On Monday in the House Health and Human Services Committee, state Rep. Stefani Lord (R-Sandia Park) presented H.B. 486, a bipartisan bill, which “would require that, when a child is taken into New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) protective custody by law enforcement because of suspected abuse or neglect, CYFD conduct a criminal background and search of the sex offender registry of the person to whom the child will be released, including the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian,” according to the bill’s analysis.
Rep. Joanne Ferrary (D-Las Cruces) argued, “CYFD is not involved with every, you know, child that goes, you know, for medical care to the hospital and they then needs [sic] to be released to their parent that comes in.”
She claimed the bill was “too broad,” telling Rep. Lord, “Your bill is overreaching and saying any time a child comes into the custody of law enforcement.”
“This is being seen as unconstitutional for parents and making sure kids can go back to their family and have that reunification. With that, I will strongly oppose your bill,” she added.
Rep. Lord argued, “It’s for them to take a final look before they give that child back in that situation.”
State Rep. Liz Thomson (D-Albuquerque), the chair of the committee, continued to erroneously claim that CYFD was mandated to remove a child from a family.
Lord responded, “That’s a simple question, Madam Chair. What I’m saying is that it mandates that they do the background check, and as I stated, they have lawyers, they have behaviorists, they have a team of people that have been working on the case while that child has been out of the parent’s custody, and then they can further make a decision. What I’m looking for is — in that gap —and I agree … that we should never, ever, ever in this lifetime place a child back with a sex offender. But if there’s a long enough gap, and in between that time, let’s say… one of the parents abused one of the other children sexually, we need to take that into consideration. I’m not saying mandating they can’t. I wouldn’t want them to ever in this lifetime, but we are saying they should do the background check before they release that child for the final step.”
“But the bill says ‘requiring,’” Chair Thomson clapped back, arguing that “requiring does not leave it up to CYFD,” arguing with Rep. Lord about the bill that “it is a mandate,” even though it is not.
Rep. Lord asked Thomson, “Do you want children to go back with sexual predators?”
Thomson then accused Lord of “interrupting” her during questioning and accusing her of breaking “decorum.”
Furious with Lord refusing to stand on the false narrative spun by the chairwoman, Thomson banged her gavel, with Lord replying, “I’m not going to listen to your gavel anyways. It’s mandated in there,” before being cut off by state Rep. Eleanor Chavez (D-Albuquerque), who made a motion to table.
“Exactly. Because you want children to go back into homes where they are going to be sexually abused. That’s exactly what I figured you were going to do because you don’t care about the children. Because you want the children to be sexually abused,” Rep. Lord responded.
Strangely, Chair Thomson claimed Rep. Lord was “auditioning for a TV show,”
Rep. Lord added, “Wow — insults by you. I’m so shocked by that. Talk about ‘decorum.’”
The Democrats on the committee moved on a party-line vote to kill the bill that would have protected children who are in the CYFD system from sexual predator family members.
Rep. Lord concluded after the vote, “I hope you all can live with putting children back into houses where they are going to be sexually abused,” with Thomson trying to shut her down again.
WATCH:
🚨Who thinks it's a good idea to release abused or neglected children who were removed from their homes and then later place the child into the custody of someone, be it a parent, uncle, aunt, or grandparents WITHOUT doing a background check to look for previous child abuse or… pic.twitter.com/97iJVvRme0
A legislative update from Piñon Post founder and editor and state Rep. John Block (R-Alamogordo). John gives a weekly update during the legislative session. If you don’t already get the update, you can get it here or by subscribing on the website JohnForNM.com.
A lot happened this week at the Roundhouse. My apologies in advance for the lengthy (but thorough) update. Here are some of the highlights:
Committees
On Monday in the House Government, Elections, and Indian Affairs Committee (HGEIC), we heard a bill, H.B. 241, that would increase the number of racing days at New Mexico’s racinos, which many came out against because of concerns the increase in horse racing would create safety concerns. I voted no.
No real bills of significant consequence were heard on Tuesday in the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee (HCPAC).
On Wednesday in HGEIC, mostly benign cleanup bills relating to the judiciary were heard, but a radical piece of legislation, H.J.R. 10 to allow felons, including murderers, rapists, and school shooters, to vote WHILE IN PRISON passed the committee on a party-line 5-3 vote — a slap in the face to victims. I voted no.
