Senate Bill 131 is legislation introduced during the 30-day session of the 2026 New Mexico Legislature that would mandate “upzoning” statewide in all communities in the state. The legislation would have taken away all real property zoning authority and regulation authority from local governments, including all municipal governments and county governments, to allow for more residential development in an effort to increase affordable housing.

“Upzoning is a land-use planning tool that changes existing zoning regulations to permit more intensive development in specific areas already zoned. Zoning laws govern how property can be used, including housing density, minimum lot sizes, building heights, and parking requirements. Upzoning alters these rules to increase permitted density or intensity of use, allowing more units per acre, taller buildings, or different uses like commercial establishments in residential zones. This process does not directly create new housing but removes regulatory barriers, incentivizing new construction.”

The link to the quoted and relied upon source is here:

https://legalclarity.org/what-is-upzoning-and-how-does-the-legal-process-work/

NEW MEXICO SENATE HEALTH AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE HEARING

On Monday, February 9^th the New Mexico Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee  held a hearing on Senate Bill 131.  Steve Holman attended the hearing and filed this report. Mr. Holman is a concerned citizen and a homeowner who resides in Albuquerque. He is very concerned about what is in the best interest of  his community and state.  Mr. Holman has not been compensated for his article with the article published as a public service on www.PeteDinelli.com.

Major State-Wide “Upzoning”  Bill Usurping Local Government’s  Zoning Authority Killed In Senate Committee;  ABQ City Councilor Tammy Fiebelkorn Goes Rogue Favoring  Legislature Usurping All Local Government Zoning Authority

BY Steve Holman, Albuquerque Resident 

On Monday, February 9^th the New Mexico State Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee held a hearing on Senate Bill 131 (SB-131), sponsored by Senators Antonio “Moe” Maestas and Heather Berghmans, both of Albuquerque. Senate Bill 131 has been characterized by many  as the “Developer Handout” bill that would “Upzone”  the entire state allowing permissive uses statewide of duplexes, apartments, townhomes and retail on existing residential single family zoning areas.

In zoning law, a “permissive use” is where a property owner has the exclusive right to decide how their  property can be developed without government approval nor notice to adjoining property owners for approval.  A “conditional use” is  where a property owner is required to secure government approval and permits for development of real property and are required to give notice to adjacent property owners with  adjacent  property owners having  rights to object and rights of  appeal.

SB-131 would take away zoning powers from municipalities and county governments. It would largely deregulate the housing industry allowing for construction just about anywhere, with the only recourse being filing a lawsuit in State District Court.

HEARING COMMENTS

On February 9^th the New Mexico State Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee convened a hearing that included on its agenda SB-131. The link to view the entire committee video feed is here:

https://sg001-harmony.sliq.net/00293/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20260209/-1/78486

During the February 9^th committee hearing, the opposition to SB-131 consisted of  Albuquerque residents and community activists for multi-generational residents. Opponents included Bianca Encinias, a neighborhood activist with the Historic Neighborhood Alliance and Loretta Naranjo Lopez, who is a representative from Envision Albuquerque and who is also a multi-generational resident from Martineztown. Ms. Loretta Naranjo Lopez is the longtime President of the Martineztown-Santa Barbara  Neighborhood Association. She is retired from the City of Albuquerque having worked in the Planning Department dealing with city zoning laws and code enforcement.   A representative of the State Municipal league also spoke against SB-131.

The opposition to  SB-131 pointed out the weakness of the bill in its usurping local zoning powers and giving them to the state, using questionable research methodologies, pointing out that density does not equate to a lower price in housing, how casitas are already legal, how parking mandates aren’t justified due to lack of public transportation, and how there is plenty of inventory but a lack of affordability.   Loretta Naranjo Lopez told the Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee that all zoning should be left up to the cities and counties under home rule and nothing should be passed without proper notification and review with residents and their elected leaders.

Comments from supporters were delivered by the pro-developer interests such as  the ABQ Chamber of Commerce, the CEO of The New Mexico Homebuilders Association, the New Mexico Association of Realtors, NAIOP (a pro-realtor and developer organization), and Associated Builders and Contractors.  Supporters managed to get the housing administrator from Las Cruces, New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty, and the State-wide affordable housing commission to show their support as well.

The biggest surprise was the appearance of District 7 Albuquerque City Councilor Tammy Fiebelkorn.  District 7 is the mid heights district and it is highly developed with established residential neighborhoods. District 7 includes the uptown retail business district including the Commons, Winrock and Coronado Shopping Center. The District 7 boundaries are generally Montgomery Boulevard on the North, I-25 on the West, Lomas on the South and Eubank on the East.

City Councilor Fiebelkorn  announced to the committee that she “strongly” supported bill SB-131 and said that our state is experiencing a housing crisis at all price points. What Fiebelkorn failed to disclose to the committee is that her own constituents and neighborhood associations within her district strongly  oppose her upzoining efforts on the city council and have repeatedly objected to her sponsorship of amendments to the city zoning laws known as the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO). Notwithstanding her constituent’s objections, she repeatedly ignores the desires of her own constituents.

The link to view the entire committee video feed that includes Councilor Fiebelkorn’s comments is here:

https://sg001-harmony.sliq.net/00293/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20260209/-1/78486

Feibelkorn cited her own neighborhood’s lower residential housing density now versus  the 1950’s as a justification for Upzoning.  She made the false presumption that people within her district want to increase density of their neighborhoods and that they can afford it. What was shocking was her saying “As a local government official I welcome the help this would provide to Albuquerque to modernize our zoning code.”

THE COMMITTEE DEBATE ON SB 131

After the opening comments were made, Senator Moe Maestas  offered  to amend the language of the bill that would have removed height restrictions on buildings.  The amendment passed the committee unanimously.

The debate and questions opened with Senator Larry Scott making an astute observation, stating he found it “interesting” that Albuquerque City Councilor Tammy Feibelkorn was present and was in favor of a bill that usurps the city’s and her own authority as a city councilor over zoning matters.

Senator Scott asked Senator Maestas what was creating the animosity against the bill? Senator Maestas responded, “This bill does not usurp local control because it is provided by the state.” He went on to further say, “Zoning is a state issue and we’ve just deferred to the local authorities on it for the last 3 or 4 decades.”

Addressing the “animosity” against the bill, Senator Maestas essentially said it was “class warfare”.  Maestas  disparaged  the opposition by stating  this:

“We know who shows up to these meetings.  They are more housed than the normal population.  They are older than the normal population.  They are more wealthy than the normal population and they have more time than the normal population, so local elected officials gravitate towards those powerful people who are current property owners. So, it is more difficult to make that adjustment.”

Senator Scott pointed out that single family housing is what property owners bought into and it takes away their real property rights, further questioning the impacts it would have on existing communities.  Senator Maestas responded  saying that existing communities probably won’t be affected without offering any tangible evidence and ignoring the sweeping changes to zoning laws he was advocating.

Senator Scott then shut down Senators Maestas’ narrative by saying it makes sense that it will be developers who would build using existing infrastructure in established communities because it is cheaper.  Senator Scott then said  that he could not back the bill.

As the meeting further proceeded, the skepticism of the bill continued because of its removal of power from local governments, municipalities and counties.  Senator Maestas tried to cite similar implementation in Minneapolis, MN.  This narrative was immediately struck down by Senator Jay Block, further advising that local elected officials are there to do what their constituents ask.  Senator Block then requested Senator Maestas to pull the bill and start over.

This triggered a proposal to table the bill, but the committee chair Senator Linda Lopez advised there were still more arguments to be heard. Senator Cindy Nava who worked with HUD and has witnessed and learned from implementations across the country stated, “What works in Albuquerque won’t work in Gallup.”  She went on to advise we need tailored approaches to housing, and her community has vast concerns.  She warned that with the removal of tools from cities and counties  a one size fits all mandate does not work across the state.  She also pointed out that  SB-131 doesn’t address affordability, infrastructure readiness, and housing outcomes and she couldn’t support the bill.

Senator Harold Pope presented major  concerns as well.  The issue he had was in doing it state-wide because every town and village are different.  He said that even in Albuquerque, you have a variety of communities from the West Side to Nob Hill and their needs all vary.

