News

Lawsuit could upend voter-guide rules at New Mexico polling places

4 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

A major election-law fight has erupted just days before Election Day after the Republican National Committee, Republican Party of New Mexico, and GOP U.S. Senate candidate Larry Marker sued Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver over voter guides being provided at polling locations — including printed guides that display the photograph of an entirely different candidate above Marker’s name.

The verified complaint for injunctive relief, filed at 4:01 p.m. Oct. 30 in the Fifth Judicial District Court in Chaves County, names Toulouse Oliver in her official capacity as defendant. The case, D-504-CV-2026-01071, has been assigned to District Judge Thomas E. Lilley.

The lawsuit contains two distinct claims.

First, Republicans are asking the court to rule broadly that providing voter guides inside polling places violates New Mexico’s prohibition on electioneering within 100 feet of the polls — a ruling that could affect future elections.

Second, they are seeking immediate removal of the League of Women Voters’ erroneous 2026 voter guide from polling locations before the Nov. 3 election.

At issue is the U.S. Senate contest involving Republican Marker.

The League’s printed voter guide places Marker’s name alongside a photograph that is actually of Nehemiah Vasquez, a candidate for Taos County Commission, according to the complaint.

The filing even reproduces the two images side-by-side: Marker’s actual campaign photograph beside the photograph printed in the League’s guide.

League admits wrong candidate’s photo was printed

One of the most significant pieces of evidence in the lawsuit comes directly from the League of Women Voters itself.

An email from League of Women Voters of New Mexico President Hannah Burling to RPNM Executive Director Leticia Muñoz-Kaminski is attached as Exhibit 1.

“In Mr. Marker’s case a photo of a candidate running for another office in the state was placed in the Voter Guide,” Burling acknowledged.

The League said it was “still trying to fact check how this occurred.”

But the email also establishes a timeline likely to become central to the dispute.

Burling said the League learned of the error in early October, contacted Marker and received his correct photograph. By then, she said, the printed guides were already being produced and could not be corrected before distribution.

The League corrected its online Vote411 guide and PDFs posted by its local chapters.

Republicans argue that creates a serious problem because incorrect printed copies still made their way into polling locations.

The complaint further alleges that some county clerk offices had already begun removing the guides by Oct. 30, although that assertion is based on what the plaintiffs describe as “anecdotal reports.”

New Mexico law bans campaign literature near polls

The lawsuit hinges largely on Section 1-20-16 of New Mexico law.

State law prohibits electioneering within 100 feet of polling locations and defines electioneering to include the distribution of signs, “campaign literature,” campaign buttons, shirts, hats and similar materials, along with verbal or electronic solicitation of votes.

Violating the provision is a petty misdemeanor.

The complaint argues that League voter guides qualify as “campaign literature” even if they are intended to be nonpartisan.

Republicans contend there is no specific statutory exemption allowing an outside organization’s voter guide to be stacked inside polling places simply because election officials deem it neutral.

And they argue the dispute becomes even more serious when the material contains an acknowledged factual error involving a candidate’s identity.

Lawsuit points to previous ban under Republican secretary

The complaint also reveals that this is not the first time New Mexico officials have confronted the exact question of League voter guides inside polling sites.

In 2011, then-Secretary of State Dianna Duran, a Republican, ordered League of Women Voters guides removed from polling locations after concluding that the newly revised electioneering law classified the materials as prohibited “campaign literature,” according to the complaint.

Duran’s successor maintained that interpretation.

But after Toulouse Oliver took office, the policy changed.

The plaintiffs cite a 2016 League newsletter stating Toulouse Oliver had reassured the organization that paper guides would once again be permitted in county clerk offices and polling places.

“There was no intervening statutory amendment or even regulatory promulgation on which this about-face was based; the Secretary just took a different position from her predecessors,” the complaint argues.

That is one of the lawsuit’s key legal arguments: the plaintiffs say Toulouse Oliver effectively created an unwritten exception for voter guides she regards as genuinely nonpartisan.

The Secretary of State’s public election guidance currently emphasizes that voters are entitled to vote without intimidation or interference and that state and county election officials are authoritative sources of election information.

Republicans cite new 2026 election law language

The complaint also points to a change lawmakers made to the election statute earlier this year.

Senate Bill 264 amended the law to specify that electioneering can occur “under color of law or otherwise.” The enacted provision still defines electioneering as including campaign literature and solicitation of votes.

Republicans argue that addition reinforces their claim that electioneering restrictions are not limited to conventional candidate campaigns or political parties.

The lawsuit goes further, arguing that allowing election officials to decide which outside guides are sufficiently “nonpartisan” creates an unworkably subjective standard.

It cites the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, in which the Court held that states regulating political materials inside polling places must have “objective, workable standards” distinguishing what can enter a polling location from what must remain outside.

The plaintiffs contend Toulouse Oliver’s alleged “genuine nonpartisanship” exception lacks such an objective standard.

Complaint also addresses dispute over mistaken photo

The filing makes clear that Republicans are not accusing Vasquez, whose photograph was mistakenly used, of wrongdoing.

“Nothing in this Complaint should be construed as impugning Mr. Vasquez,” the plaintiffs wrote.

The filing also contains another notable allegation: Marker “particularly and emphatically disputes” what the complaint characterizes as an insinuation by the guide’s publisher that he was upset because the incorrect photograph depicted a Hispanic man.

The League, meanwhile, says its mistake was unintentional and has emphasized its stated mission of providing accurate election information.

“It is the League’s mission to empower voters and defend democracy through accurate election information, and we seek to immediately correct any errors that come to our attention,” Burling wrote.

Lawsuit seeks much more than removing one bad guide

The case could have consequences extending beyond Marker’s race.

Count 1 asks the court to declare that providing voter guides to voters inside polling locations violates the statutory ban on campaign literature.

Count 2 offers the court a narrower route: even if voter guides generally are permissible, Republicans argue an acknowledged factually erroneous guide should not be.

“Certainly materially factually false ones should be” barred, the complaint argues.

The plaintiffs are asking Judge Lilley to issue preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing the League’s current guides from being placed or provided inside polling locations on Election Day.

They also seek a broader injunction barring Toulouse Oliver from exempting any voter guides from the electioneering statute, a judicial declaration that voter guides constitute electioneering, and attorney fees and costs.

Importantly, Republicans say they are not attempting to stop the League from publishing or distributing voter guides elsewhere.

Nor are they seeking to prevent an individual voter from bringing a guide into a voting booth for personal use.

Instead, the complaint says the issue is whether outside political information should receive what Republicans characterize as the “imprimatur of government approval” by being provided inside polling locations while other political materials remain prohibited.

“Democrats are playing games with our elections, and the RNC is putting a stop to it,” RNC Chairman Joe Gruters said in announcing the litigation, accusing state officials of allowing voters to receive a guide displaying someone else’s face beside Marker’s name.

