Andrea Romero

NM House narrowly passes one of governor’s extreme anti-gun bills

On Friday, the New Mexico House of Representatives narrowly approved unconstitutional anti-gun legislation that mandates a seven-day waiting period for all firearm sales in New Mexico, amid criticism from Republicans who view it as an unnecessary burden on responsible gun owners and ineffective in curbing criminal access to firearms. The passage of House Bill 129 by a vote of 37-33, with dissent from both some Democrats and Republicans, now sends the bill to the Senate for further deliberation.

State Rep. Andrea Romero (D-Santa Fe), the sponsor, claimed the bill would save lives. In contrast, Republican Representative Stefani Lord of Sandia Park, a staunch defender of gun rights, accused proponents of targeting law-abiding citizens instead of focusing on criminals.

The debate went on for three hours — the maximum allowed under the House rules. State Rep. Bill Rehm (R-Albuquerque) employed a procedural tactic known as a “call of the House” to ensure all members were present for the vote, adding urgency to the proceedings.

Originally, the bill proposed a 14-day waiting period, but an amendment introduced by State Rep. Art De La Cruz (D-Albuquerque), reducing it to seven days, narrowly passed by a single vote with Rep. Anthony Allison (D-Fruitland), who voted against the bill on final passage, not voting on the amendment. The bill now includes a provision for a misdemeanor charge for any sale that contravenes the waiting period, with exceptions for transactions between immediate family members, but not for domestic violence situations or for military, veterans, or police officers.

The bill aims to address loopholes in federal legislation by ensuring adequate time for background checks, a measure supported by the bill’s proponents as a means to prevent impulsive acts of violence. Critics, however, argue that it could disadvantage individuals in immediate need of protection, especially in the most rural areas of the state.

The proposal is part of a broader legislative effort from anti-gun Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, with proposals such as the waiting period bill, failing repeatedly throughout her two terms as governor so far. 

NM House narrowly passes one of governor’s extreme anti-gun bills Read More »

Dems drop two new radical anti-gun bills ahead of 2023 Legislature

On Thursday and Friday, Democrats dropped more anti-gun bills to assault New Mexicans’ Second Amendment rights. 

On Thursday, far-left legislators state Rep. Patricia Roybal Caballero (D-Bernalillo) and state Sen. Linda Lopez (D-Bernalillo) dropped H.B. 72, which makes it illegal to “knowingly possess

or transfer a semiautomatic firearm converter,” making the sale of any kind of modification device to enhance usability a fourth-degree felon.

H.B. 72 requests $1.5 million from the state to enforce the extreme anti-gun bill.

Another bill, H.B. 101 by far-left state Rep. Andrea Romero (D-Santa Fe), bans large-capacity magazines “regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm.” It forces anyone owning such magazines to “remove the large-capacity magazine from the state,” “sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer,” or “surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction.” It includes no grandfather clause and would take effect July 1, 2023, if passed. Any violator of the proposed law would be a fourth-degree felon.

Furthermore, anyone who owns any semi-automatic firearm, which Romero dubs an “assault” weapon, would be forced to either “remove the assault weapon from the state,” “render the assault weapon permanently inoperable,” or “surrender the assault weapon to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction.” Like the previous section of the bill, anyone not in compliance will become a fourth-degree felon.

These new anti-gun bills are just the beginning for anti-gun Democrats’ gun-grabbing agenda, which is sure to only increase, with the four already filed bills dropping before the 2023 Legislative Session starting on January 17. It is unclear if more will drop over the weekend or after the legislature goes into session.

All of the bills already proposed have either been stricken down in other states or are ripe for litigation due to their flagrant violation of the Second and Fourth amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as violations against the New Mexico state Constitution. 