At this point Senator Maestas indicated that the average age of homebuyers is now 40 years old and the bill deals with affordability by having duplexes, apartments, and town homes while citing simple supply and demand principles would drive down prices.  Senator Nava immediately responded advising that the bill does not address everything and is only one tool in a larger equation for housing.

Lastly, committee chair Senator Linda Lopez made her statements. She said in particular how the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO), which is all the city’s zoning laws, in Albuquerque has actually helped her community.  She went on to say that if we invested in repairing existing homes, it would help with affordability and that demonstrates that there is no single solution.  She then concluded, “What it comes down to is local control.”

At this point the committee moved to table the Bill.  This passed, but what was shocking was the defiant  response from Senator Heather Berghmans  stating “Thank you, we will be back.”  The committee chairperson Senator Linda Lopez acknowledged her in saying, “Yes, that’s part of the process.”

A motion was made to table SB-131 and the committee voted 7  to  2  to table the bill thereby killing the legislation in committee.

Respectfully submitted,

Steve Holman, Albuquerque Resident

DINELLI COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Senate Bill 131 was nothing more that and attempt to mandate and implement upzoning state-wide by Senators Moe Maestas and Heather Berghmans using the New Mexico legislature to do it. It was nothing more than a power play to repeal virtually all zoning laws in the state to the detriment of local interests and contrary to the self-rule authority of local government.

The purpose and concept behind SENATE BILL 131 and the upzoning it represented is very straight forward and based on too many false premises. The idea is that if you allow permissive use of townhomes, apartments, duplexes, and retail within single family zoning, thereby increasing density, it will remove restrictions and allow for increased development that will hopefully lower costs and increase affordable housing. It will not and market forces will prevail as developed properties are sold for the highest value. Upzoning is being touted as a solution to affordable housing, despite no mandate for any affordable housing to be built or any legislation to regulate price speculation.

Studies about Upzoning are still emerging and are limited in scope, but the data released is reflecting that Upzoning actually fosters gentrification.  It most often impacts low income and non-white communities. It also has been shown to have little impact on housing inventory and price.

This has been fought in Albuquerque  because upzoning utilizes many tools of gentrification as does the  Upzoning proposed in Albuquerque’s Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO). Those upzoning tools include:

• Allowing zoning changes for higher density
• Relaxing regulatory measures
• Does not mandate affordable housing of any type
• Excludes community involvement/empowerment by lawsuits being their only recourse
• Includes amenities like retail
• Places no measures against real estate price speculation
• Has no anti-displacement measures for existing residents
• Removes protections of historic neighborhoods and sites like The Petroglyphs via removal of height restrictions.

In essence, Upzoning is a “deregulatory developers handout” that removes many of the guardrails of zoning allowing developers and speculators to build what they want, however they want and wherever they want.

SB-0131 seeks to implement Upzoning state-wide, but the bill has a massive amount of side effects.

THREE MAJOR DOWNSIDES TO SENATE BILL 131

There are three major downsides to Senate Bill 0131 and they are:

FIRST: There would have been  the removal of powers from local municipalities by taking away their ability to manage the following:

• The height, number of stories, size of buildings and other structures.
• The percent a lot may be occupied.
• The size of yards, courts, and other open space.
• The density of population.
• The location and use of buildings, structures, and land for trade, industry, residence or other purposes.
• The ability to divide the territory under its jurisdiction into districts
• Regulate or restrict the erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair or use of buildings, structures or land in each district.

If SB-0131 was enacted, the above decisions on zoning would reside with the state instead of local municipalities or counties, removing the ability of individual towns, cities and counties submitted to have any means of self-determination in addressing growth.

SECOND: The enactment of Upzoning by the state would have required all county and state municipalities to:

• Accommodate one additional dwelling unit within each lot in a single-family zoning district as permissive use.
• Eliminate restrictions on building height and number of stories.
• Not prohibit residential apartments in commercial zones.
• Not prohibit duplexes and townhouses in residential zones or on mixed-use lots.
• Allow residential zone development for small-scale commercial uses that provide neighborhood-scale convenience shopping, food, beverages, indoor entertainment or professional offices,  provided that the uses comply with local rules governing traffic and noise.
• Not implementing minimum parking mandates (a law, a rule or an ordinance that specifies a minimum number of off-street vehicle parking spaces, including within a garage or other enclosed area)

THIRD: SB-0131 also sought to move all disputes about zoning or complaints to State District Courts instead of using local established means. That means residents and municipalities only have filing a law suit as a response to any issues.

If you compare what SB-0131 enacts to what is currently being attempted in Albuquerque, you can see the desired results line up exactly, but now it removes local municipalities and counties of their autonomy and gives massive new zoning powers for the state to manage.

All of this is being done in the name of “affordable housing,” but it in no way allocates for any measures to address the affordability of homes and instead seeks to use our existing communities as a means for developers and investors to further buy up residential homes.  They would have been able to utilize existing infrastructure in established neighborhoods to build what they want wherever they want with market rate prices.

The link to review Senate Bill 0131 is here:

https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/26 Regular/bills/senate/SB0131.HTML

SENATORS MAESTA’S AND BERGMAN’S DEFIANT CONDUCT  

What was revealing and simultaneously disturbing and downright insulting is the mischaracterization of the opposition against SB-131 by Senator Maestas as being “older wealthy landowners.”   He was essentially promoting “class warfare” between the “haves and the have nots.” The opposition present at the hearing were two residents who are multi-generational native New Mexicans and activists for their communities and not wealthy landowners.  There were hundreds of petition signers in opposition to Upzoning in Albuquerque submitted who were from zip codes all over the city and who have a variety of ethnic backgrounds and social statuses.

If the majority of the opposition, according to Senator Maestas,  has money and time, then why weren’t more people present for a hearing held during the regular working hours for most everyday citizens?  What  this demonstrates is that Senator Moe Maestas has been very busy working with lobbyist friends, or perhaps even his wife’s clients. His wife is a prominent and influential lobbyist.  Ostensibly, Senatore Maestas did not engaged with the community he serves and he was influenced by the real estate development community.

As for Senator Heather Bergmans who co-sponsored the bill, her incredibly unprofessional and threateningly defiant tone towards the committee when she  stated  “we will be back” is a demonstration of the ruthless nature to push the agendas of  lobbyist interests.

ABQ CITY COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN’S QUESITIONABLE CONDUCT

Simply put, the purpose and intent of SB-131 was to undermine any and all  opposition to Upzoning  in Albuquerque.  This was evidenced by the appearance of District 7 City Councilor Tammy Fiebelkorn appearing to  speak in support of the passage of  SB-131.  Fiebelkorn holds herself out as a  Progressive Democrat housing advocate and for that reason alone  it is shocking that she would support a pro-developer handout bill.  She is  even willing to usurp her own municipal zoning powers and responsibilities to achieve her misguided goal.

It was downright laughable when Fiebelkorn told the Senate Committee this:

“As a local government official I welcome the help this would provide to Albuquerque to modernize our zoning code.”

The blunt reality is that Tammy Fiebelkorn is ignorant when it comes to zoning laws and urban planning as she holds herself out as some sort of an expert. She has no background nor experience with city zoning matters, zoning code enforcement, before becoming a city councilor.  She now holds herself out as some sort of an expert in “modernizing” our zoning laws. SB 131 in no way would help “modernize our zoning code” as Feibelkorn told the committee but would have gutted virtually all zoning laws in the state. SB 131 does not require affordable housing construction of any kind, it does not address price speculation, and it does not address private investment interests.

Fiebelkorn’s blind support should be incredibly concerning to housing advocates.  During her 2025 reelection bid, where she prevailed over a last-minute write in candidate who did not appear on the ballot, she called pro-realtor and pro-developer groups out as being “Dark Money” who supported her opponent. She ostensibly does this only when it is inconvenient for her when she is running for reelection as a publicly financed candidate.