That characterization is the RNC’s; the League describes the incident as a printing error and says its electronic materials were corrected after the mistake was discovered.

The complaint has also been personally verified under penalty of perjury by both Marker and RPNM Executive Director Muñoz-Kaminski.

With New Mexico polls scheduled to open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 3, the court fight comes down to the wire. The Secretary of State’s office confirms those Election Day hours on its official election page.

What started with one strikingly wrong photograph has now become a larger legal confrontation over who gets to put political information inside New Mexico polling places — and whether the Secretary of State has the authority to decide which voter guides are exempt from the rules applied to everybody else.

Lawsuit could upend voter-guide rules at New Mexico polling places Read More »

Haaland burns through $3.2M as data-center cash keeps flowing

17 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

The final major campaign finance reports before Election Day show Democratic gubernatorial nominee Deb Haaland continuing to operate a vastly larger financial machine than Republican Gregg Hull — burning through more than $3.2 million in just three weeks while taking in another $1.33 million.

The filings also show money from donors connected to the data-center and energy-infrastructure industries continuing to find its way into Haaland’s campaign, following earlier scrutiny over tens of thousands of dollars she accepted from companies and executives tied directly to the controversial Project Jupiter development.

Haaland entered the latest reporting period with $2.84 million in the bank, raised $1,334,472.89 and spent a staggering $3,204,277.20, leaving her with $967,455.71 as of the end of the period. Her campaign also reported another $185,656.41 in in-kind contributions.

Hull, meanwhile, began with $521,796.33, raised $348,623.35 and spent $622,292.97, leaving the Republican with $248,126.71.

The enormous disparity caps a governor’s race in which Haaland has shattered New Mexico fundraising records. The Albuquerque Journal reported Thursday that Haaland has now spent nearly $19.6 million since launching her campaign and raised approximately $20.5 million. Hull’s total spending stands at just over $2.6 million.

Data-center connections keep surfacing

One of the more politically sensitive pieces of Haaland’s fundraising continues to be money connected to the rapidly expanding data-center industry.

In the previous reporting period, Searchlight New Mexico found that Haaland accepted at least $87,200 from Oracle America and individuals whose identifying information matched senior executives at Oracle and Clayco, two companies directly involved with the massive Project Jupiter data-center campus in Doña Ana County.

Oracle itself gave $12,400, while executives matching top officials at Oracle and Clayco contributed another $74,800. Project Jupiter is being developed by companies including Oracle and STACK Infrastructure, with Clayco among the major construction firms.

The latest filings do not show another direct Oracle or Clayco corporate contribution, but data-center-industry connections have not disappeared.

On Oct. 26, Haaland accepted $5,000 from Lukas Hansen, who is listed in the state filing simply as an engineer from California.

Hansen’s public professional profile is considerably more specific: he works for Yates Construction and describes his work as “Building Data Centers & Power Infrastructure.” Yates itself is heavily involved in large-scale data-center construction around the country.

Then came another eye-catching contribution filed after the main reporting period.

An Oct. 28 contribution schedule shows Kevin Bassalleck giving Haaland the maximum $12,400 contribution. The filing describes Bassalleck only as a “President.”

Bassalleck is founder and president of Albuquerque-based Gridworks, a major solar and battery infrastructure contractor. Gridworks’ own project portfolio says it built the 100-megawatt Encino North and South solar project specifically to provide renewable electricity to Meta’s Los Lunas data center. The company has also worked on other PNM-linked projects supplying power infrastructure around New Mexico.

That does not make either Bassalleck or Hansen a Project Jupiter donor. But the contributions continue a broader pattern of significant checks from people and businesses operating in the infrastructure ecosystem surrounding large-scale computing and energy demand.

Haaland has proposed a temporary moratorium on new large data-center projects until statewide water, energy and other safeguards are enacted. Her campaign previously defended accepting the Project Jupiter-linked contributions, saying she had been clear about concerns surrounding transparency, water and environmental impacts.

Exxon, gun-control PAC, uranium company among Haaland donors

The massive Haaland filing contains plenty of other notable names.

Everytown for Gun Safety’s political action committee contributed the maximum $12,400 on Oct. 7.

A day later, Exxon Mobil Corporation contributed $6,200.

Haaland also collected $12,400 from Rio Grande Resources, the company associated with the uranium industry in Grants, along with $10,000 from PMI US Corporate Services, $10,000 from liquor company Sazerac, $10,000 from UnitedHealth Group and numerous contributions from unions, political committees, tribes and wealthy individuals.

Separate Oct. 28 filings also list a maximum $12,400 contribution from AFSCME PEOPLE, $5,000 from Democratic state Sen. George Muñoz, and $3,982.24 from Friends of Maggie, the campaign committee associated with Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver.

The short supplemental reports contain an apparent filing-system inconsistency: their contribution schedules list four checks totaling $33,782.24, while the summary pages display smaller totals. The itemized schedule itself lists all four donations.

Haaland drops more than $2.1 million with one ad firm

Where Haaland’s money went is just as striking.

Her campaign made three enormous payments to Washington-based Sage Media Planning & Placement for advertising buys: $680,938.87 on Oct. 9, $723,382.65 on Oct. 16 and $738,011.41 on Oct. 22. Together, those three payments total more than $2.14 million.

The campaign also spent heavily on digital operations, including more than $163,000 in one payment to MissionWired and multiple payments totaling $250,000 to Kentucky-based The Perkey Group for digital consulting.

Haaland additionally sent $215,000 to the Democratic Party of New Mexico through four separate payments during the reporting period.

Hull spends heavily on TV, consultants

Hull’s smaller operation was also spending aggressively as the campaign entered its closing days.

His largest individual expenditure was $100,000 to Red Surge for television or cable airtime and production on Oct. 7. Another $50,000 television payment and $2,000 print-ad payment went to the same firm on Oct. 21, bringing the reported total to $152,000.

Hull also spent $86,748.31 with Virginia-based Peakland Strategies for campaign consulting.

Other sizable expenditures included roughly $71,500 to Rio Rancho-based LWE Digital, $32,500 to Perez & Associates and more than $141,000 in various payments to the Republican Party of New Mexico for mailings and other campaign-related purposes.

Hull’s notable donors included $12,400 from Harvard Petroleum Company, $12,400 each from Patrick Guthrie and Charles Brewer, $11,200 from California CEO Joan Hubbard, and $10,000 contributions from several other individuals.

Two very different money machines

The filings reinforce one of the clearest contrasts of the entire gubernatorial contest.

Hull has emphasized that the overwhelming majority of his donors are New Mexicans. Haaland, meanwhile, has tapped a massive national fundraising network built during her time in Congress and as U.S. interior secretary. A recent Journal analysis found roughly 65% of Haaland’s fundraising at that point came from outside New Mexico, while Hull has said more than 95% of his donors are from inside the state.

