New Mexico

Arrests happen after violent pro-Hamas protesters swarm GOP legislators

34 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

On Tuesday, the New Mexico State Capitol’s Rotunda became the epicenter of a contentious confrontation during what was ostensibly a pro-Palestinian rally. The event took a confrontational turn after state Reps. Stefani Lord (R-Sandia Park) and John Block (R-Alamogordo), both of whom have Jewish heritage, passed through the Rotunda, where protesters got violent.

The rally aimed to attack Israel and its supporters. However, the atmosphere shifted dramatically upon the arrival of Reps. Lord and Block. Their presence was met with immediate hostility from attendees, leading to a series of heated exchanges.​

Eyewitnesses reported that the legislators were subjected to verbal assaults, with accusations labeling them as antagonists. Jonathan Juárez, a participant, claimed that Rep. Lord was “antagonizing people, saying that they’re Hamas supporters.” That came despite Hamas flags and clothing spotted in the audience, per photos and videos of the event. 

The situation escalated as demonstrators surrounded the representatives, prompting security personnel and New Mexico State Police officers to intervene. It included one woman who attempted to lay her hands on Rep. Lord while two other aggressors violently screamed at the two representatives.

As tensions mounted, demonstrators continued to hurl profanities and accusations at the representatives. 

In response to the hostility faced, Rep. Block lamented the lack of tolerance exhibited by the demonstrators, stating, “It’s just horrible that there are people that want to erase our people, especially in this state where they claim to be so tolerant.” This sentiment reflects a broader concern about the erosion of civil discourse and respect for diverse perspectives.​

Notably, during the confrontation, the speaker at the podium addressed the crowd, asking, “Does anybody in this room hate Jewish people?” ​

Following the incident, both representatives reported feeling threatened and highlighted the presence of what they described as “terrorist propaganda,” including a “makeshift bomb” and “terrorist outfits.” Rep. Lord expressed profound indignation, stating, “This was so uncalled for I can’t even begin to tell you how infuriating, and how insulting, and how demeaning this is to anyone who has any Jewish blood in them.” 

House Speaker Javier Martínez (D-Albuquerque) addressed the incident, condemning any form of intimidation or threats of violence. He expressed regret over the occurrence, stating, “I was not aware of that, and I’m very sorry that that happened.” This acknowledgment underscores the necessity for maintaining a safe and respectful environment within the Capitol.​

Further criticism arose from Sen. Craig Brandt (R-Rio Rancho), a staunch supporter of Israel, who questioned the appropriateness of allowing such an event within the Capitol. He highlighted the fear experienced by Jewish employees, stating, “We have employees that are Jewish that were hiding down here on the first floor because they were afraid to go on the second floor.” This revelation points to a broader issue of ensuring the safety and well-being of all individuals within public institutions.​

Senate President Pro Tempore Mimi Stewart (D-Albuquerque) echoed these concerns, noting that “two people were arrested [and] several others were removed from the Capitol,” based on information from the director of the Legislative Council Service. This indicates that the event not only violated Capitol protocols but also posed security challenges.​

New Mexico State Police spokesperson Wilson Silver confirmed that an attendee, Elliot Shawn Vigil, was removed for trespassing and subsequently arrested for violating the order not to return. This incident underscores the challenges faced by law enforcement in maintaining order during such events.​

A video of the protester being arrested is below: 

The events that unfolded during the pro-Palestinian rally at the New Mexico State Capitol Rotunda reflect a concerning trend of intolerance and hostility toward differing viewpoints. The aggressive actions directed at Representatives Stefani Lord and John Block, both of Jewish heritage, raise serious questions about the true intent of the rally and the respect for democratic principles within public discourse.

Arrests happen after violent pro-Hamas protesters swarm GOP legislators Read More »

Unconstitutional gun grab bill now heads to governor’s desk

32 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

​House Bill 12 (HB 12), recently passed by the New Mexico Senate, proposes significant amendments to the state’s “Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Order Act,” commonly known as the red flag law. 

