in Alabama and Florida found that Republican-led legislatures had unjustly diluted the voting power of Black residents. Legal challenges are ongoing in various states, including Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah.

In New Mexico, a state district judge ruled in October that Democratic lawmakers had significantly weakened the votes of their political opponents. However, the judge stopped short of labeling it as “egregious” gerrymandering. The Republican Party, appealing this decision, argues that the diluted representation of their political minority may persist for the entire decade until the next round of map redrawing.

Harrison, representing the Republicans, pointed to the 2022 defeat of incumbent GOP Congresswoman Yvette Herrell as evidence of the adverse impact on Republican representation. However, justices raised skepticism, noting the thin margin of Herrell’s loss in 2022 and her previous loss in the open race for the seat in 2018 before district boundaries were redrawn, indicating ongoing competitiveness.

Sara Sanchez, representing Democratic legislative leaders, countered that the evidence presented in the case does not support claims of egregious gerrymandering. She emphasized that while every map may favor one party over another, it only becomes a constitutional concern when it results in entrenchment, a level of effectuation not evident in this case.

The broader political landscape in New Mexico, where Democrats currently hold all statewide elected offices, three congressional seats, and two Senate seats, underscores the significance of the ongoing legal battle over redistricting. The state Supreme Court’s ruling will shape the trajectory of political representation in the Second Congressional District and could have broader implications for the balance of power in the state.

Two New Mexico U.S. reps. vote against stripping antisemitic colleges’ funding

The U.S. House of Representatives recently voted by an overwhelming bipartisan majority to strip federal funding from college campuses that promote antisemitism. 

However, two New Mexico representatives decided to support antisemites and vote against the legislation along with 52 of their colleagues.

Those who voted no were Reps. Teresa Leger Fernandez of the Third Congressional District and Melanie Stansbury of the First Congressional District.

Rep. Gabe Vasquez of the Second District, who faces a tough 2024 reelection against Republican former Rep. Yvette Herrell, voted for the measure.

Stansbury and Leger Fernandez voted with the likes of antisemitic Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, both Democrats. Omar was removed from the House Foreign Affairs Committee for her antisemitism, and Tlaib was censured for her rabid antisemitic comments.

A full breakdown of representatives who voted against the commonsense measure is below: 

1. Amo (RI)

2. Balint (VT)

3. Barragán (CA)

4. Beyer (VA)

5. Blunt Rochester (DE)

6. Bonamici (OR)

7. Bowman (NY)

8. Bush (MO)

9. Cárdenas (CA)

10. Casar (TX)

11. Case (HI)

12. Casten (IL)

13. Chu (CA)

14. Clarke (NY)

15. Cleaver (MO)

16. Crockett (TX)

17. DeGette (CO)

18. Foster (IL)

19. García (IL)

20. Green, Al (TX)

21. Grijalva (AZ)

22. Hoyle (OR)

23. Jackson (IL)

24. Jacobs (CA)

25. Jayapal (WA)

26. Johnson (GA)

27. Kamlager-Dove (CA)

28. Lee (CA)

29. Lee (PA)

30. Leger Fernandez (NM)

31. Massie (KY) 

32. McClellan (VA)

33. McCollum (MN)

34. Moore (WI)

35. Nadler (NY)

36. Napolitano (CA)

37. Ocasio-Cortez (NY)

38. Omar (MN)

39. Peters (CA)

40. Pingree (ME)

41. Plaskett (VI)

42. Pocan (WI)

43. Pressley (MA)

44. Ramirez (IL)

45. Sablan (MP)

46. Schakowsky (IL)

47. Scott (VA)

48. Stansbury (NM)

49. Takano (CA)

50. Tlaib (MI)

51. Tokuda (HI)

52. Velázquez (NY)

53. Watson Coleman (NJ)

54. Williams (GA)

CYFD’s jaw-dropping decline in abuse prevention funds revealed

New Mexico’s child welfare agency, the Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD), has witnessed a significant reduction in spending on evidence-based abuse prevention programs, according to a recent legislative report. Despite a high prevalence of child maltreatment, the CYFD’s spending on services aimed at preventing repeated abuse and neglect plummeted by 77 percent between fiscal year 2022 and fiscal year 2023, as revealed by analysts from the Legislative Finance Committee, per the Santa Fe New Mexican.

