New Mexico

Week 5: Legislative update from Piñon Post editor and state Rep. John Block

4 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

A legislative update from Piñon Post founder and editor and state Rep. John Block (R-Alamogordo). John gives a weekly update during the legislative session. If you don’t already get the update, you can get it here or by subscribing on the website JohnForNM.com.

This was one of the busiest weeks I’ve ever seen at the Roundhouse so far, and here’s what happened:

Committees

In the House Government, Elections, and Indian Affairs Committee (HGEIC) this week, we heard many bills and resolutions, such as H.J.R. 11 (to remove the anti-donation clause), which I voted against because it had absolutely no guardrails and would directly fund with our tax dollars “nonprofits” that could funnel cash into all sorts of nefarious places.

We also heard in HGEIC a bill, H.B. 228, that would mandate that municipalities do not change the rules on businesses mid-way through the project when constructing electric fences for security reasons, which I voted for. We also passed H.B. 208, of which I am a cosponsor, to allow voter registrations for hunting and fishing licenses.

In HGEIC on Friday, I voted against a bill that would push a so-called “circular economy” in the state, which had unknown benchmarks and mandates for such policies that would run through the New Mexico Environment Department. Also, that day, we passed a very good bill, which I am cosponsoring, H.B. 293, to eliminate state taxes on seniors’ social security payments.

On Tuesday in the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee (HCPAC), I advocated and voted against H.B. 9, which would ban the county from helping detain criminal aliens in our Otero County Processing Center, which would kill over 250 jobs and make our county lose millions. That day, we also passed a good bill, which I am cosponsoring, H.B. 287, adding text message and social media message threats to existing statutes that only allow using a telephone to make threats as prosecutable.

On Thursday, in that same committee, surprisingly, we were able to kill a horrible bill, H.B. 247, on a tied 3-3 vote that would have bureaucratized health care and confused patients with insane disclosure laws for doctors who are not osteopathic doctors or medical doctors. I also voted against H.B. 339, which would have expanded the state’s “Human Rights Act” to include “discriminating” against renters who use Section 8 vouchers and other government handouts.

On Saturday in HCPAC, we had a slew of terrible bills that I voted against, including H.B. 442, which would create “rent stabilization,” also known as rent control, to socialize the housing market, as has happened in New York City and San Francisco. Another bad bill I voted against was H.B. 418, which is shoddily written and attacks landlords by forcing 24-month time frames on mobile home renters’ leases while also punishing landlords with hefty fines if they could be found in non-compliance with the narrow and restrictive language of the bill.

Floor Sessions

On the floor Monday, I debated for nearly three hours a terrible bill, H.B. 6, which forces “prevailing wages” on all industrial revenue bond-assisted projects — crushing economic development across our state, resulting in fewer jobs and fewer projects. I offered two amendments to the bill to 1) exempt small businesses and 2) exempt projects that can prove other states with the same incentives but no “prevailing wage” mandates would be better climates for such projects. Both of these amendments were tabled on party-line votes.

During Tuesday’s floor session, I heavily debated horrible bills, including one (H.B. 26) that would allow just about anyone to be arrested for “ticket scalping” — even if just selling one ticket for just $1 more than one paid for it — which would end up with countless people thrown in jail under the bill’s changes to state statute.

On Wednesday, during the floor session, I voted against legislation that would penalize businesses, including H.B. 49, forcing all establishments everywhere to mandate televisions have closed captions on at all times.

On Thursday, I heavily debated a horrible bill, S.B. 3, to give an unknown amount of money to “behavioral health” programs, which is part of a terrible package of other bills to spend around $1 billion on such programs, which could include transgender surgeries, “gun violence prevention,” “climate change,” and “free” (government-funded) houses for drug addicts.

Friday’s floor session included the companion bill to the horrible S.B. 3, S.B. 1, which myself, Rep. Stefani Lord (R-Sandia Park), and a couple of others debated. Rep. Lord has been a steadfast patriot and a champion for the people who actually does the work of reading bills and debating them heavily to ensure the public knows what is in them, as I do.