Dems drop two new radical anti-gun bills ahead of 2023 Legislature Read More »

NM House Dems pass bill letting pedophiles and rapists out of prison and into communities

On Tuesday night, the New Mexico House of Representatives considered S.B. 114, sponsored by Sen. Bill O’Neill (D-Bernalillo) and Rep. Andrea Romero (D-Santa Fe), which seeks to allow “geriatric” convicts (age 55 or older) out on parole with a plea to the New Mexico Corrections Department. 

According to the fiscal impact report of the bill, “eligible inmates (or their representatives) submit applications for medical and geriatric parole to NMCD, and the department determines whether to recommend the applicant be granted parole under the medical and geriatric parole program.”

The bill would allow pedophiles and rapists to be released from prison on this parole program, which Republican members of the House took issue with.

Rep. Stefani Lord (R-Bernalillo, Sandoval & Santa Fe) rose to the floor to condemn the bill. She said, “What they found in a study in 2008 is that people who are sex offenders have a decreased brain matter, and it results in a compulsive behavior where they are compelled to rape and molest children over and over again. So, when I was doing my research, there was no cure for pedophiles. And there was extremely limited rehabilitation for rapists, and that was if they were in therapy constantly and there is still a high rate of recidivism.”

“And so when I was reading through this, I was thinking, you know, a really good idea would be not to put these sex offenders back out on the street, and that’s because 50% of all rapists have a prior conviction and the typical pedophile will commit 117 sexual crimes in their lifetime. That’s nationwide. In Virginia, they have found for the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission that pedophiles molest an average of 300 children in their lifetime. So, I started thinking about that. Do we really want to release sex offenders back out into a community when the bureau of justice says they are four times more likely to be arrested on another crime?”

“And our oldest pedophile is 101 years old. So, pedophiles and sex offenders don’t quit raping and molesting children,” continued Lord.

Rep. Lord attempted to amend the bill to stop pedophiles and rapists from being released into communities to continue to cause acts of sexual and other violence upon New Mexicans. 

During the debate on the amendment, Lord said, “I don’t think that’s the kind of people we want to release.” She cited a case in New Mexico where a pedophile was released and in one week raped three children. “Sex offenders sex offend their entire life. They don’t suddenly get better.” 

The bill sponsor, Rep. Romero, claimed the amendment was “unfriendly.” 

Rep. Pettigrew said, “We’ve had conversations on this on a multitude of bills as they’ve gone through CPAC (Consumer and Public Affairs Committee), and unfortunately all of them, they seem to be unfriendly when it comes with respect to sex offense and pedophiles and different serial rapists and stuff like that. And it is unfortunate. I agree with your amendment… and I will support it.”  

However, Democrats, led by Rep. Doreen Gallegos (D-Donña Ana), voted to protect pedophiles and table the amendment on a vote of 41-28. The only Democrats who voted against tabling the amendment were Reps. Harry Garcia (D-Bernalillo, Cibola, McKinley, Socorro, San Juan & Valencia), Candie Sweetser (D-Grant, Hidalgo & Luna), and Marian Matthews (D-Bernalillo). 

During debate on an amendment, Democrats snuck into S.B. 114 duplicative language to a bill regarding felon voting rights that looks likely dead in the Senate, H.B. 74. Republicans, including Rep. Rod Montoya (R-San Juan), brought up the House rule stating how it is against House rules to do such a thing. 

Despite that, Speaker Brian Egolf (D-Santa Fe) claimed his closed-door, dead-of-night lawmaking (which includes Democrats erecting a fence around the Capitol to keep the people out of the People’s House) was “extreme transparency and openness in this entire process.” He said the discussion was “a wonderful example of complete transparency.”

The bill finally passed, without the amendment barring pedophiles and rapists out on parole, by a vote of 37-33.

NM House Dems pass bill letting pedophiles and rapists out of prison and into communities Read More »

Legislative Update: Recreational pot, gas tax hike bills to be heard in committee Tuesday

With less than two weeks left in the 2021 Legislative Session, there are many bills being rammed through committees by Democrats in both chambers, and here are some key pieces of legislation that will be heard in committee on Tuesday:

SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
SENATOR GEORGE MUÑOZ, CHAIRMAN – Tuesday, March 9, 2021, 9:30 a.m.