While the bill aims to enhance public safety by allowing law enforcement officers to directly petition for firearm seizures and mandating immediate relinquishment upon a judge’s order, it raises substantial constitutional concerns, particularly regarding due process under the Second Amendment.​

A critical issue with HB 12 is its provision for the immediate confiscation of firearms upon the issuance of an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO), without affording the respondent a prior hearing. This approach effectively permits the deprivation of an individual’s Second Amendment rights without due process, as the individual is not given an opportunity to contest the allegations before their firearms are seized.​

This procedure stands in stark contrast to the principles outlined in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Rahimi (2024), which prohibits disarmament without a hearing before the firearms are seized. 

HB 12’s mandate for immediate firearm relinquishment upon service of an ERPO, without a prior hearing or judicial determination of a credible threat, conflicts with the due process requirements underscored in the Rahimi decision. The bill violates the constitutional guarantee of due process by allowing firearms to be seized based solely on an ex parte order—where the respondent has no opportunity to present their case.​

Moreover, empowering law enforcement officers to initiate these petitions based on information gathered during their official duties raises additional concerns. 

While purportedly intended to streamline the process, this provision could lead to potential abuses of power and the infringement of individual rights without adequate judicial oversight.​

The bill now heads to Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s desk for a signature. 

Unconstitutional gun grab bill now heads to governor’s desk Read More »

Report: NM is the only state losing economic freedom since 1981

28 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

The Rio Grande Foundation’s mission can be boiled down to one core principle: the advancement of economic freedom. In its most straightforward definition, economic freedom refers to the ability of individuals and businesses to make voluntary financial decisions and engage in free-market exchanges without undue government interference. Such interference can come in many forms—taxes, subsidies, wage mandates, excessive regulations, and other barriers that restrict free enterprise and personal choice.

The concept isn’t new. For decades, the Canada-based Fraser Institute has been a global leader in measuring and analyzing economic freedom through its flagship reports, Economic Freedom of the World and Economic Freedom of North America. These reports consistently show that countries, states, and provinces that rank higher in economic freedom outperform their peers in numerous ways. As the Rio Grande Foundation points out, jurisdictions that protect economic freedom tend to experience stronger economic and population growth, lower poverty rates, better environmental outcomes, and even improved gender equality.

A recent collaborative report by the Rio Grande Foundation and the Fraser Institute shines a concerning light on New Mexico. The study, which is the first of its kind, specifically focusing on the Land of Enchantment, reveals that New Mexico stands alone in an alarming trend. “New Mexico, unique among US states, has seen a decline in overall economic freedom since 1981,” the report states.

This gradual erosion of economic freedom has not been without consequence. According to the findings, New Mexico’s relative stagnation in both economic and population growth can be directly linked to its declining economic freedom. In comparison to neighboring states such as Texas, Arizona, and Colorado—which have generally moved in the opposite direction by reducing regulations, cutting taxes, and creating more business-friendly climates—New Mexico has lagged behind.

Data from the U.S. Census Bureau and other economic indicators underscore this reality. While states that prioritize economic freedom tend to attract more residents and businesses, New Mexico has struggled to keep pace, both in terms of population influx and job creation. Between 2010 and 2020, for example, Texas grew by nearly four million people, while Arizona added over 700,000. Meanwhile, New Mexico saw only modest population growth, adding just over 58,000 residents during the same period.

The Rio Grande Foundation argues that this is no coincidence. They believe policies such as persistent tax hikes, heavy-handed regulations, and restrictive labor laws have created an environment that is less attractive to both entrepreneurs and workers. “Economic freedom is at the heart of prosperity,” they contend, and New Mexico’s continued decline in this area could spell further economic stagnation unless policymakers change course.

In summary, the Rio Grande Foundation’s report serves as a warning—and a call to action—for New Mexico’s leaders to embrace reforms that prioritize economic freedom. By doing so, they argue, the state could unlock its full economic potential and reverse decades of slow growth.