On Thursday in HCPAC, an extreme bill, H.B. 470, was heard to charge parents with “neglect of a child” and force the kid into Children, Youth, and Families Department (CYFD) custody if they have access in any way to a firearm or a firearm suppressor (with no exceptions). The original bill included all “weapons,” which could include kitchen knives, baseball bats, ice picks, and even rocks, according to the CYFD analysis. The bill was amended in the committee to only target guns — more legislation attacking firearms and our Second Amendment rights.
On Friday in HGEIC, I voted against H.M. 37, which brings awareness to Mount Taylor, which is northeast of Grants, but it also attacked uranium mining in general — which is a key component to the country’s energy independence through nuclear energy.
In HGEIC on Saturday, we heard H.B. 448, which creates a new office of housing, duplicating efforts already underway with multiple government agencies, and it is accompanied by hundreds of thousands of dollars in the budget to fund free houses for homeless people — making people further dependent on the government. I voted against it. Another bill heard on Saturday was H.B. 536, which allows 16-year-olds to vote in municipal, school board, and other local elections, despite them not being allowed to own firearms, sign contracts, get tattoos or piercings, and many other things. I voted against this bill as well.
Floor Sessions
On Monday, Democrats and some Republicans (not me) voted for the most fiscally irresponsible budget in state history (H.B. 2/3), which included $266 million for “culturally competent healthcare,” shots, government-funded contraceptives, and vague “behavioral health” initiatives, $35 million for job-crushing “paid leave” programs, $31.2 million for fighting “climate change,” $3.5 million to “conserve” the American beaver, $640,000 for “migrant programs” at New Mexico colleges, among so many other wasteful programs and initiatives. Republicans offered a substitute bill that included $600 rebates to New Mexicans (much like Alaska due to oil revenue surpluses). Democrats (and some Republicans) rejected that idea and passed the $10.8 billion boondoggle.
Terrible, fiscally irresponsible budget passes the NM House by a vote of 50-18, which includes: ❌$266M for "culturally competent healthcare," shots, government-funded contraceptives, and vague "behavioral health" initiatives ❌$35M for job-crushing "paid leave" programs ❌$31.2M… pic.twitter.com/6mlSg5QCCn
On Tuesday, Democrats passed a radical expansion to the state’s “red flag” bill (H.B. 12) that would further infringe on due process rights, allowing authorities to immediately snatch one’s guns upon service of an “extreme risk protection order.” Cases in other states, such as New York, and even the U.S. Supreme Court, have affirmed that it is unlawful for seizure of weapons before a hearing — blatantly unconstitutional. If the bill does pass and become law, it will likely be immediately challenged and stricken down.
Also on the House floor Tuesday, Democrats passed a horrible bill, H.B. 91, to allow utilities (like PNM and NM Gas Co.) to allow non-low-income rate payers to subsidize low-income individuals’ utility bills — redistribution of wealth — and raising utility rates on the middle class, which is barely getting by as it is.
On Thursday, I voted against H.J.R. 1, which would allow for two 45-day legislative sessions every year (unlike the current cycle of 60 days on odd-numbered years and 30 days on even-numbered years) because it would allow for a bill that did not pass in the first session to be carried over to the next at its same progression, meaning more bad bills will be rammed through. I also voted against H.B. 260, which bans security guards and other personnel from restraining students, even in cases when a student has a weapon at school.
A good bill, H.B. 104, of which I am a primary sponsor, passed the House with a handful of anti-police Democrats voting against it. The bill would merely give equal rights to law enforcers when they become victims of crimes. This fixes a major loophole in New Mexico’s laws, which deprive law enforcers of equal protection.
On Friday, Democrats passed the extremist H.B. 11, which will annihilate small businesses and kill jobs by forcing upon them “paid family and medical leave.” The bill would forcibly garnish wages from employees and mandate employers pay into a massive pool of money to pay for 6-12 weeks of paid time off — leaving businesses scrambling and employees with fewer dollars in their paychecks. According to the bill’s fiscal impact report, it would leave the state with a deficit of $800 million, and a mere 4% of workers would be getting the benefits of this horrible program, while 96% of workers would see a benefit while being mandated to fork over their pay for it. Five Democrat state representatives voted against the proposal, along with all Republicans. They should be commended: Rep. Martha Garcia (D-Pine Hill), Rep. Patricia Lundstrom (D-Gallup), Rep. Wonda Johnson (D-Church Rock), Rep. Marian Matthews (D-Albuquerque), and Rep. Joseph Sanchez (D-Alcalde).