S.B. 11 CLEAN FUEL STANDARD ACT (also known as the 20-cent gas tax on the poor act) by Sen. Mimi Stewart (D-Bernalillo). 

The bill puts extreme clean fuel standards on businesses that produce or import transportation fuels and fuels used in motor vehicles. The restrictions on these companies would force them to invest in costly upgrades to their fuel standards, meaning these costs would transfer to the consumers. The bill also adds vague and sweeping “enviro-justice” provisions to state law.

In California and Oregon, where clean fuel standards are already in place, there are already increased costs of up to 24 cents per gallon on gas, which directly hurts poor consumers. 

Call these Senators and ask them to oppose S.B. 11–the gas tax on the poor and the middle classes. 

  • George Munoz (D), Chair, 505-397-8836, senatormunoz@gmail.com
  • Nancy Rodriguez (D), Vice Chair, 505-397-8844, nancy.rodriguez@nmlegis.gov
  • William E. Sharer (R), Ranking Member, 505-986-4381, bill@williamsharer.com
  • William F. Burt (R), 505-986-4366, bill.burt@nmlegis.gov
  • Pete Campos (D), 505-397-8818, pete.campos@nmlegis.gov
  • Jacob Candelaria (D), 505-397-8819, jacob.candelaria@nmlegis.gov
  • Crystal R. Diamond (R), 505-986-4703, crystal.diamond@nmlegis.gov
  • Roberto “Bobby” Gonzales (D), 505-397-8825, Roberto.gonzales@nmlegis.gov
  • Siah Correa Hemphill (D), 505-397-8821, siah.hemphill@nmlegis.gov
  • Jeff Steinborn (D), 505-397-8852, jeff.steinborn@nmlegis.gov
  • Pat Woods (R), 986-4393, pat.woods@nmlegis.gov

On Monday, the committee took public comment on S.B. 11, but committee debate and the final committee vote was rolled over to Tuesday. There is still time to email senators to oppose the bill.

TAX, BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Senator Benny Shendo Jr., Chair – Tuesday, March 9, 2021 – 1:30 p.m. or 15 minutes after floor session – Virtual Zoom Meeting

H.B. 12 CANNABIS REGULATION ACT by Rep. Javier Martinez (D-Bernalillo) and Rep. Andrea Romero (D-Santa Fe). This marijuana legalization bill according to the bill sponsor, “makes for the perfect conditions if you will. I don’t think the opportunity has ever been better than it is now to pass a legalization bill.” He says New Mexico needs the bill to cover for gaps in the budget, despite revenue projections being astronomically lower with recreational legalization of pot in states that have legalized it like the state of Colorado.

The revenue projections from the fiscal impact report claim in 2022 the law will increase state revenues by $15,186,000. Mind you, the state’s projected budget is over $7 billion, meaning pot legalization would only make up 0.2% of revenues. Even with the bill’s higher projections of $35,128,400 in revenues by 2024, that would only be approximately 0.5% of the needed revenues for a state budget projected at $7 billion. 

Pro-family groups such as the Family Policy Alliance are organizing against the legalized pot bills, making the case that, “Since Colorado legalized recreational weed, our neighboring state has seen a dramatic increase in violent crime, traffic fatalities, and marijuana hospitalizations. And usage by minors – sometimes fatal, from eating poorly regulated marijuana “candies” – has soared.” 

S.B. 288 CANNABIS REGULATION ACT by Sen. Cliff Pirtle (R-Chaves, Eddy and Otero) does much of the same that Rep. Martinez’s bill would, however, it would bring in even less revenue, operating at a net loss of over $2 million from the state’s General Fund in fiscal year 2022 and the most it would bring in for the state would be $8,078,400 in fiscal year 2024, as projected in the fiscal impact report. Local governments’ tax revenue would be higher than the state’s.