Report: NM is the only state losing economic freedom since 1981 Read More »

Defeat of job-killing paid leave bill: A victory for NM’s small businesses

11 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

​House Bill 11 (HB 11), known as the Paid Family and Medical Leave Act, recently faced a significant setback in the New Mexico Legislature. The anti-business bill, designed to establish a state-administered paid family and medical leave program, was defeated in the Senate Finance Committee with an 8-3 vote, with only three Democrats supporting the measure. This outcome has sparked discussions about the bill’s potential implications, particularly concerning its impact on small businesses.​

HB 11 aimed to provide New Mexico workers with paid leave benefits:

Family Wellness Leave: This provision proposed up to six weeks of paid leave for circumstances such as serious health conditions, acting as a family caregiver, bereavement, military exigencies, or situations involving domestic violence, stalking, sexual assault, or abuse. Funding was to come from contributions by both employees and employers, with workers contributing 0.2% of their income and employers with five or more employees contributing 0.15% of wages. For an employee earning $1,000, this would translate to a $2 contribution from the employee and a $1.50 contribution from the employer.​

The defeat of HB 11 has been met with relief by many in the business community, particularly among small business owners who viewed the bill as potentially detrimental to their operations. The primary concerns centered around the financial and operational burdens the legislation would impose:​

  • Financial Strain: The mandated contributions were seen as an additional tax on both employers and employees. Small businesses, often operating on thin profit margins, feared that these extra costs could lead to increased prices for consumers, reduced employee benefits, or even layoffs.​
  • Operational Challenges: Replacing employees on extended leave poses significant challenges, especially for small businesses with limited staff. The potential difficulty in finding qualified temporary replacements could disrupt operations, reduce productivity, and negatively impact customer satisfaction.​

The journey of HB 11 through the legislative process was marked by intense debates and closely contested votes. The House Commerce and Economic Development Committee approved a substitute version of the bill on February 20, 2025, with a narrow 6-5 vote. Despite adjustments to address financial impact concerns, the bill faced opposition from various business groups. Terri Cole, executive director of the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce, argued that the bill imposed a tax increase on both employers and workers. Tom Patterson from the New Mexico Cattle Grower’s Association highlighted challenges specific to rural areas, noting that the assumption of readily available qualified labor to cover for employees on leave does not hold true in rural New Mexico.​

Defeat of job-killing paid leave bill: A victory for NM’s small businesses Read More »

Weeklong operation across NM leads to the arrest of 48 violent criminal aliens

33 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

​In a concerted effort to enhance public safety, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), in collaboration with multiple federal agencies, conducted a weeklong enforcement operation culminating on March 8, 2025. This operation led to the apprehension of 48 individuals across three New Mexico cities: Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Roswell. 

The individuals targeted during this operation fell into two primary categories: those who had previously been ordered removed from the United States by an immigration judge and remained unlawfully and those charged or convicted of serious criminal offenses while residing illegally in the country. Notably, 20 of the arrested individuals had been arrested or convicted of serious criminal offenses, such as homicide, criminal sexual penetration, sexual assault, battery on a household member, aggravated battery, drug trafficking, burglary, forced entry, driving under the influence, and shoplifting. 

The operation was a collaborative effort involving several federal agencies, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and the U.S. Marshals Service. This multi-agency approach underscores the federal government’s commitment to addressing illegal immigration and enhancing public safety by removing individuals who pose significant threats to communities.​

Mary De Anda-Ybarra, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations El Paso Field Office Director, emphasized the importance of such collaborations, stating, “ICE is grateful for our federal partners’ assistance in taking egregious offenders off the streets and out of our communities.” She further highlighted that these arrests exemplify the type of criminals living among us and highlight ICE’s commitment to the agency’s primary mission of protecting public safety.

The operation’s outcomes reflect ICE’s ongoing efforts to prioritize the apprehension and removal of individuals who pose the greatest risks to national security, public safety, and border security. By focusing resources on those with serious criminal backgrounds and final orders of removal, ICE aims to uphold its mission of enforcing immigration laws while safeguarding communities.​

Routine enforcement actions, such as this operation, are part of ICE’s broader strategy to address illegal immigration and its associated challenges. The agency continues to conduct operations throughout the El Paso area of responsibility, which encompasses West Texas and the state of New Mexico, to identify and apprehend individuals who violate immigration laws and threaten public safety.