The report highlighted that prevention services accounted for a mere 3 percent of spending on Protective Services in FY23. Acting CYFD Secretary Teresa Casados contested the accuracy of the analysis, stating in an email that spending on preventive services had, in fact, increased by 4 percent from $7.56 million in FY2022 to $7.87 million in FY2023. As of November 16, spending had reportedly reached $13.47 million, indicating a positive shift “reflecting that CYFD is moving in the right direction with a focus on prevention.”

In response, the LFC stressed the importance of understanding how the allocated funds were being utilized, emphasizing evidence-based prevention services as a legislative priority. Maralyn Beck, founder of the New Mexico Child First Network, expressed disappointment at the reported cut in abuse prevention spending, describing it as “both frustrating and deeply irresponsible.” Beck underscored the need for increased investment in upstream services to address New Mexico’s ongoing behavioral health crisis.

The legislative report further revealed that the CYFD had not expended any of the $20 million allocated by the Legislature in FY2023 to expand behavioral health provider capacity. The LFC had previously reported New Mexico’s consistent ranking among the top six states for repeat maltreatment of children within a year of an initial abuse or neglect allegation.

The fiscal year 2024 budget recommendation acknowledged that increased spending on preventive services correlated with a decline in cases of repeat maltreatment. However, it pointed out that the reported drop in abuse prevention spending was a matter of concern, especially considering New Mexico’s record-breaking revenues and the responsibility to prevent child mistreatment.

State Sen. Crystal Diamond Brantley (R-Elephant Butte) emphasized the importance of preventing the “willful harm of our most vulnerable children,” citing the need for an Office of the Child Advocate to enhance oversight of CYFD. Brantley urged the governor to support this proposal in the upcoming legislative session.

State Rep. Liz Thomson (D-Bernalillo), chair of the House Health and Human Services Committee, expressed concern over the reported drop in abuse prevention spending, stating, “My reaction is, ‘Wow.’ Of course, I would like to know more details, but that doesn’t seem like we’re going in the right direction.”

As the state grapples with child welfare challenges, stakeholders and legislators are expected to push for reforms in the upcoming legislative session, focusing on prioritizing effective prevention programs and leveraging federal funding to address child maltreatment effectively.

Roundhouse defaced with pro-Hamas ‘Land Back’ vandalism

Just days after U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich’s Santa Fe office was vandalized with red paint in support of Hamas terrorists’ attacks on Israel beginning in early October, the state capitol building in Santa Fe is the latest victim of the extremist depravity. 

“More vandalism in Santa Fe — this time on the west steps of the state Capitol,” sharing photos, Daniel Chacon of the Santa Fe New Mexican wrote. 

“Among the items left behind was a wooden board with ‘Free Gaza’ and ‘Viva Palestine’ written on it,” he added. The board also read, “Land Back.” Fake body bags accompanied the red paint.

According to the New Mexican, “The Capitol vandalism was discovered around 7:30 a.m. Friday morning as employees approached the west-side entrance, said Raphael Drhett Baca, the Capitol’s building superintendent. Surveillance cameras captured video showing four people, all hooded and clad in black, jumping out of a black SUV at 10:34 p.m. Thursday. ‘They were done by 10:36 p.m.,’ Baca said.” 

Sen. Heinrich’s office was hit with similar hateful sentiments.

The building, located on Marcy Street in the capital city, was painted with the words “HEINRICH STOP THE GENOCIDE,” along with “FREE PALESTINE” and “CEASEFIRE NOW” tagged on the windows of the adobe office building. A large puddle of red paint was then dumped near the office’s front door.

Sen. Heinrich’s Santa Fe office seen on November 15, 2023 vandalized by pro-Hamas terrorists.

Reports indicate the paint was still “bubbling” when staff discovered it on Tuesday. 

