Politics

Andrea Romero’s ethics mess just took another ugly turn

3 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 »

Cunningham battles Vasquez — and the moderator — in fiery KRQE debate

31 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Republican Greg Cunningham came out swinging in Friday night’s KRQE News 13 debate, repeatedly putting Democrat U.S. Rep. Gabe Vasquez on the defensive over police, immigration enforcement, New Mexico Downwinders, taxes, and his voting record.

But at several points, Cunningham appeared to be debating more than just Vasquez.

Moderator Dean Staley repeatedly interrupted, challenged, redirected, and pressed Cunningham during some of the evening’s most contentious exchanges — at times turning the CD2 showdown into what looked more like a two-front debate for the Republican challenger.

The Oct. 16 debate pitted Vasquez, who is seeking a third term, against Cunningham, a combat Marine veteran, retired law enforcement detective, and Republican challenger.

And Cunningham wasted little time drawing one of the night’s sharpest contrasts: his decades in law enforcement versus Vasquez’s past rhetoric about police.

Cunningham forces Vasquez to answer for defund-police remarks

Staley initially confronted Vasquez with video from a 2020 protest in which Vasquez said police reform was “not just about defunding the police,” but about defunding what he described as a system privileging white people.

Asked whether he regretted the remark, Vasquez initially pivoted to his record of directing money toward police departments and blamed Republican attacks for distracting voters from other issues.

Staley pressed him again: Did he regret it?

Vasquez responded that he does not currently support defunding police.

That opened the door for Cunningham.

“Was that you in that costume?” Cunningham asked, referring to Vasquez’s appearance in the widely circulated protest video. “Was that you wearing that hat and the mask and calling to defund police?”

After Cunningham pressed him directly, Vasquez acknowledged that it was.

Cunningham then moved to Vasquez’s congressional record, asking why the Democrat voted against a congressional resolution honoring and supporting law enforcement officers.

“Did you vote yes or no?” Cunningham asked as Vasquez argued Republicans had inserted language into the resolution that Democrats objected to. Vasquez called the resolution “useless.”

Before Cunningham could continue pressing the point, Staley stepped in.

“If I may, I’d like to move on,” the moderator said, citing the limited debate time.

It would become a recurring pattern.

Cunningham finds himself sparring with moderator

Throughout the debate, Staley frequently subjected Cunningham to sharp follow-ups — sometimes challenging the premise of his answers rather than simply moving to the next question.

When Cunningham argued that repeat offenders, prosecutors, judges, and a lack of accountability were central to New Mexico’s gun-crime problem, Staley responded: “I don’t hear that you’re especially concerned though about the availability and the flow of guns into our community.”

Later, during a discussion of SNAP work requirements, Cunningham said assistance programs must remain available for vulnerable Americans while fraud and abuse are eliminated.

Staley repeatedly pushed him on people who had lost benefits.

When Cunningham said officials did not yet know how many affected recipients were improperly receiving assistance, Staley shot back: “Well, it seems like you might want to find out before you kick them off the rolls.”

Cunningham responded that requiring able-bodied adults without children to work or participate in their communities was not the same as indiscriminately throwing people off assistance.

On taxes, Staley again interrupted Cunningham’s broader answer and demanded a specific spending cut.

“Can you name it, though?” he asked.

Those follow-ups were within a moderator’s role, but their frequency meant Cunningham repeatedly had to defend his premises to Staley while simultaneously trying to draw contrasts with the incumbent congressman.

ICE exchange becomes especially contentious

That dynamic became particularly noticeable during the immigration portion.

Cunningham argued that legal immigration should be made faster and less expensive, supported bringing back a worker program similar to the Bracero program, and emphasized enforcing immigration laws.

He also argued that cooperation between local detention facilities and federal immigration authorities can allow dangerous offenders to be transferred into federal custody before they return to the community.

As Cunningham attempted to explain how that process works, Staley repeatedly interrupted and challenged his interpretation.

“It sounds like you’re blaming sanctuary cities” for some of ICE’s controversial enforcement actions, Staley said.

Cunningham pushed back: “No, sir. I’m telling you what a big part of the situation is.”

He explained that if authorities fail to transfer wanted offenders while they are already in custody, federal agents later have to locate them at their homes or workplaces — places where bystanders can become caught up in enforcement actions.

“If we would allow ICE to separate criminals at the moment that they’re arrested, we would eliminate a lot of what we’re seeing,” Cunningham argued.

Vasquez accused the Trump administration of targeting people without criminal records and described ICE enforcement as overly broad.

When Cunningham attempted to question Vasquez in response, Staley cut him off.

“I’ll be asking the questions if I may,” the moderator told Cunningham.

Staley then continued pressing Cunningham over ICE, asking whether he saw a broader “pattern” of misconduct by federal agents.

Cunningham distinguished between individual officers who behave improperly and his broader support for law enforcement.

“I see men and women, our brothers and sisters and family members that got into law enforcement to do the right thing that are risking their lives every day to go out there and enforce the law,” Cunningham said. “That’s what I see. And that’s what I support.”

‘You’re our congressman’

Cunningham’s simplest attack of the night may also have been one of his most effective.

Again and again, Vasquez blamed President Donald Trump and Republicans for economic problems.

Cunningham turned the argument around.

“You’re our congressman,” he told Vasquez. “You’re there to get something done.”

Cunningham argued that Vasquez could not campaign as an incumbent member of Congress while simultaneously treating problems in Washington as somebody else’s responsibility.

He pointed to proposals involving taxes on overtime and tips and tax relief for Social Security recipients as policies he said could immediately leave more money in working New Mexicans’ pockets.

Cunningham corners Vasquez on Downwinders

The most heated candidate-to-candidate confrontation came over the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act and New Mexico Downwinders.

Cunningham accused Vasquez of campaigning on helping Downwinders but voting against the broader legislation that ultimately carried compensation expansion.

For Cunningham, the issue is also personal: he said his wife is a Downwinder.

“When you stand up and you tell people you’re going to do something, and then you go to Washington and you don’t do it, that creates a sense of mistrust,” Cunningham said.

Vasquez responded that he had worked with Downwinder advocates and opposed the overall reconciliation package because of other provisions involving taxes, Medicaid, and assistance programs.

Cunningham kept returning to the vote itself.

“Is your vote a story or is it your vote?” he asked.

Vasquez attempted to explain the larger legislation.

Cunningham interrupted with another direct challenge: “Did you vote yes or no to help New Mexico Downwinders?”

Vasquez said he voted against the broader bill.

“You voted no to compensate and give New Mexicans what they deserve,” Cunningham fired back.

When Vasquez pointed to his endorsement from Downwinder advocates, Cunningham answered, “It doesn’t matter who endorses you.”

“My wife is a Downwinder,” Cunningham added. “I represent her.”

Moderator keeps Cunningham on the hot seat

The adversarial moderation continued later.

When Cunningham was asked about artificial intelligence and began discussing the water and power demands of data centers — a major New Mexico issue directly connected with AI development — Staley twice redirected him, stressing that he was asking about AI “itself.”