We also heard H.B. 56, relating to Medicaid reimbursements for “birthing centers,” which didn’t mention the word “woman” once, instead foregoing it for the term “pregnant people.” I voted against it.

During the floor session on Saturday, we had a concurrence vote on H.B. 8, the Democrats’ weak “crime package” that will not fight crime.

We also passed a bill I am so honored to cosponsor, H.B. 36, to improve access to care by allowing optometrists to perform minor outpatient procedures in their offices, which was a huge step toward de-bureaucratizing health care in the state.

In Summary

This was the last week to file legislation, so all my legislation for the session is filed and can be accessed here.

The week ahead will be very eventful in my committees, with lots of bad bills scheduled for the upcoming week.

To see all committee schedules for all committees, click here.

It is an honor to represent Alamogordo in the Legislature and fight with every fiber of my being to protect our Constitutional rights. You can always count on me to stand with our shared conservative American values.

God bless you,
John

Rep. John Block
NM House District 51
Republican, Otero County

Week 5: Legislative update from Piñon Post editor and state Rep. John Block Read More »

In El Paso sector, illegal border crossings plummet to historic lows

14 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

In Sunland Park, New Mexico, a quiet stretch of the U.S.-Mexico border saw just one migrant crossing illegally in a span of four hours. The lone individual, a 23-year-old Mexican national named Jovani, was met by six federal agents who informed him he would be sent back to Mexico the same day, according to a report by the New York Post. This shows the border policies under President Donald Trump are working — and at a rapid pace.

The El Paso sector, which spans western Texas and New Mexico, has experienced a significant drop in illegal crossings, with fewer than 100 migrants being caught each day. This marks a sharp decline from the peak of 1,800 per day in 2023 and even a substantial reduction from the 277 apprehended daily in December. Across the entire southern border, the average number of daily apprehensions at the beginning of the month stood at 359, positioning the U.S. for what could be the lowest monthly illegal border crossings in over 25 years, according to leaked Customs and Border Protection data.

Border Patrol agent Orlando Marrero-Rubio emphasized the efficiency of current border enforcement, stating, “It doesn’t matter if it took you 30 days, 40 days, 60 days to make that illegal crossing, we’ll expedite removal and have you in your country of origin within hours.” Jovani, who had attempted to evade authorities by running through the rugged desert terrain after scaling the border wall, revealed that it was his second attempt to cross into the U.S. He had paid $7,000 to cartel-affiliated smugglers, commonly referred to as “coyotes,” to facilitate his journey.

Jovani, visibly disheartened, showed the wounds on his hands from descending the border wall. “I’m very sad because I couldn’t cross because I couldn’t get to where I wanted to go,” he admitted. “I’m worried about deportations because this is my second time crossing.”

According to Marrero-Rubio, Jovani’s grievances are common among many migrants. However, unlike under the previous administration’s “catch and release” policy, where migrants would often turn themselves in knowing they would likely be released with an immigration court date, the current enforcement approach has led to increased attempts to cross undetected. 

Under the Biden administration, Border Patrol agents were frequently occupied processing migrants rather than patrolling the border. Now, with the return of Trump-era policies, agents are back in full force, directly securing the border.

Border Patrol sources have described their past duties as resembling “babysitting,” as they often had to process individuals with criminal backgrounds, gang affiliations, or even terrorist connections, many of whom were subsequently released into the U.S. Now, with heightened enforcement, additional troops deployed, and the “catch and release” policy rescinded, agents feel a renewed sense of purpose. “It’s a relief for our agents, they don’t feel overwhelmed,” said Marrero-Rubio.

Two years ago, agents in the El Paso sector were detaining around 2,500 migrants daily. In recent weeks, that number has fallen to fewer than 100 per day. With more personnel and time available, Border Patrol and the military have worked to regain control of areas once dominated by cartel smugglers, such as Mount Cristo Rey in Sunland Park. The mountain, crowned with a towering statue of Jesus on the Cross, was previously a haven for smugglers who would evade capture by hiding in the rocky terrain and even assaulting agents with stones. The situation was similar just miles away, where hundreds of migrants had overwhelmed the border and clashed with authorities.