On Saturday, we debated multiple bills throughout the day, ending the floor session at around 8:00 p.m. Bills that passed included H.B. 339, which forces ALL LANDLORDS to take Section 8 housing vouchers. When one GOP representative asked whether someone who could not comply with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) building codes and standards to accept such housing vouchers, the sponsor of the bill, Rep. Angelica Rubio (D-Las Cruces) responded, “I mean, maybe don’t rent.”
Another bad bill heard on Saturday was H.B. 89, which will give graduate scholarships to illegal aliens studying at New Mexico institutions of higher education. Also, we heard a radical solar bill to further subsidize the solar industry, H.B. 128.
My Sponsored Legislation Being Heard This Week:
On Tuesday, my sponsored bill, HB 521, to support the agritourism industry by helping remove vague liability restrictions, UNANIMOUSLY PASSED the House Rural Development, Land Grants, and Cultural Affairs Committee. It next goes to the Judiciary Committee. Thanks to R.B. Nichols for being my expert witness and for leading the charge on this great bill.
On Monday, March 3 (tomorrow), in the House Health and Human Services Committee, I will be presenting my bill that would empower counties to be the sole authorities who can tax alcohol and remove the state’s excise taxes. Studies throughout the decades and even recent research show that taxing alcohol higher has little to no impact whatsoever on alleviating alcoholism and alcohol harms in any form or fashion. Please visit the meeting link below to listen in and support my legislation by testifying in support. The committee is scheduled for 8:00 a.m., but I expect the bill will be heard no earlier than 10:00 a.m., as it is last on the agenda.
Meeting Access Details 3/3/2024 at 8:00 a.m.: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86178202695 Phone one-tap: +16694449171,,86178202695# US Webinar ID: 861 7820 2695
Another piece of legislation I am sponsoring, H.B. 44, relating to protecting minors from harmful materials, will likely be heard in the House Commerce and Economic Development Committee on Wednesday, March 5 at 1:30 p.m. (or 15 minutes following the House floor session), so please also show up then to testify in support. The meeting information is below:
Meeting Access Details 3/5/2024 at 1:30 p.m.: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84498420158 Phone one-tap: +16699009128,,84498420158# US (San Jose) +17193594580,,84498420158# US Webinar ID: 844 9842 0158
Also, on Wednesday at 8:30 a.m., a memorial I am carrying, H.M. 42, to bring awareness to the only native marsupial to North America, the Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), will likely be heard in the House Government, Elections, and Indian Affairs Committee. Other states are declaring this important species as their state marsupial (North Carolina has already enacted it while New Hampshire is in the process), and this legislative step is the first in beginning the process for similar legislation in New Mexico. Read more about the species and its history in New Mexico via this peer-reviewed study (https://www.jstor.org/stable/30055181) and join to support this memorial by testifying via this information:
Meeting Access Details 3/5/2024 at 8:30 a.m.: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89282948977 Phone one-tap: +17193594580,,89282948977# US +12532050468,,89282948977# US Webinar ID: 892 8294 8977
In Summary
All my sponsored legislation for the session is filed and can be accessed here.
The week ahead will be very eventful in my committees, with lots of bad bills scheduled for the upcoming week.
To see all committee schedules for all committees, click here.
It is an honor to represent Alamogordo in the Legislature and fight with every fiber of my being to protect our Constitutional rights. You can always count on me to stand with our shared conservative American values.
God bless you, John
Rep. John Block NM House District 51 Republican, Otero County
The controversial job-crushing “Welcome Child and Family Wellness Leave Act,” formerly known as the “Paid Family and Medical Leave Act,” narrowly passed the New Mexico House of Representatives last week, but not without significant pushback. While all Republicans opposed the bill, five Democrats also voted against it. Here’s a look at the five House Democrats who sided with the GOP in rejecting this legislation:
1. Rep. Martha Garcia (D-Pine Hill)
Garcia was recently appointed to the House, succeeding former Rep. Eliseo “Lee” Alcon. Although hailed as a “progressive,” her vote denotes maybe a more independent mindset.
Photo of Ms. Garcia via the Cibola County Commission website archive.
2. Rep. Patricia Lundstrom (D-Gallup)
Lundstrom, a long-serving lawmaker known for her focus on fiscal responsibility, voted against the bill. Gallup businesses were notably vocal against the bill.
3. Rep. Wonda Johnson (D-Church Rock)
Johnson, representing a largely Native American constituency, rejected the bill with her vote against it.