There is the troubling question of Councilor Fiebelkorn’s lobbying efforts as an Albuquerque City Councilor and if her lobbying for passage of SB 131 crossed a line and was in violation of any city ethical rules of conduct or procedures. In announcing her presence as a city councilor during the legislative committee meeting, she was clearly using her elective office to gain access and to impress and imply she was present representing the entire Albuquerque City Council, or for that matter the city itself, when she was not.

Feibelkorn’s presence and support for SB-131 reflected her effort to usurp the city’s process of adopting amendments to the city’s zoning laws known as the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) and to carry out a threat. Fiebelkorn became very upset when on January 14  the City Council Land Use Planning and Zoning Committee killed all amendments to the Integrated Development Ordinance she was sponsoring for upzoning, so much so that after the votes were taken to kill upzoning amendments she announced she would be going to Santa Fe to lobby the legislature for upzoning during the 2026 New Mexico Legislature.

This also begs the question that as a City Councilor, to what extent did Councilor  Tammy Fiebelkorn lobby for passage of SB 131?  Fiebelkorn should fully disclose  and let her constituents know for transparency reasons, especially for a bill that was backed by such powerful monied developer interests.

FEIBEKORN HOLDS CONTEMPT FOR HER OWN CONSTITUENTS

City Councilor Tammy Feibelkorn’s support of SB-131 and her rogue lobbying efforts before the New Mexico legislature is so very typical of how she has operated as an Albuquerque City Council over the last four years. Her constituents and neighborhood associations have made it known that they oppose her efforts to double and triple density in existing neighborhoods by mandating upzoning residential properties in order to increase affordable housing, but she still persists.

During the four years she has been a City Councilor, Tammy Fiebelkorn has exhibited a pattern of downright hostility towards constituents who oppose or who disagree with her votes on policy and legislation to the point she goes out of her way to offend them. Once elected, she has ignored her constituent’s needs and concerns and advocated her own hidden, personal political agenda over the objections of her constituents.

Fiebelkorn simply does not listen and does what she damn well feels like doing. Her reputation is one of being highly abrasive, engages in personal insults. She is condescending and dismissive with anyone who disagrees with her. She is not at all interested in carrying on with a civil dialog with her constituents.

Although known for attending District 7 Neighborhood Coalition meetings to give updates on what is happening in District 7, she lectures and repeatedly takes issue with those who disagree with her at the meetings and who ask her politely to reconsider positions. Feibelkorn  interrupts  her constituents and abruptly says “No, I have made up my mind” and simply refuses to change her mind. She goes out of her way to insult and offend those who oppose her policies saying she knows what’s good for the district as she reflects her ignorance.

Now that she has been elected to a second term over a last-minute write in candidate, Fiebelkorn is emboldened to continue with her abrasive ways and personal agenda ignoring the needs and demands of her constituents.

SO CALLED PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS SHOW TRUE COLORS

It’s alarming to find out that a number of supposed progressive democrats in our state, such as Senator’s Moe Maestas and Heather Berghmans are showing their true colors.  Sure, they will jump behind a social justice cause and do the bare minimum in passing legislation against ICE or for universal child care, but behind the scenes is where the lobbyists flex their powers over their votes and leave us on our own to fight zoning changes that only help developers, to fight against uranium mining near Mt. Taylor, to fight for water rights, to fight data centers, to fight missile test sites, and fight against the corporate buyout of PNM.

Elected officials concerned about the  impacts to their communities are the true progressives.  People like Senator Harold  Pope,  Senator Cindy Nava  and Senator Linda Lopez who basically agree that yes, we need housing and ways to address affordability, but a developer handout and a power grab from the state is not the way to achieve these things.

A true elected public servant listens to the will of their constituents and believes in empowering communities instead of taking away their ability to determine their future.  The hearings on SB-131 clearly shows the distinction between true  public servants and someone fueled by lobbyists and monied interests.

The New Mexico State Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee did the right thing for all of New Mexico in voting to table and thereby killing Senate Bill 131.

A  CALL TO ACTION

With the re-election of Mayor Tim Keller and City Councilor Tammy Feibelkorn, a major controversy has  emerged where Keller, Fiebelkorn and the City Planning Department want to enact a wave of blanket amendments to the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO)  sponsored by Feibelkorn that would mandate upzoning throughout the entire city and in established neighborhoods. Mayor Keller, Councilor Feibelkorn  and the City Planning Department want to double or triple housing density in established neighborhoods as a way to address what they claim is the City’s affordable housing shortage.  They  erroneously believe that increased density will increase affordable housing as they simply ignore the market forces and the profit motive. They argue that “flooding the market” with more housing than what is needed will result in lower cost of housing and make available more housing for sale and rent. It’s a very false and misleading narrative.

Mayor Tim Keller, Councilor Feibelkorn and the  City Planning Department want to allow apartment development or retail business development (i.e. small convenience stores or “bodegas”) on all corner residential lots in all established neighborhoods to benefit developers and to deprive adjacent property owners the right to object and appeal. Such development will no doubt result in magnets for crime and heavy traffic patterns destroying the tranquility, livability and character of established neighborhoods. Such development will result in gentrification as developers and investment speculators force out  long term residents. Simply put, the overwhelming majority of homeowners cannot afford nor do they want to remodel their homes to increase footage and density.

On January 18,  the City Council’s Land Use Planning and Zoning Committee voted to completely  reverse and gutted all the proposed amendments to the IDO  mandating upzoning sponsored by City Councilor Tammy Feibelkorn. After the vote, Fiebelkorn proclaimed she would not give up on her efforts to mandate upzoning throughout the city and proclaimed she would go to the New Mexico Legislature to advocate for mandated statewide upzoning, a threat she carried out with her support of SB-131 before the Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee. The link to a report on January 18 Land Use, Planning and Zoning committee’s action can be found in the postscript.

NOTICE OF HEARING

On Wednesday, February 18, the nine-member Albuquerque City Council will be meeting. On the agenda there will be final votes on some 140  amendments to the Integrated Development Ordinance. Included will be the amendments enacted by the City Council’s Land Use, Planning and Zoning committee on January 18 that reversed and gutted all the proposed amendments to the IDO  mandating upzoning sponsored by City Councilor Tammy Feibelkorn.

The meeting will be held in the  City Council Chambers in basement of city hall commencing at 5:00 p.m. You can sign up to speak at the meeting by going to the City Council web page or simply go to the meeting.

Please write to the city council and let them know that Councilor Fiebelkorn’s questionable actions in supporting SB-131 before the Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee was wrong and not in the best interests of the city and demand answers and state that Upzoning is not the solution to Albuquerque’s housing needs.

Please contact your city councilor and urge them vote  NO on any and all  amendments mandating up-zoning in established neighborhoods and to reject City Councilor Tammy Feibelkorn’s efforts to mandate upzoning in the city.

The emails to contact all 9 City Councilors followed by their Policy Analyst to voice your opinions are:

City council emails:

stelles@cabq.gov

stephenchavez@cabq.gov

joaquinbaca@cabq.gov

bacajoaquin9@gmail.com

namolina@cabq.gov

kpena@cabq.gov

cquezada@cabq.gov

bbassan@cabq.gov

dawnmarie@cabq.gov

danlewis@cabq.gov

galvarez@cabq.gov

nrogers@cabq.gov

district6@cabq.gov

tfiebelkorn@cabq.gov

seanforan@cabq.gov

dchampine@cabq.gov

eromero@cabq.gov

rgrout@cabq.gov

rrmiller@cabq.gov

Below is the link to the petition against the proposed amendments:

https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-exclusionary-upzoning-of-mayor-keller-and-councilor-fiebelkorn

The link to a related article is here:

ABQ City Council Will Meet Feb.18 For Final Vote On Integrated Development Ordinance Amendments Including Up Zoning All Residential Properties; Contact Your City Councilor And Tell Them To Vote NO On Residential Up Zoning

There is no doubt that the two most defining issues of the 2026 New Mexico legislative session are House Bill 99, the Medical Malpractice Reform Bill and Senate Bill 241, the  Universal Child Care bill.  With a mere six days remaining before the end of the 2026 New Mexico Legislature on February 19, both bills are slowly advancing and both becoming law remain in serious doubt.

