On Friday, the state House of Representatives passed H.B. 95, which would codify the “Renewable Energy Office” to fulfill the Energy Transition Act (New Mexico’s Green New Deal) into the state Land Office.
Currently, the Renewable Energy Office is a function of the Land Office under Democrat state Land Commissioner Stephanie Garcia Richard, but the bill would make this office permanent for all future land commissioners.
During the debate, the sponsor, state Rep. Tara Lujan (D-Santa Fe), admitted that despite wind energy making up around 30 percent of the state’s energy generation, the industry only brought in an annual $10 million in revenue to the Land Office, while oil and gas produced over $2 billion.
According to the bill’s fiscal impact report, “The office currently has 39 active long-term
renewable energy leases (27 wind and 12 solar) and 33 lease applications under review.”
It is unclear if there is an exhaustive list of what is included in “renewables,” but the sponsor noted how nuclear energy and extractive industries, such as oil, gas, and coal, were not within the office’s definition of renewable.
“The Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department contends in-state renewable energy is key to meeting the goals of the Energy Transition Act, enacted in 2019,” the fiscal impact report further states.
The bill passed the House. It now moves over to the state Senate for consideration on whether or not the state will codify the Renewable Energy Office.
On Friday, a pro-life bill, H.B. 258, will be heard in the House Health and Human Services Committee at 8:30 a.m. The bill, sponsored by state Rep. John Block (R-Alamogordo), is dubbed the “New Mexico Heartbeat Act” to protect children in the womb from the moment a fetal heartbeat is detected.
The bill reads, “A health care provider who knowingly performs an abortion and thereby kills a human fetus without determining, according to standard medical practice, whether the fetus has a detectable heartbeat; without informing the pregnant woman of the results of that determination; or after determining, according to standard medical practice, that the fetus has a heartbeat is guilty of a third degree felony resulting in the death of a human fetus.”
Block’s legislation also reaffirms that the woman would not be liable, but rather the doctor performing the illicit procedure. It reads, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to
allow the prosecution of a woman who receives an abortion.”
Contact the members of the committee to urge their support. Their contact information can be found here:
Chair: Elizabeth “Liz” Thomson (D). District 24 (Bernalillo). Room 314B, 986-4425. Email: liz.thomson@nmlegis.gov
On Wednesday, so-called “faith leaders” gathered in a committee room at the state Capitol in Santa Fe to promote killing children through abortions. At the press conference, the individuals showcased a letter organized by the “New Mexico Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.”
The letter proclaimed that the signers “feel called to declare our support for a woman’s ability to access abortion and other reproductive healthcare services as a basic issue of health and safety for women and their families.”
“Our religious principles are grounded in a love and acceptance of all people, and we believe deeply that means ending the shame and stigma associated with abortion and increasing access for all women to a full range of reproductive healthcare options.”
“These women are our neighbors, our co-workers, our friends, and our peers. As people of faith and as New Mexicans, we believe in loving our neighbors and treating one another as we would like to be treated—with dignity and respect,” and therefore, they back aborting children.
At the press conference, the speakers, which included the heads of groups like “Catholics for Choice,” claimed there was a “false narrative” that faith leaders were against abortion.
Robert Tso, pastor of Victory Life Church in Shiprock, and Republican Party of New Mexico Executive Committee member responded to the pro-abortion so-called “faith leaders.”
“More than ever, faith leaders need to speak up for life and confront progressive politics that seek to compromise God’s word. We should lead young women to the grace and love of Jesus Christ, not the abortion clinic,” he wrote in a statement.
“Our Christian faith does not stand for the murder of innocent life and as faith leaders, we must ‘let our yes be yes, and our no be no’ without compromise on this matter (Matthew 5:37). Scripture says, ‘Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you,’ affirming every unborn life has value and purpose (Jeremiah 1:5). Let us continue to pray for the end of abortion and for a state that honors the sanctity of life.”
The Republican Party of New Mexico wrote in addition, “The Republican Party of New Mexico strongly opposes anti-life bills like HB 7 and other legislation pushed by progressive Democrats that will solidify New Mexico as the nation’s abortion capital.”
On Monday, the New Mexico House Commerce and Economic Development Committee voted 6-4 to table H.B. 28, a bill by Rep. Miguel Garcia (D-Albuquerque) to increase the minimum wage by tying it to the Consumer Price Index, an inflation calculator.
Two Democrats joined all the Republicans on the panel in tabling the bill.
The move likely spells doom for another bill by Rep.Christine Chandler (D-Los Alamos), H.B. 25, which would dive up the minimum wage to $15.50 by January 1, 2025.
Garcia described his bill as “dead.”