Read more about New Mexico legislators bankrolled by the big marijuana lobby. 

For public participation send an email to SCORC@nmlegis.gov with your Name, Entity Represented, Bill #, For or Against and indicate if you wish to speak. The deadline to respond is Tuesday, March 9 at 10:00 a.m. You will be contacted by our Zoom Operator with the virtual meeting instructions. 

Legislative Update: Recreational pot, gas tax hike bills to be heard in committee Tuesday Read More »

Dems’ bill removing mandatory sentences for child rapists likely to be heard in committee Thursday

A far-left bill that has grabbed the attention of many in New Mexico is H.B. 140, sponsored by state Reps. Karen Bash (D-Bernalillo) and Andrea Romero (D-Santa Fe). The bill would eliminate minimum sentences for multiple offenders, including child rapists, poachers, violent felons, violent sexual felons, restraining order violators, and habitual offenders.

Democrat Speaker of the House Brian Egold argued that the bill, which would strip away protections for heinous crimes such as child rape, would merely “restore discretion to judges.”

The fiscal impact report on H.B. 140 paints a different picture, with the report clearly stating that the bill “eliminates the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of three years for second-degree felony criminal sexual contact of a minor” and “eliminates the mandatory term of imprisonment of three years for the second degree felony of criminal sexual penetration where the victim is between the ages of 13 and 18.” 

With the gaping holes in the bills that could allow child rapists and violent sexual predators back on the streets, many in the public are speaking out about the contents of the bill.

The Republican Party of New Mexico posted on their Facebook page, “It’s immoral, unthinkable that a legislator would want pedophiles to walk our streets after raping our innocent children. This is despicable and Bash is not worthy of serving the public.”

“Remember Victoria Martens? Her own mother allowed men to sexually abuse her and Victoria was later raped, murdered and dismembered. Now Rep. Bash wants to side with these sex monsters.” 

The bill, which would reward sexual criminals and pedophiles, while ignoring the victims is just the latest move by Democrats to loosen laws in New Mexico protecting vulnerable communities in the name of “social justice.”

H.B. 140 was scheduled to be heard on Tuesday in the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee, however, it has been rolled back to Thursday, after around 100 people on the Tuesday “virtual” committee hearing waited through a three-hour-long meeting, which did not consider the bill. 

Please reach out to the below legislators in the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee to ask them to vote against the bill, which would put victims in danger and reward child rapists and pedophiles. Please also reach out to the bill’s sponsors, Reps. Andrea Romero and tell them to withdraw the bill:

Chairwoman Rep. Liz Thomson (D-Bernalillo): liz.thomson@nmlegis.gov | (505) 986-4415

Vice-Chair/ H.B. 140 SPONSOR Rep. Andrea Romero (D-Santa Fe): andrea@andrearomero.com | (505) 986-4243

Rep. Brittney Barreras (D-Bernalillo): BRITTNEYFORNEWMEXICO@GMAIL.COM | (505) 986-4248

Rep. Stefani Lord (R-Bernalillo, Sandoval & Santa Fe): stefani.lord@nmlegis.gov | (505) 986-4453

Rep. Randall T. Pettigrew (R-Lea): randall.pettigrew@nmlegis.gov | (505) 986-4467

H.B. 140 SPONSOR: Rep. Karen Bash (D-Bernalillo) karen.bash@nmlegis.gov | (505) 986-4236

Dems’ bill removing mandatory sentences for child rapists likely to be heard in committee Thursday Read More »

Bipartisan ethics panel letter: State Sen. Steinborn ‘very likely’ engaged in sexual harassment

In May of 2018, a lobbyist for Animal Protection of New Mexico (APNM), Laura Bonar, accused then-New Mexico state Rep. Carl Trujillo, a Santa Fe area legislator of sexual harassment. In her open letter sent to the press, she alleged that Trujillo touched her inappropriately. Trujillo vehemently denied the allegations. 