4. Rep. Marian Matthews (D-Albuquerque)
Despite representing a district in Albuquerque, Matthews has maintained a more moderate stance on business regulations. Democrats attempted to defeat her in primary elections for rejecting the bill in the past, but she has been successful in fending off radical leftists in her party.
5. Rep. Joseph Sanchez (D-Alcalde)
Sanchez, known for his pragmatic approach to policy, voted against the bill, as he has in the past.
A Growing Divide Over Business and Labor Issues
The opposition of these five Democrats highlights a growing divide within the party over business regulations and economic policy. While proponents of the bill, such as Rep. Christine Chandler (D-Los Alamos), call it a “transformational” step for workers, critics argue that it could create a “workforce nightmare,” as House Republicans have described it.
With the bill now heading to the Senate, its fate remains uncertain. Senate President Pro Tem Mimi Stewart (D-Albuquerque) has already raised concerns about the financial feasibility of using state funds for parental leave, signaling potential hurdles ahead. Whether Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham will sign the bill into law, if it reaches her desk, is another question entirely.
The legislative process in Santa Fe has long faced scrutiny, but according to the Rio Grande Foundation, the situation is only worsening. The organization, which has been involved in the Legislature for many years, argues that the current system actively hinders public involvement while leaving lawmakers uninformed about the real impact of the bills they consider.
“Whether this is by design or not, it is important to understand that the public is not really welcomed to the process,” the Rio Grande Foundation asserts. The group details several troubling trends that, in their view, demonstrate an increasingly closed-door approach to lawmaking in New Mexico.
One of the most glaring issues cited is the way Democrat committee chairs handle public testimony. The foundation notes that chairs appear to be under immense pressure from leadership to move bills along at breakneck speed, leading to testimony being dramatically curtailed. “Repeatedly and in nearly ALL committees on very controversial bills, Democrat committee chairs often limit comment to a handful of individuals or a very limited time period,” the report states.
This suppression of public input is taking various forms. In some cases, chairs have restricted testimony to “the first 10 people” in line, regardless of how many others may be waiting to speak. The foundation specifically pointed to an incident involving HB 11, a paid leave bill, where the chair allowed only 10 individuals to testify despite 42 people raising their hands in opposition. This policy, they warn, can lead to dangerous situations, especially for older or disabled individuals who travel to Santa Fe to make their voices heard but find themselves outpaced by younger, more mobile participants.
Further exacerbating the problem is the restriction of time allotted to speakers. In some instances, testimony is capped at a mere one minute—barely enough time to make a meaningful statement on complex legislation. Meanwhile, those participating via Zoom—a tool that has expanded public access to legislative proceedings—are often ignored entirely. The foundation states that “Zoom testimony is also extremely limited on the most important bills,” with participants often waiting on the call and raising their virtual hands to speak, only to be disregarded.
Adding to the frustration, the scheduling of hearings is erratic and opaque. Instead of being held at predictable times that respect the public’s ability to participate, hearings are frequently postponed at the last minute or shuffled around the legislative calendar. “Bills are continuously ‘rolled’ to the next meeting and meeting times are changed at the last second,” the foundation claims, making it nearly impossible for engaged citizens to plan their attendance.
The organization argues that these issues reflect a broader trend of the majority party—Democrats, who have controlled Santa Fe for decades—disregarding the principles of democratic participation. “The rules are set by the majority party. If the Democrats who have run Santa Fe for decades actually care about ‘democracy,’ they need to act to solve some of these process issues to really serve the people of New Mexico.”
On Wednesday, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham appointed Martha Garcia, a 78-year-old former Cibola County Commissioner and president of the Ramah Navajo Chapter House, to fill the vacant New Mexico House District 6 seat following the passing of Rep. Eliseo Alcon.
The district, which covers Cibola and McKinley counties, including the Village of Milan, the Pueblo of Zuni, and parts of the Navajo Nation, has been unrepresented since late November when Alcon resigned due to declining health. Alcon, who was 74, passed away in January.
Progressive freshman State Sen. Angel Charley (D-Acoma), whose district overlaps with HD 6, called Garcia’s appointment “historic” and praised her commitment to advancing justice and equity. “Today’s appointment marks a significant milestone, not only for House District 6 but for the generations who have fought for a voice in decisions that shape our future,” Charley said in a statement. “Martha’s commitment to justice, equity, and the well-being of our people will serve as a guiding light in the legislature. I look forward to working alongside her to uplift our small towns and tribal communities in western New Mexico and protect the values we hold dear.”