Today, that once-chaotic area is largely silent, reinforced with additional razor wire and patrols, including state law enforcement sent by Texas Governor Greg Abbott. Border Patrol agent Claudio Herrera noted the shift in operations, stating, “Right now, with everything working out towards our favor, now we have more agents on the line doing what they’re assigned to do and looking out for making those apprehensions instead of processing.”

In El Paso sector, illegal border crossings plummet to historic lows Read More »

How DEI is lowering NM legal standards and putting justice at risk

15 Comments / Editorial, New Mexico, News, Politics / By

On Tuesday, the all-Democrat New Mexico Supreme Court issued a statement reaffirming its commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) within the judicial system. The Court framed its stance as a necessity for upholding justice, citing its duty to “eliminate barriers” and ensure “equal access” for all individuals, regardless of race, gender, or other demographic factors. While these ideals may sound noble, the actual implementation of DEI initiatives has proven to be deeply flawed, often undermining the very principles of equal justice and meritocracy that courts should uphold.

DEI: A Shift Away From Equal Justice

The core principle of the American legal system is that justice should be blind—meaning that every individual, regardless of their background, should be treated equally under the law. However, DEI inherently prioritizes group identity over individual merit. By emphasizing race, gender, and other identity markers in decision-making, DEI initiatives risk replacing the ideal of impartial justice with an ideological agenda.

For instance, the Supreme Court of New Mexico’s emphasis on inclusivity efforts directly conflicts with the core principle engraved above their own courtroom: “Equal Justice Under Law.” True equality before the law requires neutrality, not policies that introduce preferential treatment under the guise of “equity.”

Unintended Consequences: Lowering Standards and Promoting Division

One major flaw of DEI programs in the legal system is their impact on professional and educational standards. DEI-driven hiring and promotion policies in law schools, courts, and judicial appointments have been criticized for lowering qualifications in favor of demographic representation rather than competency. This diminishes public trust in the system and creates an environment where judges and legal professionals are perceived as political appointees rather than objective arbiters of the law.

Furthermore, DEI programs often foster resentment and division rather than unity. By continually emphasizing group identity over shared legal principles, such programs risk deepening societal fractures rather than healing them. Multiple studies have shown that workplaces and institutions with aggressive DEI policies often experience greater racial tension, as people are categorized based on identity rather than shared goals or common values.

Legal and Ethical Concerns: DEI vs. Federal Law

Additionally, some DEI mandates may directly conflict with federal anti-discrimination laws. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits discrimination based on race or gender in employment and education. Yet many DEI-driven policies—including hiring quotas, admissions preferences, and mandatory diversity training—operate in a way that explicitly prioritizes race and gender, often at the expense of others. This raises serious constitutional concerns and has led to increasing legal challenges against DEI programs nationwide.

Conclusion: A Dangerous Precedent in the Judiciary

While the New Mexico Supreme Court frames DEI as a tool for fairness, it is ultimately a departure from the foundational principles of American law. Instead of ensuring equal justice, DEI initiatives insert ideology into the judicial system, threatening fairness, public trust, and legal neutrality. If true equality is the goal, the judiciary should reject identity-based policies and uphold merit, fairness, and impartiality—values that are rapidly being eroded under the guise of “inclusion.”

How DEI is lowering NM legal standards and putting justice at risk Read More »

Woke Biden-appointed U.S. attorney out of a job 

12 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

U.S. Attorney Alexander M.M. Uballez has announced his resignation following a request from President Donald J. Trump, marking a significant shift in New Mexico’s federal legal leadership. Appointed by Joe Biden in January 2022 and confirmed by the Senate in May of the same year, Uballez’s tenure has been characterized by a “progressive” approach to criminal justice, emphasizing rehabilitation and diversity initiatives.

During his time in office, Uballez implemented several policies aimed at reforming traditional prosecutorial practices. He prioritized intervention and support for individuals transitioning from incarceration back into society, reflecting his belief in “seeking redemption not isolation.”