When Cunningham tried to challenge Vasquez over a campaign contribution tied to Oracle ownership during the same discussion, Staley again cut in and demanded Cunningham answer whether the federal government should regulate AI.

Cunningham answered simply: “Yes.”

Staley similarly pressed Cunningham multiple times on Iran, asking him point-blank whether he supported the war after Cunningham explained that, as a combat veteran, he wanted American troops home but opposed allowing Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon.

Staley did challenge Vasquez during the debate as well — most notably by refusing to let him dodge the question about his 2020 police remarks and later asking whether Democrats bore responsibility for Biden-era border policies.

Vasquez conceded in the latter exchange that Democrats “absolutely bear the responsibility for some of the awful policies under the Biden administration” involving asylum seekers.

Still, Cunningham spent a significant portion of the evening not merely rebutting his opponent but responding to repeated skeptical follow-ups from the moderator.

Cunningham keeps returning to the record

Despite the interruptions and rapid-fire questioning, Cunningham continually brought the debate back to Vasquez’s votes.

His closing statement distilled that argument.

“We are, as politicians, we are the sum of our votes,” Cunningham said. “We can stand up here and say whatever we want to say. But ultimately, what we vote and how we vote is who we are.”

He cited RECA, taxes on tips and overtime, and immigration legislation before drawing a contrast between himself and Vasquez.

“The contrast could not be more stark,” Cunningham said.

He closed by pointing to his record as a combat Marine, police officer, business owner, father of six, and grandfather of nine.

“My life has been in service,” Cunningham said. “My life will continue to be service to the people of New Mexico. I’ll fight for them.”

For much of Friday night, Cunningham did just that politically — taking on an incumbent congressman while repeatedly having to defend his answers against an aggressive moderator at the same time.

Watch the full debate here:

Cunningham battles Vasquez — and the moderator — in fiery KRQE debate Read More »

Scalise leads GOP power players into NM as Cunningham makes CD2 push

7 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

LAS CRUCES — Republican congressional candidate Greg Cunningham brought some of the most powerful Republicans in the U.S. House to southern New Mexico Thursday, using a Las Cruces campaign event to spotlight rural health care, technology, economic development, and his bid to unseat Democrat U.S. Rep. Gabe Vasquez in the 2nd Congressional District.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana joined Cunningham at Electronic Caregiver on Main Street alongside House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie of Kentucky and Arkansas Rep. Steve Womack, a senior House appropriator.

KFOX14/CBS4 had announced the event as a press conference centered on the closely watched CD2 contest. 

But the gathering quickly became as much about the Las Cruces company hosting it as the congressional race itself.

After touring Electronic Caregiver, which develops remote health-monitoring technology, Cunningham said the facility demonstrated the kind of high-skill innovation he wants to keep and expand in New Mexico.

“As a native New Mexican, I speak constantly on the campaign trail about our children, and our grandchildren, and our futures, and the opportunities that are not provided for our children and grandchildren right now,” Cunningham said. “We need to make sure that we keep the best and brightest of New Mexico right here working.” Pasted text

Cunningham called the technology he saw “off the charts” and “astounding,” arguing that its potential was especially significant for rural communities where patients may travel long distances for basic medical care.

“Our rural communities, folks that live in our rural communities, should not have to drive an hour away to get health care,” Cunningham said. “We should not have to pay higher prices than anywhere else in the world.” Pasted text

Cunningham links NMSU, technology, and jobs

Cunningham also laid out a broader economic-development vision connecting New Mexico State University with growing technology companies in southern New Mexico.

“I want New Mexico State University to become a magnet for technology and innovation, and for that to be a feeder program into what’s happening in this building behind me,” he said. Pasted text

That theme was echoed by Guthrie, chairman of the House committee with jurisdiction over major health-care and technology issues.

Guthrie said he had recently visited Silicon Valley but came away impressed by what was happening in Las Cruces.

“There’s nothing more impressive going on there that’s not going on here,” Guthrie said. “It’s absolutely astounding.” Pasted text

He praised the possibility of creating jobs for New Mexico college graduates while using technology to deliver medical services outside traditional hospitals and doctors’ offices.

Guthrie said remote-care systems could also help combat improper billing by creating better verification that patients actually received services billed to taxpayers.

“This system is the most impressive one I’ve seen to ensure you’re getting care and the payer can know they’re getting what they pay for,” Guthrie said. Pasted text

$50 billion rural health program enters campaign fight

Cunningham also used the event to contrast himself with Vasquez over a federal rural health program.

“I will support the Rural Health Transformation Act that provides money for programs like this,” Cunningham said. “My opponent voted against it.” Pasted text

The underlying vote requires some context.

Congress established a $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program as part of the sprawling 2025 Republican reconciliation law, providing funding from fiscal years 2026 through 2032 for states with approved rural-health transformation plans. 

Vasquez did vote against the overall H.R. 1 package on July 3, 2025; the final House vote was 218-214. But the rural-health fund was only one provision of a much larger law containing tax, Medicaid, food-assistance, energy, and other policy changes. Vasquez has said he opposed the broader package because he believed other provisions would harm New Mexicans, particularly through changes affecting health coverage and assistance programs. 

Scalise nevertheless made the rural-health fund a centerpiece of his remarks, saying Republicans wanted to direct money toward patients who need it while cracking down on health-care fraud.

“We created a $50 billion rural health care fund,” Scalise said, arguing that technology like Electronic Caregiver’s could help address the difficulty of reaching patients in remote communities. Pasted text

Scalise: ‘We need him on our team’

The event also demonstrated the national Republican investment in Cunningham’s campaign.

Scalise, the No. 2 Republican in the House, made no ambiguity about the political purpose of his visit. His current position as House majority leader is confirmed by the House’s official leadership roster. 

“We need him on our team,” Scalise said of Cunningham. “We need him working on behalf of all the citizens of New Mexico in Washington, D.C.” Pasted text

Womack was similarly direct.

“I came to help Greg win this race because it’s that important to our current majority,” he said, before praising the health technology he saw during the visit. Pasted text

The Republican congressman from Arkansas currently serves on the House Appropriations Committee and chairs its Transportation, Housing and Urban Development subcommittee. 

Scalise turns up heat on Vasquez

During questions after the prepared remarks, Scalise broadened his attack from health care to the larger battle for control of Congress.

He described the election in stark ideological terms, calling it “common sense versus communism” and accusing Vasquez of siding with what Scalise characterized as the “far left socialist wing” of the Democrat Party on taxes, immigration, and other issues. Those descriptions were Scalise’s political characterizations, not neutral assessments of Vasquez’s record. Pasted text

Scalise also claimed the CD2 contest had been tightening and said Cunningham had “a real opportunity to flip this seat from Democrat to Republican.” Pasted text He did not identify a specific poll in the remarks provided, so that assertion should be understood as a campaign claim rather than an independent election forecast.

Cunningham, meanwhile, used the appearance to argue that national Republican leaders see economic potential in southern New Mexico beyond the political stakes of one congressional race.

“We want to take what’s happening here in southern New Mexico with CD2 and take it national,” Cunningham later told KVIA. “The goal was today was to open their eyes and to give them an idea of what our potential is and what New Mexico has to offer for the country and for the rest of the world.” 

