New Mexico

NM House Dems pass bill letting pedophiles and rapists out of prison and into communities

3 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

On Tuesday night, the New Mexico House of Representatives considered S.B. 114, sponsored by Sen. Bill O’Neill (D-Bernalillo) and Rep. Andrea Romero (D-Santa Fe), which seeks to allow “geriatric” convicts (age 55 or older) out on parole with a plea to the New Mexico Corrections Department. 

According to the fiscal impact report of the bill, “eligible inmates (or their representatives) submit applications for medical and geriatric parole to NMCD, and the department determines whether to recommend the applicant be granted parole under the medical and geriatric parole program.”

The bill would allow pedophiles and rapists to be released from prison on this parole program, which Republican members of the House took issue with.

Rep. Stefani Lord (R-Bernalillo, Sandoval & Santa Fe) rose to the floor to condemn the bill. She said, “What they found in a study in 2008 is that people who are sex offenders have a decreased brain matter, and it results in a compulsive behavior where they are compelled to rape and molest children over and over again. So, when I was doing my research, there was no cure for pedophiles. And there was extremely limited rehabilitation for rapists, and that was if they were in therapy constantly and there is still a high rate of recidivism.”

“And so when I was reading through this, I was thinking, you know, a really good idea would be not to put these sex offenders back out on the street, and that’s because 50% of all rapists have a prior conviction and the typical pedophile will commit 117 sexual crimes in their lifetime. That’s nationwide. In Virginia, they have found for the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission that pedophiles molest an average of 300 children in their lifetime. So, I started thinking about that. Do we really want to release sex offenders back out into a community when the bureau of justice says they are four times more likely to be arrested on another crime?”

“And our oldest pedophile is 101 years old. So, pedophiles and sex offenders don’t quit raping and molesting children,” continued Lord.

Rep. Lord attempted to amend the bill to stop pedophiles and rapists from being released into communities to continue to cause acts of sexual and other violence upon New Mexicans. 

During the debate on the amendment, Lord said, “I don’t think that’s the kind of people we want to release.” She cited a case in New Mexico where a pedophile was released and in one week raped three children. “Sex offenders sex offend their entire life. They don’t suddenly get better.” 

The bill sponsor, Rep. Romero, claimed the amendment was “unfriendly.” 

Rep. Pettigrew said, “We’ve had conversations on this on a multitude of bills as they’ve gone through CPAC (Consumer and Public Affairs Committee), and unfortunately all of them, they seem to be unfriendly when it comes with respect to sex offense and pedophiles and different serial rapists and stuff like that. And it is unfortunate. I agree with your amendment… and I will support it.”  

However, Democrats, led by Rep. Doreen Gallegos (D-Donña Ana), voted to protect pedophiles and table the amendment on a vote of 41-28. The only Democrats who voted against tabling the amendment were Reps. Harry Garcia (D-Bernalillo, Cibola, McKinley, Socorro, San Juan & Valencia), Candie Sweetser (D-Grant, Hidalgo & Luna), and Marian Matthews (D-Bernalillo). 

During debate on an amendment, Democrats snuck into S.B. 114 duplicative language to a bill regarding felon voting rights that looks likely dead in the Senate, H.B. 74. Republicans, including Rep. Rod Montoya (R-San Juan), brought up the House rule stating how it is against House rules to do such a thing. 

Despite that, Speaker Brian Egolf (D-Santa Fe) claimed his closed-door, dead-of-night lawmaking (which includes Democrats erecting a fence around the Capitol to keep the people out of the People’s House) was “extreme transparency and openness in this entire process.” He said the discussion was “a wonderful example of complete transparency.”

The bill finally passed, without the amendment barring pedophiles and rapists out on parole, by a vote of 37-33.

Radical anti-police bill bankrupting local governments one hurdle away from becoming law

1 Comment / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

On Tuesday, the New Mexico Senate passed H.B. 4, dubbed the “Civil Rights Act,” sponsored by Speaker of the House Brian Egolf, Rep. Georgene Louis (D-Bernalillo), and Sen. Joseph Cervantes (D-Doña Ana), all attorneys practicing civil litigation. 

The bill has the ability to bankrupt local communities with slews of frivolous civil rights lawsuits, end qualified immunity and put a target on law enforcers’ backs. Local governments from all across the state are vehemently opposed to the measure, as well as many local law enforcement officials from all over New Mexico.