Haaland’s campaign argues the volume of small-dollar contributions demonstrates broad grassroots backing, while Hull has made the geographic source of campaign money a central part of his argument.

What the newest reports make indisputable is the sheer difference in scale.

Haaland spent more than $3.2 million in roughly three weeks — more than Hull has spent during much of his entire gubernatorial campaign — and still entered the campaign’s final stretch with substantially more cash available.

And as data centers remain one of New Mexico’s most contentious political issues, the names behind some of Haaland’s newest checks ensure questions about who is financing the candidates — and what industries those donors represent — are unlikely to disappear before Election Day.

Haaland burns through $3.2M as data-center cash keeps flowing Read More »

Hot mic: Dem candidate jokes about ‘running over people’ at Silver City rally

15 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Democrat state House candidate Raul Turrieta is facing scrutiny after a preserved recording from a March “No Kings” protest captured him on a hot mic appearing to joke about driving around a Silver City park and “run[ning] over people” — moments before realizing the Facebook Live broadcast was apparently still recording.

Turrieta is challenging Republican state Rep. Luis Terrazas of Bayard for House District 39, which includes portions of Grant, Hidalgo and Catron counties. He is the current chief deputy in the county assessor’s office.

The video was recorded March 28 during Silver City’s “We the People — All the People” rally at Gough Park, one of the local events connected to the nationwide “No Kings III” demonstrations against the current federal administration. Organizers explicitly advertised the Silver City event as part of the nationwide nonviolent protest movement.

A preserved copy of the Facebook Live recording reviewed by the Piñon Post shows Turrieta riding in a golf cart with Silver City Town Councilor Angela Salaiz, who was filming the broadcast.

At first, Turrieta can be heard talking about his campaign.

“Our next representative,” Salaiz says.

“Hey, I sure hope so,” Turrieta responds, adding, “We are here for the people. La gente.”

Then, after attention apparently turned away from the livestream, Turrieta made the remark that is now drawing attention.

“I guess we should drive around the gazebo and run over people,” he said, before Salaiz added, “Let’s do it. Let’s do it.”

Seconds later, Turrieta appeared to realize the livestream was still active.

“Oh, I didn’t know you had me,” he said.

The recording ends amid an apparent scramble to shut off the broadcast. It has since been deleted.

Salaiz is currently the District 1 member of the Silver City Town Council, according to the town’s official roster.

Brantley unloads over hot-mic moment

Republican state Sen. Crystal Brantley of Elephant Butte seized on the footage in a Facebook post supporting Terrazas.

“Yikes, Grant County! Hot mic mess!” Brantley wrote.

She praised Terrazas as an “honest and true legislator for southwest New Mexico” who has “consistently delivered results,” while blasting Turrieta’s conduct at the protest.

Brantley characterized Turrieta as “full of hot air” and accused him of making “foolish statements on a hot mic.”

The episode is particularly striking given that the event where Turrieta appeared was promoted by organizers as a peaceful protest centered on “democracy,” “human rights,” and opposition to what participants described as “authoritarian” government actions.

The remark puts the Democrat challenger in the position of explaining why a candidate for public office joked about running over people attending a public gathering.

Turrieta stakes out clear positions to Terrazas’ left

The controversy comes as voters are already being presented with a sharp policy contrast between Turrieta and Terrazas.

Turrieta has publicly backed a number of policies associated with New Mexico’s far-left.

During an October candidate forum, he said he supports New Mexico’s seven-day firearm waiting period and an “assault weapon” ban. 

On abortion, Turrieta has argued the government should stay out of the decision, meaning opposition to any limit, even up to the date of birth.

“I trust women to make medical decisions with their doctor,” he said during a recent candidate forum, regarding abortion providers. “The government does not belong in a doctor’s office.”

He also opposes school voucher programs and has advocated expanding wind and solar energy while phasing out New Mexico’s oil-and-gas industry.

On immigration, he has used particularly aggressive language against the Trump administration, telling the Albuquerque Journal that Trump’s policies use ICE “to terrorize communities.” He also criticized proposals involving immigration enforcement near polling places.

Turrieta additionally supports creating a paid New Mexico Legislature, telling the Journal that lawmakers should receive a salary tied to the proposed constitutional amendment.

His campaign’s coalition also offers a window into his political alignment. In his Ballotpedia candidate questionnaire, Turrieta listed endorsements from Planned Parenthood, the American Federation of Teachers, and Conservation Voters New Mexico, among others.

Hot mic lands days before Election Day

Terrazas has represented House District 39 since 2021 and is seeking another term against Turrieta in the Nov. 3 general election.

The resurfaced March footage injects a far more explosive moment into the final days of the race.

Turrieta’s campaign messaging says elected officials should demonstrate “integrity, accountability, and a strong work ethic” and treat constituents with respect.

Now, voters are hearing what the Democrat challenger said when he apparently thought the microphone was no longer listening.

Hot mic: Dem candidate jokes about ‘running over people’ at Silver City rally Read More »

Dem-on-Dem clash erupts as Stansbury bucks Heinrich on sweeping energy bill

16 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

A public Democratic family feud is breaking out inside New Mexico’s congressional delegation, with U.S. Rep. Melanie Stansbury coming out forcefully against a sweeping bipartisan permitting package negotiated and championed by fellow New Mexico Democrat U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich.

Stansbury took to social media this week to declare herself “adamantly opposed” to the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, S. 5653, in its current form — putting her directly at odds with Heinrich, one of the four senators responsible for crafting the massive 417-page deal.

“As currently drafted, I am adamantly opposed to this bill,” Stansbury wrote, warning that it “could undermine Tribal sovereignty and consultation, protection of sacred and cultural sites, our public lands and waters, and the ability of our communities to have a say in projects that could impact them.”

She acknowledged the push to speed up major projects but argued that faster permitting cannot come at the expense of tribes, environmental protections or local input.

“We understand the urgency of expediting clean energy and critical infrastructure projects,” Stansbury wrote, “but it cannot be done at the expense of our sovereign Tribal nations, the environment, or the rights of our communities.”

She also took a swipe at the Trump administration, saying reforms should not rest on what she called its “false promises.”

The unusually sharp statement places Stansbury opposite Heinrich on one of the senator’s most significant bipartisan legislative efforts of the year.

Heinrich helped negotiate sweeping bipartisan deal

The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act was introduced Sept. 30 by Republican Sens. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Mike Lee of Utah, along with Democratic Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Heinrich.

Technically, Capito is the bill’s sponsor, while Heinrich, Lee and Whitehouse are original co-sponsors. But Heinrich was one of the four principal negotiators who spent more than a year working on the package.