SENATE BILL 241 (UNIVERSAL CHILD CARE)

On February 12, Senate Bill 241 (SB 241)  authorizing Universal Child Care statewide passed the New Mexico Senate on a 25-15 vote after several hours of debate. Under SB 241 as passed, up to $1 billion would be taken from an oil-fueled state trust fund to finance  Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s universal child care initiative over the next five years.  SB 241  now advances to the House with six days left in this year’s 30-day legislative session.

Universal child care exists now after being implemented by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham with a governor’s  Executive Order. New Mexico became the first state to offer state-subsidized child care for all working families when Governor Lujan Grisham announced the program in September.

Lawmakers initially balked at the Lujan Grisham administration’s request for an additional $160 million in the coming year to pay for the universal child care initiative. The approval of SB 241 by the Senate Education Committee signaled  a growing embrace of the program by the legislature along with more than $60 million in state funds earmarked in a separate budget bill.

Lawmakers have already appropriated funding to provide no-cost childcare to 32,000 children last year.  According to a legislative analysis of Senate Bill 241 bill, that number is projected to increase to 58,000 children by the 2029 budget year under the universal child care program. In addition, roughly 10,000 more New Mexico children have enrolled in the state’s childcare assistance program since universal childcare took effect in November.

Senate Bill 241 contains certain “triggers” that  would allow co-pays to be charged to higher-income families and childcare wait lists to be implemented. Those steps would be triggered under certain economic situations, such as elevated inflation rates and a downturn in oil prices. The co-pays would only apply to working families, making more than 600% of the federal poverty level. That amount is currently $198,000 per year for a family of four.

The  built-in “triggers” to Senate Bill 241 are as follows:

• Allowing co-pays for higher-income families and child care wait lists.
• A state early childhood agency would be required to take certain steps if any of four different conditions occur.
• Those conditions are higher-than-expected child care enrollment, less than $50 per barrel oil prices, higher than 3% inflation and state revenue growth lagging behind inflation.
• Under any of those scenarios, the agency would either have to enact a waiting list or charge co-pays for working families making more than 600% of the federal poverty level. That amount is currently $198,000 per year for a family of four.

Senate Bill 241 codifies the state’s universal child care program, which state officials acknowledge will require roughly 5,000 additional early childhood workers in order to meet statewide demand. It was modified in a Senate committee to include a steady funding source to pay for universal childcare at least through 2031.

Senate Bill 241 would allow up to $1 billion to be diverted from an early childhood trust fund that was created in 2020 and will provide a steady funding source to pay for universal childcare at least through 2031. The fund has seen its value skyrocket over the last several years going  from $300 million to nearly $11 billion at the start of this year.  The increase was the result of  record-high oil production levels in southeast New Mexico.

Past research by Legislative Finance Committee analysts has found that state-provided childcare has led to increased wages for parents, but has not found it improves educational outcomes for children.

Senate Bill 241 codifies in state law eligibility and application requirements for the universal childcare program.

One Republican, Sen. Gabriel Ramos of Silver City, joined Democrats in voting in favor of the measure, while other GOP senators voted in opposition.

Sen. George Muñoz, D-Gallup, the bill’s sponsor, said the plan would increase economic opportunity for working families in New Mexico, which has long struggled with high poverty rates, while still providing financial safeguards. Muñoz said this:

“We live in an era of working families, where both partners in a marriage have to work ”

REPUBLICANS EXPRESS CONCERN

During Senate floor debate, Republicans expressed major  concern over  the cost of the program which is estimated to be $160 million in the coming budget year as well as over future sustainability given an uncertain economic outlook.

Sen. Nicole Tobiassen, R-Albuquerque, described universal child care as a “behemoth program” while also raising questions about future revenue volatility.

GOP senator, Craig Brandt of Rio Rancho, sought to rewrite the bill by providing families with a stay-at-home parent or legal guardian up to $10,000 per child. Brandt said this:

“What we know is when a child is raised by the parents, the child does better throughout their lifetime.”

Senator Brandt’s  attempt was rebuffed by the Senate’s Democratic majority, with Muñoz saying it could lead to fraud and misuse of taxpayer dollars. That prompted a pointed retort from Senate Minority Leader William Sharer, R-Farmington, who said universal child care could itself lead to rampant fraud in New Mexico. He compared the program to Minnesota’s child care system that has come under intense scrutiny in recent months.

Backers of Senate Bill 241 said  the legislation would build off the state’s recent efforts to create a cradle-to-career pathway, while also making New Mexico a more attractive state for working families. Senate Majority Whip Michael Padilla, D-Albuquerque said this:

“This is just the next natural step for what we’re trying to accomplish.”

 GOVERNOR REACTS

After the full Senate vote,  Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham described the  vote as a “historic step” toward ensuring all families have access to affordable, quality child care. The Governor said this in a  statement:

“For too long, parents have been forced to choose between their careers and caring for their children, and businesses have struggled to keep workers because families can’t find reliable care.”

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham also said universal child care would bolster the state’s economy, which posted the nation’s 12th-highest rate of job growth in 2025, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Links to relied upon or quoted news sources are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/universal-child-care-bill-passes-senate-after-debate-over-price-tag-future-sustainability/2979901

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/bill-would-enshrine-universal-child-care-in-state-law-with-a-few-economic-off-ramps/2976125

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REFORM BILL MOVES TO HOUSE FLOOR

On Wednesday February 11, the House Judiciary Committee voted unanimously 10-0  to advance a substitute version of House Bill 99, filed by Rep. Christine Chandler, D-Los Alamos. Chandler for her part described the substitute bill as a compromise that emerged after talks broke down between hospitals, physician groups, trial attorneys and other stakeholders.

The major sticking point is how to limit punitive damages that are sometimes awarded in cases of reckless or willful misconduct for the state’s largest corporate hospitals. Chandler told  the House Judiciary Committee, which she chairs, this about substitute House Bill 99:

“There was a lot of discussion about what the cap should be for the larger systems and the like, and there were conversations between the hospitals and the lawyers as to what that should be.  This bill sort of splits the difference.”

Chandler told her committee that she drafted the substitute bill in consultation with Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, who supports House Bill 99. Chandler said the substitute  bill would create a multitiered cap on punitive damages that varies according to the type and size of a medical clinic or hospital. She estimated the bill would cap punitive damages at about $1 million for independent physicians and clinics, $6 million for locally owned hospitals and $15 million for larger corporate-owned hospitals. All the caps would increase in tandem with the consumer price index.

The committee’s unanimous approval of the substitute bill also killed an amendment introduced last month by Rep. Liz Thomson, D-Albuquerque, that would have left unlimited punitive damages on larger corporate-owned hospitals while limiting damages for five smaller hospitals in the state. That amendment drew opposition from hospital and physician groups.

New Mexico currently has no limits on punitive damages, which has resulted in sizable damage awards against hospitals in recent years. Supporters of the caps say fear of punitive damages has driven up medical malpractice insurance premiums and discouraged physicians from practicing in New Mexico.

It is unclear if  limits on punitive damages will result in lower medical malpractice insurance premiums. It was on February 6 that Representative  Chandler told members of the Judiciary Committee she was “very skeptical” that insurance costs for physicians and hospitals would decrease if the bill becomes law. Chandler said the  bill would allow hospitals, doctors and insurance companies to plan for risk because they would know what the maximum awards would be, except for uncapped medical expenses.

SUPPORT EXPRESSED

The New Mexico Hospital Association expressed support for the new substitute version of HB 99. Troy Clark, CEO of the New Mexico Hospital Association, said the lower $6 million cap on punitive damages likely will apply to five New Mexico hospitals, including Cibola General Hospital in Grants, Holy Cross Medical Center in Taos, Rehoboth McKinley Christian Hospital in Gallup and San Juan Regional Medical Center in Farmington. Clark said The higher $15 million caps would apply to more than 30 hospitals statewide, including five Presbyterian Healthcare System hospitals and five Lovelace hospitals. Clark also said the he higher cap would apply to 11 post-acute hospitals, which are rehabilitation or behavioral health facilities.