During the Senate debate of the bill, Sen. Bill Sharer (R-San Juan) said, “We don’t want to deprive somebody of their civil rights, but we also don’t want to make the taxpayers of whatever jurisdiction just pour money into this endless pit of lawsuits.”

Sen. Stewart Ingle (R-Chaves, Curry, De Baca, Lea, and Roosevelt) said, “We have the most liberal liability laws of any place except Washington, D.C., and the stuff we didn’t have has now been added through this.” He added, “It’s going to open up areas for liability that we have never seen before. And our counties and our cities, our highway departments, every state agency we have, I think, is going to be subject to things that they have never even thought about.” 

“More money for insurance or claims means less money for essential services or higher taxes,” said Santa Fe County Attorney Greg Shaffer during testimony against the bill in a Senate committee. “This shifting of risk impacts all citizens,” he said. “More money for insurance or claims means less money for essential services or higher taxes.”

In a previous hearing of the bill, Detective Shaun Willoughby of the Albuquerque Police Officers’ Association said, “This particular bill takes away our ability. This is basically a tax increase. We are taxing the public all over the state of New Mexico. Hurting budgets that can be used for training on the mental health, can be used for resources and social programs in the poorest state in the nation.” 

Proponents of the police-attacking bill came sponsored by dark money groups like billionaire Mike Bloomberg’s “Moms Demand Action,” the Soros-funded “Sierra Club,” “ProgressNow New Mexico,” and “Equality New Mexico.” These groups’ supporters claimed H.B. 4 was a necessary reform for civil rights while not addressing how it would cripple local municipalities’ budgets, open these localities to million-dollar frivolous lawsuits, and put targets on peace officers’ backs. 

Egolf has been criticized for sponsoring the bill, as it would directly benefit his private law practice, which is 60% civil litigation and claims. His unethical sponsorship of the bill led a prominent retired judge to file an ethics complaint against Egolf. He had his lawyer file a motion to dismiss the ethics complaint, as reported on Friday. During House consideration of H.B. 4, Egolf voted against an amendment proposed by Rep. T. Ryan Lane (R-San Juan) to bar legislators from financially benefiting from the bill.

The measure barely squeaked by the Senate Judiciary Committee on a vote of 5-4, with Sen. Daniel Ivey-Soto (D-Bernalillo) voting with all Republicans against the radical measure. Another similar measure was brought forth by Sen. Joseph Cervantes (D-Doña Ana) regarding tort claims and qualified immunity. However, it was swiftly rejected, with two Democrats voting to kill the bill. Cervantes also may profit off of his co-sponsorship of H.B. 4 despite his claims that he has “no conflict of interest or financial motive in bringing this legislation.” Only time will tell on that.

The Senate amended the bill to eliminate mandatory attorney fees. However, the small concession did not fix New Mexico’s small communities and local governments’ many concerns. In its amended form, the bill will go to the House of Representatives for concurrence before it is sent to Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham for a signature. It passed the Senate on a 26-15 with one Democrat in opposition, Sen, George Muñoz (Cibola, McKinley, and San Juan), siding with all Republicans against the extreme bill.

According to the New Mexico House Republicans at 10:37 p.m. on Tuesday that “[W]e are recessed until the Speaker’s bill, HB 4, is passed by the Senate and he can bring it to our chamber for concurrence.” 

Sen. Stewart callously dismisses concerns as committee rams through gas tax hike on the poor

8 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

On Tuesday, the House Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee convened to discuss S.B. 11, the de-facto gas tax on the poor by over 20 cents per gallon. The bill was sponsored by Sen. Mimi Stewart (D-Bernalillo). 

When asked simple questions about her bill and the math not adding up in the cost of gasoline pushed on consumers, she erroneously claimed, “Gas is cheaper now than when they started.” However, according to raw gas prices from California and Oregon, the states she championed as models for New Mexico, the prices in 2014 and 2015 for California and Oregon respectively were cheaper then than when they implemented the clean fuel standards.

Rep. James Strickler (R-San Juan) brought up the fact that the California equivalent of New Mexico’s Legislative Finance Committee urged the state to shut down the clean fuel standards program due to cost concerns with transportation that ultimately went on to the consumer. 