Photo of Ms. Garcia via the Cibola County Commission website archive.
Garcia, known for her progressive stance on key issues, did not respond to voicemails requesting comment on Wednesday, according to reports.
Before Garcia’s selection, governing boards in Cibola and McKinley counties had nominated two other candidates for the seat, but residency investigations found one of them ineligible. The governor chose Garcia over former Rep. Harry Garcia and former state Sen. Clemente Sanchez after a charade attempting to deem Rep. Garcia ineligible. He is a more moderate Democrat versus the progressive Ms. Garcia.
Garcia’s swearing-in ceremony is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, officially marking the beginning of her tenure in the New Mexico House of Representatives.
The New Mexico House of Representatives has approved a state budget proposal valued at $10.8 billion—an amount that, if enacted, would mark the largest in state history with nearly a 6% increase over last year’s record spending. While proponents argue that the budget is designed to invest in key priorities, critics say it represents a bloated and fiscally irresponsible expansion.
According to House Appropriations and Finance Committee Chair Rep. Nathan Small (D-Las Cruces), the proposal builds on the Legislative Finance Committee’s recommendations by adding significant, recurring investments in areas such as education, public safety, economic development, and water protection.
“I think we can all agree that those are key priorities for all New Mexicans,” Small stated during a news conference ahead of the hearing. He maintained that these investments would have an “immediate impact for New Mexicans and set us up for sustainable growth in the long run.”
Under the plan, the Public Education Department would see a 6% funding bump, while Higher Education would gain nearly 3%, and Early Childhood Education and Care would receive an over 21% increase. The state remains the worst in the country in terms of higher education despite massive funding bumps to education budgets.
Other departments—such as the new Health Care Authority and the Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department—are slated for double-digit growth. Furthermore, public safety, corrections, and legal services are among the areas set to receive recurring increases, and state employees could expect an average raise of 4%.
Yet behind the fanfare of “transparent and collaborative” budget-making—Small even hailed it as “the most open, transparent and collaborative budget ever” and emphasized that “if you’re a rancher in Raton, this budget’s for you. If you’re a 6th grade student at Seboyeta Elementary, this budget’s for you. If you’re worried about affordability and access to health care in Albuquerque and any other part of the state, this budget’s for you”—there is a growing outcry over the sheer magnitude and scope of the spending.
A GOP substitute, introduced by Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R-Carlsbad), sought to pare back the proposal by cutting $1.5 billion in what she called “low-priority” one-time spending. Her version aimed to bolster state reserves further and redirect record oil and gas revenues directly to residents in the form of $600 payments. However, Democrats quickly criticized her plan for slashing investments in climate change and free housing for vagrants, among others.
Despite the contentious debate, the House approved the budget by a vote of 50 to 18, with the proposal now moving to the Senate and eventually to Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham for potential line-item vetoes.
Adding to the chorus of fiscal alarm, Rep. John Block (R-Alamogordo) and Piñon Post editor took to Twitter to lambaste the budget, including its over $31.2 million allocated for climate change, $3.5 million for American beavers, over $600,000 for illegal alien programs on state college campuses, $35 million for paid family and medical leave funding, and more. His tweet read:
Terrible, fiscally irresponsible budget passes the NM House by a vote of 50-18, which includes: ❌$266M for "culturally competent healthcare," shots, government-funded contraceptives, and vague "behavioral health" initiatives ❌$35M for job-crushing "paid leave" programs ❌$31.2M… pic.twitter.com/6mlSg5QCCn
Critics argue that the lavish spending priorities, including what they describe as extraneous allocations for “culturally competent healthcare” and unconventional items like conserving the American beaver, reveal a troubling disregard for fiscal restraint. While advocates insist that these investments are critical to New Mexico’s future, opponents see the budget as an unnecessary and unsustainable expansion of state expenditures—one that places excessive burdens on taxpayers in the name of “progress.”
At a high-profile White House gathering of state leaders, President Donald Trump made his policy positions unmistakably clear. Among those in attendance was far-left Democrat New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham—a governor whose state relies heavily on federal funding and now faces a stark choice. New Mexico, one of the nation’s most federally dependent states, could see billions in federal aid vanish if it dares to defy Trump’s directives.
During the meeting of the National Governors Association, Trump reiterated his readiness to cut off federal dollars from any state that does not toe the line. This firm stance echoes the earlier showdown with Maine’s Gov. Janet Mills, who vowed to take legal action if federal funding were withheld. “Any time a public interaction like that takes place, it’s coming from a person who’s grounded in their values,” noted Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer—a sentiment that underscores the high stakes for states whose budgets are intricately tied to federal support.