Following the meeting, Chandler told the Santa Fe New Mexican, “I still think we need to increase the minimum wage and apply the [consumer price index],” claiming she feels “pretty good” about her bill’s chances of passage.
Chandler’s bill reads, “On January 1, 2026 and on January 1 of each successive year, the minimum wage rate provided by Paragraph (4) of Subsection A and Paragraph (5) of Subsection C of this section shall be adjusted by multiplying the minimum wage as of January 1, 2025 by a fraction, the numerator of which is the consumer price index ending in September of the previous year and the denominator of which is the consumer price index ending September 2024; provided that the minimum wage rate shall not be adjusted downward as a result of a decrease in the consumer price index. By November 1, 2025 and by November 1 of each successive year, the workforce solutions department shall post on its website and otherwise notify employers of the minimum wage for the next year.”
Rep. Linda Serrato (D-Santa Fe) said, “Minimum wage shouldn’t be determined by a legislative body.”
Now, as the committee moves to consider Chandler’s bill, hesitancy by a majority of the panel’s members could mean it will meet a similar fate.
On Sunday, the Alamogordo Public School Board voted unanimously to put Superintendent Kenneth Moore on paid administrative leave amid a lawsuit filed by the Flickinger Performing Arts Center’s executive director Lorrie Black and a video released showing Moore demeaning community members. The move came after the board members met for an executive session that day.
Black wrote in a February 9, 2023 press release, “The Flickinger Center for Performing Arts has entered into a lawsuit against Alamogordo Public School Board and Superintendent Kenneth Moore. The Flickinger Center’s mission states ‘…. reaching our local student population with live music, dance and theater.’ For many years, the Flickinger Center has provided free use of the facility to public schools, private schools, and home school students for band, choir, orchestra concerts, theatrical performances, and awards programs. Six to ten times per year, the Flickinger Center pays additional fees to their Premier Series performers to provide free school educational outreach programs for all area public and private schools.”
“The Flickinger Center was extremely disappointed to learn that the Alamogordo Public School Board allowed Superintendent Moore to make the decision that the Flickinger Center was no longer an approved facility for the students and teachers at Alamogordo Public Schools to use. The Flickinger Center looks forward to a quick resolution to this conflict and get the students at Alamogordo Public Schools back into the theater.”
In an undercover video posted via YouTube by Casey and Myke Petersen, Moore was seen at a conference telling attendees he and his administration are stealthily sneaking in Critical Race Theory through the curriculum.
Moore said in the video, “I mentioned guerrilla warfare. We have to do it subtly to work. We can’t even say ‘equity,’ you know?” He also said, “We’re sneaking [Critical Race Theory] in. It’s guerrilla warfare.”
He must “be careful that we don’t let the ‘e’ word slip (equity) out of our mouths, lest we get shot or something like that” he said.
In other comments made by Moore in the video, he demeaned Alamogordo residents, saying, “If you’ve ever heard of Alamogordo — Otero County — and I’m not knocking the place, but been there four years, and if ever there was a time and a place for discussions about race and equity to take place, it’s in this little town called Alamogordo, New Mexico, where many people would rather not have this discussion, would rather bury their heads in the sand when it comes to race…. If you look up ‘Otero County news’ on Google, where you’ll see headlines from a couple [of] days ago here, you’ll see how we’re trying out fascism as a type of government. I am embarrassed by the county government and the things that are going on.”
He later said, “They have also co-opted religion with this. They believe they are doing God’s work by doing this…. Alamogordo has been a place where these people go to.” He said, “This has become a place that’s only attractive to Trumpers.”
When asked how he, a progressive, became superintendent, he answered, “I have four board members that are on the fence, and they support me because I’m a safe white guy, really.”
“We got less triggering CRT training for our teachers. It was more on implicit bias and things like that that they could take a bite out of without — without much of the backlash…. Never talk CRT. They don’t know what it is, but if those three letters are there, it blows back in our face[s]. So, we’ve done a lot of the implicit bias, the microaggression stuff… SEL (social and emotional learning).”
“If I could force ‘em all, one by one, into something like this (CRT), we might get ten percent of them to open their eyes,” Moore said.
Following the release of the video, state Rep. John Block of Alamogordo wrote in a statement, “I am extraordinarily proud to represent my home of Alamogordo in the Roundhouse. I am equally disgusted by comments made in a recent undercover video showing our public school superintendent demeaning the good people who live in our community as racists and fascists. This angers me to see such disrespect for our great community, and I will continue to work with our local officials to continue promoting our Otero County values while ensuring children in the Alamogordo Public Schools are not indoctrinated with racist Critical Race Theory extremism.”
District Three Alamogordo City Commissioner Karl Melton wrote, “Public education is an institution that requires mutual trust to operate. Parents should never be worried what is being taught behind their back.”