With Election Day less than three weeks away, Thursday’s gathering made another point unmistakable: national House Republican leaders are paying attention to New Mexico’s southern congressional district — and Cunningham is increasingly bringing some of Washington’s biggest GOP names to make his case.

Scalise leads GOP power players into NM as Cunningham makes CD2 push Read More »

Okpareke puts Stansbury’s record on the hot seat in fiery CD1 debate

26 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Republican congressional candidate Ndidiamaka “Didi” Okpareke used a televised debate Monday to repeatedly challenge incumbent Democrat U.S. Rep. Melanie Stansbury over New Mexico’s affordability crisis, poor educational outcomes, and what Okpareke portrayed as a gap between federal spending announcements and results families can actually see.

The debate, hosted by KOAT Action 7 News in partnership with the Albuquerque Journal and News Radio KKOB, gave voters in New Mexico’s 1st Congressional District a rare side-by-side look at the two candidates competing for the Albuquerque-area seat. KOAT confirmed the debate focused on affordability, gasoline prices, education, Medicaid, artificial intelligence, food insecurity, and several other national issues.

While Stansbury repeatedly defended her tenure by pointing to federal funding, social programs, and opposition to policies backed by President Donald Trump, Okpareke consistently returned to a different question: What have New Mexicans actually gotten for it?

Okpareke challenges Stansbury’s federal-spending pitch

Asked to identify the biggest problem facing CD1 residents, Stansbury said families are struggling to afford basic necessities.

“They can’t put a roof over their head, food on the table, and gas in their tank,” she said.

Stansbury blamed tariffs and Trump administration policies and touted millions of dollars she said she has helped direct toward housing, food programs, health care, and other community needs.

Okpareke immediately challenged that defense.

“It’s unfortunate because there’s not one single family that can say that they’ve seen the difference from federal dollars in our district right now,” she said.

The Republican, a pharmacist and small-business owner, said her own family has experienced the same economic pressures facing voters and argued that congressional representation must go beyond announcing federal grants.

She called for a greater emphasis on health care, job creation, affordability, and “economic security.”

The contrast was clear throughout the night: Stansbury emphasized government investment and programs, while Okpareke repeatedly questioned whether the spending has translated into better everyday conditions.

The Albuquerque Journal has reported that Stansbury points to federal funding for schools, hospitals, housing, behavioral health facilities, and water infrastructure as major achievements of her tenure.

Taxes, jobs, and manufacturing

When moderators turned to gasoline prices, Okpareke expanded her affordability argument into a broader economic platform.

“The way to overcome the current crisis that we are facing is by putting more money in your pocket,” she said. “The way that we do that is by cutting taxes.”

Okpareke also called for expanding private-sector opportunities in New Mexico and specifically floated pharmaceutical manufacturing as an industry the state could attract.

“We could have pharmaceutical manufacturing plants right here in New Mexico where we make the medication that we consume,” she said.

Her answer presented a consistent theme: lower taxes, more private employment, and growing industries that produce goods rather than relying primarily on government assistance.

Stansbury responded by tying current gasoline and food costs to the conflict with Iran and tariffs.

“The most immediate way that we end this disastrous inflation on our communities is by ending the illegal and unconstitutional war in Iran,” she said.

She also called for reversing changes affecting Medicaid and food programs and continuing federal investments in infrastructure, education, and economic development.

Okpareke goes directly after Stansbury on education

Some of the sharpest exchanges came when the candidates were asked about New Mexico’s persistent struggles in education.

Stansbury leaned on her own experience as an Albuquerque Public Schools graduate and argued that greater investment is the answer.

“I know that public schools can change lives, as they’ve changed mine,” she said.

She highlighted her congressional work involving early childhood education, K-12 schools, colleges, and trade programs.

Okpareke was having none of the spending-first argument.

“Everyone at home, please listen to me clearly,” she said. “The job of a congresswoman is to create laws.”

She then directly confronted Stansbury’s record.

“Right now, we have a congresswoman who has created absolutely no laws. What is she doing in Washington?”

That statement was a pointed campaign attack rather than a complete description of Stansbury’s legislative activity. Stansbury has introduced numerous measures and has highlighted legislation and provisions she helped advance, including housing legislation enacted earlier this year and multiple bipartisan bills she has sponsored or co-sponsored. 

But Okpareke’s larger argument focused less on Washington procedure and more on outcomes.

“It’s very easy to say that you’ve secured federal dollars for the district, but we are 50th in education,” she said.

“No more rhetoric, no more gaslighting; just let us know if you can do the job or not.”

Mississippi versus more spending

The education discussion also exposed a broader philosophical divide.

Asked what state New Mexico should look to for ideas, Okpareke pointed to Mississippi and its renewed focus on core academic fundamentals.

Stansbury instead emphasized New Mexico’s expansion of early childhood education, arguing the state has become a leader in that area.

The competing answers illustrated one of the night’s clearest contrasts: Okpareke emphasized measurable academic outcomes and basic skills, while Stansbury defended government investment beginning in early childhood.

‘These aren’t handouts’

Stansbury pushed back hard against Republican criticism of federal programs.

“These aren’t handouts; this is how people survive in our communities,” she said, pointing to Medicaid, Medicare, military installations, scientists, and other federally supported parts of New Mexico’s economy.

She accused Trump and congressional Republicans of pursuing policies that would harm those programs.

Okpareke’s argument was not that the government has no role, but that voters should ask whether the current approach has produced enough improvement in wages, affordability, schools, and opportunity.

That theme allowed her to repeatedly bring the debate back to Stansbury’s incumbency rather than simply trading national partisan talking points.

Debate ranges from Epstein to AI

The candidates also faced questions about the release of files connected to Jeffrey Epstein, Medicaid changes scheduled to take effect in January, allegations involving the DEA and so-called “fentanyl walking,” and whether members of Congress should continue receiving pay during a government shutdown.

Artificial intelligence, workforce development, and food insecurity also made the agenda.

But the night’s most sustained contrast was over the basic role of government.

Stansbury defended federal spending and programs as essential tools for helping struggling New Mexicans.

Okpareke used the debate to challenge whether those policies have delivered the promised results, while outlining an alternative centered on tax relief, private-sector job creation, domestic manufacturing, educational fundamentals, and greater accountability from Washington.

For a challenger making her first run for elected office against a three-term incumbent, Okpareke repeatedly put Stansbury’s record — rather than merely Trump or national Republican politics — at the center of the discussion. 

And that gave voters a notably sharper contrast than the usual exchange of party talking points: one candidate defending what Washington has spent and protected, and the other asking whether New Mexicans can actually feel the difference.

Watch the debate on KOAT by clicking here.

Okpareke puts Stansbury’s record on the hot seat in fiery CD1 debate Read More »

Rep. who pushed legislative pay missed staggering amount of committee work

18 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

One of the original sponsors of New Mexico’s proposed constitutional amendment to begin paying state lawmakers is facing fresh scrutiny over her own attendance record, as an opposition group argues voters should demand stronger accountability before approving annual legislative salaries.

