Following a tragic mass shooting at Young Park in Las Cruces, where three individuals were killed and 15 others injured, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham expressed deep frustration over the limited public safety legislation passed during the recent 60-day legislative session.
In a press conference held in the Cabinet Room, Governor Lujan Grisham highlighted that only a small fraction of the 270 bills addressing crime and public safety reached her desk, stating, “I cannot ignore that we failed to adequately address the public safety crisis in our state.”
The governor emphasized the absence of productive debates on juvenile crime, noting that even a “weakened, watered-down juvenile crime approach” failed to pass in the Senate.
Despite holding numerous town halls across New Mexico to gather public input on crime concerns, Lujan Grisham expressed bewilderment at lawmakers’ reluctance to act, asserting that “accountability is missing in New Mexico and has been for quite some time.”
While acknowledging the passage of a minor crime package and several “behavioral health” reforms, the governor recalled a previous commitment from lawmakers to do more, suggesting that the session’s outcomes did not align with that promise.
Lujan Grisham criticized certain legislative committees for hindering progress on public safety bills, referencing statements from committee chairs about intentionally delaying these bills.
The recent shooting in Las Cruces, involving multiple shooters and resulting in numerous casualties, has intensified discussions on gun violence and crime within the state.
In response, Governor Lujan Grisham is considering convening a special legislative session to address these pressing public safety issues, emphasizing the need for input from district attorneys, law enforcement, and affected families. This would inevitably include more gun grabs, which would be a detriment to the state’s citizens.
Republican leaders have expressed support for a special session focused on crime and healthcare. However, House Speaker Javier Martínez cautioned that such sessions require substantial preparatory work to be effective, stating that rushing into a special session without adequate preparation could be “a waste of taxpayer dollars, and quite frankly, it’s a waste of people’s time.”
Senate Majority Leader Peter Wirth echoed this sentiment, emphasizing that “special sessions don’t work if the bills aren’t cooked.”
There is concern among some that under the guise of addressing crime, the governor may attempt to introduce measures that could infringe upon the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Proposals such as the “Gas-Operated Semiautomatic Firearms Exclusion Act” have been introduced in the past, aiming to prohibit the importation, sale, manufacture, transfer, receipt, or possession of certain gas-operated semiautomatic firearms and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.
Additionally, there have been discussions about holding the firearms industry accountable through litigation related to “unfair trade practices,” a concept that faced challenges in the previous legislative session.
On Tuesday, the New Mexico State Capitol’s Rotunda became the epicenter of a contentious confrontation during what was ostensibly a pro-Palestinian rally. The event took a confrontational turn after state Reps. Stefani Lord (R-Sandia Park) and John Block (R-Alamogordo), both of whom have Jewish heritage, passed through the Rotunda, where protesters got violent.
The rally aimed to attack Israel and its supporters. However, the atmosphere shifted dramatically upon the arrival of Reps. Lord and Block. Their presence was met with immediate hostility from attendees, leading to a series of heated exchanges.
Eyewitnesses reported that the legislators were subjected to verbal assaults, with accusations labeling them as antagonists. Jonathan Juárez, a participant, claimed that Rep. Lord was “antagonizing people, saying that they’re Hamas supporters.” That came despite Hamas flags and clothing spotted in the audience, per photos and videos of the event.
The situation escalated as demonstrators surrounded the representatives, prompting security personnel and New Mexico State Police officers to intervene. It included one woman who attempted to lay her hands on Rep. Lord while two other aggressors violently screamed at the two representatives.
If you are yelling F* ICE and F* THE POLICE, you're in the roundhouse wearing terrorist garb, or you are carrying disparaging signs inside, I'm going to call you out, just like I would if white supremacists were there acting stupid. I won't put up with this garbage in the state… pic.twitter.com/jeKasA42j7
As tensions mounted, demonstrators continued to hurl profanities and accusations at the representatives.
In response to the hostility faced, Rep. Block lamented the lack of tolerance exhibited by the demonstrators, stating, “It’s just horrible that there are people that want to erase our people, especially in this state where they claim to be so tolerant.” This sentiment reflects a broader concern about the erosion of civil discourse and respect for diverse perspectives.
Notably, during the confrontation, the speaker at the podium addressed the crowd, asking, “Does anybody in this room hate Jewish people?”