This approach often involved alternatives to incarceration. While his initiatives aimed to reduce recidivism and promote community integration, many argue that such policies inadvertently lead to the release of offenders who reoffended, raising concerns about public safety.

In addition to his focus on rehabilitation, Uballez was a strong advocate for woke Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies within the legal system. He prioritized identity politics over merit-based practices, impacting the objectivity and effectiveness of the justice system.

Uballez’s tenure also saw the initiation of an inquiry into a significant public corruption scheme involving the dismissal of hundreds of DWI cases in New Mexico. Despite these efforts, his progressive policies have been a point of contention, with many noting that a focus on rehabilitation and DEI compromises the primary objectives of law enforcement and public safety.

Following his resignation, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Holland S. Kastrin will serve as Acting U.S. Attorney until a successor is nominated and confirmed.

Woke Biden-appointed U.S. attorney out of a job  Read More »

Semi-auto ban, red flag expansion, and more: See the status of these gun grabs

21 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

As the 2025 New Mexico Legislative Session reaches its halfway point, several pieces of anti-gun legislation are making their way through the state legislature, with some bills gaining traction while others remain stalled.

The most significant recent development was the passage of the “weapon conversion device” ban as part of the omnibus crime bill, HB8. This bill, which was altered and pushed through the House Judiciary Committee, was quickly advanced to the House floor, where it passed on a 48-20 vote. Notably, several Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the measure.

According to the New Mexico Shooting Sports Association (NMSSA), HB8 now contains the following provision:

“Unlawful possession of a weapon conversion device consists of a person knowingly having in that person’s possession an unlawfully obtained weapon conversion device or knowingly transporting an unlawfully obtained weapon conversion device… ‘weapon conversion device’ means a part or combination of parts designed and intended to convert a semiautomatic weapon into a fully automatic weapon.”

With the House’s approval, HB8 now heads to the Senate, although committee assignments for the bill have not yet been announced.

Meanwhile, HB12, which seeks to expand New Mexico’s red-flag gun confiscation law, was notably left out of HB8. According to NMSSA, efforts were made by the bill’s sponsors to include it in the omnibus legislation, but they were unsuccessful. HB12 has now been awaiting action on the House floor for over a week. NMSSA warns that it could be brought up for a vote at any time and is urging continued opposition to the measure.

Several anti-gun bills introduced in the Senate remain in committee and have yet to see movement. These include:

  • SB255, which would expand the criminalization of private firearms transfers, is currently sitting in the Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee.
  • SB279, a proposed ban on semiautomatic rifles and magazines, as well as SB244, which would make it a crime for a minor to possess a firearm, both waiting for hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  • SB318, which could allow anti-gun activists to sue gun stores in New Mexico out of existence,was assigned to the Senate Tax, Business & Transportation Committee.

As for pro-gun legislation, HB202, which would establish a tax credit for the purchase of gun safes, is scheduled for a hearing in the House Taxation and Revenue Committee on Monday, February 17. The bill aims to encourage safe firearm storage by offering financial incentives to gun owners who invest in secure storage solutions.

With the pace of the legislative session picking up, NMSSA warns that more bills could advance quickly through committees in the coming days. The organization continues to urge Second Amendment supporters to stay vigilant, share information, and engage in the legislative process to oppose the proposed restrictions.

As the debate over gun legislation intensifies in Santa Fe, the fate of these bills will likely come down to key votes in the coming weeks, making citizen engagement and legislative scrutiny more critical than ever.

Semi-auto ban, red flag expansion, and more: See the status of these gun grabs Read More »

Week 4: Legislative update from Piñon Post editor and state Rep. John Block

5 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

A legislative update from Piñon Post founder and editor and state Rep. John Block (R-Alamogordo). John gives a weekly update during the legislative session. If you don’t already get the update, you can get it here or by subscribing on the website JohnForNM.com.

What a week it has been at the Roundhouse! Here’s what happened in my committees, as well as other events of note.