Troy Clark told the committee this:

“We’ve been pushing for lower caps, obviously.  … [The $15 million cap is] kind of at the threshold of what the hospitals felt still made a meaningful difference in our ability to recruit and retain physicians. We still feel this is a meaningful bill to address the situation of our access-to-care crisis.”

SKEPTISM EXPRESSED

New Mexico House Speaker Javier Martínez, D-Albuquerque  voted for the substitute bill. However he said he is skeptical that limiting punitive damages will solve New Mexico’s physician shortage. Speaker Martinez said this:

“I am a little disappointed that (in) 2026 here we are looking for another solution to a problem that I think goes a lot deeper than medical malpractice.  … I think that so much of that horror story goes well beyond this issue. I really hope that in 2029 we’re not in the same situation trying to fix something again.”

The New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association is  a group that consistently over the years has opposed medical malpractice reform efforts, expressed disappointment with the substitute bill. Albuquerque trial  attorney Cid Lopez, who has represented victims and families in medical malpractice cases, said this:

“We went into the session being told this was about protecting doctors, and then they pivoted and the big corporations said ‘no deal unless we get the same protections. … [The bill as written] really takes away the power of juries to hold those big corporations fully accountable.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/medical-malpractice-bill-advances-to-house-floor/2979581

HOUSE VOTES 66 TO 3 TO APPROVE HOUSE BILL 99

On Saturday, February 14, the New Mexico House voted overwhelmingly 66 to 3 to approve House Bill 99. The bill drew support from both Republicans and Democrats alike in a debate that only lasted about 20 minutes. Previous committee hearings on the bill had stretched for hours.

House Minority Leader Gail Armstrong, R-Magdalena, said the legislation wasn’t perfect but is still “much, much better” than current medical malpractice law. Rep. Christine Chandler, D-Los Alamos, the bill’s lead sponsor said this: “This is a reasonable compromise that will help us assure our doctors that they’re valued here and bring new providers. “ The only three “no” votes were cast by Reps. Janelle Anyanonu of Albuquerque, Angelica Rubio of Las Cruces and Patricia Roybal Caballero of Albuquerque. All three are Democrats.

HB 99 now advances to the Senate where its  fate is far from certain despite the decisive vote in the House. Before a full Senate vote, the measure must  win approval in the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Sen. Joseph Cervantes, D-Las Cruces, the committee’s chairman, said his committee  would likely hold a hearing on the measure early next week.

Govrnor Lujan Grisham said she expect the Senate to expedite consideration of the House-approved bill and said this in a statement: .

“With this bill, we’re not choosing between patients and providers — we’re choosing both. … [The bill] protects patients who have been harmed by medical malpractice while making it possible for physicians to practice here without fear of bankruptcy.” 

The link to the relied upon or quoted news source is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/as-session-nears-end-medical-malpractice-bill-passes-house-on-overwhelming-vote/2981301

https://www.kob.com/politics-news/new-mexico-politics/medical-malpractice-bill-heads-to-senate/

https://www.koat.com/article/house-bill-99-medical-malpractice-reform-passes-the-house/70363826

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

There is no doubt that the two most defining issues of the 2026 New Mexico legislative session are medical malpractice reform and free universal childcare to New Mexico families, regardless of income.  If enacted, both measures will be the final defining and enduring legacy of Governor Michell Lujan Grisham.

With only six days remaining before the 2026 Legislative session ends on February 19, both bills becoming law remain in serious doubt.  If one or both fail to get enacted by the legislature, you can expect Governor Lujan Grisham will call yet another Special Session to get passage before her term ends on January 1, 2027, when the new Governor is sworn in.

Such is the fate of a lame duck Governor who cannot influence enough votes from her own party to get legislation she wants passed.

The Albuquerque Journal Editorial Opinion pages feature 5 types of opinion columns submitted for publication: those by the paper’s Editorial Board, those by the paper’s Community Council, those by Syndicated Columnists, those by Local Columnists and those by Local Voices.

“Local Columnists are tasked with carrying a heavy load of responsibility to help readers scrutinize issues impacting them, their community and their country. It is the Journal’s goal to publish columnists from all walks of life and varying political viewpoints to give readers exposure to all sides of local issues.”

All headlines for Albuquerque Journal guest opinion columns published are written by Journal editors and not the columnists.

On December 11, the Albuquerque Journal published on its editorial opinion page C4 the below “Local Columnist” opinion column by Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman:

JOURNAL HEADLINE:  The Supremacy Clause does not give the federal government the authority to commit crimes

BY: Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman

This is a pivotal time for our state and country. As the Bernalillo County district attorney, it is my responsibility and duty to prosecute anyone who breaks the laws of New Mexico. Contrary to a recent op-ed, no one is above the law; not the president of the United States or federal agents who act outside the scope of their duties. Given what we are seeing in Minneapolis and across the country, it is dangerous and a complete distortion of the law for anyone to suggest that federal agents have complete immunity for their unlawful actions against our communities.

It is a basic tenet of federalism that the states retain their general authority to prosecute those who break state laws. The Supremacy Clause does not unilaterally give the federal government immunity from those state laws. Federal courts have recognized “… the Supremacy Clause was not intended to be a shield for ‘anything goes’ conduct by federal law enforcement officers.” The clause merely limits state prosecution against federal agents who are acting within the scope of their lawful, legal authority. Nothing in the Supremacy Clause, the U.S. Constitution or any federal statute vests federal agents with absolute immunity. In fact, the law recognizes that after federal courts have reviewed and determined federal agents have acted unreasonably outside the scope of their lawful authority, they are subject to state prosecution for their unlawful actions.

I am mindful of the very important and dangerous job that law enforcement officers have to protect our community. As I have repeatedly stated, I fully support our law enforcement officers who take up this dangerous calling. However, I will never abdicate my responsibility to prosecute anyone who acts outside the scope of their authority and breaks the law. That was my message to Immigration and Customs Enforcement that I reiterate now, to all federal agents and law enforcement officers operating in Bernalillo County and to the citizens who are terrified by what they are witnessing: If any federal agent takes action without a judicial warrant, probable cause or reasonable suspicion, they are violating the 4th Amendment of the federal Constitution, and are no longer protected by the Supremacy Clause. If that action violates applicable state laws, I will act accordingly.

The checks and balances between the states and the federal government are integral to the proper functioning of our form of government. Our Founding Fathers recognized in the 10th Amendment that the states and our citizens have inherent rights and authority to check the federal government’s overreach. Throughout our nation’s history, we have seen this balancing act play out: the Civil Rights movement, the Civil War and Alien and Sedition Acts. Even today, countless federal courts have recognized that right in rulings against the Trump administration’s overreach. When that system works and the federal government and states do their respective jobs, our citizens can take comfort and trust that their constitutional rights are protected. State leaders have taken an oath and have a constitutional responsibility to stand up, speak out and take action as we witness the potential degradation of our democracy.

I am proud to represent Bernalillo County and to stand up for the people of New Mexico. I have been fighting to protect our constitutional rights before state and federal courts for over 30 years. This is more than just politics. It is my duty. The people of New Mexico deserve to live their lives without the fear of federal agents unlawfully searching and detaining their children and neighbors.

Sam Bregman is the Bernalillo County district attorney and a New Mexico Democratic gubernatorial candidate. 

The link to the Albuquerque Journal DA Sam Bregman column with Journal photo is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/opinion-the-supremacy-clause-does-not-give-the-federal-government-the-authority-to-commit-crimes/2974618

BREGMAN GIVES NOTICE WILL PROSECUTE ICE AGENTS WHO  DETAIN, CONFINE OR RESTRAIN ANY PERSON WITHOUT A WARRANT

On January 21, Bernalillo County  District Attorney Sam Bregman sent a letter to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)  Assistant Field Office Director Bill Shaw and Customs Enforcement (ICE) placing the federal agency on notice that he will prosecute ICE agents who detain, confine or restrains any  person in Bernalillo County without a warrant. DA Bregman emphasized that ICE agents could be prosecuted under New Mexico law for the felony of “false imprisonment”.