The attacks on the state Capitol and Heinrich’s office are just a microcosm of violent anti-Jewish sentiments ravaging the world as Israel continues to defend itself against violent attacks that have claimed thousands of lives.

Governor’s ‘green’ legacy at risk after climate study debunked

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham is touting the positive impact of her administration’s oil and gas regulations on the state’s greenhouse gas emissions compared to neighboring Texas. The claim is based on an “independent” study by environmental measurement and analysis firm Kayrros, indicating that New Mexico’s oil and gas operations emit half the emissions of Texas per unit.

The study attributes this difference to New Mexico’s state regulations addressing methane waste and emissions. Governor Lujan Grisham stated, “This study proves what we in New Mexico already know: we are doing the right things at the right time to produce the cleanest barrel of oil in the country.” However, an analysis by The Center Square challenges the study’s accuracy, noting a 25% undercount of Texas Permian Basin oil and gas production.

Data from the Dallas Federal Reserve reveals that in 2022, New Mexico’s Permian Basin production was only one-third of Texas, contrary to the study’s claim. Despite the flaws, the Kayrros study has been endorsed by the governor’s office, which did not respond to inquiries from The Center Square.

Texas oil and gas insiders contest the study’s findings, asserting that methane pollution in Texas has been on a decline similar to that in New Mexico. Ed Longanecker, president of the Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association, emphasized the industry’s commitment to responsible operations, citing a 76% reduction in methane intensity from 2011 to 2021.

While acknowledging the positive impact of New Mexico’s methane waste rules implemented in May 2021, critics question the accuracy of the study’s comparison between the two states. Methane, considered 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide, is a significant concern in oil and gas production due to leaks and intentional releases.

Governor Lujan Grisham, who issued an executive order on “climate change” shortly after taking office, praised the efforts of Secretaries Sarah Cottrell Propst and James Kenney for their work in curbing emissions from the energy sector in the state. The regulations mandate operators to capture 98% of produced natural gas by 2026 and ban routine venting and flaring. Since their adoption, New Mexico claims a 36% reduction in gas lost and a 69% reduction in routine venting and flaring. Critics, however, question the objectivity of the study and emphasize the need for accurate data in evaluating environmental policies.

AG Torrez joins brief seeking to override Texas’ pro-life laws

In a controversial move, New Mexico’s Attorney General Raúl Torrez has joined forces with 21 other attorneys general by signing an amicus brief aimed at expanding access to energy abortion care for Texas patients by overriding the state’s pro-life laws. The brief, filed in the Texas Supreme Court, supports the plaintiffs in Zurawski v. Texas, marking the first legal challenge since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022.

AG Torrez claimed, “Emergency healthcare should never be politicized or compromised,” criticizing Texas for allegedly creating an “unsafe space for pregnant women.” The statement further expressed solidarity with women across the country facing challenges accessing essential healthcare due to what Torrez referred to as “radical bans.”

The lawsuit, initially filed on March 6, 2023, sought clarification on Texas’ medical emergency exception under state abortion laws. A court order on Aug. 4 temporarily blocked the application of Texas’ abortion ban in cases of “emergent medical conditions.” However, Texas is now appealing this decision in the state’s Supreme Court.

The multistate coalition, represented by the amicus brief, contends that Texas’ laws endanger the lives and health of pregnant women and could have serious repercussions on the health systems of other states. The argument maintains that preventing medical providers from performing abortions needed to treat emergency medical conditions puts pregnant women at risk, as many complications require time-sensitive stabilizing treatment that may include abortion.

Furthermore, the coalition asserts that when Texas hospitals fail to provide emergency abortion care, women are compelled to seek assistance from out-of-state facilities, thereby straining emergency departments in other states dealing with overcrowding, long wait times, and staff shortages.

However, according to medical experts and doctors, abortions are never medically necessary, and the pro-abortion argument is used to confuse and harm women by foisting abortions upon them.

This controversial legal intervention places New Mexico at the center of a divisive national debate, with Attorney General Torrez aligning with a coalition of states advocating for expanded abortion access despite a growing pro-life stance gaining momentum in several parts of the country.

Scroll to Top