Our Values PAC released an analysis Sunday examining Democrat state Rep. Angelica Rubio’s attendance at interim legislative committees, focusing particularly on her work — or lack of attendance — on the Courts, Corrections and Justice Committee.

Rubio was one of five Democrat sponsors of House Joint Resolution 5, which placed Constitutional Amendment 4 on the November ballot. The measure would allow New Mexico lawmakers to receive annual salaries tied to the state’s median household income beginning in 2029, while qualifying per diem payments would remain available. 

Our Values PAC says Rubio’s record raises a basic question for voters: If taxpayers are going to begin paying lawmakers annual salaries, what should taxpayers expect in return?

“Before New Mexico voters decide whether legislators should receive annual salaries, they deserve to know whether the lawmakers sponsoring this amendment are fulfilling their existing responsibilities,” PAC spokeswoman Anissa Tinnin said.

“Rubio’s attendance record raises serious questions about accountability. Annual salaries should come with clear expectations for attendance and participation, so taxpayers know what they’re getting in return.” 

PAC says Rubio missed 82.5% of CCJC meeting days

The most striking figure involves the Courts, Corrections and Justice Committee, which studies issues including crime, corrections, courts and public safety during the months when the Legislature is not in regular session.

According to the PAC’s analysis, Rubio attended only 14 of 80 recorded CCJC meeting days, missing 66 — an 82.5% absence rate.

The accompanying attendance spreadsheet provided by the group reflects the same totals: 14 attended, 66 missed and an overall CCJC attendance rate of just 17.5%. Rubio Committee Attendance

Our Values PAC says Rubio has missed all 43 recorded CCJC meeting days since the beginning of 2024. 

The absences were not simply the result of lawmakers being asked to travel hundreds of miles across the state.

The PAC says Rubio missed 10 of 12 recorded interim committee meeting days held in Las Cruces, her hometown, for an attendance rate of just 16.7% at those meetings. The group’s spreadsheet lists only two Las Cruces meeting days attended and 10 missed. 

Attendance plunges after 2022

The PAC says Rubio’s attendance changed dramatically over time.

From 2017 through 2022, according to its analysis of legislative records, Rubio attended 68% of recorded interim committee meeting days.

From 2023 through 2025, that figure fell to just 6%, the group says. 

In 2024, Rubio allegedly missed all 22 recorded interim committee meeting days across her assigned committees.

In 2025, she attended just one of 26, according to the PAC. 

The broader spreadsheet provided with the release tracks 136 committee meeting days from 2017 through October 2026. Across all committees listed, Rubio was recorded as attending 45 and missing 91, for an overall attendance rate of 33.1%. Rubio Committee Attendance

Our Values PAC says its methodology relied on official legislative meeting minutes and, for more recent 2026 meetings where minutes had not yet been published, archived video of committee proceedings. Advisory-only committee assignments were excluded. 

Salary proposal puts attendance under microscope

The numbers matter politically because Amendment 4 would fundamentally change how New Mexico legislators are compensated.

Currently, lawmakers do not receive a traditional annual salary, though they do receive per diem and mileage for qualifying legislative work, including interim committee meetings.

Under Amendment 4, legislators would instead become eligible for an annual salary tied to median household income beginning in 2029. The salary would not depend upon attendance at individual interim committee meetings, and eligible per diem would remain available. 

That distinction is precisely what Our Values PAC is attempting to put before voters.

“The debate over legislative salaries should include more than how much lawmakers are paid,” Tinnin said. “It should also address what taxpayers can reasonably expect in return.” 

The PAC also pointed out that Rubio has had access since 2025 to a taxpayer-funded district legislative aide. The release, citing salary information previously reported by the Santa Fe New Mexican, puts that aide’s annual compensation at $72,841. The PAC argues that the additional staffing support adds another layer to the debate over attendance and legislative workload. 

PAC also raises pension issue

Our Values PAC is also tying the attendance issue to legislators’ existing retirement benefits.

Its release estimates that if Rubio begins a sixth term in January 2027 and has accumulated 10 years of credited legislative service, she could potentially qualify for a legislative pension worth approximately $2,594 per month, or $31,122 annually, using the current published formula and per diem rate.

Over a hypothetical 35-year retirement, the PAC calculates that at more than $1.08 million, even before any cost-of-living adjustments.

However, the organization expressly notes that Rubio’s individual participation in the pension system and her eligibility have not been independently verified, making those figures illustrative rather than confirmed benefits Rubio personally will receive. 

Larger accountability fight over Amendment 4

The new attack comes as Amendment 4 opponents increasingly attempt to shift the debate away from the simple question of whether lawmakers should be paid and toward what obligations should accompany a taxpayer-funded salary.

Our Values PAC contends that if legislators receive predictable annual compensation, voters should also expect measurable standards for attendance, participation and accountability.

Rubio’s record now gives that argument a concrete target.

According to the group’s data, a lawmaker who helped put legislative salaries on the ballot has missed the overwhelming majority of her recorded CCJC meetings, including every recorded meeting day on that committee since 2024.

Whether that record changes voters’ minds about Amendment 4 remains to be seen.

But for Our Values PAC, the question is straightforward: Before lawmakers receive a paycheck, should voters first know how often they are showing up for the job?

Rep. who pushed legislative pay missed staggering amount of committee work Read More »

One candidate, two podiums: Hull goes solo on KOB

2 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Republican gubernatorial nominee Gregg Hull walked onto a KOB 4 debate stage Thursday night, prepared for a face-to-face showdown with Democrat Deb Haaland.

Instead, he found an empty podium.

Haaland did not appear, citing a previously scheduled commitment with farmers, ranchers, and agricultural interests in southern New Mexico. That left Hull alone beneath the studio lights — and the former three-term Rio Rancho mayor used the unusual setup to deliver an extended, policy-heavy pitch on affordability, crime, child welfare, and data centers with no opponent on stage to rebut him.

“It should have been a debate,” Hull said in his closing statement.

“In the primary, I did four debates. I am not afraid to debate. I will always take debates head-on,” he added. “I think it’s important to address the issues in front of a camera where the most amount of people in New Mexico can see what you have to say.”

The unusual scene featured two podiums, an American flag backdrop, and journalists prepared for a traditional gubernatorial debate. Only one candidate showed.

Polling expert Brian Sanderoff called the situation “highly unusual” and said it gave Hull “a good opportunity” to deliver his message without interruption or rebuttal from Haaland.

Hull took advantage of it.

Hull goes straight at affordability

Asked what he would do in his first 100 days to address household costs, Hull returned to his proposal to gradually eliminate New Mexico’s personal income tax.

He said the first phase of his plan would cut the annual state income-tax bill for a single filer earning $40,000 from $1,471 to $671. A married couple earning $200,000 would see its bill drop from $8,989 to $7,250 under the initial phase, according to Hull.

By the fourth stage, he said, New Mexicans would pay no state personal income tax.

“While we can’t control pricing of certain items, we can try to put as much money back in the pockets of our citizens as possible,” Hull said.

Haaland has taken a different approach, proposing a higher minimum wage, additional tools to connect families with tax credits, and long-term savings accounts for children born in New Mexico.