The letter dropped during the 2018 Democratic primary election, where a staunch abortion advocate, Andrea Romero, was challenging the more moderate Rep. Trujillo for the seat. 

Directly after Bonar’s public letter hit, the Democrat Party of New Mexico blasted Trujillo, with Chairwoman Marg Ellison saying, “We’re very disappointed that Rep. Trujillo’s initial response is to accuse the victim of lies.” 

Julianna Koob, a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood Votes New Mexico, allegedly organized hundreds of phone calls made to voters in the district spreading the accusations. Jessica Johnson and Elizabeth Jennings of APNM also spread these accusations in their respective capacities. 

Despite any formal investigation request submission by Bonar, the claims prompted Democrat Speaker of the House Brian Egolf to begin an inquiry by the Legislative Ethics Subcommittee. 

The Subcommittee took up the seemingly politically motivated case. However, by the time the matter came before the body, Bonar’s accusations had sunk Trujillo’s re-election bid, handing the Democratic nomination to Romero. 

Trujillo offered to provide whatever necessary information and documentation to the Subcommittee to clear his name, including taking a lie detector test and submitting any documentary evidence requested to resolve the matter. The Subcommittee did a thorough investigation, which yielded a 43-page report.

The attorney hired on-contract by the Legislative Council Service to oversee the process. Tom Hnasko has represented Speaker of the House Brian Egolf before. He has also donated to Egolf’s “Brian Egolf Speaker Fund.” According to the Subcommittee, Hnasco engaged in possible “unethical” conduct by not bringing forth testimony revealing other potential misconduct by another legislator in front of the panel. 

The Subcommittee later cleared Trujillo of all wrongdoing after Bonar refused to testify under oath to the claims and “broadly objected to producing records and information directly relevant to her claims of sexual harassment against Representative Trujillo.”

Now, according to a February 26, 2019 letter obtained by the Piñon Post, during the time of the inquiry into Rep. Trujillo, the Subcommittee unearthed another possible instance of sexual harassment against Ms. Bonar, this time a different legislator who “very likely engaged in” the sexual act.

During the depositions of Elizabeth Jennings, executive director of APNM and Animal Protection Voters (APV), Daniel Abram, human resources director for APNM, and Ms. Bonar herself, the Legislative Ethics Subcommittee found that then-state Rep., now-state Sen. Jeff Steinborn (D-Las Cruces), had allegedly engaged in an incident of sexual harassment “sometime in 2014,” where Steinborn was said to have grabbed Ms. Bonar’s face in a hallway.

The details from Ms. Bonar’s June 7, 2018 deposition by Tom Hnasko read as follows: 

Pages 45 – 47:

“[I] was standing in the hallway, outside a committee room, and a legislator came out of the bathroom” — “he gave me a hug, someone I know” — “He put his hand on my face and just sort of held my face. It was a really weird, uncomfortable moment. I was cornered, and he just kind of kept saying my name and looking at me.” 

“Q. Abusive, right? 

“A. …This other legislator, yes, I mean, he’s in a position of power—the way it happened in front of other people, other people that thought something was going on. It was… . I had disgusting comments made to me by staff. 

Page 49:

“[It] felt abusive” (the holding of the face) and “the impact on me was extremely negative.” 

Ms. Elizabeth Jennings’ November 5, 2018 deposition by Rep. Trujillo’s attorney reads as follows:

Page 66

“Q. (By Mr. Loman [attorney for Mr. Trujillo]) Well, let me ask you, was there some other incident of sexual harassment that was going on around the same time that Mr. Abram would have been taking notes for? [Mr. Abram is the human resources director for APNM]

“A. Laura did say something else about another incident, and it was unrelated to the Carl Trujillo incident.

Page 67: 

“Q. She reported that she was sexually harassed by another person? 

“A. Yes.

“Q. Another legislator? 

“A. Yes.

“Q. Okay. Was that during this March 16th Meeting? 

“A. Yes.

“Q. Okay. And who was that? What did she tell you?