He noted how in Farmington, where he is located, “We pay probably 25 to 30 cents higher in gasoline costs up here.” 

Stewart clapped back, “I don’t” have concerns. “I’m certainly proud that you all are concerned about low income. I don’t think it’s going to impact us,” she said, adding, “We’ve got two years to phase this in. We’re going to do it right.”

Rep. Rod Montoya (R-San Juan) echoed Rep. Strickler’s concerns, saying, “The poor are going to be the ones who are going to be the ones most affected by this.” 

At this point, Stewart got frustrated, as she did in multiple other committee hearings when faced with the truth about her unaffordable gas tax on the poor. She said,  “When everybody talks about, ‘Oh the poor are gonna be hurt,’ I do believe the poor care about the climate,” she said.

“This is bigger than just the cost of gasoline…. This program does not really affect the cost of gasoline, like so many other factors that go into it.” 

“Two cents a year — That is nothing,” she said, claiming, “I am not concerned about that because I do believe this is kind of fear mongering…. I want to answer honestly because that’s how I feel about it.” 

“The cost is in the transportation — that’s where the poor people in rural New Mexico get hit,” Montoya clapped back.

He added that the example of supposed “new investment” in New Mexico used by Stewart, a company in Clovis, had their production in Texas which was across the border.

“The problem was the delivery cost,” said Montoya. He noted that transportation costs would be “astronomical” if someone lived in a more rural area, such as Deming. “The cost was going to be outrageous,” said Montoya. 

“That’s where the poor people in rural New Mexico get hit,” he said, “The cost to transport is where the cost comes from.” 

“If you live in California and you have a lot more outlets like that, the cost goes down…. that’s a real number that’s a real factor.”  

When Stewart was pressed on the lack of legislative oversight that the commission responsible for implementing the clean fuel standard would have, she replied, “No. I have seen us year after year after year come back and make changes” She added, “I have no fears about that.” 


After dismissing the very real concerns of the rural representatives, Democrats made a motion to pass the bill, with all Democrats voting for it while all Republicans stood up for the poor and voted against it, with the S.B. 11 passing on a vote of 7-4. The gas tax on the poor bill now heads to the House floor for final approval.

Find and contact your legislator to oppose the bill by clicking here.

Assisted suicide via lethal drugs bill one step away from becoming law after passing Senate

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

In a sad turn of events in New Mexico, the state Senate approved one of the most extreme assisted suicide via lethal drugs bills to the House of Representatives to concur with the amendments, then to Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham for her signature. The Governor promised to sign the radical anti-life bill that will jeopardize those living with terminal conditions.

The bill passed despite bipartisan opposition to the radical measure, with a final vote of 24-17. Democrats, Pete Campos of Las Vegas, George Muñoz of Gallup, and Benny Shendo Jr. of Jemez Pueblo joined Republicans in voting against the measure. Despite invoking his Catholic faith and saying he attended mass at the Cathedral, Sen. Joseph Cervantes (D-Doña Ana) voted with anti-life Democrats to approve the bill.

During debate. Sen. Gregg Schmedes (R-Tijeras) said, “My concern is that when we legalize this practice, as we’ve seen in other states, the overall suicide rate goes up.” He added, “When I use the word ‘suicide,’ I don’t use it flippantly. Suicide’s the intentional taking of your life.”

The bill, which is opposed by multiple disability rights groups, the Navajo Nation, and many patients living with terminal conditions, seeks to further normalize a culture of death in New Mexico by letting medical professionals prescribe lethal drugs to patients who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness that could take their lives anytime up to six months.

The bill would legalize doctors to prescribe a “cocktail” of lethal drugs to patients suffering from terminal illnesses, which will save insurance companies money. 

During the bill’s hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sunday, the “expert witnesses,” law professor Robert Schwartz and physician Steven Kanig could not even list the drugs that would be prescribed to end an individual’s life and admitted that there is no set “cocktail” that is used. Schwartz claimed the concoction of harmful drugs “has been refined over the years” and that “these drugs do change.”

H.B. 47, which devalues human life and dangerously violates ethical codes in medicine, is sponsored by anti-life extremist Rep. Deborah Armstrong (D-Bernalillo) and a few other partisan Democrats in the Legislature. 