‘Let’s make sure that no more kids die in CYFD custody’

Hull was similarly direct when the conversation turned to New Mexico’s troubled Children, Youth and Families Department.

His standard for success was blunt.

“Let’s make sure that no more kids die in CYFD custody,” Hull said.

He called for immediately overhauling the state Children’s Cabinet and bringing in an independent commission to help select the agency’s top leadership.

The issue has become particularly combustible after a New Mexico Department of Justice investigation and multiple lawsuits involving CYFD, including a case involving a foster teenager allegedly driven to the U.S.-Mexico border and told to cross alone into Ciudad Juárez.

Haaland has likewise proposed an independent commission and says she would appoint an experienced secretary to lead the department.

Hull targets New Mexico’s ‘revolving door’ on crime

Public safety produced some of Hull’s strongest criticism of the status quo.

Hull said he repeatedly hears from police officers and sheriff’s deputies frustrated by what he described as a “revolving door” criminal justice system.

“They will arrest somebody in the morning and they will be right back on the street that same night,” Hull said.

He proposed working with lawmakers on a constitutional amendment that would give the state greater ability to hold violent defendants before trial.

Hull said the goal would be to ensure authorities can “not only arrest these violent criminals … but hold them” in jail.

Haaland has emphasized different approaches, including alternative-response programs for behavioral health calls, funding for public defenders, and a task force focused on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons cases.

No blanket data-center moratorium

Hull also used the solo appearance to stake out a different position on one of the campaign’s hottest issues: massive data-center development.

He rejected Haaland’s pledge to impose a day-one moratorium on new large-scale projects, arguing that New Mexico should evaluate individual developments rather than close the door on an entire industry.

“When it comes to economic development, we don’t ever want to close the door completely,” Hull said.

“We want to evaluate each deal on its merits, and we always, always reserve the right to say no.”

Hull added that he would never approve a development that increased residents’ utility bills or improperly consumed scarce resources such as water.

“I would never support a data center that raises our power bills or inappropriately uses any type of natural resource, such as water,” he said.

Hull also took aim at the controversial Project Jupiter development, saying that had he been negotiating the project, “there would have been many changes to that particular project.”

Hull turns Haaland’s Jupiter criticism back on her

Hull also challenged Haaland’s criticism of his approach to data centers.

After the broadcast, the Democratic Party of New Mexico branded him “Hyperscale Hull” and mocked him as “Gregg Dull.” Protesters outside the studio carried similar signs.

Hull fired back by pointing to the campaign contributions Haaland has received from individuals associated with Project Jupiter and the data-center industry.

“I’m not the one who took the money,” Hull said. “This is gaslighting at its best.”

He argued Haaland’s campaign had found time for a September news conference announcing her data-center moratorium shortly after campaign-finance reports drew attention to those industry-linked contributions.

“I think that she’s been let off the hook on that way too easy,” Hull said.

Haaland says she kept an earlier commitment

Haaland, meanwhile, said her absence should not be interpreted as unwillingness to engage with voters.

“I’m keeping my word to the New Mexicans I made a commitment to months ago — meeting with farmers, ranchers, and the agricultural industry in Southern New Mexico,” she said.

She maintained that her campaign had offered Hull and KOB eight possible debate dates and accused Hull of rejecting each one.

KOB offered a somewhat different account of how the debate collapsed.

News Director Matt Grubs said both candidates initially agreed to debate before a date was selected. KOB offered airtime on any date the campaigns could mutually accept, and when they could not reach agreement, the station selected Oct. 8 because neither side had identified it as unavailable at that stage.

“Both candidates agreed to debate on KOB before a date was set,” Grubs said. “That commitment means something to us and to our viewers.”

“Debates are vital to our democracy,” he added.

Hull’s campaign acknowledged that Oct. 8 was not its preferred date either but said it accepted KOB’s compromise.

“They created a circus,” Hull spokesman Ryan Saylor said of the Haaland campaign’s handling of the dispute.

An empty podium — and a full hour for Hull

Whatever voters make of the scheduling dispute, Thursday’s optics were unmistakable.

KOB had built a debate stage for two candidates.

Hull was there.

Haaland was not.

And with no opponent beside him, Hull spent the evening answering substantive questions on some of New Mexico’s most difficult problems, offering detailed proposals, taking follow-ups, and repeatedly returning to his argument that voters deserve to see candidates defend their ideas directly.

For a lesser-known candidate trying to close a single-digit polling gap, the unusual format gave Hull something campaigns rarely receive this late in an election: uninterrupted television time to define himself on his own terms.

He ended the evening by reminding viewers that was not the format he had wanted.

“It should have been a debate.”

One candidate, two podiums: Hull goes solo on KOB Read More »

‘The president’: Bodycam video makes top Dem’s crash way more awkward

13 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Newly released police body-camera footage is shedding new light on a 2024 Santa Fe crash involving one of New Mexico’s most powerful lawmakers — including the revelation that Senate President Pro Tempore Mimi Stewart called the Governor’s Office after striking a pedestrian and told responding officers that New Mexico State Police were on the way because she was a state senator.

The Jan. 16, 2024 crash happened at Bishops Lodge Road and Paseo de Peralta, shortly after Stewart, an Albuquerque Democrat, left a legislative reception at the governor’s mansion.

According to the Santa Fe police crash report, Stewart was making a right turn onto Paseo de Peralta when her vehicle ran over the foot of pedestrian Jonathan Richardson, who was in the crosswalk. Court records later cited in news reports said Richardson suffered multiple fractures.

The incident attracted little public attention at the time because Stewart was not cited or charged. But newly released lapel footage obtained by the Santa Fe New Mexican through a public records request shows what happened in the minutes after the collision — and the unusual role the Governor’s Office played in summoning State Police.

‘I called the Governor’s Office’

The video shows Stewart quickly identifying herself to responding Santa Fe officers.

At one point, she told an officer:

“I’m the president of the state Senate, and they’re calling the state police to come down here so I can go home.”

The officer appeared confused.

“You’re the president of what?” he asked.

“Of the state Senate,” Stewart replied.

Later, another officer asked whether Stewart herself had requested State Police.

“I called the Governor’s Office,” she responded.

According to Stewart’s spokesman, she contacted Diego Arencón, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s deputy chief of staff, and asked him to alert New Mexico State Police. Someone else at the scene contacted local police.

One Santa Fe officer later called his supervisor and explained that Stewart had told him she reached out to the Governor’s Office because she wanted State Police involved.

The body-camera footage also shows Stewart saying:

“State police are supposed to be coming because I’m a state senator.”

Despite that statement, Santa Fe police ultimately handled the investigation. A State Police officer arrived only after Stewart had already been released from the scene. N.M. Sentinel

State Police: No special policy for lawmakers

Stewart later defended her decision to contact the Governor’s Office, saying State Police are “routinely involved in incidents involving legislators.”

“I didn’t receive special treatment, nor did I ask for or expect any,” Stewart said in a statement.

But KOB reported that New Mexico State Police said there is no policy requiring State Police to exclusively handle crashes or other cases involving state legislators.