On Monday, in the House Government, Elections, and Indian Affairs Committee (HGEIC), I moved to table a bad piece of legislation (H.C.R. 1), which would limit the number of bills each member could present to just five — silencing the voices of New Mexicans who want their voices heard in the legislative process. The committee tabled the bad legislation.

On Tuesday, in the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee (HCPAC), we had multiple bad bills (and some good bills) being heard, but Rep. Stefani Lord (R-Sandia Park) and I were repeatedly silenced by the chairwoman, Rep. Joanne Ferrary (D-Las Cruces), who tried to cut off Rep. Lord’s debate, continuously interrupted our lines of questioning and pushed all Republican bills to the bottom of the agenda. She then stymied debate on Rep. Jimmy Mason’s (R-Artesia) bill (H.B. 162), of which I am a cosponsor, and rolled all the other GOP bills we were supposed to have heard. After the meeting, I told the chairwoman that I would go to the speaker with these concerns, and she told me, “Yeah, good luck with that.”

On Wednesday, Rep. Lord and I addressed the full House of Representatives and told the speaker of this grievous abuse, asking him to talk with the HCPAC chairwoman.

In HGEIC on Wednesday, we heard H.B. 85, which is a really bad bill banning all so-called “non-functional” turf (like grass) from public medians and government buildings, forcing them to be replaced with “zeroscape.” This would apply to ALL state-funded projects, including in our cities and counties. These changes would cost our localities millions of dollars and would ban grass medians (such as on Juniper Drive in Alamogordo, where people use the medians to walk their dogs), and create inconveniences for all people — not to mention the budgetary process. It would also extend to projects, such as domestic violence shelters, that get state funding, making it even more detrimental to the state and to our district. Unfortunately, the terrible bill was advanced through the committee along party lines.

On Thursday, HCPAC met again, with many controversial bills on the agenda, including a good bill (H.B. 185) that would protect women’s sports from biological men being able to take titles away from women. It would have also protected these female athletes, who, in many cases, have been injured competing against biological men. During the discussion, Ferrary cut us off repeatedly while we asked questions, demanding we only ask questions and not make statements. However, when a Democrat representative read a 5-6 minute-long written statement, the chairwoman allowed it — blatant political discrimination against Rep. Lord and I because we are Republicans.

On Friday, I was forced to once again give another floor speech to the speaker asking for us to be treated equally and showed him the specific passages in the rules where we were not being given our equal voice in the committee — a disservice to the great people of our districts.

That morning in HGEIC, I voted against H.B. 252, which aimed to try to skirt around the anti-donation clause to give large checks to guardians of children (handouts) by working with foundations that would help match the grant. Although this might be worth doing in the private sector with fully private funding, I don’t believe it is the government’s role to intervene to administer the program. Also, the pilot program, which the bill references, only serves a handful of counties (none in southeast New Mexico), so that further cemented my opposition to the legislation.

On Saturday, I jumped between HGEIC and HCPAC, which both met that day, and we heard multiple bills, including H.B. 76, which would take away doctors’ authority to use their best judgment — forcing every newborn infant to have tests that would result in cardiac tests requiring airlifting to Albuquerque. Many physicians, including pediatric cardiologists in our district, opposed the bill, so I voted against it along with Rep. Lord.

We also heard in that committee H.B. 253, which aimed to seal eviction records after three years of the eviction, giving landlords less information when renting to new tenants who may have had evictions, even in the most grievous cases of past tenants using rentals for meth labs, causing damage (such as holes in the walls, ripping copper out of the pipes), or domestic violence situations, etc. Both Rep. Lord and I voted against it.

Another bill that was heard in the committee, H.B. 250, was to give free menstrual products to inmates, but the bill did not have important definitions and was very vague, so I voted against it. The chair rolled all the rest of the bills on the agenda (which so happened to all be Republican bills).