The Bipartisan Policy Center described the legislation as the most comprehensive federal permitting reform proposal to date, saying it tackles nearly every major component of the permitting system after decades of failed reform attempts.

Heinrich has portrayed the bill as a way to build energy and transmission infrastructure more quickly while reducing costs.

“It should not take decades to build the infrastructure our country needs,” Heinrich said when the legislation was unveiled.

He said the measure would get to “yes” or “no” on projects faster while preserving environmental safeguards and “protecting the ability of Tribes to formally consult during these processes.”

That assertion now sits squarely against Stansbury’s warning that the legislation could do precisely the opposite.

Heinrich has also emphasized provisions designed to force large data centers to cover costs they impose on the electric grid rather than shifting those expenses onto residential customers.

Tribal consultation becomes flashpoint

The biggest Democratic fault line appears to involve changes to the National Historic Preservation Act.

Under current law, federal agencies generally must consult with State and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers before approving projects that could affect historic or culturally significant properties.

The Heinrich-backed legislation would impose new deadlines and narrow portions of that process.

According to the Bipartisan Policy Center’s detailed analysis, the bill would change how the geographic scope of historic-preservation reviews is determined, narrow what qualifies as an adverse effect and impose deadlines throughout consultation.

As the Bipartisan Policy Center summarized it, under the proposal “the agency, rather than the consulting parties, would decide when review is finished.”

The legislation would simultaneously authorize $200 million annually for the Historic Preservation Fund from fiscal years 2027 through 2036 and provide additional support for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices.

Stansbury breaks with Heinrich

The dispute is notable because both New Mexico Democrats generally position themselves as strong advocates of environmental protections, renewable energy and tribal consultation.

Yet on permitting reform, they now find themselves on opposite sides.

Heinrich argues that the existing federal process is so slow and unpredictable that it prevents the construction of the very clean-energy infrastructure Democrats say they want.

Stansbury, meanwhile, is warning that Congress could go too far in speeding projects along.

Her declaration that she is “adamantly opposed” to the measure represents considerably more than a minor disagreement over legislative language.

It is an open challenge to one of Heinrich’s marquee bipartisan negotiations.

And the Democratic disagreement reaches beyond New Mexico. Heinrich’s fellow Democratic negotiator Whitehouse has enthusiastically promoted the package, arguing it would help “flood the grid with clean, affordable energy.” Meanwhile, progressive and tribal groups are mobilizing against portions of it.

Bill also takes aim at data-center costs

Ironically, the legislation also contains provisions aimed directly at one of the issues that has generated substantial Democratic concern in New Mexico: enormous new data centers.

The proposal would bar utilities from shifting certain infrastructure costs associated with new data centers of 20 megawatts or greater onto other customers. States could also require data centers to provide their own generation, restrict how much electricity they draw or charge them additional amounts that could be used to lower other customers’ bills.

The broader package would also dramatically overhaul the National Environmental Policy Act, shorten litigation timelines, streamline electric transmission development, change portions of the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act processes, and make it more difficult for future administrations to revoke already-issued permits.

For Heinrich, those changes represent a bipartisan attempt to solve a system he says has become incapable of building infrastructure at the pace the country requires.

For Stansbury, the current bill crosses a line.

That leaves two prominent New Mexico Democrats publicly fighting over just how much environmental and permitting law Congress should rewrite in the name of faster construction — with Heinrich trying to shepherd his bipartisan deal forward and Stansbury now openly telling colleagues the legislation, as written, should not pass.

Dem-on-Dem clash erupts as Stansbury bucks Heinrich on sweeping energy bill Read More »

Former Dem rival crosses party lines as Hull touts broad NM backing

9 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Republican gubernatorial nominee Gregg Hull unveiled a sprawling list of nearly 80 endorsements Tuesday, highlighting support from dozens of current and former New Mexico mayors, public-safety officials, state lawmakers, former Gov. Gary Johnson and a onetime Democratic candidate for governor as the race enters its final week.

Hull’s campaign announced endorsements from 79 individuals and organizations, including 31 current and former mayors representing 27 New Mexico communities, three county sheriffs, the New Mexico Fraternal Order of Police and the Rio Rancho Firefighters Association.

Among the most notable names is former Las Cruces Mayor Ken Miyagishima, who initially entered the 2026 governor’s race as a Democrat before leaving the Democratic primary to run as an independent. He ultimately ended that bid in July and endorsed Hull, the former longtime mayor of Rio Rancho.

“I have known Mayor Hull for almost 12 years. He is intelligent, hardworking and a man of integrity,” Miyagishima said in the campaign announcement. “My goal is to help transform Mayor Hull into Governor Hull, deliver for the southwestern part of our state, and close the gap in our Native American communities.”

Hull seized on their shared municipal experience, portraying the support of mayors and local public-safety officials as evidence that his campaign is rooted in local government rather than national politics.

“Ken and I didn’t start this race in the same party, but running two of New Mexico’s largest cities taught us both the same lesson: when disaster hits, nobody asks whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat,” Hull said.

He pointed specifically to the recent flooding in San Juan County and previous disasters affecting Ruidoso and other areas, arguing governors must be prepared to coordinate state resources, work with FEMA and local governments and invest in infrastructure intended to reduce future damage.

“That’s the job I’m ready to do on day one,” Hull said.

Johnson, lawmakers and sheriffs join list

The endorsement roster also includes former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, who served two terms as a Republican before later becoming one of the country’s most prominent Libertarian political figures.

Current mayors named by the campaign include Paul Wymer of Rio Rancho, Nate Duckett of Farmington, Mike Morris of Clovis, Robert Noblin of Belen and Lynn Crawford of Ruidoso.

Former mayors backing Hull include Miyagishima, Dennis Kintigh of Roswell, Javier Sanchez of Española, Jim Owen of Rio Rancho and others.

The campaign also listed a large contingent of Republican state lawmakers, including Sens. Craig Brandt, Crystal Brantley, Candy Spence Ezzell, Jim Townsend, Pat Woods and Nicole Tobiassen, along with several House members and former legislators.

Hull’s release described the group as including 17 current and former state legislators, although the accompanying list names 18 current and former legislators.

Public-safety endorsements include San Juan County Sheriff Shane Ferrari, Catron County Sheriff Keith Hughes and Torrance County Sheriff David Frazee, in addition to the state Fraternal Order of Police and Rio Rancho firefighters union.

Campaign puts spotlight on New Mexico donors

Hull also used Tuesday’s announcement to revive one of his campaign’s recurring contrasts with Democratic nominee Deb Haaland: where their donors live.

“These endorsements didn’t come from Washington or California,” Hull said. “They came from Farmington, Clovis, Roswell, Raton, and Rio Rancho.”

Hull’s campaign said 95% of its contributions have come from New Mexico donors, with most donations at $100 or less.