That distinction immediately fueled criticism from Republicans, who argued the episode raises questions about whether ordinary citizens would think to call the Governor’s Office after injuring a pedestrian.

Senate Minority Leader Bill Sharer, R-Farmington, accused Stewart of invoking her powerful position during a police investigation.

“If you hit a pedestrian with your car and broke his foot, could you tell the officers how powerful you are, say you’ve called the Governor’s Office, and be sent home with no citation?” Sharer said.

“Do everyday New Mexicans have that option? Of course not.”

Sharer characterized the incident as evidence of what he called a culture in which political connections can create the appearance of preferential treatment. Grant County Beat

Officers say they could not determine fault

Despite the new scrutiny, the body-camera footage does not show police covering up the crash.

Santa Fe police officers spent time examining the traffic signals at the intersection because Stewart and Richardson gave conflicting accounts about who had the right of way.

Stewart said she had a green light and never saw Richardson before striking him.

Richardson, meanwhile, was adamant that the pedestrian signal had given him permission to cross.

Asked by an officer whether he thought he had the right of way, Richardson reportedly responded:

“No, I know I had the right of way.”

Police said the intersection created uncertainty because the pedestrian signal could alternate while vehicles had a green light.

Interim Santa Fe Police Chief Ben Valdez later said Stewart’s political position had “no bearing” on the officer’s decision not to cite her. According to Valdez, the officer determined he could not establish whether Richardson had entered the roadway legally, and also believed the pedestrian appeared intoxicated.

No citation was issued, and no criminal charges were filed. The 2024 incident was also not considered a hit-and-run because Stewart remained at the scene until police completed their work. N.M. Sentinel

Richardson later filed a civil lawsuit seeking damages for medical expenses, lost income, emotional distress, and other alleged losses. Stewart’s attorney has said the case was ultimately resolved by her insurer without an admission of liability. N.M. Sentinel

Stewart had just left governor’s mansion event

The video also confirms Stewart told officers she had just come from the governor’s mansion.

The crash occurred on the opening night of the 2024 legislative session, when Lujan Grisham hosted a reception for lawmakers after delivering her State of the State address.

Stewart told an officer she had not been drinking alcohol.

“I don’t drink anymore,” she said, adding that she had consumed “a glass of water.”

The point carries additional significance because Stewart pleaded guilty to DWI in 1999 while serving in the state House.

There has been no public evidence that Stewart was impaired during the 2024 crash.

Political fallout grows two years later

The accident itself happened more than two years ago, but its political impact has accelerated only recently after video and records began circulating publicly.

Republicans have used the incident to accuse Stewart of receiving special treatment, while Stewart and Senate Democrats maintain that Santa Fe police independently handled the scene and that she simply contacted the Governor’s Office to alert State Police.

The footage does establish several facts that were not widely known when the crash happened: Stewart called the Governor’s Office, repeatedly identified herself as a state senator, said State Police were coming because of her position, and told one officer that State Police would take over so she could go home.

What the video does not establish is that Santa Fe police altered their decision because of her political status.

That leaves the central controversy less about whether the crash was secretly covered up — the footage does not support that claim — and more about a different question raised by Sharer and other critics:

Why did one of the state’s most powerful elected officials believe the Governor’s Office needed to be involved in an otherwise routine traffic investigation in the first place?

‘The president’: Bodycam video makes top Dem’s crash way more awkward Read More »

Hull keeps it close as Haaland’s unfavorables outpace favorables

16 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

A new KOB 4/SurveyUSA poll is showing what is increasingly difficult to dismiss in New Mexico’s race for governor: Democrat Deb Haaland is ahead, but Republican Gregg Hull remains within single digits with less than a month until Election Day.

The survey of 567 likely voters found Haaland at 47% and Hull at 41%, with another 12% still undecided.

That six-point margin is notable for another reason: a separate Albuquerque Journal poll released in late August also found Haaland ahead by exactly six points, 49% to 43%, with 8% undecided. Because the two polls were conducted by different firms and with different methodologies, they are not a direct trend line. But taken together, they reinforce the picture of a race that is competitive rather than a runaway.

Hull, the former three-term mayor of Rio Rancho, therefore remains within striking distance of a candidate who entered the general election with far greater statewide and national name recognition, a substantial fundraising advantage and the benefit of running in a state where Democrats have dominated recent statewide contests. The Journal previously described its own six-point result as “closer than expected.” 

Haaland leads — but her favorability numbers flash warning signs

The head-to-head numbers are only part of the story.

KOB’s separate favorability survey of 673 registered voters found 31% viewed Haaland favorably, while 35% viewed her unfavorably.

Another 19% were neutral, while 16% said they were unfamiliar with her.

That means Haaland is underwater on favorability despite being the better-known candidate.

The numbers are even more difficult for Haaland among independents, a bloc that could matter significantly in a close race. According to KOB, just 21% of independent voters viewed Haaland favorably, while 32% viewed her unfavorably.

University of New Mexico political science professor Tim Krebs told KOB that Haaland’s campaign would probably prefer to see a wider advantage.

“I think the country is in an anti-incumbent mood,” Krebs said. “I think that Deb Haaland is more associated with the establishment then Gregg Hull is, so some of that’s hurting her right now.”

He added that Democrats still have structural advantages in New Mexico and could benefit from strong motivation among their voters.

Hull has a different problem: voters are still learning who he is

Hull’s favorability numbers present almost the inverse challenge.

KOB found 29% of voters viewed Hull favorably and 21% unfavorably, giving him a positive net rating. But 24% described themselves as neutral and another 27% said they were not familiar with him.

That means more than half of respondents either had no strong opinion of Hull or did not know enough about him to form one.

Among independents, Hull stood at 21% favorable and 26% unfavorable.

The numbers suggest the former mayor still has considerable room to introduce himself to voters before Nov. 3 — but also faces the challenge of doing so quickly.

Hull served as Rio Rancho mayor for 12 years before launching his statewide campaign. He won the Republican gubernatorial nomination in June after defeating Doug Turner and Duke Rodriguez, despite being outspent during portions of the primary. 

Huge gender divide

KOB’s poll also found a striking gender split.

Among women, Haaland leads Hull 54% to 33%, a commanding 21-point advantage.

Among men, however, Hull leads 48% to 40%.

Older voters are substantially closer. Among voters 50 and older, Haaland leads by just one point, 47% to 46%.

Among voters younger than 50, the raw KOB numbers put Haaland at 47% and Hull at 43%.

Independent voters remain one of the biggest open questions. Haaland leads that group 44% to 34%, but a substantial 22% of independents remain undecided.

That undecided figure is particularly important with early voting approaching.

Second poll, same six-point margin

The latest KOB result closely resembles the Journal poll released Aug. 30.

That survey found Haaland at 49%, Hull at 43% and 8% undecided. Research & Polling Inc. President Brian Sanderoff called the margin “narrower than many people expected, including me,” although he said Hull still faced an uphill battle. 

The consistency of the topline margin is striking: six points in August, six points again in October.

Again, the surveys were produced independently and should not be treated as if the same pollster measured movement over time. Still, neither shows Haaland holding anything resembling an insurmountable advantage.