That afternoon and evening on the House floor, we debated the Democrats’ weak and ineffective “public safety” bill (H.B. 8), which will have little to no tangible effect on crime. We put forward our own substitute bill on the floor to give real solutions (such as addressing juvenile crime and increasing penalties for felons), but the Democrats rejected these ideas on mostly partisan votes. The House ultimately voted for the bill, with only 20 of us rejecting it (myself included), and the legislation now makes its way over to the Senate.

The week ahead will be very eventful in my committees, with lots of bad bills scheduled for the upcoming week. We are also set to debate legislation on the House floor, so watch for those agendas below.

Here are the legislative items that will come to the committees I am a member of:

To see all schedules for all committees and the House and Senate floors, click here.

To see the latest House committee calendar, which includes Zoom links to testify, click here.

To access all of my proposed legislation and the status of each bill, please click here.

It is an honor to represent Alamogordo in the Legislature and fight with every fiber of my being to protect our Constitutional rights. You can always count on me to stand with our shared conservative American values.

God bless you,
John

Rep. John Block
NM House District 51
Republican, Otero County

Week 4: Legislative update from Piñon Post editor and state Rep. John Block Read More »

As all other NM congressional Dems back Haaland, Heinrich refuses

32 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

New Mexico Senator Martin Heinrich chose not to endorse former Interior Secretary Deb Haaland in her newly announced campaign for governor, making him the only federally elected Democrat from New Mexico to withhold support so far. His decision comes just weeks after he ruled out running for the position himself.

Haaland’s campaign launch on Tuesday sparked a wave of endorsements from the state’s Democrat congressional delegation. Senator Ben Ray Luján, along with Representatives Melanie Stansbury, Teresa Leger Fernandez, and Gabe Vasquez, all quickly voiced their support. Their backing solidified Haaland’s strong standing within New Mexico’s Democrat leadership. However, Heinrich, who has successfully won statewide office three times and holds considerable influence in the state, remains the only major Democratic figure yet to publicly endorse her.

During an interview with POLITICO’s E&E News, Heinrich did not clarify whether he intends to back Haaland’s candidacy, offering only a vague response when asked about his plans. “If I do, I’ll let you know,” he remarked, leaving the possibility open.

Heinrich’s decision to stay neutral at this stage is notable, given his leadership role as the top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, a key position that shapes federal energy and environmental policy. His influence in New Mexico politics has grown significantly over the years, and an endorsement from him would carry considerable weight.

Haaland, who previously served as a U.S. representative before being appointed Interior Secretary by President Joe Biden, is making her bid for governor after her historic tenure as the first Native American to hold a cabinet-level position. Her candidacy quickly gained momentum with the backing of her former colleagues in Congress, reinforcing her ties to the state’s Democratic base.

Heinrich’s reluctance to immediately endorse her could suggest a variety of strategic considerations. He may be weighing other potential contenders in the race, assessing how Haaland’s campaign unfolds, or considering political dynamics within the state. His past decision to step aside from a gubernatorial run indicated that he was not seeking the office himself, but it remains unclear whether he will actively campaign for any candidate.

Given his track record of winning statewide elections and his seniority within the New Mexico delegation, Heinrich’s endorsement—or lack thereof—could influence the primary landscape. While he has not publicly opposed Haaland, his silence stands in contrast to the enthusiastic support she has received from the rest of the delegation.

As the gubernatorial race continues to take shape, Heinrich’s next moves will be closely watched. Whether he eventually endorses Haaland or remains on the sidelines, his decision could have implications for the party’s unity and the broader contest for New Mexico’s governorship.

As all other NM congressional Dems back Haaland, Heinrich refuses Read More »

Dems’ so-called ‘crime package’ sparks fury on all political sides

29 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

A proposed legislative package aimed at addressing crime in New Mexico is moving forward in the House despite concerns from lawmakers and advocacy groups about its effectiveness. House Bill 8, which encompasses six crime-related bills, has sparked debate over whether it strikes the right balance between public safety and criminal justice reform. The bill, now headed to the House floor, proposes tougher penalties for fentanyl trafficking, school shooting threats, and auto theft, as well as restrictions on firearm conversion devices. Additionally, it includes significant changes to the state’s criminal competency system, a move that has drawn both support and criticism.