Gov. Lujan Grisham’s press secretary Nora Sackett said in a statement, “The governor has been a lifelong advocate for seniors and their independence, as well as for the importance of dignity and respect in making choices about one’s own health and treatment.” 

The American Medical Association (AMA) itself decries assisted suicide as an affront to the practice of medicine. According to the American Medical Association’s Code of Ethics Medical Opinion 5.7: 

“Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.” 

“Instead of engaging in assisted suicide, physicians must aggressively respond to the needs of patients at the end of life. Physicians:

Should not abandon a patient once it is determined that cure is impossible.

Must respect patient autonomy.

Must provide good communication and emotional support.

Must provide appropriate comfort care and adequate pain control.

In Oregon and California–states that allow assisted suicide–patients have been denied payment for treatments to save their lives, but have been told that less-costly lethal drugs would be covered. Assisted suicide creates a strong economic incentive to deny treatment, which is the antithesis of the above medical ethics mandate from the AMA to provide appropriate comfort care and adequate pain control. 

According to official numbers from Oregon, suicide in the general population in the state is 40% above the national average during the 20 year period that Oregon has had legal assisted suicide. 

In July, it was reported that New Mexico’s suicide rate was the highest in the nation. This bill would further encourage suicide as a socially acceptable alternative to life–a dangerous mindset to place in the minds of people young and old living in our state. By embracing more death and treating people who have a terminal illness as expendable, New Mexico would be dehumanizing individuals and treating them as a burden. 

In Canada, where assisted suicide is legal for the ill and the elderly, they are now trying to force through assisted suicide for people who have disabilities, claiming it will save health care costs (as the country has a socialized medicine system). They are threatening patients, such as a man named Roger Foley, who has cerebellar ataxia, a degenerative neurological condition, giving him only two options: pay $1,800 per day to remain in a hospital after he was mistreated at a government-assigned agency home care center, or kill himself with life-ending drugs. The legalization of H.B. 47 would usher in Canada’s so-called “progressive” policies, ultimately leading to disabled people being included in future bills to kill themselves because they are given impossible choices such as the one Mr. Foley had.

Also, the unsafe life-ending drugs used in the killing of these terminally ill patients would force patients to agree to the below statement that they understand it could take longer than three hours of excruciating pain for them to finally be poisoned to death:

“I understand the full import of this request, and I expect to die if I self-administer the medical aid in dying medication prescribed. I further understand that although most deaths occur within three hours, my death may take longer.” 

As Charlie Camosy, a bioethics professor in the theology department of Fordham University in New York said, “A medical system that kills is no longer recognizable as healing and caring.”

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Deb Armstrong (D-Bernalillo) gleefully rejoiced the final Senate passage of the anti-life bill, writing on Twitter, “This is a tremendous win.”

The bill, which was amended on the Senate floor, now goes to the state House of Representatives. The House already has approved the bill, but will need to approve the amendments. Then it will go to the Governor’s desk for a signature, ushering an even more aggressive culture of death in New Mexico, following the passage of S.B. 10, a bill legalizing abortion up-to-birth and infanticide and stripping all protections for women, medical professionals, and babies in the womb.

Assisted suicide bill advances from committee amid ugly spat between Sen. Ivey-Soto, Pro Tem Stewart

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

On Sunday, the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Sen. Joseph Cervantes (D-Doña Ana) met to consider multiple proposals, chief among them H.B. 47, which is a rabidly anti-life assisted suicide via lethal drugs bill brought forth by Rep. Deborah Armstrong (D-Bernalillo) and Sen. Liz Stefanics (D-Bernalillo, Lincoln, San Miguel, Santa Fe, Torrance, and Valencia). 

The bill would legalize doctors to prescribe a “cocktail” of lethal drugs to patients suffering from terminal illnesses, which will save insurance companies money. The bill is opposed by the American Medical Association’s guide of ethics, the Navajo Nation, multiple Catholic organizations, and disability rights groups. 

During the committee, the “expert witnesses,” law professor Robert Schwartz and physician Steven Kanig could not even list the drugs that would be prescribed to end an individual’s life and admitted that there is no set “cocktail” that is used. Schwartz claimed the concoction of harmful drugs “has been refined over the years” and that “these drugs do change.”