The Flickinger Center and Black’s 34-page lawsuit against APS and Moore was filed in the Twelfth Judicial District Court. The full complaint can be found here.
Board Member Angie Cadwallader made the motion for Moore to be put on leave, although it is not immediately clear what the specific reason was for his administrative status change. Deputy Superintendent Pam Renteria has been named acting superintendent while Moore remains on leave. That motion was made unanimously by the Alamogordo Public School Board. The public meeting lasted around only five minutes for the board to conduct its business.
On Saturday in the House Government, Elections, and Indian Affairs Committee, a bipartisan group of representatives tabled H.B. 217 by Reps. Christine Trujillo (D-Bernalillo) and Christina Ortez (D-Taos). The bill would have allowed 16 and 17-year-olds to vote.
The bill also notes that 17-year-olds would be allowed to vote in state primaries if they are 18 by the time the primary election is over. “For the purposes of a political primary, 17-year-olds may also currently vote if they will turn 18 on or before the general election immediately succeeding that primary election,” reads the fiscal impact report (FIR) for the bill, which implies that even in federal elections the minor could vote.
The FIR further notes that this move could likely increase Democrat voter turnout, according to Tufts University.
It reads, “[I]t should be noted Tufts University’s Tisch College of Civic Life find that 63 percent of voters aged 18 to 29 nationally voted for democratic candidates in the House of Representative elections, so it is possible that allowing 16-year-olds to vote as provided for in HB217 could result in a disproportionate increase in turnout for democratic candidates. However, it is unclear whether this is because 16-year-old Democrats are more likely to turn out to vote or that 16-year-olds are more likely to be Democratic-leaning. Further, data does not indicate whether the turnout from youth voters (ages 18 to 29) effectively changed the results of prior elections.”
Rep. John Block (R-Alamogordo) noted a scientific study by Tak Wing Chan, Ph.D., and Matthew Clayton, D.Phil., which read, “research in neuroscience suggests that the brain, specifically the prefrontal cortex, is still undergoing major reconstruction and development during the teenage years.” He said he was going to be “following the science” and reject the bill.
The bill ultimately died on a tie 4-4 vote, with Reps. Block, Bill Rehm (R-Albuquerque), D. Wonda Johnson (D-Rehoboth), and Martin Zamora (R-Santa Rosa) all voting against the bill.
Similar bills in the past have shared similar fates, with science proving that 16 and 17-year-olds would not be appropriate qualified electors.
On Saturday, a bill by Reps. Christine Trujillo (D-Bernalillo) and Christina Ortez (D-Taos), H.B. 217, would make 16 and 17-year-olds “qualified electors” will be heard in New Mexico House Government, Elections, and Indian Affairs Committee.
The bill also notes that 17-year-olds would be allowed to vote in state primaries if they are 18 by the time the primary election is over. “For the purposes of a political primary, 17-year-olds may also currently vote if they will turn 18 on or before the general election immediately succeeding that primary election,” reads the fiscal impact report (FIR) for the bill, which implies that even in federal elections the minor could vote.
The FIR further notes that this move could likely increase Democrat voter turnout, according to Tufts University.
It reads, “[I]t should be noted Tufts University’s Tisch College of Civic Life find that 63 percent of voters aged 18 to 29 nationally voted for democratic candidates in the House of Representative elections, so it is possible that allowing 16-year-olds to vote as provided for in HB217 could result in a disproportionate increase in turnout for democratic candidates. However, it is unclear whether this is because 16-year-old Democrats are more likely to turn out to vote or that 16-year-olds are more likely to be Democratic-leaning. Further, data does not indicate whether the turnout from youth voters (ages 18 to 29) effectively changed the results of prior elections.”
The committee will consider the bill on Saturday, February 11, 2023, at 1:00 p.m. in Room 317 of the state Capitol. To join the meeting via Zoom, the instructions are below:
Ranking Member: Martin R. Zamora (R). District 63 (Curry, DeBaca, Guadalupe, Roosevelt & San Miguel). Room 203EN, 986-4211. Email: martin.zamora@nmlegis.gov
On Thursday, it was reported that Democrat Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham was appointed by Joe Biden to sit on the Council of Governors, which consists of five Democrat and five Republican governors appointed by the occupant of the White House.
“Preparation and planning are the keys to saving lives and property in every crisis from historic wildfires and major weather events to threats against critical infrastructure, protecting our electrical grid and hardening our technological defenses against cyber attacks,” Lujan Grisham said following the appointment.
Lujan Grisham was appointed alongside Gov. Eric Holcomb (R-Indiana) to fill the vacancies left by former Gov. Kate Brown (D-Oregon) and Gov. Bill Lee (R-Tennessee). Both governors will have two-year terms on the council.