Rep. Christine Chandler, D-Los Alamos, the bill’s sponsor, defended the package, stating, “This is in response to public interest and our commitment to the public to address crime swiftly. We are doing that through a collection of bills that I think are very meaningful.” She acknowledged that the package is not perfect but emphasized that it had been carefully crafted after months of work. “I felt that it was important to have bills where we got some consensus and we felt that people could get behind,” she added.

A key component of the bill focuses on reforming how New Mexico handles criminal defendants deemed incompetent to stand trial. The proposed changes would allow for mental health treatment for individuals accused of misdemeanors and low-level felonies who would otherwise be released without further intervention. Under the new system, non-dangerous defendants could be ordered into a 90-day community-based competency restoration program, or prosecutors could pursue involuntary civil commitment or assisted outpatient treatment. Chandler described this as a “balanced” and “compassionate” approach to addressing competency concerns.

Public defenders and legal experts, however, have raised questions about the practical implementation of these reforms. Second Judicial District Defender Dennica Torres expressed skepticism, noting that while the changes may be beneficial in theory, the state lacks the behavioral health infrastructure to support them effectively. “Do we have the staff? Do we have the evaluators? Do we have the attorneys? Do we have enough judges?” she asked, emphasizing the logistical challenges of implementing the proposed measures.

Opposition to HB 8 has come from multiple angles. Republican lawmakers have argued that the package does not go far enough in addressing crime, particularly juvenile crime. Rep. Nicole Chavez, R-Albuquerque, criticized the package for not imposing harsher penalties on young offenders. “I don’t think this package is going to address crime as far as what I think it needs to do,” said Rep. Andrea Reeb, R-Clovis, after voting against the bill.

Meanwhile, the Public Safety Coalition, which includes 11 organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, condemned the bill, stating that it would lead to unnecessary incarceration and forced psychiatric treatment. “This so-called public safety package is not going to achieve actual safety; it will only create new crimes, lengthen sentences, and use the criminal legal system to force people into psychiatric facilities that have yet to be built,” the coalition said in a statement. Lana Weber, interim director of public policy for the ACLU of New Mexico, echoed this sentiment, arguing that coerced care and forced hospitalization often worsen the very issues they aim to resolve.

Some lawmakers also objected to the bundling of multiple crime-related proposals into a single package, a practice that has been used in past legislative sessions. Rep. Matthew McQueen, D-Galisteo, voiced concerns about being asked to vote on a collection of bills with varying degrees of support. “There are lots of elements of this that I support; there’s at least one that I don’t. And I’m just troubled by that,” he said. Despite his reservations, McQueen ultimately voted to advance the package but noted that he may reconsider his stance when it reaches the House floor.

Chandler acknowledged that the bill will need to work alongside efforts to expand New Mexico’s behavioral health system. The Senate is currently advancing a separate package of bills that would establish a $1 billion trust fund, allocate $140 million in immediate funding, and implement a regional planning process for behavioral health services. While these measures could help address concerns about infrastructure shortages, some lawmakers worry they won’t be enough. “I think there’ll still be a little bit of an unmet need, but that will just accelerate our interest in developing a mental health program,” Chandler said.

As the debate continues, House Speaker Javier Martínez, D-Albuquerque, indicated that HB 8 could be up for a vote in the coming days. While proponents see the package as a necessary step toward improving public safety, critics remain concerned about its long-term consequences. “This isn’t the end. This is obviously just the start. But I think it’s a really good start,” Chandler said, underscoring the importance of ongoing discussions to refine the state’s approach to crime and mental health.

Dems’ so-called ‘crime package’ sparks fury on all political sides Read More »

Arrest warrants might just start flying at Dems in NM

48 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

New Mexico’s Democrat elected officials may soon find themselves in legal jeopardy for obstructing federal law enforcement efforts to protect the nation’s borders. An internal memo from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) indicates that state and local officials who interfere with immigration enforcement could face criminal prosecution.