The collaborative nature of this operation highlights the effectiveness of interagency federal cooperation in addressing complex issues related to illegal immigration and criminal activity. By leveraging the expertise and resources of multiple federal agencies, the operation successfully identified and apprehended individuals who might have otherwise evaded detection, thereby enhancing the safety and security of communities across New Mexico.​

By targeting those with serious criminal histories and final orders of removal, the operation underscores the President Donald Trump administration’s commitment to enforcing immigration laws and protecting public safety. Such collaborative efforts are essential in addressing the multifaceted challenges associated with illegal immigration and ensuring the well-being of communities nationwide.​

Weeklong operation across NM leads to the arrest of 48 violent criminal aliens Read More »

NM legislator’s past conflicts of interest contradict current ethics rhetoric

3 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

New Mexico State Rep. Micaela Lara Cadena, D-Mesilla, recently took a strong stance in favor of what is being billed as a transparency in lobbying bill, passionately advocating for H.B. 143, a measure aimed at shining a brighter light on lobbying activities at the Roundhouse. However, her own record raises serious questions about whether her push for transparency is genuine—or just political grandstanding.

During a recent Senate Rules Committee hearing, Cadena lamented that legislative decisions in New Mexico do not always happen “in light and in transparency,” according to a Santa Fe New Mexican report. 

She pointedly referenced an instance where two committee members voted on a bill despite having direct financial interests in its outcome. 

“Just today in our tax committee, we voted on a bill where two members of the committee who have direct financial interest in the piece of legislation we are considering took votes,” she said, adding, “I think an incredible amendment to this bill would be that us as members of the body, if we had a spouse or ourselves had a financial interest in the legislation we are considering, would have to at least disclose that since recusal is not something our body is used to or seems to practice.”

Yet, just a few years ago, Cadena herself was seen in a bout of blatant conflicts of interest, actively participating in legislation that directly benefited the organization she worked for—without recusing herself.

Cadena’s Own Ethical Questions

Cadena, while serving her first term in the New Mexico House, was also employed as the Research Director for Young Women United (YWU), an organization that aggressively lobbies for expanded abortion access, as reported by our predecessor site, JohnForNM.com in 2019 

YWU was a key player in the push for that year’s House Bill 51, which sought to expand abortion rights in the state. Not only was Cadena personally involved with YWU’s legislative agenda, but her direct association with the group was evident—her name and photo were even featured on the Respect New Mexico Women coalition’s website, an advocacy group tied to YWU.

Under the New Mexico Legislative Ethics Guide, legislators are expected to recuse themselves from voting on bills where they or their organizations have a direct interest. Despite this clear ethical guideline, Cadena actively participated in discussions and votes that directly benefited her employer, violating the very principles of transparency and accountability she now claims to champion.

Double Standards on Lobbying and Influence

Cadena’s recent statements in favor of 2025’s HB 143 come across as hollow in light of her past actions. She has expressed concerns about legislators voting on bills where they have personal financial interests, yet she saw no issue with doing the same when it suited her political and professional objectives. 

This raises a fundamental question: Is Cadena truly committed to ethics reform, or is she simply using the issue as a tool to target political opponents while ignoring her own potential transgressions?

Moreover, her recent push for greater disclosure in lobbying lacks credibility when considering her history of working for a lobbying organization while simultaneously serving as a lawmaker. The very transparency measures she now supports would have, in theory, required her to disclose her connections to YWU more openly—something she conveniently avoided when it would have affected her own career.

Political Opportunism Over Genuine Reform

Cadena’s inconsistency on ethics and transparency demonstrates the kind of political opportunism that frustrates voters. While she is quick to call for others to be held accountable, she has shown little regard for the rules when they apply to her. Her actions highlight the hypocrisy that often plagues politics, where lawmakers demand accountability from others while conveniently ignoring their own conflicts of interest.