A recent independent review by Source New Mexico actually found an even higher in-state share among Hull’s donors during the latest reporting period: 99% were from New Mexico, compared with about 17% of Haaland’s donors. Haaland, however, dramatically outraised Hull overall, taking in roughly $1.9 million during the Sept. 8-Oct. 5 reporting period compared with approximately $634,000 for Hull.

Haaland’s campaign has pushed back on Hull’s framing by emphasizing the size of its contributions rather than donors’ locations. Her campaign said the average contribution has been relatively small and argued that her fundraising demonstrates broad grassroots support. During the latest reporting period, Haaland’s donations averaged roughly $55, compared with about $450 for Hull, according to Source New Mexico.

Still, Hull has consistently made New Mexico-based financial support a centerpiece of his pitch.

“This race should be decided by people who actually live here,” Hull said, “and that’s who is standing with me.”

Hull and Haaland are competing in the Nov. 3 general election to succeed term-limited Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham.

With Election Day now one week away, Hull’s latest announcement is aimed at showcasing the breadth of his institutional and local-government support — particularly from mayors, law-enforcement organizations and officials whose names are familiar within communities across the state.

See the full list of endorsements by clicking here.

Former Dem rival crosses party lines as Hull touts broad NM backing Read More »

President Trump unlocks federal aid for NM after historic flooding

13 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

President Donald Trump approved an emergency declaration for New Mexico on Monday, unlocking federal assistance as communities across northern and western parts of the state continue dealing with severe flooding, damaged infrastructure, evacuations, and widespread cleanup following days of punishing storms.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency announced Oct. 26 that federal disaster assistance is now available to supplement state, tribal, and local emergency response efforts stemming from severe storms and flooding that began Oct. 22 and remain ongoing.

The declaration covers Cibola, Rio Arriba, Sandoval and San Juan counties, along with Acoma Pueblo, the Jicarilla Apache Tribe, Laguna Pueblo, San Ildefonso Pueblo and Zia Pueblo, according to FEMA.

FEMA Administrator Cameron Hamilton also highlighted the federal action on X following the announcement, pointing to Trump’s approval and the agency’s role in supporting the response.

The declaration allows FEMA to coordinate federal disaster-relief efforts aimed at saving lives, protecting property and public health, and reducing the threat of further catastrophe.

Under the action, FEMA can identify and mobilize equipment, personnel and other federal resources deemed necessary to respond to the emergency.

Emergency protective measures classified as direct federal assistance will be funded at a 75% federal cost share, meaning the federal government will cover three-fourths of eligible costs while the remaining share generally falls to state, local or tribal authorities.

FEMA named John E. Brogan as federal coordinating officer for the response.

Additional jurisdictions could be added later if state or tribal officials request them and subsequent damage assessments show additional federal assistance is warranted.

Trump acts after New Mexico delegation urges immediate approval

The declaration came one day after New Mexico’s entire Democratic congressional delegation sent Trump a letter urging him to approve the state’s emergency request without delay.

Sens. Martin Heinrich and Ben Ray Luján and Reps. Teresa Leger Fernández, Melanie Stansbury and Gabe Vasquez wrote that the flooding had overwhelmed state and local resources and required direct federal help.

“It is imperative that the federal government provides direct and immediate assistance to support local and state efforts to respond to the historic and ongoing flooding,” the lawmakers wrote.

The delegation said flooding along the San Juan River, Rio Chama and Animas River had reached historic levels, triggering evacuations, swift-water rescue missions and extensive damage.

The San Juan River at Farmington reached 14.07 feet, according to information supplied by the delegation, exceeding the 12-foot threshold for major flooding. Lawmakers said conditions represented some of the most severe river flooding seen in the area in more than a century.

Hundreds rescued as damage mounts

San Juan County has been among the hardest-hit areas.

Flooding inundated homes around Farmington and Bloomfield, cut off some communities and forced emergency crews to conduct numerous rescues.

The Associated Press reported Monday that at least two people had died in New Mexico amid the broader storm system, while hundreds were rescued as floodwaters damaged homes, roads and other infrastructure across the Southwest. Democrat Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham estimated the eventual recovery price tag could reach roughly $300 million.

State officials previously said hundreds of rescues had been conducted between Farmington and Bloomfield, with some residents forced onto rooftops as rising water surrounded homes. The San Juan River at Farmington also rose above a previous record dating back to 1909.

The flooding has created additional hazards beyond the water itself.

Officials have warned residents in affected areas about possible contamination from sewage and chemicals, damaged propane and natural-gas lines, unstable structures and roadways that may remain unsafe even after water levels recede.

What the declaration does — and doesn’t yet do

The Monday action is an emergency declaration, which is focused primarily on immediate response and emergency protective measures.

It should not automatically be read as authorization for every form of FEMA assistance traditionally associated with a major disaster declaration, such as direct grants to individual homeowners or broad long-term rebuilding reimbursements.

For now, FEMA’s announcement specifically authorizes direct federal assistance and eligible emergency protective measures at the 75% federal cost share.

Further federal assistance — including additional counties, pueblos, programs or categories of aid — could be authorized later following damage assessments and additional requests.

Lujan Grisham said Monday that the state needs substantial help because road, infrastructure and environmental damage can carry enormous costs that are not immediately visible.

“The environmental issues and the road issues and the infrastructure issues alone really are expensive, and they are very hidden costs,” she said while visiting San Juan County.

Trump’s approval now brings FEMA resources formally into the emergency response as New Mexico officials continue assessing just how extensive the destruction is — and how much additional federal help will ultimately be necessary.

President Trump unlocks federal aid for NM after historic flooding Read More »

Election fear machine cranks up over ICE — despite one inconvenient fact

27 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

With Election Day approaching, the left-wing Santa Fe New Mexican is devoting prominent coverage to non-existent fears that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents could descend on New Mexico polling places — despite acknowledging in its own reporting that the state has received no specific threat and that the Department of Homeland Security says it has no planned operations targeting polling locations.

The lengthy report centers on concerns that ICE could appear at voting sites and intimidate voters during the Nov. 3 midterm election, opening with an 81-year-old Santa Fe woman who organized church and neighborhood volunteers to escort nervous voters to the polls.

Her effort, the paper reported, was motivated by fears that federal immigration agents might appear at voting locations and disrupt the election.

But several paragraphs later comes a rather important detail:

There is no known specific threat.

“While New Mexico hasn’t received a specific threat, election administrators are preparing for the unknown, including the presence of federal immigration agents,” the New Mexican reported.

And DHS itself told the paper there are no planned ICE operations targeting polling places.

The agency said ICE conducts targeted, intelligence-driven enforcement and could act if an active public-safety threat arose at a polling location.

That is a substantially different scenario from immigration officers simply being dispatched to polling places to intimidate voters.