Governor Lujan Grisham’s presence was a clear reminder that New Mexico’s financial well-being is on the line. Federal funds account for a substantial portion of the state’s annual budget, and analysts warn that any move to buck Trump’s policies could trigger cuts amounting to billions of dollars. For a state that depends on this support for critical services and infrastructure, such a loss would be devastating.
Throughout the discussions, some state leaders attempted to find common ground. Yet, the underlying message was unambiguous: challenging the Trump administration’s policies is not without serious consequences. “I got to put the people’s interests before my own interests, before my partisan interest. I got a job to do,” one governor declared, highlighting the heavy burden of leadership when federal dollars are at stake.
Supporters of President Trump argue that his decisive actions are necessary to maintain accountability and fiscal discipline across the country. In their view, Trump’s tough stance is not an overreach but a vital measure to ensure that states remain aligned with national priorities.
For New Mexico, this means that Lujan Grisham must carefully weigh her policy choices. A refusal to cooperate could result in severe financial repercussions that would undermine state programs and services relied on by millions of New Mexicans.
In a political landscape where partisan idealism sometimes overshadows practical governance, the decision facing Lujan Grisham is clear. Aligning with Trump’s policies could secure New Mexico’s continued flow of federal support, while defiance may not only isolate the state from critical funding but also set a dangerous precedent for other Democrat-led states. With New Mexico’s fiscal future at a crossroads, the stakes could not be higher.
A legislative update from Piñon Post founder and editor and state Rep. John Block (R-Alamogordo). John gives a weekly update during the legislative session. If you don’t already get the update, you can get it here or by subscribing on the website JohnForNM.com.
This was one of the busiest weeks I’ve ever seen at the Roundhouse so far, and here’s what happened:
Committees
In the House Government, Elections, and Indian Affairs Committee (HGEIC) this week, we heard many bills and resolutions, such as H.J.R. 11 (to remove the anti-donation clause), which I voted against because it had absolutely no guardrails and would directly fund with our tax dollars “nonprofits” that could funnel cash into all sorts of nefarious places.
We also heard in HGEIC a bill, H.B. 228, that would mandate that municipalities do not change the rules on businesses mid-way through the project when constructing electric fences for security reasons, which I voted for. We also passed H.B. 208, of which I am a cosponsor, to allow voter registrations for hunting and fishing licenses.
In HGEIC on Friday, I voted against a bill that would push a so-called “circular economy” in the state, which had unknown benchmarks and mandates for such policies that would run through the New Mexico Environment Department. Also, that day, we passed a very good bill, which I am cosponsoring, H.B. 293, to eliminate state taxes on seniors’ social security payments.
On Tuesday in the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee (HCPAC), I advocated and voted against H.B. 9, which would ban the county from helping detain criminal aliens in our Otero County Processing Center, which would kill over 250 jobs and make our county lose millions. That day, we also passed a good bill, which I am cosponsoring, H.B. 287, adding text message and social media message threats to existing statutes that only allow using a telephone to make threats as prosecutable.
On Thursday, in that same committee, surprisingly, we were able to kill a horrible bill, H.B. 247, on a tied 3-3 vote that would have bureaucratized health care and confused patients with insane disclosure laws for doctors who are not osteopathic doctors or medical doctors. I also voted against H.B. 339, which would have expanded the state’s “Human Rights Act” to include “discriminating” against renters who use Section 8 vouchers and other government handouts.
On Saturday in HCPAC, we had a slew of terrible bills that I voted against, including H.B. 442, which would create “rent stabilization,” also known as rent control, to socialize the housing market, as has happened in New York City and San Francisco. Another bad bill I voted against was H.B. 418, which is shoddily written and attacks landlords by forcing 24-month time frames on mobile home renters’ leases while also punishing landlords with hefty fines if they could be found in non-compliance with the narrow and restrictive language of the bill.
Floor Sessions
On the floor Monday, I debated for nearly three hours a terrible bill, H.B. 6, which forces “prevailing wages” on all industrial revenue bond-assisted projects — crushing economic development across our state, resulting in fewer jobs and fewer projects. I offered two amendments to the bill to 1) exempt small businesses and 2) exempt projects that can prove other states with the same incentives but no “prevailing wage” mandates would be better climates for such projects. Both of these amendments were tabled on party-line votes.