If Cadena truly believes in transparency and ethics, she should start by acknowledging her past violations and committing to holding herself to the same standard she seeks to impose on others. Until then, her advocacy for HB 143 rings hollow, serving more as a political maneuver than a genuine commitment to reform.

NM legislator’s past conflicts of interest contradict current ethics rhetoric Read More »

Some Dems join Republicans to kill regressive alcohol tax hike bill

11 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

A proposal to hike New Mexico’s liquor taxes in an effort to curb problem drinking has hit a significant roadblock, as opposition to the measure continues to mount. While advocates of the tax increase remain persistent, the controversial proposal faces significant hurdles in the Legislature.

House Bill 417, which would impose a new surtax on the sale of beer, wine, and spirits, stalled in the House Taxation and Revenue Committee on Monday after a deadlocked vote. Despite this, one of the bill’s sponsors, Rep. Cristina Parajón, D-Albuquerque, insists the fight isn’t over.

“We still have two weeks left in the session,” Parajón told the Journal, emphasizing that other alcohol-related bills are still in play. She also argued that young people in New Mexico would be especially deterred by increased alcohol prices, a claim that opponents strongly dispute.

However, the New Mexico Restaurant Association, along with numerous small businesses, has voiced serious concerns over the proposed tax hike, arguing that it would place an undue burden on both consumers and business owners. Given this strong opposition, backers of the tax increase attempted to modify the bill ahead of Monday’s hearing. The revised version proposed a 3% surtax on alcoholic beverages sold and consumed on-site at restaurants and breweries, while a 6% surtax would apply to all other alcohol sales. This would come on top of the existing state and local liquor taxes, further increasing costs for consumers.

Critics warn that such a measure would be difficult for retailers to implement and would drive up the price of alcohol at a time when New Mexico is already benefiting from significant oil revenue. With the state in a strong financial position, many argue that now is not the time to impose additional taxes that will hurt local businesses and working-class consumers.

Two key Democrats, Reps. Patricia Lundstrom of Gallup and Doreen Gallegos of Las Cruces joined Republicans in blocking the measure. Lundstrom, a former chair of the House budget committee, pointed to McKinley County’s existing 5% local liquor excise tax and questioned the lack of clarity on how much revenue the new proposal would generate.

“I don’t think a bill should be considered at this point if we don’t know how much money it is going to raise,” Lundstrom said.

Despite McKinley County being the only county that has additional taxes on alcohol, it remains the county with the highest alcohol-related fatalities, per the New Mexico Department of Health.

Despite claims by the sponsors that the tax hike is necessary to address New Mexico’s high rate of alcohol-related deaths, data from the state Department of Health shows that the total number of such deaths has actually decreased for two consecutive years, dropping from 2,274 in 2021 to 1,896 in 2023. This raises questions about whether increasing taxes on alcohol is truly the most effective approach to addressing the issue.

Supporters of the tax hike cite a University of New Mexico study suggesting that a 25-cent per drink tax increase could reduce alcohol consumption by 1.7% and generate $132 million in revenue. 

Actually, the UNM study referenced notes, “A hypothetical ten-cent per-gallon increase in beer excise taxes could reduce 2.84 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in New Mexico each year,” showing statistically insignificant findings that such a tax would do anything at all or even save a single life.

“Despite recent increases in the total number of liquor licenses, there has not been a statistically significant increase in alcohol-related traffic fatalities at the state-wide level,” the study also found.

Since 1981, New Mexico’s alcohol-related death rate has ranked among the top three in the United States, holding the first position from 1997 through 2010. Despite massive increases in alcohol taxes and the creation of programs in 1993, New Mexico’s alcohol-related death rate increased from 39.3 deaths per 100,000 in 1994 to 86.6 in 2020, despite these programs, according to the New Mexico Department of Health.