Following the incident, both representatives reported feeling threatened and highlighted the presence of what they described as “terrorist propaganda,” including a “makeshift bomb” and “terrorist outfits.” Rep. Lord expressed profound indignation, stating, “This was so uncalled for I can’t even begin to tell you how infuriating, and how insulting, and how demeaning this is to anyone who has any Jewish blood in them.”
House Speaker Javier Martínez (D-Albuquerque) addressed the incident, condemning any form of intimidation or threats of violence. He expressed regret over the occurrence, stating, “I was not aware of that, and I’m very sorry that that happened.” This acknowledgment underscores the necessity for maintaining a safe and respectful environment within the Capitol.
Further criticism arose from Sen. Craig Brandt (R-Rio Rancho), a staunch supporter of Israel, who questioned the appropriateness of allowing such an event within the Capitol. He highlighted the fear experienced by Jewish employees, stating, “We have employees that are Jewish that were hiding down here on the first floor because they were afraid to go on the second floor.” This revelation points to a broader issue of ensuring the safety and well-being of all individuals within public institutions.
Senate President Pro Tempore Mimi Stewart (D-Albuquerque) echoed these concerns, noting that “two people were arrested [and] several others were removed from the Capitol,” based on information from the director of the Legislative Council Service. This indicates that the event not only violated Capitol protocols but also posed security challenges.
New Mexico State Police spokesperson Wilson Silver confirmed that an attendee, Elliot Shawn Vigil, was removed for trespassing and subsequently arrested for violating the order not to return. This incident underscores the challenges faced by law enforcement in maintaining order during such events.
A video of the protester being arrested is below:
One of the violent pro-Hamas agitators, reported to be Elliot Shawn Vigil, was arrested yesterday after following @Lord4NM and I, hurling racial slurs at us, and being removed from the Capitol for trespassing, then refusing to obey law enforcement directives to not return. pic.twitter.com/XJqmY3ZmSx
The events that unfolded during the pro-Palestinian rally at the New Mexico State Capitol Rotunda reflect a concerning trend of intolerance and hostility toward differing viewpoints. The aggressive actions directed at Representatives Stefani Lord and John Block, both of Jewish heritage, raise serious questions about the true intent of the rally and the respect for democratic principles within public discourse.
House Bill 12 (HB 12), recently passed by the New Mexico Senate, proposes significant amendments to the state’s “Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Order Act,” commonly known as the red flag law.
While the bill aims to enhance public safety by allowing law enforcement officers to directly petition for firearm seizures and mandating immediate relinquishment upon a judge’s order, it raises substantial constitutional concerns, particularly regarding due process under the Second Amendment.
A critical issue with HB 12 is its provision for the immediate confiscation of firearms upon the issuance of an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO), without affording the respondent a prior hearing. This approach effectively permits the deprivation of an individual’s Second Amendment rights without due process, as the individual is not given an opportunity to contest the allegations before their firearms are seized.
This procedure stands in stark contrast to the principles outlined in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Rahimi (2024), which prohibits disarmament without a hearing before the firearms are seized.
HB 12’s mandate for immediate firearm relinquishment upon service of an ERPO, without a prior hearing or judicial determination of a credible threat, conflicts with the due process requirements underscored in the Rahimi decision. The bill violates the constitutional guarantee of due process by allowing firearms to be seized based solely on an ex parte order—where the respondent has no opportunity to present their case.
Moreover, empowering law enforcement officers to initiate these petitions based on information gathered during their official duties raises additional concerns.
While purportedly intended to streamline the process, this provision could lead to potential abuses of power and the infringement of individual rights without adequate judicial oversight.
The bill now heads to Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s desk for a signature.
House Bill 11 (HB 11), known as the Paid Family and Medical Leave Act, recently faced a significant setback in the New Mexico Legislature. The anti-business bill, designed to establish a state-administered paid family and medical leave program, was defeated in the Senate Finance Committee with an 8-3 vote, with only three Democrats supporting the measure. This outcome has sparked discussions about the bill’s potential implications, particularly concerning its impact on small businesses.
HB 11 aimed to provide New Mexico workers with paid leave benefits:
Family Wellness Leave: This provision proposed up to six weeks of paid leave for circumstances such as serious health conditions, acting as a family caregiver, bereavement, military exigencies, or situations involving domestic violence, stalking, sexual assault, or abuse. Funding was to come from contributions by both employees and employers, with workers contributing 0.2% of their income and employers with five or more employees contributing 0.15% of wages. For an employee earning $1,000, this would translate to a $2 contribution from the employee and a $1.50 contribution from the employer.