That is especially noteworthy given the enormous financial disparity between the campaigns.

During the most recent reporting period, Haaland raised about $3.43 million, compared with approximately $943,000 for Hull — nearly four times as much. 

Yet the public polling continues to show a single-digit contest.

Republicans still face history — but the race is very much alive

New Mexico remains a difficult statewide environment for Republicans. Democrats have controlled the governor’s office since 2019, and Hull would be the first Republican to win a statewide New Mexico race since 2016, according to the Journal.

But six points is not a blowout.

The 2022 gubernatorial election between Democrat Michelle Lujan Grisham and Republican Mark Ronchetti also ultimately ended with roughly a six-point margin — the same gap the Journal found between Haaland and Hull in August. 

Hull still has work to do, particularly among women, independents and voters who remain unfamiliar with him.

Haaland, meanwhile, has a different vulnerability: she is already extremely well-known, yet more voters in KOB’s survey view her unfavorably than favorably.

With 12% of likely voters still undecided and Hull six points behind, the new poll shows Haaland remains the leader — but it also gives Republicans measurable reason to believe the race remains within reach.

For a contest that some once expected to be little more than a Haaland coronation, New Mexico’s governor race is still very much a race.

Hull keeps it close as Haaland’s unfavorables outpace favorables Read More »

Vasquez goes from ‘defunding’ police rhetoric to ‘I always backed’ cops

26 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

A new campaign advertisement for Democrat U.S. Rep. Gabe Vasquez is leaning heavily into law enforcement — but its biggest claim does not survive a look at the federal spending records.

The ad features Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen declaring, “Congressman Gabe Vasquez supports law enforcement. Period.”

Then comes the eye-popping claim.

“In Congress, he worked with Republicans to deliver four billion dollars in funding to New Mexico police departments so we can keep you safe,” Allen says.

There is a major problem: The roughly $4 billion was not funding delivered to New Mexico police departments. It was nationwide funding for state and local law enforcement programs across the United States.

In fact, Vasquez’s own congressional office previously described the money differently.

A February press release from his office said Vasquez voted for an FY2026 Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations package containing “over $4 billion in funding for state and local law enforcement.” It did not say New Mexico received $4 billion.

The House Appropriations Committee put the nationwide figure at approximately $4.16 billion for state and local law enforcement activities, describing the funding as supporting communities “across the nation.” 

In other words, the new ad takes a multibillion-dollar national appropriation and describes it as though Vasquez helped deliver the entire amount to “New Mexico police departments.”

He did not.

Vasquez voted for the bill — but so did nearly everybody else

There is a kernel of truth in the ad’s claim that Vasquez “worked with Republicans.”

The FY2026 spending legislation passed the House on a 397-28 vote, with 191 Republicans and 206 Democrats voting in favor. Vasquez supported the measure. It later passed the Senate 82-15. 

So Vasquez can accurately say he voted for a bipartisan spending package containing billions for law enforcement programs nationwide.

What the record does not support is the claim that he delivered $4 billion “to New Mexico police departments.”

The amounts directly tied to New Mexico are dramatically smaller, closer to $3.75 million — a little over what a state legislator brings home to their district annually in recent years due to the oil and gas boom.

‘He always has’ meets Vasquez’s 2020 record

Allen goes even further in the advertisement.

“Gabe stands with police,” the sheriff says. “He always has.”

That sweeping statement is harder to square with Vasquez’s own words from 2020.

During a Black Lives Matter protest while serving on the Las Cruces City Council, Vasquez told a television reporter:

“It’s not just about defunding the police, it’s about defunding a system that privileges white people over everyone else.”

The comment was subsequently raised directly with Vasquez during a 2022 PBS interview. Asked whether he supported defunding police, Vasquez answered, “100%, I do not support defunding the police,” pointing instead to his City Council votes to increase police funding. 

But the 2020 television comment was not the only episode.

Emails later reported by Fox News showed a constituent asking Vasquez to support cutting the Las Cruces Police Department budget by “at least” 50%. Vasquez responded that he supported “transformational reform” and told the constituent, “You can count on my support.”

In another exchange, a constituent advocated “defunding the police department and moving those funds to strengthening social programs.”

Vasquez replied: “I agree.”

Vasquez later explicitly rejected the defund-the-police label, saying in 2022, “I oppose defunding the police,” and arguing that his actual budget votes increased police funding.

That evolution is important context missing from an ad telling voters he has supported law enforcement “always.”

Even the Las Cruces funding number has changed

The new ad also says Vasquez increased Las Cruces police budgets by roughly $3.5 million while serving on the City Council. His campaign currently uses an even higher figure — $3.8 million. 

But Vasquez himself gave a different number during a 2024 PBS interview.

“When I was on the Las Cruces City Council, every year that I was there I voted to increase the police budget,” he said, putting those increases at “over $2 million.” 

The campaign now says $3.8 million. The reason for the difference is not clear from the materials released by the campaign, and Vasquez’s City Council tenure had already ended years before he gave the lower figure.

One sheriff backs Vasquez — another says the opposite

Allen’s endorsement also comes only months after a different New Mexico sheriff publicly blasted Vasquez’s relationship with law enforcement.

Eddy County Sheriff Matthew Hutchinson wrote a column for the Albuquerque Journal in June, accusing Vasquez of waiting until after Republican challenger Greg Cunningham, a veteran of the Albuquerque Police Department, criticized him before acknowledging National Police Week.

“When your congressman has to be shamed into showing up during the one week a year dedicated to law enforcement,” Hutchinson wrote, “that is not support. That is damage control.”

Hutchinson endorsed Cunningham and cited Vasquez’s 2020 comments among his reasons. 

Vasquez, meanwhile, has secured endorsements from Allen, Doña Ana County Sheriff Kim Stewart, and other law-enforcement officials, while his congressional record includes votes for police funding, bipartisan anti-cartel legislation, support for the Invest to Protect Act, and efforts to protect federal Regional Information Sharing Systems funding. 

So the full record is more complicated than either campaign’s talking points.

Another campaign claim gets fuzzy

A separate Vasquez mail piece now circulating says he “grew up in New Mexico’s borderlands.”

His official congressional biography uses the broader phrase that he “grew up in the borderlands.” But the U.S. House historian records that Vasquez was born in El Paso, Texas, and graduated from Montwood High School in El Paso. The Las Cruces Bulletin has reported that he grew up in El Paso and Ciudad Juárez and moved to Las Cruces in 2002 to attend New Mexico State University. 

Calling that upbringing part of the broader borderlands is reasonable. Calling it specifically “New Mexico’s borderlands” leaves out where he actually spent much of his childhood.

The bottom line on the new police ad

Vasquez does have a very recent record of voting for law-enforcement funding, including recent bipartisan federal appropriations.

But the marquee claim in the new Sheriff Allen advertisement — that Vasquez helped deliver $4 billion “to New Mexico police departments” — is not what the underlying appropriations measure did.

That approximately $4 billion was nationwide.

And the ad’s declaration that Vasquez has “always” stood with police glosses over a documented 2020 record in which Vasquez discussed “defunding” the system, agreed with a constituent advocating shifting money away from police, and told another constituent seeking a 50% police-budget reduction, “You can count on my support.”