The full letter sent to ICE Assistant Field Office Director Bill Shaw is as follows:

“Dear Mr. Shaw,

I write to express my deep concern about ICE procedures and operations across the country. Videos and the accompanying reporting raise significant questions about ICE’s willingness and ability to comply with constitutional limitations while performing their duties. These incidents further undermine confidence in ICE leadership’s commitment to ensuring basic due process for the public that they serve.

ICE’s nationwide pattern of unconstitutional enforcement actions give rise to questions and unease about ICE activity in New Mexico. Specifically, certain activity by ICE agents reported in other states would be criminal under the laws of New Mexico.

False imprisonment is a felony under New Mexico law. NMSA 1978, § 30-4-3 provides: “False imprisonment consists of intentionally confining or restraining another person without his consent and with knowledge that he has no lawful authority to do so.”

There is no exception under New Mexico law for law enforcement officers who detain or restrain a person without lawful authority. Unless an ICE Officer has a valid warrant, lawful authority for restraint or detention under New Mexico and Federal law requires either reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

Therefore, any ICE agent who, without a signed warrant and without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, detains, confines or restrains a person in Bernalillo County may be subject to prosecution.

 Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.”                         

Sam Bregman
Second Judicial District Attorney

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

There is absolutely no doubt that ICE is already present in Albuquerque and are taking very aggressive actions and taking people into custody. At least two eyewitnesses have reported seeing in Albuquerque ICE vehicles being transported into the city.

It was on July 7, 2025 that an altercation occurred between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents detaining and tasing a man inside the Albuquerque Walmart located at 2550 Coors Blvd. NW. The video taken of the incident reveals three ICE agents, two of whom are masked, subdue the man with a Taser and took him into custody. The 20-second video went viral and received national media attention. Protests erupted in the City over the ICE action

https://www.yahoo.com/news/video-ice-uses-taser-detain-182811140.html

Albuquerque and New Mexico are already on Trump’s radar to retaliate against. The Trump Administration has already falsely declared Albuquerque a Sanctuary City and is withholding millions of dollars in federal funding to the city. Recently, Trump declared New Mexico elections to be corrupt and rigged.

There should be no doubt that what Bernalillo County DA Bregman said about ICE tactics was necessary given the killings of two people by ICE in Minneapolis, Minnesota. There have already been protests in Albuquerque over the killings. The fact that the city and state are Hispanic minority-majority and strongly Democrat  puts a target on our backs and makes it very likely ICE will soon increase enforcement actions here. The fact that New Mexico is a border state also increases the odds that New Mexico is on the Trump Administration’s radar for ICE enforcement action.

It is more likely than not the threat of prosecution of ICE agents by DA Bregman will embolden ICE to do even more in the State. What city and state residents should be concerned about is if the Albuquerque Police Department (APD), the Bernalillo County Sherriff (BCSO) and for that matter the New Mexico State Police will back DA Bregman up when the time comes and if they are prepared to react to ICE enforcement actions with tactical plans and arrest ICE agents who violate New Mexico law.

DA Sam Bregman and Attorney General Raul Torrez, and perhaps with the assistance of the New Mexico ACLU, would be wise to initiate a Federal Civil Rights class action lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security and ICE as a preemptive strike to secure restraining orders requiring ICE agents to follow New Mexico law. The injunctive relief should include ICE being required to secure court orders to make arrests, wear body cameras during their operations and remove masks and identify themselves during their enforcement actions.

The actions of ICE need to be condemned and stopped in no uncertain terms and before New Mexico citizens are killed and the City and State become a national headline.

Jaemes Shanley is a retired business executive who resides in the Mark Twain neighborhood in Albuquerque’s mid heights.  He is the President of the Mark Twain Neighborhood Association and the Vice President of the District 7 Neighborhood Coalition comprised of over 10 neighborhood associations. Mr. Shanley has been connected to Albuquerque since 1969 and a continuous resident since 2006 after extended periods residing and working in Australia, Tokyo, Japan, and Boston, MA.

Jaemes Shanley submitted the below guest opinion column to be published on www.PeteDinelli.com on the proposed Blackstone, Inc acquisition of the Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM). The acquisition must be approved by the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission who are currently holding hearing on the proposed acquisition. Mr. Shanley’s guest column is being published as a public service announcement to educate the public. Jaemes Shanley has given his consent to publish his article with no compensation.

The Public Regulation Commission Should Say NO To Blackstone, Inc. Acquisition Of PNM

We Won’t Know What We’ve Got ‘Till It’s Gone!

By Jaemes Shanley

On Thursday afternoon, February  5^th in the hearing room of the Public Regulation Commission at 4100 Osuna NE, a startlingly large number of New Mexicans of diverse age, gender, and ethnicity gathered to express their opinions about the proposed acquisition of Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM), our largest utility and supplier of electricity to a majority of NM residents, by private equity firm Blackstone Inc..  The Commissioners appeared surprised by the numbers, which filled the room to overflowing, with many required to stand, and people lined up out of the room in the hallway.  By the standard of City Council meetings I have recently attended, the event was relatively orderly, though not as quiet as Commissioners wished.  Opinions expressed, by my estimate, were 20 or more to 1 against the acquisition.

After 3 hours of continuous comment and many still waiting to speak, Commissioners closed the session and have scheduled it to resume as a virtual meeting at 3pm on February 12^th

(https://www.prc.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/2026.02.12-Notice-of-Public-Comment-Hearing-25-00060.pdf ).

The following day, Friday, February 6^th, the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) approved the proposed acquisition of Texas-New Mexico Power Company (TXNM), sole owner of PNM, based on their determination the acquisition is “in the public interest”.     As a member of the “public” in New Mexico, I must confess to being unaccustomed to my “interest” being determined by an agency of the Texas state government.

PNM, which serves 550,000 NM customers, is the larger of two utility entities wholly owned by TXNM, the other being Texas New Mexico Power (TNMP) which serves 260,000 homes and businesses across Texas.   TXNM annual revenue is approx. $2.2 billion, of which more than 62% is derived from New Mexico.

WINNERS AND LOSERS

The enticements being offered by Blackstone to TXNM shareholders, of which over 84% are institutional investors, are not trivial.   Their offer price per share is at a 23% premium over the prevailing share trading price prior to the offer, a $1.4 billion “bonus”.

Rate paying PNM customers are also being offered some financial scraps in exchange for their future vassalage to a New York company whose assets under management exceed the GDP of all but the world’s 21 largest nations. The financial incentives being offered are:

• $105 million in rate credits over the 4 years after acquisition. That translates to $3.98 per customer per month for 48 months.  Truly life changing!
• $10 million over 10 years for Good Neighbor Fund support to low-income customers. If 5% of PNM customers are low income that will translate into a whopping $3.03 per month in assistance for a decade most if not all of it likely to be consumed by future rate increases.
• $35 million for economic development and workforce training; offered once in exchange for harvesting over $1.4 billion per year in revenues, until they start squeezing the PRC for even more.
• $25 million for clean technology investments. Really!?  At this stage of threat from climate change, Blackstone promises to invest, over an unspecified period, just 1.8% of one year’s gross PNM revenue?

The shareholders of TXNM, including managers with stock rights incentives, are undoubtedly thrilled by their financial windfall should this acquisition be approved.  A $1.4 billion share price bonus is nothing to sneer at.  Let us not be surprised nor outraged if they favor this deal.

The electricity rate payers of New Mexico, on the other hand, should the deal be approved, will mourn their further subjugation to the whims and arbitrary extraction of their money, without effective recourse, by an entity headquartered in New York in exchange for a few “crumbs” of short-term rates relief.

To those who will claim that a Blackstone owned and controlled PNM will still be subject to PRC oversight and approval of rate increases etc., please consider the position of the PRC when Blackstone is able to “engineer” the financials and infrastructure it fully and privately controls  to threaten brownouts or blackouts, selectively or broadly, if it does not receive approval for rate increases it demands so it can deliver returns on invested capital to its real customers, the already uber-wealthy  investors in its managed funds.

WHAT IS PRIVATE EQUITY AND WHY DOES IT HAVE SO MUCH MONEY TO SPEND?