According to the National Governors Association, “The Council consists of ten governors appointed to two-year terms by the President – five from each party – with two governors serving as co-chairs. The Executive Order specifically names a number of federal participants in the Council, including the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security, the President’s Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Advisor, the Commander of U.S. Northern Command and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, among others.”
The Albuquerque Journal reported that the appointment will be “deepening ties between the state and federal administrations as the 2024 election year looms on the horizon.”
Lujan Grisham previously failed to be picked for the position of Biden’s U.S. Department of Health secretary, losing to Democrat former California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. Lujan Grisham then opted to run for reelection, narrowly defeating Republican challenger Mark Ronchetti in the November 2022 election.
Biden campaigned for Lujan Grisham during the election, even visiting New Mexico to stump for the embattled governor.
Lujan Grisham will serve on the Council with Governors Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), Tim Walz (D-Minnesota), John Carney (D-Delaware), John Bel Edwards (D-Louisiana), Gretchen Whitmer (D-Michigan), Spencer Cox (R-Utah), Phil Scott (R-Vermont), and Mark Gordon (R-Wyoming).
Democrat state Rep. Pamelya Herndon’s H.B. 9 is set to be heard on the House floor on Thursday, according to state Rep. Luis Terrazas (R-Doña Ana, Grant & Sierra). The bill, which previously passed two committees on party-line votes, forces New Mexicans to lock up their firearms in “a gun safe or a device that prevents a firearm from being discharged or from being used to expel a projectile by the action of an explosion or a device other than a gun safe that locks a firearm and is designed to prevent children and unauthorized users from firing a firearm, which device may be installed on a firearm, be incorporated into the design of the firearm or prevent access to the firearm.”
If the gun owner does not lock up any and all firearms and their gun is somehow used in an offense by a minor causing “great bodily harm” or death, the parent of that child could be made a felon if the victim of the crime is killed or permanently disabled.
As noted by even some Democrats in the chamber during a July 2022 preview of the bill, it would be the first crime proposal to base a defendant’s sentence not on their own actions but that of someone else (a minor) who got ahold of a firearm.
The bill does not, however, include provisions protecting the gun owner if the firearm was stolen, nor does it account for the de-facto tax it burdens the owner with being forced to find a new locking device to place it at all times. The bill is also blatantly unconstitutional.
Previous versions of this bill sponsored during the last two legislative sessions by state Sen. Antoinette Sedillo-Lopez (D-Bernalillo) have died. Now, the House calendar shows H.B. 9 is being heard Thursday, which makes the stakes that much higher for stopping this radical anti-gun legislation.
Contact Democrat legislators to oppose H.B. 9 by copying the following legislators’ emails in the BCC (Blind Carbon Copy) section of your email:
On Tuesday, the New Mexico House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee considered two anti-gun bills sponsored by Rep. Andrea Romero (D-Santa Fe) and one pro-Second Amendment bill sponsored by Rep. John Block (R-Alamogordo).
H.B. 100 by Romero would institute a 14-day waiting period before any New Mexican can purchase a firearm. During the discussion, Block, who sits on the committee, proposed an amendment to exclude those who have filed a protection order and may need to get immediate access to a firearm for self-protection. However, the bill sponsor noted how the amendment was unfriendly to the bill.
After a discussion from Block and Rep. Stefani Lord (R-Sandia Park) about how statistics show there is no evidence showing how such orders protect those who the bill intends to keep safe, the Democrats on the committee voted 4-2 to table the bill, with Block and Lord opposing it.
Next up was H.B. 101, which would ban New Mexicans from purchasing “high-capacity” rifles over ten rounds or “high-capacity” pistols with over 15 rounds, as well as mostly any gun that has modifications, labeling them “assault” rifles or pistols. It would also “grandfather” current owners of such weapons, but only if they registered with the state on a list.
During the discussion, Romero claimed that “no rights are absolute” and discounted statistics showing such bans have not worked in the past. Also, constitutional arguments were brushed aside.
The committee proceeded to vote 4-2 to pass the extreme anti-gun bill.
The Constitutional Carry bill, H.B. 164, which Block co-sponsored with Reps. Lord, Tanya Mirabal Moya (R-Los Lunas), Jimmy Mason (R-Artesia), and Mark Duncan (R-Farmington) had much support from the public, with only a handful of comments made via Zoom opposing the commonsense, which is already implemented in 25 states including liberal Vermont and Maine. Despite the massive public support, the measure also died on a party-line 4-2 vote to table it.
H.B. 100 and H.B. 101 now advance onward to the House Judiciary Committee, which will now examine the extreme anti-gun proposals.