Busy afternoon/evening on the NM House floor where I debated the horrible HB6 (forces “prevailing wage” on industrial revenue bond—IRB—projects and harms economic development) I offered amendments to 1) exempt small businesses and 2) exempt those businesses looking at locating in… pic.twitter.com/oGsPdIi5RX
During Tuesday’s floor session, I heavily debated horrible bills, including one (H.B. 26) that would allow just about anyone to be arrested for “ticket scalping” — even if just selling one ticket for just $1 more than one paid for it — which would end up with countless people thrown in jail under the bill’s changes to state statute.
On Wednesday, during the floor session, I voted against legislation that would penalize businesses, including H.B. 49, forcing all establishments everywhere to mandate televisions have closed captions on at all times.
On Thursday, I heavily debated a horrible bill, S.B. 3, to give an unknown amount of money to “behavioral health” programs, which is part of a terrible package of other bills to spend around $1 billion on such programs, which could include transgender surgeries, “gun violence prevention,” “climate change,” and “free” (government-funded) houses for drug addicts.
Thanks to @Lord4NM for working so hard on the House floor today with me and a few other GOP members to debate a horrible bill, SB 3, which would create a bloated executive board to oversee $200M to $1B in unnamed, unspecified funds going to “behavioral health.” THE SWAMP IS DEEP… pic.twitter.com/0x2hV0ElZl
Friday’s floor session included the companion bill to the horrible S.B. 3, S.B. 1, which myself, Rep. Stefani Lord (R-Sandia Park), and a couple of others debated. Rep. Lord has been a steadfast patriot and a champion for the people who actually does the work of reading bills and debating them heavily to ensure the public knows what is in them, as I do.
We also heard H.B. 56, relating to Medicaid reimbursements for “birthing centers,” which didn’t mention the word “woman” once, instead foregoing it for the term “pregnant people.” I voted against it.
During the floor session on Saturday, we had a concurrence vote on H.B. 8, the Democrats’ weak “crime package” that will not fight crime.
We also passed a bill I am so honored to cosponsor, H.B. 36, to improve access to care by allowing optometrists to perform minor outpatient procedures in their offices, which was a huge step toward de-bureaucratizing health care in the state.
Woohoo! A GREAT bill I’m incredibly proud to be a primary sponsor of to create access and equality among optometrists to perform important minor procedures passes the House! pic.twitter.com/Eo8Fx0a0uM
This was the last week to file legislation, so all my legislation for the session is filed and can be accessed here.
The week ahead will be very eventful in my committees, with lots of bad bills scheduled for the upcoming week.
To see all committee schedules for all committees, click here.
It is an honor to represent Alamogordo in the Legislature and fight with every fiber of my being to protect our Constitutional rights. You can always count on me to stand with our shared conservative American values.
God bless you, John
Rep. John Block NM House District 51 Republican, Otero County
In Sunland Park, New Mexico, a quiet stretch of the U.S.-Mexico border saw just one migrant crossing illegally in a span of four hours. The lone individual, a 23-year-old Mexican national named Jovani, was met by six federal agents who informed him he would be sent back to Mexico the same day, according to a report by the New York Post. This shows the border policies under President Donald Trump are working — and at a rapid pace.
The El Paso sector, which spans western Texas and New Mexico, has experienced a significant drop in illegal crossings, with fewer than 100 migrants being caught each day. This marks a sharp decline from the peak of 1,800 per day in 2023 and even a substantial reduction from the 277 apprehended daily in December. Across the entire southern border, the average number of daily apprehensions at the beginning of the month stood at 359, positioning the U.S. for what could be the lowest monthly illegal border crossings in over 25 years, according to leaked Customs and Border Protection data.
Border Patrol agent Orlando Marrero-Rubio emphasized the efficiency of current border enforcement, stating, “It doesn’t matter if it took you 30 days, 40 days, 60 days to make that illegal crossing, we’ll expedite removal and have you in your country of origin within hours.” Jovani, who had attempted to evade authorities by running through the rugged desert terrain after scaling the border wall, revealed that it was his second attempt to cross into the U.S. He had paid $7,000 to cartel-affiliated smugglers, commonly referred to as “coyotes,” to facilitate his journey.
Jovani, visibly disheartened, showed the wounds on his hands from descending the border wall. “I’m very sad because I couldn’t cross because I couldn’t get to where I wanted to go,” he admitted. “I’m worried about deportations because this is my second time crossing.”