In the simplest of terms, private equity is the vast ocean of capital that results when a nation transitions its focus from spending priorities with longer term horizons like manufacturing, infrastructure, R&D, and maintaining an upwardly mobile middle class, to prioritizing short term financial return.  Among the byproducts of that transition are widening income inequality, growing pools of excess wealth needing to be invested, and an explosion of mergers and acquisitions no longer restrained by enforcement of antitrust law.

WHO IS BLACKSTONE INC.?

Blackstone, Inc., founded in 1985 by Stephen Schwarzman (current Chairman & CEO) and Peter Peterson, has leveraged the tools of capitalism and favorable tax law to transform $400,000 in seed capital into a market capitalization of $159 billion and a $1.3 trillion portfolio of Assets Under Management with 2025 revenue of $24.22 billion and net income of $5.55 billion.

Their portfolio is highly diversified reflecting no specialization or priority focus.  It includes hotels, food, information, business services, specialty retail, medical devices, technology, communications, oil & gas, healthcare, and real estate.  Review of their acquisitions reveals only one strategic consistency, the opportunity to extract good returns.  An example is their acquisition after the 2007 sub-prime mortgage crisis of $5.5 billion worth of multi-family homes for rent and sale after prices recovered.

Blackstone has been a public company since 2007 and is therefore bound by fiduciary obligation to prioritize above anything else a positive return for its shareholders.  Its fund and operations managers are compensated and incentivized with bonuses based solely on their delivery of returns to their investors at higher rates than bank or treasuries can offer.  Customer satisfaction of their acquisitions is irrelevant to that mission.

PUBLIC UTILITIES / PRIVATE EQUITY

When businesses operate in a competitive environment, customers have leverage to demand service because they can take their business elsewhere.   A public utility is a de facto monopoly.  As customers of PNM, we do not have the option to unplug from their grid and plug in to another.  That inescapable fact makes us vulnerable to exploitation and abuse in the wrong hands.  Locating those hands in New York is no way to protect the rate paying citizens of New Mexico.

Blackstone has already declared that if successful in their bid, they will take TXNM private, further insulating it from the pernicious influence of public accountability.

The big question now before the 3 member Public Regulation  Commission (NMPRC) that will approve or block the sale of PNM/TXNM to Blackstone, is whether or not they will sell our future energy autonomy, security and affordability to an out-of-state entity with intimidating financial power and influence, no commitment to a vision for New Mexico’s energy future, a troubling record of litigation over their management of multiple businesses, and vested interest in companies and industries (i.e.. AI data centers) which can benefit from biased application of rates for electric power.

THE FUTURE OF ENERGY AND NEW MEXICO

 New Mexico is a state phenomenally endowed with potential to lead in the transition from carbon-based energy to solar, geo-thermal, and other energy technologies.  Electricity will be the currency of that transformation, powering homes, businesses, cars, appliances, communication, data services and manufacturing industry.   The capital needed to invest in realization of that potential does not require handing over the keys, control and ultimate benefits to an out-of-state shark pool of the ultra-wealthy.

There could be no wiser nor more appropriate allocation of at least partial support for such capital investments than from State of New Mexico reserves accumulated from oil and gas royalties.  Frankly speaking, it is difficult to understand how the State and people of New Mexico would not optimally benefit from an outright acquisition of PNM and making it a Public Service Company in both name and deed.  Its financials indicate a solid capacity to match the rate of return New Mexico now enjoys from its +/- $60 billion sovereign wealth fund.

There could be nothing more short-sighted and short-changing of New Mexico citizens than to hand over to a private equity company full ownership of our most promising treasure, a financially established and stable clean energy future fed by the abundant sunshine, wind, and geothermal energy gifted to us.

IF PNM WAS NOT A PRIZE, BLACKSTONE WOULD NOT BE TRYING TO BUY IT!

It is as imprudent to consider surrendering “ownership” of electric power generation and transmission in New Mexico to an out of state entity as it would be to similarly surrender rights and ownership of water and air.

Failure to prevent this out of state acquisition will only further fulfill the dystopian projections of economist Thomas Piketty in 2013, whose Capital in the Twenty-First Century predicted that unregulated concentration of ownership and resulting inequality will produce a society of serfs.  He asserted that unrestricted market forces had already advanced so far on that trajectory that only government intervention could avert it.  Nothing in observable reality over the intervening years, discredits his predictions.

Joni Mitchell also warned us in 1970, with far greater economy of words.

There are now a lot more things threatening paradise than parking lots.   We in New Mexico should not let Blackstone Inc. be one of them.

 CALL TO ACTION

 Members of the public are urged to send written comment about this acquisition to PRC Commissioners using PRCe360 at https://e360.prc.nm.gov/ or can mail letters or statements to each of the Commissioners (Chair Gabriel Aguilera, Greg Nibert, and Pat O’Connell) at P.O. Box 1269, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504.

Individuals who have not previously signed up to comment at the February 5th hearing who wish to comment at the February 12th hearing must sign up by contacting Patrick Rodriguez at public.comment@prc.nm.gov or (505) 490-7910 by 5pm the day before the hearing.

RESPECTFULLY,

Jaemes Shanley

___________________________

POSTSCRIPT

Links to all reference materials relied upon for this article are here:

https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NYSE/TXNM/institutional-ownership/

https://www.txnmenergy.com/about-us/at-a-glance.aspx

https://www.pnm.com/acquisition

https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/newsroom/press-releases/article/corporate-one/press-releases/blackrock-reports-fourth-quarter-2025

https://www.investing.com/news/sec-filings/txnm-energy-inc-approves-new-executive-compensation-plans-93CH-3897979

https://www.sic.state.nm.us/about-the-sic/

https://www.aol.com/news/data-centers-powering-blackstones-1-184937049.html

https://texaslawbook.net/blackstones-rushed-788m-sale-of-energy-company-kicks-off-docket-of-dallas-business-court/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone_Inc.#Buyouts_(2005–2007)

https://www.investing.com/academy/trading/blackrock-vs-blackstone/

https://pestakeholder.org/news/blackstone-plans-to-acquire-multi-utility-txnm-raising-concerns-about-energy-affordability/

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/TXNM-ENERGY-INC-14072/company-shareholders/

https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/txnm/market-cap/

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/PNMXO/financials/

https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/bx/market-cap/?__v=1770565952015

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico_Public_Regulation_Commission

On December 3, 2024, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham announced plans to move the New Mexico State Fair to a different location and redevelop the 236 acre State Fair property into a mixed-use development. On March 21, 2025, the New Mexico legislature passed legislation creating the “State Fairgrounds District.” It is a board that has redevelopment funding authority over the existing State Fairgrounds area. The board has no authority to move the fairgrounds. It will be up to the New Mexico State Fair Commission to make the decision to move the fairgrounds.

The State Fairgrounds District Board is empowered to raise property taxes and issue up to $500 million in bonds to fund future development of the property, to make improvements to repurpose the property. According to the legislation, the board will govern the development of the district for six years.

Voting members of the State Fairgrounds District Governing Board are:

• Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, chairperson
• Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller
• Senator Mimi Stewart, Senate President Pro-Tempore, International District, #17
• State  Representative Janelle Anyanonu whose district the fair grounds is located
• City Councilor Nichole Rogers whose district the fair grounds is located
• County Commissioner Adriann Barboa whose district the fair grounds is located
• Peter Belletto, President, District 6 Neighborhood Coalition

NM SENATE APPROVES $93 MILLION IN BONDS

On February 6, 2026 the New Mexico Senate approved Senate Bill 48 which would authorize $92 million in bonds for the Expo New Mexico fairgrounds redevelopment project.  The legislation is sponsored by Senate President Pro Tempore Mimi Stewart and Representative Janelle Anyanonu, both who are voting members of State Fairgrounds District Board.  Senate Bill 48 requires approval from both chambers of the NM Legislature before the bonds can be issued. Senate Bill 48 will be forwarded to the New Mexico House for approval.

Since the project’s launch, the State Board of Finance has approved nearly $100 million in initial funding for land acquisition and infrastructure improvements, including a 10-acre public park with trails, play areas and pedestrian safety upgrades along the Fairgrounds’ boundary.