The defeat of HB 11 has been met with relief by many in the business community, particularly among small business owners who viewed the bill as potentially detrimental to their operations. The primary concerns centered around the financial and operational burdens the legislation would impose:
Financial Strain: The mandated contributions were seen as an additional tax on both employers and employees. Small businesses, often operating on thin profit margins, feared that these extra costs could lead to increased prices for consumers, reduced employee benefits, or even layoffs.
Operational Challenges: Replacing employees on extended leave poses significant challenges, especially for small businesses with limited staff. The potential difficulty in finding qualified temporary replacements could disrupt operations, reduce productivity, and negatively impact customer satisfaction.
The journey of HB 11 through the legislative process was marked by intense debates and closely contested votes. The House Commerce and Economic Development Committee approved a substitute version of the bill on February 20, 2025, with a narrow 6-5 vote. Despite adjustments to address financial impact concerns, the bill faced opposition from various business groups. Terri Cole, executive director of the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce, argued that the bill imposed a tax increase on both employers and workers. Tom Patterson from the New Mexico Cattle Grower’s Association highlighted challenges specific to rural areas, noting that the assumption of readily available qualified labor to cover for employees on leave does not hold true in rural New Mexico.
A proposal to hike New Mexico’s liquor taxes in an effort to curb problem drinking has hit a significant roadblock, as opposition to the measure continues to mount. While advocates of the tax increase remain persistent, the controversial proposal faces significant hurdles in the Legislature.
House Bill 417, which would impose a new surtax on the sale of beer, wine, and spirits, stalled in the House Taxation and Revenue Committee on Monday after a deadlocked vote. Despite this, one of the bill’s sponsors, Rep. Cristina Parajón, D-Albuquerque, insists the fight isn’t over.
“We still have two weeks left in the session,” Parajón told the Journal, emphasizing that other alcohol-related bills are still in play. She also argued that young people in New Mexico would be especially deterred by increased alcohol prices, a claim that opponents strongly dispute.
However, the New Mexico Restaurant Association, along with numerous small businesses, has voiced serious concerns over the proposed tax hike, arguing that it would place an undue burden on both consumers and business owners. Given this strong opposition, backers of the tax increase attempted to modify the bill ahead of Monday’s hearing. The revised version proposed a 3% surtax on alcoholic beverages sold and consumed on-site at restaurants and breweries, while a 6% surtax would apply to all other alcohol sales. This would come on top of the existing state and local liquor taxes, further increasing costs for consumers.
Critics warn that such a measure would be difficult for retailers to implement and would drive up the price of alcohol at a time when New Mexico is already benefiting from significant oil revenue. With the state in a strong financial position, many argue that now is not the time to impose additional taxes that will hurt local businesses and working-class consumers.
Two key Democrats, Reps. Patricia Lundstrom of Gallup and Doreen Gallegos of Las Cruces joined Republicans in blocking the measure. Lundstrom, a former chair of the House budget committee, pointed to McKinley County’s existing 5% local liquor excise tax and questioned the lack of clarity on how much revenue the new proposal would generate.
“I don’t think a bill should be considered at this point if we don’t know how much money it is going to raise,” Lundstrom said.
Despite McKinley County being the only county that has additional taxes on alcohol, it remains the county with the highest alcohol-related fatalities, per the New Mexico Department of Health.
Despite claims by the sponsors that the tax hike is necessary to address New Mexico’s high rate of alcohol-related deaths, data from the state Department of Health shows that the total number of such deaths has actually decreased for two consecutive years, dropping from 2,274 in 2021 to 1,896 in 2023. This raises questions about whether increasing taxes on alcohol is truly the most effective approach to addressing the issue.
Supporters of the tax hike cite a University of New Mexico study suggesting that a 25-cent per drink tax increase could reduce alcohol consumption by 1.7% and generate $132 million in revenue.
Actually, the UNM study referenced notes, “A hypothetical ten-cent per-gallon increase in beer excise taxes could reduce 2.84 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in New Mexico each year,” showing statistically insignificant findings that such a tax would do anything at all or even save a single life.
“Despite recent increases in the total number of liquor licenses, there has not been a statistically significant increase in alcohol-related traffic fatalities at the state-wide level,” the study also found.