Also, “New Mexico has one of the higher liquor excise tax rates in the region,” and despite its high tax rate, it has the highest fatality rate relating to alcohol, meaning there is absotuly no correlation whatsoever between increased taxes and fewer alcohol harms, per the Legislative Finance Committee’s fiscal impact report (FIR) on another bill.

Statistics and peer-reviewed studies show that a tax increase will disproportionately impact responsible consumers while failing to adequately address problem drinking.

The same FIR noted, “Excise taxes are generally considered regressive, meaning lower-income individuals pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes. Eliminating the tax would reduce overall regressivity in the tax code.”

“This is one of the most important policies that we can do for public health,” Parajón said, pointing to Maryland’s 2011 alcohol tax increase as a precedent. But critics remain skeptical, questioning whether higher prices will truly deter excessive drinking or simply push consumers to purchase alcohol from out-of-state sources.

Multiple natuonal studies also find that alcohol tax hikes do nothing to curb alcohol-related fatalities and harms, including “Does Heavy Drinking by Adults Respond to Higher Alcohol Prices and Taxes? A Survey and Assessment” by Jon P. Nelson in Economy Analysis and Policy, The Effects of Prices on Alcohol Use and its Consequences by Xin Xu and Frank J Chaloupk published by the National Insitutes of Health (NIH), among many others. 

With growing bipartisan opposition, House Bill 417 appears unlikely to advance, and for good reason. Raising taxes on alcohol would hit consumers and businesses hard while offering no guarantee of reducing alcohol-related harm in any way, shape, or form. 

Rather than imposing another financial burden on New Mexicans, lawmakers should focus on targeted prevention and treatment programs that address the root causes of problem drinking without penalizing responsible consumers.
Piñon Post editor and state Rep. John Block (R-Alamogordo) proposed H.B. 460, which would have removed these ineffective alcohol taxes from state statutes. The bill was quickly tabled in the House Health and Human Services Committee on a party-line vote — a committee comprising many of H.B. 417’s sponsors and proponents.

Some Dems join Republicans to kill regressive alcohol tax hike bill Read More »

NM Dems play with fire, ramp up DEI push amid Trump admin crackdown

32 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Despite President Donald Trump’s decisive actions to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs—deemed by many as discriminatory and wasteful—a New Mexico state Senate committee has advanced Senate Bill 356 (SB 356), known as the “Diversity Act.” This bill proposes the creation of DEI-focused positions within the State Personnel Office and other agencies.​

On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14151, titled “Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing,” directing federal departments to abolish DEI initiatives and prioritize merit-based employment decisions. This move aligns with the administration’s commitment to ensuring that federal decisions are based on performance and merit, revoking DEI considerations. ​

In contrast, SB 356 seeks to introduce a “chief diversity officer” in New Mexico’s State Personnel Office to lead DEI initiatives, including training, outreach, and regular evaluations of state agencies. Each state agency would also appoint a “diversity and inclusion liaison” to collaborate on these efforts. The bill allocates $250,000 to implement these changes.​

Supporters, like co-sponsor Sen. Antoinette Sedillo Lopez (D-Albuquerque), argue that the bill promotes representation within state government, reflecting the state’s diverse taxpayer base. 

However, opponents, such as Sen. Larry Scott (R-Hobbs), highlight the federal shift away from DEI programs, suggesting that the bill is untimely and that the focus should return to merit-based employment decisions.​

President Trump’s administration maintains that DEI programs lead to unlawful discrimination by prioritizing inherent characteristics over individual capabilities. The President’s executive orders aim to eliminate such practices, reinforcing a commitment to equal opportunity based on merit. ​

As SB 356 progresses to the Senate Finance Committee, it faces scrutiny from those advocating for merit-based policies and concerns about potential conflicts with federal directives. The debate continues over the balance between promoting “diversity” and ensuring equal opportunity without resorting to discriminatory practices.