“A. I’d prefer not to answer that.

“Q. Okay. Based on what?

“A. It’s not my story to tell.

“Q. Okay. What was it that she told you, then?

“A. I’d prefer not to answer that.

“Q. Okay, so at some point around the same time Laura told you that she was sexually harassed by another legislator, and you’re refusing to tell me what she told you and who the legislator was; is that true? Do I have all that correct? 

“A. I’d prefer not to answer, yes.” 

Page 69:

“Q. [by Mr. Loman] …Okay. Whatever this other incident was, with whomever it was, why did Ms. Bonar write an open letter about Carl Trujillo this year and not about this other person? 

“A. I don’t know.

“Q. Okay. has Ms. Bonar ever told you about any other incidents where she felt like she was sexually harassed in any other way than what we’ve talked about with Carl Trujillo and whatever’s redacted here?

“A. No. I don’t remember anything else. 

“Q. Okay, when did this other incident occur? What year?

“A. I don’t know.

“Q. [Referring to a note being consulted during the deposition] Over on the side — and I’m going to reach across and point it out to you–I can make out 2014 in that bit that’s redacted [but still legible]. Was she telling you this happened–the other incident occurred in 2014? 

“A. I don’t know, but certainly it’s plausible since there’s a date there. I honestly don’t remember.

“Q. Okay. Then going down, we have more notes that are not redacted. It says, “Most concerned about Carl,” and it says here, “Was not interested in an apology.” So now we’re talking about multiple incidents.”

Mr. Abram’s notes regarding the matter read as follows:

“Steinborn INCIDENT

“2014

“Steinborn outside house majority office

“15 to 20 lobbyists standing around

“Grabbed my face and kept saying my name

“‘did that in front of other people intentionally to make them feel something was going on between us’

“I wanted to talk to Steinborn and say ‘that really wasn’t cool’

“Did not end up doing that [-] still during session & got the feeling it wouldn’t be perceived as helpful to our work”

The letter from the members of the Legislative Ethics Subcommittee reads:

“Taken together, these statements indicate that Ms. Bonar communicated to Elizabeth Jennings and/or Daniel Abram that she [Bonar] was sexually harassed by Representative Steinborn sometime in 2014.”

The depositions were included in the document, signed by seven of the eight legislators on the Subcommittee, excluding Rep. Joanne Ferrary (D-Las Cruces), recommending further action be taken to investigate the allegations against Steinborn. 

The Subcommittee then recommended: 

The above material was redacted and withheld from the Subcommittee, presumably at Mr. Hnasko’s or Legislative Council Service’s direction. 

Concerned about the references in the depositions to a sexual harassment incident involving a legislator named “Jeff” and the “Steinborn INCIDENT” heading in Mr. Abram’s notes, several Subcommittee members exercised due diligence and requested an opportunity to see the original, unredacted transcript of Laura Bonar interview. The members who viewed the transcript at Legislative Council Service were not allowed to have or make a copy of the Bonar interview, so one member took brief notes. The material cited above is thus approximate, not precisely verbatim. There appears to be a discrepancy about the “Steinborn incident”—e.g., whether it happened outside a committee room or outside the majority office. Perhaps there were multiple episodes? 

Under all of the circumstances outlined above, we believe we have an obligation not to ignore the testimony of Elizabeth Jennings, Daniel Abram, and Laura Bonar. We recommend that the Legislative Council Service begin the process of investigating the Jeff Steinborn incident. We further recommend that the LCS not involve Mr. Tom Hnasko in this inquiry, as his decision to withhold certain information from the Subcommittee is problematic and was possibly unethical. 

The legislators who responded to the Piñon Post’s request for comment declined to opine on the letter itself, citing state statute. 

One legislator wrote, “As much as I would like to answer your questions, I am afraid I am not at liberty to do so.  The law ‘prohibits [a] subcommittee and its staff from disclosing any information relating to [an] investigation’ (as per Raul Burciaga, Director, Legislative Council Service). I have a solemn duty of confidentiality and must abide by it.”