Chairman Cervantes asked multiple questions regarding the legality of the bill, such as its clause listing that a physician would be compelled to list the patient’s underlying condition as their cause of death instead of the lethal drugs. Another concern regarded proof that the patient was not being coerced into the decision, as well as the effectiveness of these drugs to end the patient’s life. He also asked about redundancies in the bill, such as the term “a peaceful death,” referring to the ending of the patient’s life. He said, “The issue here is not to produce that, but rather to produce death. And that really is straightforward.” 

No other senator, Republican, or Democrat asked the bill sponsors or their expert witnesses about the bill, other than Sen. Katy Duhigg (D-Bernalillo and Sandoval) arguing with the Chairman over exempting doctors from liability. 

During the consideration of a previous bill in the committee, H.B. 129, Senate Pro Tem Mimi Stewart (D-Bernalillo), and Sen. Daniel Ivey-Soto (D-Bernalillo) had a spat over amendments to the bill, with Stewart claiming she was not sent amendments in advance. 

Later, during consideration of the anti-life H.B. 47, Ivey-Soto had informed the committee that he had been asked by leadership not to exercise his “senatorial duties” on any House bills and that he would no longer be hearing House bills in his Senate Rules Committee.

He said, “I just wanted to let everybody know that since I have been asked by leadership not to exercise my senatorial duties on any House bills, I will not be participating in the consideration of any House bills. I am terribly sorry for this. We will also no longer, in my committee, be considering any House bills at this time for the foreseeable future. Thank you very much, and I wish everyone well on this bill and I’m very sorry not to be participating in the consideration of this bill because I find it to be incredible for us to be doing in our work in the Legislature.” 

In prior committee hearings in his Rules Committee, Sen Ivey-Soto has gotten into spats with Sen. Mimi Stewart. She has been critical of his inclination to amend bills to not create problems later on. In contrast, she has been focused on ramming through as much radical legislation despite any ramifications in the future. 

Before the final vote on H.B. 47, Republicans on the committee made a motion to table it, with it dying on a vote of 3-5. The anti-life bill ultimately passed through the committee 5-3 despite many indications of opposition from Chairman Cervantes, with him voting to advance the bill. Cervantes said he intends to offer amendments to the bill on the Senate floor, the proposal’s next stop before the Governor’s desk.

URGENT ALERT: Sign up to testify against anti-life assisted suicide via lethal drugs bill TODAY

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

On Sunday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will consider radical assisted suicide H.B. 47 sponsored by Rep. Deborah Armstrong (D-Bernalillo) at 3:00 p.m. Please sign up to testify below.

The bill seeks to further normalize a culture of death in New Mexico by letting medical professionals prescribe lethal drugs to patients who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness that could take their lives anytime up to six months.

H.B. 47, which devalues human life and dangerously violates ethical codes in medicine, is sponsored by anti-life extremist Rep. Deborah Armstrong (D-Bernalillo) and a few other partisan Democrats in the Legislature. 

The American Medical Association (AMA) itself decries assisted suicide as an affront to the practice of medicine. According to the American Medical Association’s Code of Ethics Medical Opinion 5.7: 

“Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.” 

“Instead of engaging in assisted suicide, physicians must aggressively respond to the needs of patients at the end of life. Physicians:

Should not abandon a patient once it is determined that cure is impossible.

Must respect patient autonomy.

Must provide good communication and emotional support.

Must provide appropriate comfort care and adequate pain control.

In Oregon and California–states that allow assisted suicide–patients have been denied payment for treatments to save their lives, but have been told that less-costly lethal drugs would be covered. Assisted suicide creates a strong economic incentive to deny treatment, which is the antithesis of the above medical ethics mandate from the AMA to provide appropriate comfort care and adequate pain control. 

According to official numbers from Oregon, suicide in the general population in the state is 40% above the national average during the 20 year period that Oregon has had legal assisted suicide. 

In July, it was reported that New Mexico’s suicide rate was the highest in the nation. This bill would further encourage suicide as a socially acceptable alternative to life–a dangerous mindset to place in the minds of people young and old living in our state. By embracing more death and treating people who have a terminal illness as expendable, New Mexico would be dehumanizing individuals and treating them as a burden. 