Noncitizens aren’t eligible to vote in New Mexico

The entire controversy also runs headfirst into another basic fact: noncitizens are not legally eligible to vote in New Mexico elections.

Article VII of the New Mexico Constitution limits voting eligibility to qualified electors who are citizens of the United States. Federal law separately makes it unlawful for a noncitizen to vote in an election involving candidates for Congress or other federal offices.

DHS made that point bluntly in its response to the New Mexican.

“ONLY Americans should elect American leaders,” a department spokesperson said, adding that people who illegally vote could face criminal charges and immigration consequences.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin was similarly direct when asked about the controversy.

“I don’t understand what the concern is about enforcement of immigration at polling places anyways because, honestly, if you’re not a citizen, you shouldn’t be voting anyways,” Mullin said.

He added that agents would not be sent to polling sites for intimidation and said their presence would instead require “a specific threat.”

Federal law does contain narrow exceptions for jurisdictions that separately permit noncitizens to participate in certain purely local elections, but those exceptions do not permit noncitizens to vote in congressional elections, and New Mexico’s Constitution requires U.S. citizenship for its elections.

State officials prepare for a scenario they admit hasn’t materialized

Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver has nevertheless made the possibility of federal intervention a major election-security concern.

“We would be engaging in malpractice if we didn’t prepare for the concern” about ICE agents appearing at polls, she previously told Axios.

Her office has said federal interference is among numerous contingencies election officials have discussed, alongside power outages, cybersecurity issues, unauthorized individuals and other disruptions.

“We take the reality that we may need to prepare for federal interference in our elections very seriously,” Secretary of State spokesperson Lindsey Bachman told the New Mexican.

Preparing for hypothetical emergencies is, of course, part of election officials’ jobs.

But the New Mexican’s own reporting underscores how speculative the ICE scenario remains.

Doña Ana County Clerk Amanda López Askin acknowledged she had not received any concrete warning.

“I haven’t heard any very specific threats for us to be super focused on,” she said.

Yet the article went on to invoke a “growing sense of alarm,” President Donald Trump’s criticism of New Mexico elections, and the nationally watched 2nd Congressional District contest between Democrat Rep. Gabe Vasquez and Republican Greg Cunningham.

An election-year narrative built around a possibility

The paper also cited a Washington Post report about national-security officials privately advising some states and members of Congress to prepare for possible federal involvement in elections.

But New Mexico, the New Mexican acknowledged, was not among the states those officials had advised.

That leaves the core storyline resting on a series of possibilities:

ICE could theoretically appear.

Federal officials could respond to a threat.

Election administrators could encounter an unexpected situation.

Meanwhile, DHS says there are no planned polling-location operations, state officials concede they have received no specific threat, and New Mexico law already restricts voting to eligible U.S. citizens.

The New Mexican nevertheless devoted substantial attention to the hypothetical, including volunteers preparing to personally escort fearful voters into polling places.

New Mexico election officials certainly have reason to prepare for emergencies ranging from power failures to physical threats.

But when it comes to the specter of ICE agents descending on New Mexico polling places, the most concrete fact in the story may be the one buried beneath all the warnings:

No one has identified a specific threat that is actually going to happen.

Election fear machine cranks up over ICE — despite one inconvenient fact Read More »

Meta ordered to pay NM $25 billion — and that’s only half the story

13 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Meta just got slapped with an almost incomprehensible $25 billion judgment in New Mexico — and now comes another jaw-dropping number: the private attorneys who helped the state take on the Facebook parent company could potentially collect as much as $1.27 billion if the blockbuster award survives.

Yes, billion with a “B.”

The extraordinary legal battle exploded into the national spotlight after a New Mexico judge ordered Meta Platforms to pay $25 billion following a jury’s finding that the company misled Facebook users about privacy, access to their personal information, and other representations surrounding its platform.

The case traces back to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which the now-defunct political consulting company obtained information connected to tens of millions of Facebook users without their consent and used data for political profiling and targeting.

A New Mexico jury found in September that 26 of 29 statements examined in the case were misleading and calculated more than 43 million violations of the state’s consumer-protection law.

And the $25 billion figure could have been far worse.

District Judge Francis Mathew concluded that application of the state statute could support penalties exceeding a staggering $219 billion before ultimately cutting the judgment to $25 billion.

“Facebook’s wrongdoing — over the course of years and systematically broadcast to the public — goes to the heart of Facebook’s core business practices,” Mathew wrote in the order, according to Reuters.

Meta: New Mexico makes it ‘all but impossible to do business’

Meta is hardly surrendering.

The technology giant has vowed to appeal both the verdict and the mammoth financial judgment, setting up what could become a years-long courtroom war.

Meta Chief Legal Officer C.J. Mahoney blasted the decision, saying the state’s approach makes it “all but impossible to do business in the state of New Mexico.”

Meta has argued that New Mexico failed to establish that every consumer counted in the state’s enormous violation calculation actually saw or relied upon the disputed statements.

That issue could become crucial on appeal.

Legal experts interviewed by Reuters said Meta has substantial arguments for getting the award dramatically reduced, including challenges to how New Mexico calculated tens of millions of individual violations and constitutional arguments over excessive penalties.

In other words, New Mexico may have a $25 billion judgment on paper today — but the state is nowhere near depositing a $25 billion check.

Then came the BILLION-DOLLAR lawyer revelation

Just two days after news of the judgment rocked the technology world, another stunning detail emerged.

Reuters obtained New Mexico’s contract with Chicago-based private law firm DiCello Levitt — and the contingency agreement could allow the outside lawyers to seek up to $1.27 billion if the full $25 billion ultimately reaches state coffers.

Under the contract, the firm may seek a sliding percentage of the state’s recovery: 20% of the first $50 million, 15% of the next $50 million, 10% of the following $150 million, and 5% of amounts recovered above $250 million.

Run that formula against a full $25 billion recovery, and the potential legal fee reaches roughly $1.27 billion.

The money would come out of New Mexico’s recovery — not as an additional charge paid on top of Meta’s judgment.

And that eye-popping payday is far from guaranteed.

A judge would still have to approve the attorneys’ fees, Meta could prevail on appeal, and appellate courts could slash the underlying judgment.

‘We won’t see any of that money unless we win’

Albuquerque attorney Randi McGinn, whose firm worked with DiCello Levitt and played a prominent role at trial, acknowledged that reality.

“People will say it’s a lot of money,” McGinn told Reuters. “But the truth is, we won’t see any of that money unless we win an appeal.”

McGinn said her firm is entitled to roughly one-third of the fees it earned under its arrangement with DiCello Levitt.

DiCello Levitt declined to discuss its potential fee with Reuters, although attorney Corban Rhodes called the judgment a major moment for consumer privacy enforcement.

Contingency arrangements allow governments to hire outside lawyers without paying their standard hourly rates upfront. Instead, private firms assume the risk of litigation in exchange for a portion of any eventual recovery.