Since 1981, New Mexico’s alcohol-related death rate has ranked among the top three in the United States, holding the first position from 1997 through 2010. Despite massive increases in alcohol taxes and the creation of programs in 1993, New Mexico’s alcohol-related death rate increased from 39.3 deaths per 100,000 in 1994 to 86.6 in 2020, despite these programs, according to the New Mexico Department of Health.
Also, “New Mexico has one of the higher liquor excise tax rates in the region,” and despite its high tax rate, it has the highest fatality rate relating to alcohol, meaning there is absotuly no correlation whatsoever between increased taxes and fewer alcohol harms, per the Legislative Finance Committee’s fiscal impact report (FIR) on another bill.
Statistics and peer-reviewed studies show that a tax increase will disproportionately impact responsible consumers while failing to adequately address problem drinking.
The same FIR noted, “Excise taxes are generally considered regressive, meaning lower-income individuals pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes. Eliminating the tax would reduce overall regressivity in the tax code.”
“This is one of the most important policies that we can do for public health,” Parajón said, pointing to Maryland’s 2011 alcohol tax increase as a precedent. But critics remain skeptical, questioning whether higher prices will truly deter excessive drinking or simply push consumers to purchase alcohol from out-of-state sources.
Multiple natuonal studies also find that alcohol tax hikes do nothing to curb alcohol-related fatalities and harms, including “Does Heavy Drinking by Adults Respond to Higher Alcohol Prices and Taxes? A Survey and Assessment” by Jon P. Nelson in Economy Analysis and Policy, The Effects of Prices on Alcohol Use and its Consequences by Xin Xu and Frank J Chaloupk published by the National Insitutes of Health (NIH), among many others.
With growing bipartisan opposition, House Bill 417 appears unlikely to advance, and for good reason. Raising taxes on alcohol would hit consumers and businesses hard while offering no guarantee of reducing alcohol-related harm in any way, shape, or form.
Rather than imposing another financial burden on New Mexicans, lawmakers should focus on targeted prevention and treatment programs that address the root causes of problem drinking without penalizing responsible consumers. Piñon Post editor and state Rep. John Block (R-Alamogordo) proposed H.B. 460, which would have removed these ineffective alcohol taxes from state statutes. The bill was quickly tabled in the House Health and Human Services Committee on a party-line vote — a committee comprising many of H.B. 417’s sponsors and proponents.
Despite President Donald Trump’s decisive actions to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs—deemed by many as discriminatory and wasteful—a New Mexico state Senate committee has advanced Senate Bill 356 (SB 356), known as the “Diversity Act.” This bill proposes the creation of DEI-focused positions within the State Personnel Office and other agencies.
On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14151, titled “Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing,” directing federal departments to abolish DEI initiatives and prioritize merit-based employment decisions. This move aligns with the administration’s commitment to ensuring that federal decisions are based on performance and merit, revoking DEI considerations.
In contrast, SB 356 seeks to introduce a “chief diversity officer” in New Mexico’s State Personnel Office to lead DEI initiatives, including training, outreach, and regular evaluations of state agencies. Each state agency would also appoint a “diversity and inclusion liaison” to collaborate on these efforts. The bill allocates $250,000 to implement these changes.
Supporters, like co-sponsor Sen. Antoinette Sedillo Lopez (D-Albuquerque), argue that the bill promotes representation within state government, reflecting the state’s diverse taxpayer base.
However, opponents, such as Sen. Larry Scott (R-Hobbs), highlight the federal shift away from DEI programs, suggesting that the bill is untimely and that the focus should return to merit-based employment decisions.
President Trump’s administration maintains that DEI programs lead to unlawful discrimination by prioritizing inherent characteristics over individual capabilities. The President’s executive orders aim to eliminate such practices, reinforcing a commitment to equal opportunity based on merit.
As SB 356 progresses to the Senate Finance Committee, it faces scrutiny from those advocating for merit-based policies and concerns about potential conflicts with federal directives. The debate continues over the balance between promoting “diversity” and ensuring equal opportunity without resorting to discriminatory practices.
In a move that has sparked outrage among law enforcement, crime victims, and New Mexico residents, House Democrats in the state legislature voted on Saturday to pass House Bill 255 (HB 255), a controversial measure that includes a provision to give violent juvenile offenders up to $2,000 per month in taxpayer-funded stipends. At the same time, Democratic lawmakers killed House Bill 134 (HB 134), a bipartisan effort aimed at holding violent juvenile offenders accountable for their crimes.