In Canada, where assisted suicide is legal for the ill and the elderly, they are now trying to force through assisted suicide for people who have disabilities, claiming it will save health care costs (as the country has a socialized medicine system). They are threatening patients, such as a man named Roger Foley, who has cerebellar ataxia, a degenerative neurological condition, giving him only two options: pay $1,800 per day to remain in a hospital after he was mistreated at a government-assigned agency home care center, or kill himself with life-ending drugs. The legalization of H.B. 47 would usher in the so-called “progressive” policies of Canada, ultimately leading to disabled people being included in future bills to kill themselves because they are given impossible choices such as the one Mr. Foley had.

Also, the unsafe life-ending drugs used in the killing of these terminally ill patients would force patients to agree to the below statement that they understand it could take longer than three hours of excruciating pain for them to finally be poisoned to death:

“I understand the full import of this request, and I expect to die if I self-administer the medical aid in dying medication prescribed. I further understand that although most deaths occur within three hours, my death may take longer.” 

As Charlie Camosy, a bioethics professor in the theology department of Fordham University in New York said, “A medical system that kills is no longer recognizable as healing and caring.”

Here is a quick and informative video from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition against H.B. 47:

ACTION ALERT: 

H.B. 47 will be heard on Monday. However, the committee requires people to sign up 24 hours in advance to testify. Please sign up to testify by emailing SJC@nmlegis.gov with your Name, Entity Represented, Bill #, For or Against, and indicate if you wish to speak. Written comments are limited to 300 words or less. You will be contacted by our Zoom Operator with the virtual meeting instructions.

Your help in defeating this bill will mean the difference between a culture of life or a culture of careless death in New Mexico. We should champion policies that promote life for all people in New Mexico, from conception to natural death. Contact the committee members here:

Dem senator questions why Dems want to raise taxes amid revenue boom—then votes for tax hike

1 Comment / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

On Saturday, the Senate Taxation, Business, and Transportation Committee voted 7-4 on H.B. 291 to advance a sweeping tax hike on New Mexicans making over $500,000 annually while also phasing out other tax breaks passed in 2013. 

During committee comments, Sen. Bill Tallman (D-Bernalillo) made quite a fuss over the bill increasing taxes while loads of government money was coming in to help the state. He pondered whether this was the right time for such an action.

“Now that we’re learning that we’re going to get a considerable amount of money from the federal government, I was wondering what we are so determined to increase taxes because I would be… in favor of increasing the working families tax credit and the LICTR (Low-Income Comprehensive Tax Rebate), and forget about increasing taxes for a year or two because they’re raising such a small amount.” He added, “The income tax is only going to raise $40 million. That’s what, one-third of one percent of our $7.3 billion budget,” said Tallman. 

He said, “I hate to argue with you against my good friend, Peter Wirth–Senator Wirth. And I was just wondering why we’re so determined to raise taxes–which I’m not against raising taxes maybe down the road–but why are we so determined to raise it in light of the fact that we’re so flush with money coming in this year?” 

Sen. Peter Wirth (D-Santa Fe) responded, saying that the tax hike was meant to be a “recurring” partial fix to a “permanent problem” with what he described as waning oil and gas revenues. 

But despite Tallman lobbying against raising taxes in the current legislative session, he voted for S.B. 291 anyway. 

The bill would ultimately harm businesses that are already struggling due to the COVID-19 pandemic and which employ low-income workers in the state. The new tax hike would disincentivize businesses from investing in New Mexico because higher-income business owners would not invest in the state due to over-taxation.

There are many other proposals working their way through the Legislature that will directly impact lower-wage workers and working families, notably S.B. 11, which is a clean fuel standards bill that would ultimately raise the price of gasoline to over 20 cents per gallon–crippling the poor.

The bill now heads to the Senate floor, and despite Tallman’s manufactured concern in the Tax Committee, it appears he will likely vote for the measure on the Senate floor. 

Rep. Herrell takes time out of busy week to treat National Guard troops at U.S. Capitol to green chile

2 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Although far-left Democrat leaders have shuttered the U.S. Capitol with a giant metal chain-link and razor wire fence, that hasn’t stopped New Mexico’s Congresswoman from the Second District from bringing a little cheer to the brave men and women standing on-guard at the Capitol.

This week, she treated the National Guardsmen stationed at the U.S. Capitol to some of New Mexico’s very own green chile to bring a little New Mexico flavor to the dreary, shuttered, and politically toxic capitol building.