Supporters say the practice gives smaller state legal offices the firepower necessary to take on corporations with enormous legal teams.

Critics argue the arrangement can create questions about whether lawyers with a direct financial stake in enormous penalties have interests that perfectly align with the public.

Fordham University law professor Howard Erichson told Reuters that billion-dollar contingency fees are exceptionally unusual and said the sheer size of the possible award would likely draw careful judicial scrutiny.

New Mexico AG celebrates Big Tech takedown

Attorney General Raúl Torrez portrayed the ruling as a warning shot to technology companies.

“It has been a long time coming holding Big Tech accountable,” Torrez said after the ruling.

Torrez said the judgment signaled that New Mexico intends to aggressively protect consumers and their personal information.

The Meta case began in 2021 amid the fallout from revelations that Cambridge Analytica had harvested information associated with as many as 87 million Facebook users.

New Mexico alleged that Meta misrepresented who could gain access to Facebook users’ information and how the company handled harmful material on its platform.

Meta has denied wrongdoing and argued in court that it does not sell users’ personal data.

The $25 billion order dwarfs even the $5 billion penalty the Federal Trade Commission imposed on Facebook in 2019 over privacy issues stemming from the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

It also follows other major courtroom losses for Meta in New Mexico this year, including verdicts totaling hundreds of millions of dollars in litigation involving allegations about youth safety and sexual exploitation on the company’s platforms. Meta has contested those claims as well.

$25 billion today — maybe far less tomorrow

For now, the headline numbers are staggering:

$25 billion against Meta.

More than 43 million alleged consumer-law violations.

A theoretical statutory penalty topping $219 billion.

And potentially $1.27 billion for the private attorneys who helped New Mexico secure the judgment.

But one enormous question hangs over all of it: How much money will actually survive the appeals process?

Meta has made clear it intends to fight.

Legal experts say it has meaningful grounds to challenge the award.

And even McGinn cautioned that the litigation could drag on for years before anyone sees the money.

So New Mexico may currently be sitting on one of the biggest corporate judgments in American history.

Whether it ultimately becomes one of the biggest corporate payouts is an entirely different question.

Meta ordered to pay NM $25 billion — and that’s only half the story Read More »

Haaland has telling response to news anchor’s simple Epstein question

28 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Democrat gubernatorial nominee Deb Haaland offered a revealing response when pressed by KOB 4 about her 2014 flight aboard a private plane arranged through Jeffrey Epstein, repeatedly distancing herself from the decision by emphasizing that it was then-gubernatorial candidate Gary King’s campaign — before telling the station moments later that governors themselves should ultimately be held accountable for what happens under their administration.

The exchange came during an in-depth interview with KOB’s Tessa Mentus, who asked Haaland why voters should view her presence aboard the Epstein-arranged charter as an “unfortunate coincidence” rather than a lapse in judgment by someone serving as King’s running mate.

“Right, so yes, I was a running mate with Gary King,” Haaland nervously responded. “It was Gary King’s campaign, and how would I know that?”

Mentus followed with a straightforward question: Did Haaland ever wonder how the campaign had obtained such a plane?

“No,” Haaland said.

She explained that the campaign had meetings scheduled in Washington, D.C., the following day and said there was not enough time to take a commercial flight.

“He said, we’re just going to hire this plane and fly to Washington, D.C.,” Haaland said.

Haaland then repeatedly stressed her reliance on King.

“I trusted my running mate,” she told Mentus. “It was his campaign. He was running the campaign, and I trusted him, so I don’t know what to say.”

Haaland said she did not learn that her name appeared on the flight manifest until the records became public this year.

“I had no idea,” she said when Mentus asked whether she only recently learned Epstein had played a role in arranging the charter.

The underlying flight has been documented through records released in the Epstein files. New Mexico Political Report reported in February that King, Haaland and campaign staff flew from Santa Fe to the Washington area on Sept. 8, 2014, aboard a private aircraft arranged through an Epstein-connected company. Campaign finance records showed King’s campaign paid $22,060 to charter company InJet. Emails reviewed by the outlet showed that a request had been made to Epstein to help secure transportation for King.

The aircraft was not Epstein’s personal plane, a distinction Haaland’s campaign has repeatedly emphasized. Her campaign has also said she never interacted with Epstein and was not informed of his role in arranging the charter.

KOB turns Haaland’s answer into accountability question

Mentus then pivoted from the 2014 campaign to the job Haaland is now seeking.

“As governor, you have to hire the right people around you and trust that they’re going to make the right decisions,” Mentus said, before asking who should ultimately be held responsible when problems emerge within agencies such as the Children, Youth and Families Department or Public Education Department.

Should voters blame department heads, Mentus asked, or the governor?

Haaland’s answer was immediate.

“No, you hold me accountable,” she said. “I’m the governor.”

The juxtaposition was striking.

Minutes earlier, Haaland had defended her lack of knowledge about the Epstein-linked flight by emphasizing that King was running the campaign and that she trusted him to make decisions.

Yet when asked how that same principle of delegated responsibility should work if she becomes governor, Haaland said responsibility ultimately stops with the person at the top.

Haaland is the Democrat nominee for governor in the Nov. 3 election, facing Republican Gregg Hull in the race to succeed term-limited Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham.

Haaland and King crossed paths again this year

Haaland’s effort to put distance between herself and King also comes after both were present at the Albuquerque Hispano Chamber of Commerce’s “La Noche Encantada” gala on Feb. 21.

When the Piñon Post previously asked Haaland’s campaign about her current relationship with her former running mate, spokeswoman Hannah Menchhoff said Haaland may have seen King at the event but maintained there had been “no ongoing correspondence” between the two. The gala itself took place Feb. 21 at the Albuquerque Convention Center.

The relationship has attracted renewed attention because newly released Epstein records have shown that King’s contacts with Epstein were more extensive than initially portrayed publicly.

Emails reviewed by New Mexico Political Report showed King had personally sought Epstein’s help with fundraising and transportation during the 2014 campaign. Additional records showed Epstein-linked companies contributed money to King’s campaign, even as attorneys working with Epstein discussed using corporate entities to avoid unwanted publicity surrounding the convicted sex offender’s contributions.

Haaland’s campaign has consistently maintained those interactions belonged to King, not Haaland.

There remains no evidence that Haaland personally communicated with Epstein or knew beforehand that he had arranged the September 2014 charter.

But Mentus’ questioning exposed a broader issue that goes beyond whether Haaland personally knew Epstein: how much responsibility a candidate bears for decisions made by the people running an operation on their behalf.

Haaland’s answer regarding 2014 was essentially that she trusted the person in charge.

Her answer about the governor’s office was considerably less ambiguous.

“You hold me accountable,” she said. “I’m the governor.”