The document makes it clear that federal prosecutors are being instructed to identify and potentially charge those who “threaten to impede” federal immigration actions. This could mean serious legal consequences for public officials in sanctuary cities like Santa Fe and Albuquerque, where local authorities have actively refused to cooperate with immigration enforcement.

“It’s hard on people when there is an atmosphere of fear and unknown action,” said Alan Webber, the mayor of Santa Fe. However, his city’s policies of shielding illegal immigrants from federal enforcement may now carry serious legal risks.

Mayor Webber admitted, “I don’t know any mayor is in a position, including me, to say that we are going to refuse to comply with the law. But I don’t know if we are required to assist with things that go beyond our legal responsibilities.”

The DOJ’s directive raises serious questions about whether officials like Webber and Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller could be subject to arrest warrants for their defiance of federal law. Keller, in a statement, seemed to double down on resistance:

“As your Mayor, I was elected to lead our city, not work for Donald Trump… APD officers will continue to arrest violent and repeat offenders, regardless of immigration status.”

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham also weighed in, appearing to reject the DOJ’s position, stating, “I expect New Mexico’s public officials to uphold the Constitution and their duties under law, and not be swayed or intimidated by politically motivated threats.”

New Mexico’s Attorney General, Raúl Torrez, dismissed the DOJ’s warning, calling it a distortion of the law and an attack on state and local officials. His position raises further concerns about whether he and other high-ranking state officials could be complicit in efforts to obstruct federal immigration enforcement.

Sam Bregman, the district attorney for Bernalillo County, took an even more defiant stance, outright refusing to cooperate with federal immigration efforts:

“In my roles as District Attorney as well as the Chairman of the OCC, I will continue to vigorously work with all agencies to go after criminals in our state. However, I will in no way assist with the recent executive orders involving immigration.”

These statements, combined with the DOJ’s new directive, highlight the increasing legal risks facing New Mexico’s Democrat officials. If they continue to shield illegal immigrants and block federal law enforcement from carrying out its duty, they could very well find themselves facing warrants for their arrests. The coming weeks may determine whether New Mexico’s leadership chooses to comply with federal law or risk legal action for their defiance.

Arrest warrants might just start flying at Dems in NM Read More »

Teachers’ union rips MLG over latest incendiary comments

6 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

In a recent development, the American Federation of Teachers New Mexico (AFT NM) has openly criticized Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham for her remarks concerning educators serving in the state legislature. 

The governor reportedly described it as “unethical and a huge conflict of interest” for current and former educators to vote on education-related matters, suggesting that such individuals have hindered educational reforms. She was quoted saying, “You’ve got a lot of former educators and superintendents who aren’t interested in changing anything.”

In response, AFT NM expressed profound disappointment, emphasizing the value of educators’ firsthand experience in legislative processes. The union stated, “Lawmaking and policy work take teamwork and trust, not criticism.”

This incident is not the first instance of tension between the governor and educators. Previously, the National Education Association of New Mexico (NEA-NM) opposed a state rule mandating a 180-day school year, which was set to take effect on July 1, 2024. 

NEA-NM President Mary Parr-Sánchez voiced concerns that the rule would drive educators out of the profession and erode local control over school calendars. She remarked, “There is a great majority of people that believe that would not be in the best interest of children, because it’s going to drive educators out of the field.” 

The rule faced significant opposition from educators and administrators, leading to legal challenges. In February 2025, a New Mexico district judge ruled that the Public Education Department’s mandate for a 180-day instructional calendar was unlawful and unenforceable. The court found that the department had exceeded its authority and that the rule conflicted with existing state laws, which emphasize local flexibility in meeting instructional hour requirements. 

These events highlight ongoing debates in New Mexico regarding the balance between state mandates and local control in educational policy and the executive’s ability to keep her former supporters (such as teachers’ unions) in her camp as her tenure as governor wanes. 

Rebuking families and teachers, Lujan Grisham’s PED OKs harsh mandates

Teachers’ union rips MLG over latest incendiary comments Read More »

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 … 225

Stay Updated

Scroll to Top