HB 255, sponsored by Rep. Elizabeth “Liz” Thomson (D-Albuquerque), was marketed as an update to New Mexico’s juvenile justice system, but a closer look at the legislation reveals that it is more about financial handouts than meaningful reform. Buried within the bill is a three-year pilot program that grants substantial monthly stipends to former foster children and those previously incarcerated under the Delinquency Act, including individuals who committed violent crimes such as manslaughter and aggravated assault. The program, which has been dubbed the “Homicide Scholarship” by critics, notably Rep. Rod Montoya (R-Farmingon), will be administered by the Higher Education Department and is expected to cost taxpayers millions of dollars.
The bill also renames the Juvenile Community Corrections Act to the Juvenile Community Connections Act and increases grant funding for juvenile delinquency programs while lengthening supervised release for youthful offenders. However, the most controversial aspect remains the stipend program, which critics argue incentivizes criminal behavior rather than deterring it.
Democrats Kill Effort to Hold Juvenile Offenders Accountable
While HB 255 sailed through the House, the same group of Democratic lawmakers on the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee (CPAC) voted to table HB 134, effectively killing the bill. HB 134, introduced by a bipartisan coalition including Reps. Cynthia Borrego (D-Albuquerque), Art De La Cruz (D-Albuquerque), Nicole Chavez (R-Albuquerque), and Andrea Reeb (R-Clovis) sought to modernize New Mexico’s outdated juvenile justice laws. The bill aimed to ensure that minors who commit violent crimes, including first-degree murder, face meaningful consequences.
Currently, New Mexico law allows juveniles who commit even the most heinous crimes to be released by their 18th or 21st birthdays, regardless of the severity of their offenses. HB 134 would have revised the state’s 1970s-era juvenile code to allow for greater flexibility in sentencing and to include 14-year-olds charged with first-degree murder in the “youthful offender” category, making them eligible for adult sentencing.
Despite broad support from law enforcement officials and Democrat Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman, HB 134 was tabled by CPAC on a 4-2 party-line vote, with Reps. Joanne Ferrary (D-Las Cruces), Angelica Rubio (D-Las Cruces), Andrea Romero (D-Santa Fe), and Liz Thomson (D-Albuquerque) voting to kill the measure.
A Growing Public Safety Crisis
The decision to advance HB 255 while killing HB 134 comes amid a rising wave of juvenile crime in New Mexico. The Bernalillo County Juvenile Detention Center is already at capacity, housing 57 male juveniles and five females, with law enforcement officials warning that violent crime among minors is escalating. “We are experiencing a crisis among our youth, and unfortunately, this is not just a Bernalillo County issue,” said Bernalillo Deputy County Manager of Public Safety Greg Perez.
Many in the law enforcement community see HB 255 as a slap in the face to crime victims and a step in the wrong direction. “Tabling this bill—and basically not doing anything to address juvenile crime in the Legislature—sends a clear message that a lot of legislators don’t feel the same way I do, working in the trenches every day, in how big a problem it is,” said DA Sam Bregman.
The move also comes after failed attempts to strengthen penalties for fentanyl traffickers, as House Democrats similarly voted down HB 274, which would have imposed harsher sentences on major drug traffickers responsible for fueling the opioid epidemic.
Public Backlash and Calls for Accountability
As crime rates continue to rise and repeat offenders remain on the streets, New Mexico residents are growing increasingly frustrated with their lawmakers’ refusal to act. Crime victims and law enforcement officials have taken to social media to voice their anger over HB 255’s passage and HB 134’s demise.
“New Mexicans are being killed and maimed by teenagers who face no serious consequences. Lawmakers who endorse this hands-off approach to youth crime are complicit in these offenses,” wrote ABQ Raw in a scathing editorial.
Meanwhile, critics of HB 255 argue that providing thousands of dollars in taxpayer-funded stipends to violent criminals under the guise of rehabilitation is not the answer to New Mexico’s crime crisis. “Perhaps these legislators should sign up for shifts at their local juvenile detention centers and see firsthand how violent these offenders can be,” ABQ Raw suggested.
As the legislative session nears its end, many are left wondering whether public safety will ever be a priority for the current leadership in Santa Fe. With Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham calling for juvenile justice reform, the battle over crime legislation in New Mexico is far from over.
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.