WATCH: 

Haaland has telling response to news anchor’s simple Epstein question Read More »

Andrea Romero’s ethics mess just took another ugly turn

6 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

The New Mexico State Ethics Commission has acknowledged that its general counsel improperly granted Democratic state Rep. Andrea Romero additional time to respond to an ethics complaint — after her taxpayer-funded attorney obtained the extension through private communications that the commission’s own executive director later called improper.

The admission adds another controversy surrounding the Santa Fe lawmaker, who has already faced scrutiny over her former employment with the First Judicial District Attorney’s Office and her leadership of the Legislature’s Jeffrey Epstein “Truth Commission.”

According to documents obtained by the Santa Fe New Mexican, Ethics Commission General Counsel Zach Goodrich gave Romero’s attorney, Rodney Gabaldon, an additional 30 days to respond to a complaint filed by Española resident Pablo Lujan.

The problem: Goodrich did not have the authority to grant it.

Commission Executive Director Jeremy Farris acknowledged the issue after Lujan challenged the extension, also describing the private text exchange between Goodrich and Gabaldon as improper “ex parte” communication.

“This is what political corruption looks like: state institution after state institution bending [its] rules around Andrea Romero,” Lujan told the New Mexican.

“Regular New Mexicans do not receive backchannel favors sealed with a ‘no problem,’” he added.

That reference came directly from the text exchange.

Gabaldon wrote Goodrich on Sept. 29 seeking a month-long extension in three cases, including Romero’s, citing personal health reasons.

“No problem,” Goodrich replied before saying he would send an email confirming new dates.

“Thanks brother,” Gabaldon responded.

The exchange was not initially included in the commission’s public proceedings portal.

Under the Ethics Commission’s published guidance, a respondent may file an answer within 15 days after receiving notification of an administrative complaint. 

The 30-day extension granted to Romero would have pushed her response until Nov. 2 — just one day before New Mexico’s Nov. 3 general election.

Lujan argued that timing deprived voters of an opportunity to see Romero’s explanation before casting ballots.

“By moving that response to the eve of the election, the Commission has not merely given a politician more time — it has denied voters a meaningful opportunity to examine her account before casting their ballots,” he wrote.

After acknowledging the problem, Farris said Romero and her attorney should file any intended response “expeditiously.”

Complaint stems from Romero’s DA job

The underlying complaint concerns Romero’s decision to simultaneously serve in the Legislature while working part time for the First Judicial District Attorney’s Office.

Romero eventually resigned from the prosecutor’s office after Attorney General Raúl Torrez clarified that district attorneys should not employ sitting legislators except under the narrow circumstances addressed in a 2024 legal opinion dealing with special assistant district attorneys. That opinion specifically examined whether a legislator could serve as a special prosecutor in a particular capacity — not simply become an employee of a prosecutor’s office. 

Romero maintained that she had relied on previous guidance from the Attorney General’s Office, while Torrez disputed the broader interpretation placed on his office’s earlier opinion.

The controversy has been especially notable because Romero herself holds powerful ethics-related positions in the Legislature. She currently chairs the House Rules and Order of Business Committee, serves as vice chair of House Judiciary, and chairs the House Special Investigatory Committee created to examine Epstein’s activities in New Mexico. 

Richardson relationship raises another question

Romero’s role in the Epstein investigation has also drawn scrutiny because of her previous public praise for former Democrat Gov. Bill Richardson.

After Richardson’s death in 2023, Romero praised the longtime Democrat political figure on Facebook and shared photographs of herself with the former governor.

Those posts take on additional significance because Richardson later became an important subject of the state’s Epstein inquiry.

Richardson had documented contacts with Epstein and visited Zorro Ranch. Newly released material has prompted the Truth Commission to seek government records concerning Richardson and Epstein, while commission documents have listed Richardson among passengers connected to Epstein’s aircraft. 

Virginia Giuffre also alleged that Ghislaine Maxwell directed her to have a sexual encounter with Richardson. Richardson emphatically denied the allegation, said he had never met Giuffre, and was never charged with wrongdoing related to her claim. 

Romero’s past praise of Richardson does not by itself establish any impropriety. But it adds another political relationship surrounding a commission whose stated mission is to scrutinize how powerful people and institutions interacted with Epstein.

Haaland disappears from ‘Truth Commission’ report

Even more contentious was the commission’s handling of Democrat gubernatorial nominee Deb Haaland.

Records released this year showed that Haaland, then Gary King’s 2014 lieutenant governor running mate, traveled aboard a private aircraft arranged through Epstein during the campaign. The King-Haaland campaign announced the return of more than $36,000 in Epstein-linked campaign contributions around the same period. Haaland’s campaign has said she had no relationship with Epstein and did not know how the aircraft had been arranged. 

Republican Truth Commission members Andrea Reeb and Bill Hall subsequently said the panel had agreed to include a reference to Haaland’s flight in its interim report — only to discover that her name was missing from the final document.

The report did, however, name other prominent figures appearing in Epstein-associated flight records, including Richardson and former President Bill Clinton. 

Reeb publicly accused the commission of protecting Haaland during her gubernatorial campaign.

“The only justifiable reason to remove Haaland’s name from the report is to protect her from any political fallout while she is campaigning to be New Mexico’s next governor,” Reeb said. 

Romero denied that characterization. She said all four commission members participated in developing the report and said the panel had collectively chosen not to identify victims or people whose connections to Epstein were considered merely “tangential.” 

That dispute has never fully gone away.

Senate Republicans had previously asked the commission to subpoena Haaland over the flight, arguing the panel should apply the same scrutiny to powerful New Mexico politicians that it was applying to agencies, banks and other individuals. 

Lujan: institutions are being ‘corroded’

Now Romero faces questions not about how she is handling another politician’s ethics, but about how state ethics officials handled a complaint against her.

Lujan said he intends to pursue disciplinary complaints against both Goodrich and Gabaldon over the private communications.

He also contrasted Romero’s response to the controversy over her prosecutor job with former Republican Rep. Andrea Reeb, who recently stepped down from the Legislature after a federal judge ruled her simultaneous legislative and prosecutorial roles ran afoul of separation-of-powers requirements.

“In my view Romero is no longer involved in isolated ethics disputes,” Lujan told the New Mexican, arguing that the controversies now touch the DA’s office, Legislature, Epstein commission and State Ethics Commission.

For an elected official who is simultaneously helping oversee legislative ethics and chairing a commission built around the promise of exposing institutional failures and politically connected figures, the latest acknowledgment from the State Ethics Commission creates a particularly uncomfortable question:

Are New Mexico’s accountability institutions applying their own rules consistently when the person under scrutiny is one of the Legislature’s most powerful Democrats?

Andrea Romero’s ethics mess just took another ugly turn Read More »

1 2 3 4 5 6 … 270
Scroll to Top