On Twitter, Herrell wrote, “Brought a taste from home to the New Mexico National Guard troops on duty at the U.S. Capitol this week. Green Chile of course,” with a photo of her serving it to the troops. 

This has been a very busy week for New Mexico’s lone Republican congresswoman as she fought hard against a radical gun-grab championed by the Democrats and a Democrat slush fund cloaked as a “COVID-19 relief” bill, which only gives a meager 10% to coronavirus relief while the rest goes to fund Democrat pork, including hundreds of millions for abortions. She also stood up against the Democrats’ deadly open border policies that are bringing hundreds of thousands of criminal aliens into the U.S., many of them flooding through the southern border with Mexico and New Mexico. 

But that’s not all. Herrell also co-sponsored a bill with a Republican senator to make murdering law enforcement officers a federal crime. 

Herrell also sent a letter urging Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham to tell Democrat Sens. Martin Heinrich and Ben Ray Luján to sponsor complimentary legislation, as she has proposed in the House, to exempt New Mexico from Joe Biden’s radical oil and gas moratorium. 

Bill enacting independent redistricting commission advances to House floor after tense debate

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

On Friday, the House Judiciary Committee advanced two redistricting proposals, one bipartisan bill, H.B. 211, brought forth by Rep. Rebecca Dow (R-Truth or Consequences) and Natalie Figueroa (D-Bernalillo), and the other, S.B. 15, brought forth by Sen. Daniel Ivey-Soto (D-Bernalillo) and Speaker of the House Brian Egolf (D-Santa Fe).

Critics of S.B. 15 noted how it uses partisan data and incumbency as tools for redrawing maps, whereas H.B. 211 does not exclusively use that data. H.B. 211 takes into account the needs of local communities, including tribal communities, and encourages public input in the fair process of redrawing legislative maps. It also would discourage litigation, as has been done in all but one census year over the past fifty, according to Rep. Figueroa. 

At the beginning of the meeting, a poll of attendees showed that 89% of them supported H.B. 211 compared to the meager 11% who opposed it. 

During the committee hearing, Speaker Egolf continually whined about Republicans “casting aspersions” that he did not want a fair redistricting process, demanding an apology from Republicans, including GOP Leader Jim Townsend (R-Chaves, Eddy, and Otero). He did not end up getting one, as Egolf has continually worked to favor Democrats in the redistricting process and only recently joined Sen. Ivey-Soto’s last-ditch redistricting bill to install a more political way of redrawing district maps. After the meeting, Rep. Stefani Lord (R-Bernalillo, Sandoval & Santa Fe) wrote, “We will NEVER apologize for standing up for the people of New Mexico!” 

Previously on a Zoom call with a left-wing group, Retake Our Democracy, Egolf blasted the idea of an independent redistricting commission, saying, “I think that it puts at unacceptable peril a woman’s right to choose, environmental protection, fairness in taxation.” He added, “It puts at tremendous peril all of the progressive causes that we care about.”

Regarding districts, such as Sen Liz Stefanics’ (D-Bernalillo, Lincoln, San Miguel, Santa Fe, Torrance, and Valencia), which covers six counties, Egolf claimed it was not gerrymandered, despite its strange shape going all the way from Santa Fe to Lincoln counties. 

“They look strange, and they are long—that was not a gerrymander, That was—the litigation around that district, in particular, was focused on trying to preserve and maintain a rural seat…. That’s why we have that district…. That was the purpose for that, and I think that was a good purpose,” said Egolf. 

“The boundaries we have right now in the Legislature were not drawn by legislators…. I don’t believe we have legislatively created maps since 1990 so we are operating basically coming up on thirty years of maps that were drawn by members of the Legislature. And the current maps were drawn by a judge in Santa Fe,” said Egolf.

Egolf also claimed the Republican Party was trying to push laws that were making “it harder to vote,” invoking Georgia strengthening their voting laws to discourage fraud. Egolf claimed laws such as Voter ID are “obvious” discrimination against minorities, even though members of his own party, including Sen. Antoinette Sedillo-Lopez (D-Bernalillo), have noted the value of an ID. During a March 7th hearing on H.B. 127, a bill regarding youth ID cards, she said, “Try going a week without an ID and see how difficult it is.” 