The New Mexico House and Senate leadership (with Republican members outnumbered 3:2) held a split vote, which resulted in no further action being taken on the case on a party-line vote. This has been confirmed by multiple sources involved in the leadership vote, and it was indeed split, not unanimous. One legislator involved in the vote disclosed that the motion “did not have sufficient support to move forward.”

Although there are depositions, notes, and other evidence obtained during the initial Legislative Ethics Subcommittee inquiry into Steinborn’s potential involvement in sexual harassment against Bonar, her attorney, Levi Monagle, told the Piñon Post that Bonar contends she was only harassed by Rep. Trujillo and another legislator, who she did not name, but has since passed away.

Ms. Bonar’s attorney provided us with the following statement:

While Laura and many other lobbyists, staffers, legislators and citizens have had encounters at the Roundhouse that were inappropriate or unsettling in one way or another, Laura can (and does) authoritatively state that she was never sexually harassed by Jeff Steinborn. There was an incident discussed in the prior investigations where Laura was sexually harassed by another legislator besides Carl Trujillo, but that legislator was not Jeff Steinborn. That legislator is deceased, and Laura has no interest in speaking ill of the dead.

In 2018, Laura and her coworkers at APVNM took a strong stance against sexual harassment at the Roundhouse. Insofar as Carl Trujillo was a staunch supporter of the animal protection cause, Laura and her coworkers took their stance against their organization’s own political interests. They took a brave and principled stand knowing that they would suffer consequences for it – and they did indeed suffer consequences for it. Standing up to Carl Trujillo was a very difficult chapter for Laura and her coworkers and they are not interested in rehashing it.

When requesting clarity on the statement, Ms. Bonar’s attorney replied, “Ms. Bonar is stating that Jeff Steinborn never sexually harassed her in any way.”

The documentation from the depositions all appears to point to the same incident, where then-Rep. Jeff Steinborn allegedly grabbed Ms. Bonar’s face in a hallway. Although Ms. Bonar contends that the perpetrator is now deceased, questions still remain as to why Jeff Steinborn’s name was written in Mr. Abram’s notes–the same notes that detail a similar incident recounted in Ms. Bonar’s 2018 deposition.

In November, Sen. Jeff Steinborn is up for re-election, facing off against Republican nominee Kimberly Skaggs in the 36th Senate District. He has been rated as an “Animal Protection Champion” by Animal Protection Voters as recently as 2019. Steinborn has not yet returned the Piñon Post’s requests for comment.

UPDATE: October 15, 2020, 7:00 P.M. MST: Senator Steinborn provided the Piñon Post with the following statement, as well as a letter he received from the Legislative Ethics Subcommittee regarding their dismissal of the previous recommendation.

I have great respect for the professional boundaries that must be maintained by all people. I firmly believe that women deserve to be heard and that reports of misconduct should be taken seriously and investigated by the appropriate parties. 

I can say, unequivocally, that I have not sexually harassed anyone. I appreciate Ms. Bonar immediately releasing a statement through her attorney stating that “Jeff Steinborn never sexually harassed her [Ms. Bonar] in any way.” Ms. Bonar’s statement confirmed the results of an independent investigation, conducted by outside counsel, and unanimously approved by the bi-partisan Senate leadership, that no further investigation or action was needed. 

It is disappointing that a serious issue like this be deliberately mischaracterized and distorted by political operatives for the sake of a headline.

Editor’s Note: The Piñon Post is proud of our objective reporting on this matter of legitimate public concern. Before publication, all parties involved were afforded multiple opportunities to provide comments. Those who did provide comments had their statements published in their entirety. Through this report, we are glad to have provided New Mexicans with a greater understanding of the situation to let them form conclusions based on the facts, not political rhetoric.

Bipartisan ethics panel letter: State Sen. Steinborn ‘very likely’ engaged in sexual harassment Read More »

Scroll to Top