NM Dems play with fire, ramp up DEI push amid Trump admin crackdown Read More »

NM House Dems pass ‘Homicide Scholarship,’ kill juvenile crime bill

25 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

In a move that has sparked outrage among law enforcement, crime victims, and New Mexico residents, House Democrats in the state legislature voted on Saturday to pass House Bill 255 (HB 255), a controversial measure that includes a provision to give violent juvenile offenders up to $2,000 per month in taxpayer-funded stipends. At the same time, Democratic lawmakers killed House Bill 134 (HB 134), a bipartisan effort aimed at holding violent juvenile offenders accountable for their crimes.

HB 255, sponsored by Rep. Elizabeth “Liz” Thomson (D-Albuquerque), was marketed as an update to New Mexico’s juvenile justice system, but a closer look at the legislation reveals that it is more about financial handouts than meaningful reform. Buried within the bill is a three-year pilot program that grants substantial monthly stipends to former foster children and those previously incarcerated under the Delinquency Act, including individuals who committed violent crimes such as manslaughter and aggravated assault. The program, which has been dubbed the “Homicide Scholarship” by critics, notably Rep. Rod Montoya (R-Farmingon), will be administered by the Higher Education Department and is expected to cost taxpayers millions of dollars.

The bill also renames the Juvenile Community Corrections Act to the Juvenile Community Connections Act and increases grant funding for juvenile delinquency programs while lengthening supervised release for youthful offenders. However, the most controversial aspect remains the stipend program, which critics argue incentivizes criminal behavior rather than deterring it.

Democrats Kill Effort to Hold Juvenile Offenders Accountable

While HB 255 sailed through the House, the same group of Democratic lawmakers on the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee (CPAC) voted to table HB 134, effectively killing the bill. HB 134, introduced by a bipartisan coalition including Reps. Cynthia Borrego (D-Albuquerque), Art De La Cruz (D-Albuquerque), Nicole Chavez (R-Albuquerque), and Andrea Reeb (R-Clovis) sought to modernize New Mexico’s outdated juvenile justice laws. The bill aimed to ensure that minors who commit violent crimes, including first-degree murder, face meaningful consequences.

Currently, New Mexico law allows juveniles who commit even the most heinous crimes to be released by their 18th or 21st birthdays, regardless of the severity of their offenses. HB 134 would have revised the state’s 1970s-era juvenile code to allow for greater flexibility in sentencing and to include 14-year-olds charged with first-degree murder in the “youthful offender” category, making them eligible for adult sentencing.

Despite broad support from law enforcement officials and Democrat Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman, HB 134 was tabled by CPAC on a 4-2 party-line vote, with Reps. Joanne Ferrary (D-Las Cruces), Angelica Rubio (D-Las Cruces), Andrea Romero (D-Santa Fe), and Liz Thomson (D-Albuquerque) voting to kill the measure.

A Growing Public Safety Crisis

The decision to advance HB 255 while killing HB 134 comes amid a rising wave of juvenile crime in New Mexico. The Bernalillo County Juvenile Detention Center is already at capacity, housing 57 male juveniles and five females, with law enforcement officials warning that violent crime among minors is escalating. “We are experiencing a crisis among our youth, and unfortunately, this is not just a Bernalillo County issue,” said Bernalillo Deputy County Manager of Public Safety Greg Perez.

Many in the law enforcement community see HB 255 as a slap in the face to crime victims and a step in the wrong direction. “Tabling this bill—and basically not doing anything to address juvenile crime in the Legislature—sends a clear message that a lot of legislators don’t feel the same way I do, working in the trenches every day, in how big a problem it is,” said DA Sam Bregman.

The move also comes after failed attempts to strengthen penalties for fentanyl traffickers, as House Democrats similarly voted down HB 274, which would have imposed harsher sentences on major drug traffickers responsible for fueling the opioid epidemic. 

Public Backlash and Calls for Accountability

As crime rates continue to rise and repeat offenders remain on the streets, New Mexico residents are growing increasingly frustrated with their lawmakers’ refusal to act. Crime victims and law enforcement officials have taken to social media to voice their anger over HB 255’s passage and HB 134’s demise.