Vasquez has since disavowed defunding police and accumulated a voting record that includes support for law-enforcement spending.

But that is considerably more complicated than the 30-second story his latest campaign ad tells.

Vasquez goes from ‘defunding’ police rhetoric to ‘I always backed’ cops Read More »

New TV ad goes for the jugular on lawmakers’ nearly $70K pay proposal

13 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

A new television ad is targeting Constitutional Amendment 4, the November ballot measure sponsored by Democrats and opposed by most Republicans that would allow New Mexico legislators to receive annual salaries tied to the state’s median household income.

Our Values PAC announced Thursday that it is opposing the amendment and launching a television ad portraying the proposal as a costly “Politician Pay Package” that would place salaries approaching $70,000 on top of benefits lawmakers already receive.

The ad wastes little time setting the tone.

“Politicians caught red-handed, but instead of accountability, they’re asking you for a huge pay raise to almost $70,000 a year,” the narrator says, with news headlines spotlighting Democrat former floor leader Sheryl Williams Stapleton, who was convicted on federal corruption charges after she resigned in disgrace, and Democrat state Rep. Andrea Romero of Santa Fe, who was forced to resign from an illegal six-figure job with the District Attorney’s office after the state’s attorney general ruled it to be against the law.

It continues by pointing to legislative pensions and New Mexico’s education struggles before declaring, “Don’t let corruption win. Vote no on Amendment 4, the Politician Pay Package.”

The nearly $70,000 figure comes directly from the official fiscal analysis of the proposal.

What exactly would Amendment 4 do?

New Mexico is currently the only state where legislators receive no annual base salary. Lawmakers instead receive per diem and mileage reimbursement for legislative sessions and qualifying interim work.

Amendment 4 would change Article IV, Section 10 of the state Constitution to permit legislative compensation equal to New Mexico’s annual median household income. Compensation would decrease if the household-income figure falls and could increase when it rises. The existing provisions allowing per diem and mileage would remain in place.

Using a median household income of approximately $67,800, the Legislative Finance Committee estimated that paying all 112 lawmakers would cost the General Fund roughly $7.6 million every year. If voters approve the amendment, salaries would begin with members seated in the 59th Legislature in 2029. 

“Our Values PAC opposes Amendment 4 because we believe voters should look at the entire compensation package legislators already receive before authorizing salaries approaching $70,000 a year,” spokeswoman Anissa Tinnin said.

She pointed to lawmakers’ existing per diem, mileage reimbursement, pension eligibility, and ability to continue earning outside income while holding office.

Nearly $68K for a Legislature with 30- and 60-day regular sessions

New Mexico’s regular legislative sessions run for 60 days in odd-numbered years and 30 days in even-numbered years, although legislators also participate in interim committees, constituent work, special sessions, and other official duties outside the regular session.

Our Values PAC is emphasizing how the proposed salary would compare with other states.

The National Conference of State Legislatures reported that the average annual base salary for state lawmakers was $46,279 in 2025. Arizona legislators received $24,000, Colorado lawmakers received roughly $44,000 to $47,500 depending on the beginning of their terms, Texas lawmakers received $7,200, and New Mexico lawmakers received no base salary. 

That would put a $67,800 New Mexico salary well above the national average and above the base salaries paid in several neighboring states.

PAC takes aim at household-income formula

Another major target of Amendment 4 critics is the decision to use median household income, rather than an individual-income measure, to determine what each individual legislator would earn.

The Legislature’s own analysis noted that median household income includes the income of all members of a household and specifically raised the question of whether lawmakers intended for the income of a single legislator to match an entire household’s median income. 

Our Values PAC argues that distinction matters when the proposed salary is being sold as compensation representative of what ordinary New Mexicans earn.

Ad ties the salary fight to education and government performance

The television spot broadens the criticism beyond the mechanics of legislative compensation.

“New Mexico schools ranked 50th. Instead of investing in our kids, they’re investing in themselves,” the narrator says.

The argument attempts to turn Amendment 4 into a larger question about whether lawmakers have earned significantly more compensation based on the state government’s performance.

Tinnin similarly argued that voters should consider New Mexico’s continuing challenges in education, along with past corruption cases in state government, before authorizing a new recurring expense for legislative salaries.

What about term limits and conflicts of interest?

The salary debate is also reviving a separate question: If New Mexico moves toward a salaried Legislature, should that compensation come with term limits, pension changes, and stronger rules governing potential conflicts of interest?

Those reforms are not included in Amendment 4.

Paul Gessing, president of the Rio Grande Foundation, made that distinction central to his organization’s opposition in a recent Albuquerque Journal opinion piece.

“To be clear, the Rio Grande Foundation isn’t completely opposed to paying the Legislature,” Gessing wrote, arguing instead that Amendment 4 is the wrong approach. 

Gessing argued that lawmakers should not simply receive a new salary on top of the existing compensation structure. His organization favors eliminating legislative pensions and per diem if substantial salaries are created, along with additional changes aimed at preventing public office from becoming increasingly attractive as a long-term career. 

One of those proposed reforms is term limits.

The Rio Grande Foundation argues that paying legislators close to the state’s median household income could encourage more lawmakers to remain in safe seats for lengthy careers, particularly when combined with pension benefits. Gessing proposed limiting service to eight years in each chamber. 

He also raised the issue of conflicts involving lawmakers who are simultaneously employed by government entities whose funding is determined through the legislative process.

RGF argues that public employees whose paychecks ultimately depend on legislative appropriations should not simultaneously have the ability to participate in decisions affecting those employers. Gessing contended that salaries should therefore be accompanied by stronger conflict-of-interest restrictions. 

Those concerns extend beyond one conservative policy organization. A recent Think New Mexico-commissioned poll found 64% of respondents supported paying legislators only if mandatory ethics reforms accompanied the salaries, while 81% supported holding lawmakers to a higher ethical standard generally. Think New Mexico is separately advocating stronger conflict-of-interest rules and increased lobbyist disclosure. 

In other words, Amendment 4 asks voters to decide the salary question without simultaneously settling questions about term limits, pensions, outside employment, or tougher conflict-of-interest rules.

That is becoming an important part of the opposition argument: Critics are not necessarily saying lawmakers should never receive compensation, but that a major change in compensation should come alongside broader accountability reforms.

A bigger question than simply ‘pay or no pay’

That leaves voters with more than a simple debate over whether lawmakers deserve compensation.

Some supporters see salaries as a way to make legislative service accessible to a broader range of New Mexicans and strengthen the legislative branch.

Our Values PAC and other critics are asking voters to focus on the roughly $67,800 annual salary, approximately $7.6 million yearly cost, existing benefits, outside employment, and the absence of term limits or new conflict-of-interest restrictions in Amendment 4 itself.

And the new television ad is betting that one number will stick with voters when they reach the constitutional amendment on their ballots:

Nearly $70,000.

New TV ad goes for the jugular on lawmakers’ nearly $70K pay proposal Read More »

1 2 3 4 5 6 … 256
Scroll to Top