According to Marrero-Rubio, Jovani’s grievances are common among many migrants. However, unlike under the previous administration’s “catch and release” policy, where migrants would often turn themselves in knowing they would likely be released with an immigration court date, the current enforcement approach has led to increased attempts to cross undetected.
Under the Biden administration, Border Patrol agents were frequently occupied processing migrants rather than patrolling the border. Now, with the return of Trump-era policies, agents are back in full force, directly securing the border.
Border Patrol sources have described their past duties as resembling “babysitting,” as they often had to process individuals with criminal backgrounds, gang affiliations, or even terrorist connections, many of whom were subsequently released into the U.S. Now, with heightened enforcement, additional troops deployed, and the “catch and release” policy rescinded, agents feel a renewed sense of purpose. “It’s a relief for our agents, they don’t feel overwhelmed,” said Marrero-Rubio.
Two years ago, agents in the El Paso sector were detaining around 2,500 migrants daily. In recent weeks, that number has fallen to fewer than 100 per day. With more personnel and time available, Border Patrol and the military have worked to regain control of areas once dominated by cartel smugglers, such as Mount Cristo Rey in Sunland Park. The mountain, crowned with a towering statue of Jesus on the Cross, was previously a haven for smugglers who would evade capture by hiding in the rocky terrain and even assaulting agents with stones. The situation was similar just miles away, where hundreds of migrants had overwhelmed the border and clashed with authorities.
Today, that once-chaotic area is largely silent, reinforced with additional razor wire and patrols, including state law enforcement sent by Texas Governor Greg Abbott. Border Patrol agent Claudio Herrera noted the shift in operations, stating, “Right now, with everything working out towards our favor, now we have more agents on the line doing what they’re assigned to do and looking out for making those apprehensions instead of processing.”
On Tuesday, the all-Democrat New Mexico Supreme Court issued a statement reaffirming its commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) within the judicial system. The Court framed its stance as a necessity for upholding justice, citing its duty to “eliminate barriers” and ensure “equal access” for all individuals, regardless of race, gender, or other demographic factors. While these ideals may sound noble, the actual implementation of DEI initiatives has proven to be deeply flawed, often undermining the very principles of equal justice and meritocracy that courts should uphold.
DEI: A Shift Away From Equal Justice
The core principle of the American legal system is that justice should be blind—meaning that every individual, regardless of their background, should be treated equally under the law. However, DEI inherently prioritizes group identity over individual merit. By emphasizing race, gender, and other identity markers in decision-making, DEI initiatives risk replacing the ideal of impartial justice with an ideological agenda.
For instance, the Supreme Court of New Mexico’s emphasis on inclusivity efforts directly conflicts with the core principle engraved above their own courtroom: “Equal Justice Under Law.” True equality before the law requires neutrality, not policies that introduce preferential treatment under the guise of “equity.”
Unintended Consequences: Lowering Standards and Promoting Division
One major flaw of DEI programs in the legal system is their impact on professional and educational standards. DEI-driven hiring and promotion policies in law schools, courts, and judicial appointments have been criticized for lowering qualifications in favor of demographic representation rather than competency. This diminishes public trust in the system and creates an environment where judges and legal professionals are perceived as political appointees rather than objective arbiters of the law.
Furthermore, DEI programs often foster resentment and division rather than unity. By continually emphasizing group identity over shared legal principles, such programs risk deepening societal fractures rather than healing them. Multiple studies have shown that workplaces and institutions with aggressive DEI policies often experience greater racial tension, as people are categorized based on identity rather than shared goals or common values.
Legal and Ethical Concerns: DEI vs. Federal Law
Additionally, some DEI mandates may directly conflict with federal anti-discrimination laws. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits discrimination based on race or gender in employment and education. Yet many DEI-driven policies—including hiring quotas, admissions preferences, and mandatory diversity training—operate in a way that explicitly prioritizes race and gender, often at the expense of others. This raises serious constitutional concerns and has led to increasing legal challenges against DEI programs nationwide.
Conclusion: A Dangerous Precedent in the Judiciary
While the New Mexico Supreme Court frames DEI as a tool for fairness, it is ultimately a departure from the foundational principles of American law. Instead of ensuring equal justice, DEI initiatives insert ideology into the judicial system, threatening fairness, public trust, and legal neutrality. If true equality is the goal, the judiciary should reject identity-based policies and uphold merit, fairness, and impartiality—values that are rapidly being eroded under the guise of “inclusion.”