“New Mexicans are being killed and maimed by teenagers who face no serious consequences. Lawmakers who endorse this hands-off approach to youth crime are complicit in these offenses,” wrote ABQ Raw in a scathing editorial.

Meanwhile, critics of HB 255 argue that providing thousands of dollars in taxpayer-funded stipends to violent criminals under the guise of rehabilitation is not the answer to New Mexico’s crime crisis. “Perhaps these legislators should sign up for shifts at their local juvenile detention centers and see firsthand how violent these offenders can be,” ABQ Raw suggested.

As the legislative session nears its end, many are left wondering whether public safety will ever be a priority for the current leadership in Santa Fe. With Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham calling for juvenile justice reform, the battle over crime legislation in New Mexico is far from over.

NM House Dems pass ‘Homicide Scholarship,’ kill juvenile crime bill Read More »

NM Supreme Court partially upholds MLG’s unconstitutional gun edict

10 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

A sharply divided New Mexico Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that far-left Democrat Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s 2023 emergency orders restricting gun possession and addressing drug abuse did not violate state law. However, the court did strike down a provision related to a juvenile justice initiative, deeming it an overreach of executive authority.

In a 3-2 decision, the majority of the court determined that Lujan Grisham’s orders fell within the broad emergency powers granted to governors under state law. This ruling has raised serious concerns regarding the extent of executive authority, with Justices Brianna Zamora and Michael Vigil dissenting. Zamora issued a strong warning about the potential for future abuse, stating, “While the governor’s desire to combat gun violence and drug abuse appears to be well-intended, there is nothing in the majority’s opinion that would restrict a future governor from taking actions that would be substantively more troubling.”

This ruling is significant not only because of its implications for executive power but also due to the makeup of the court itself— a majority of justices were appointed by Lujan Grisham. This raises questions about the objectivity of the decision and whether judicial independence has been compromised in favor of political loyalty.

Despite the court’s decision, the practical impact is limited, as the governor’s emergency orders have either expired or been blocked by federal courts. Nonetheless, the ruling sets a dangerous precedent, allowing future governors to invoke emergency powers in sweeping ways, potentially infringing on constitutional rights.

Lujan Grisham initially justified her emergency orders after the tragic killing of an 11-year-old boy in Albuquerque, declaring gun violence and drug abuse public health crises. She subsequently attempted to ban firearm possession in public spaces within Albuquerque and Bernalillo County and mandated wastewater testing in schools for fentanyl and other drugs. The gun restrictions were swiftly challenged and blocked by a Joe Biden-appointed federal judge, leading her to revise the order to only cover parks and playgrounds. That order was allowed to expire in October 2024 and was not renewed.

The governor’s actions prompted legal challenges from a broad coalition, including the New Mexico Republican Party, GOP lawmakers, the state Libertarian Party, and the National Rifle Association. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, state Republican Party Chairwoman Amy Barela warned of the dangerous precedent set by the decision, stating, “The dissenting justices’ warnings prove our point: without a check on this power, what’s next? Will a future Democratic governor declare an ‘emergency’ over climate change to seize property? Ban free speech to combat ‘misinformation’? The majority’s ruling says they can — and Democrats will.”

Lujan Grisham’s reliance on emergency powers has been a recurring theme of her administration, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic. Using the 2003 Public Health Emergency Response Act, which was originally enacted following the 2001 anthrax attacks, she repeatedly extended emergency declarations and issued sweeping public health mandates. Efforts by legislators to curb the governor’s authority have been unsuccessful, as she has vowed to veto any such measures.

The court’s ruling reinforces the unchecked expansion of executive power under the guise of public health emergencies, raising serious constitutional concerns. While Lujan Grisham’s orders may have technically adhered to state law, they undeniably tested the boundaries of individual rights and governmental overreach. The decision underscores the need for legislative reforms to ensure that emergency powers are not exploited to bypass constitutional protections and democratic processes.

NM Supreme Court partially upholds MLG’s unconstitutional gun edict Read More »

1 2 3 4 5 6 … 226

Stay Updated

Scroll to Top