Rep. Eliseo Alcon (D-Cibola & McKinley) complained about an independent commission taking away representatives’ “rights” to redraw their own districts, saying, “I don’t think it’s our duty to give up our rights.” He did not like the idea of a seven-member commission making the decisions, not him. “If these seven people really want to be part of the redistricting, then they should run for our spots,” he said, adding, “I will be a solid no matter how you look at it,” despite the majority of people in the committee hearing in support of giving more power to the people. 

Rep. Matthew McQueen (D-Bernalillo, Santa Fe, Torrance and Valencia) made similar comments, discounting the people in support of the bill, saying, “I appreciate the public’s participation, but to say that we should be bound in this committee by the poll of a few dozen people is absurd.” 

Other opponents of H.B. 211, including Rep. Gail Chasey (D-Bernalillo) and Rep. Micaela Cadena (D-Doña Ana), constantly invoked the January 6th incursion of the U.S. Capitol as the pivotal moment that they were not in favor of independent redistricting. Chasey said, “January 6th changed that a lot for me. 40-45% of the country doesn’t think we had an election that was valid.” 

Both S.B. 15 and H.B. 211 cleared the committee with bipartisan support, with H.B. 211 getting a vote of 7-4. It now heads to the House floor.

TODAY: GOP-led independent redistricting commission bill to be heard in House committee

Leave a Comment / Action Alert, New Mexico, News / By

On Friday at 11:30 a.m., the House Judiciary Committee will hear a Republican-led effort by Rep. Rebecca Dow (R-Truth or Consequences) for New Mexico to form an independent redistricting commission.

H.B. 211, which has previously earned unanimous support in House committees, would create a seven-member redistricting body comprised of two Democrats, two Republicans, and two members belonging to neither major party. 

The commission would fairly redraw district maps without partisans from either side getting to redraw districts to their benefit. It prohibits the use of partisan data, voting history, party registration and prohibits favoring a particular party or incumbent. 

H.B. 211 also discourages litigation over new district maps, requires compliance with the Voter Rights Act, and compels citizen input, which before has not happened. 

A competing Democrat-backed bill by Sen. Daniel Ivey-Soto (D-Bernalillo) in the New Mexico Senate is cloaked as an independent commission, but would allow partisans to draw district lines, let lawmakers draw their own districts, and would welcome costly litigation. 

Citizens are asked to testify in favor of the bill by Republican representatives. Please join in to testify at 11:30 a.m. in the House Judiciary Committee. 

Here’s an easy sheet to compare the two proposals:

Meeting information can be found here:

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89543370073

Or iPhone one-tap : US: +16699009128,,89543370073# or +12532158782,,89543370073# Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 669 900 9128 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 646 558 8656 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 – Webinar ID: 895 4337 0073

You can reach out to members of the House Judiciary Committee by calling thier offices or emailing their inboxes here:

Gail Chasey (Chair) | Capitol: (505) 986 – 4411 | Email: gail@gailchasey.com

Micaela Lara Cadena (Vice-Chair) | Capitol: (505) 986 – 4210 | Email: micaela.cadena@nmlegis.gov

Eliseo Lee Alcon | Capitol: ( 505) 986 – 4416 | Email: eliseo.alcon@nmlegis.gov

Deborah A. Armstrong | Capitol: (505) 986 – 4344 | Email: deborah.armstrong@nmlegis.gov

Zachary J. Cook | Capitol: (505) 986 – 4221 | Email: zachary .cook @ nmlegis.gov

Brian Egolf | Capitol: (505) 986 – 4782 | Email: brian.egolf@nmlegis.gov

Daymon Ely | Capitol: (505) 986 – 4243 | Email:daymon.ely@nmlegis.gov

Georgene Louis | Capitol: (505) 986 – 4329 | Email: georgene.louis@nmlegis.gov

Matthew McQueen | Capitol: (505) 986 – 4423 | Email: matthew.mcqueen@nmlegis.gov

Greg Nibert | Capitol: ( 505) 986 – 4211 | Email: greg.nibert@nmlegis.gov

William “Bill” R. Rehm | Capitol: (505) 986 – 4214 | Email: bill.rehm@nmlegis.gov

James G. Townsend | Capitol: (505) 986 – 4758 | Email: townsend@pvtn.net

1 … 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 … 196

Stay Updated

Scroll to Top