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said this in a statement:

“Today’s Senate vote moves us one step closer to a historic revitalization of the International District and central Albuquerque. … This bonding authority in a neighborhood with enormous potential will create the kind of mixed-use development with housing, vibrant streets and the economic opportunity that this community deserves.”

The master plan for the Fairgrounds, currently under development by Stantec design firm, will be finalized in the next few weeks. The master plan will guide decisions about the site’s future, including potential mixed-income housing, a new exhibition hall and expanded green space as well as possibly moving the State Fair.

In December, the state’s design contractor, Stantec Consulting Services, unveiled three preliminary designs for the fairgrounds, all of which include a hotel and event venue, parks, retail space and mixed-income housing. One of the designs proposes relocating the fair, a topic that became a sticking point for some on the Senate floor.

During Friday’s debate, several Republican senators expressed concern about the possibility of the State Fair being moved from Albuquerque. Several  Republican senators raised concerns on behalf of rural communities.

Minority Whip Sen. Pat Woods, R-Broadview, questioned whether lawmakers were effectively ceding control to an unelected commission.

Sen. Candy Spence Ezzell, R-Roswell said this:

“I’m upset about what they’re planning on doing if this move does take place.  … I’m really upset where a commission gets to make the decision for every person in the state.”

Ezzell also criticized conditions in the surrounding neighborhood, saying the state should “clean up the streets” before investing in beautification.

The State Board of Finance has already approved $89.35 million for land acquisition and a 10-acre public park with trails and pedestrian safety upgrades along the fairground’s boundary on the Southwest corner of San Pedro and Central.

Senator Stewart insisted a decision on whether to move the fair has not yet been made. She also said that decision will ultimately be made by the State Fair Commission, not the State Fairgrounds District Board. Members of the board include Stewart, Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller and Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham.

A spokesperson for Lujan Grisham’s office said the master plan for the 236-acre parcel of land “will be finalized in the next few weeks.”

Links to quoted or relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.governor.state.nm.us/2026/02/06/senate-approves-92-million-for-state-fairgrounds-project-funding-would-support-parks-infrastructure-improvements/

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/state-senate-approves-92-million-for-state-fairgrounds-project/2976539

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/legislature/92-million-approved-by-the-new-mexico-senate-for-state-fairgrounds-redevelopment/

GOVERNOR MLG’s FUNDING REQUESTS

On  December 22, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham released her $11.3 billion proposed budget for the fiscal year 2026 to 2027 which will commence July 1, 2026 and end June 30, 2027. The Governor’s proposed budget contains a proposed $100 million allocation to select, acquire and build a new State Fairgrounds.  If also contains another $100 million for State Fairgrounds revitalization projects, including affordable housing, park areas and new entertainment venues.

It is understood that Senate Bill 48 for $92 million in bonds for the Expo New Mexico fairgrounds redevelopment project is broken down to include $14 Million for land acquisitions of the 8 acres of land on the Southwest corner of San Pedro and Central with the balance of $78 million for infrastructure repairs and improvements to the existing fair grounds.  The $100 million allocation requested to select, acquire and build a new State Fairgrounds will be in the capital improvements bill still pending.

CONCEPT PLANS RELEASED

On December 8, 2025 the Governor’s Office released to the public three concept plans prepared by Stantec for the development of the State Fair property. All three Concept Plans call for major redevelopment of the Southwest corner of land now privately owned and with existing business at San Pedro  and Central Avenue.

The state is already moving to acquire for $22 million the property  with the issuance of bonds to finance the acquisition of the properties either by negotiations with the property and business owners or by litigation and adverse condemnation. Confidential sources have confirmed that letters inquiring about the acquisition of the property have already gone out.

Two of three designs keep the fair where it is but on a reduced footprint, and they share many of the same amenities, though they differ in size and quantity.

Concept One maintains the midway, using it as a large parking lot for the rest of the year, but adds a new exhibition space, a 10-acre park, affordable housing, an event center and a hotel to the grounds’ south side.

Concept Two significantly reduce the midway while new amenities like an event center would take up more space. The second design also includes space for a museum.

Concept Three is the most draconian of the three plans. It would require the fairgrounds to be completely relocated. On top of the amenities present in the previous designs, this design would include “hundreds” of housing units, a school, workforce development center and two parks that would add 20 acres for park areas.

Regardless of which of the three concept designs the state chooses, all three share similarities, including a hotel, event venue, a new park, mixed-income housing and retail space. The tree-lined Main Street is preserved in all three designs.

All three of the concept plans place a major emphasis and dedicate large portions of the State Fair property to affordable housing and large park areas. The mixed used housing would include apartments, condominiums and town homes for low income or subsidized housing.

On November 11, after the  State Fair District Board meeting, Governor Lujan Grisham was interviewed by KRQE News 13.  The governor said she favors the third Concept Plan, which is the most aggressive concept plan that proposes moving the state fair. The Governor  said she is still waiting for cost estimates before making a final decision. The governor said this:

“I want a whole new footprint in the middle, the center of historic Albuquerque. I prefer option 3. …This state needs and deserves a robust state fair property.

Governor Lujan Grisham said she shares frustrations about crime in the area and criticized what she called a “lack of leadership and inadequate response from local officials and first responders.”

The Governor said this:

“When I look at the outcomes here, I am feeling very frustrated by the lack of progress. … I think this community should demand that we are all working together. … I think redevelopment has a real impact. … Prosperity makes opportunity.”

The Governor argued that redevelopment could help shift the neighborhood’s trajectory.

STRONG OPPOSITION TO MOVING STATE FAIR IGNORED BY GOVERNOR

Governor Lujan Grisham’s proposal to moving the state fair has been met with strong opposition and resentment from area residents of Albuquerque’s International District, which has dealt with rampant and rising drug use and homelessness in recent years. The proposed redevelopment has proven controversial with residents in the International District who say that they are concerned the funding will do little to help the neighborhood, will uproot the historic annual State Fair and will, like past efforts at fairgrounds redevelopment, be a flop.

On February 26, 2025,  Bernalillo County Government  held meeting to discuss and provide information on a proposed Tax Increment Development District (TIDD) for the New State Fairgrounds. Upwards of 200 residents attended. Most if not all of the public present for the February 26 meeting were very hostile to moving the state fair and spoke out against moving the state fair to another location.

Audience members were given the opportunity to speak after the presentation on the proposed Tax Increment District (TIDD). Audience members said that the City and the Mayor Tim Keller Administration have been a total failure in cleaning up Central and the city has failed to address crime and the homeless crisis on Central. Audience members argued that before anything is spent on improving or moving the Fair Grounds, money would be better spent cleaning up Central, dealing with the homeless, drug addicted and mentally ill and providing them with services to get them off the streets.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It’s downright laughable and pathetic that Governor Lujan Grisham requested $100 million dollars in her proposed 2026-2027 budget for moving the state fairgrounds. There have been at least two prior studies on the cost of moving the State Fairgrounds that have found that the cost would be $1 Billion to $1.1 Billion dollars, but the Governor simply ignores both.

PATHETIC REQUEST FOR $100 MILLION

What makes Governor Lujan Grisham’s $100 Million request of the 2026 Legislature to move the fairgrounds so very pathetic is no one has actually studied nor proposed exactly where the state fair would be moved nor determine the actual cost.  On December 3, 2024 when Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham announced her plan to move the State Fair, no new location was announced but she suggested that keeping the State Fair centrally located such as in Bernalillo, Valencia or Torrance County would be beneficial due to the interstates. Governor Lujan Grisham said this:

“We have made the decision preliminarily to ask for folks to focus on the center of the state … but there are a lot of spaces. Though Albuquerque is a bit constrained, there are still plenty of opportunities in Bernalillo County. Imagine, if you will, that Valencia County could offer up some interesting proposals, that the South Valley right here in Bernalillo County [could do the same]. Bernalillo County ought to think about where would a new developed platform in space be. Maybe Torrance County, maybe Edgewood and Santa Fe.

Governor Lujan Grisham has embraced Concept 3 as her preferred plan which calls for moving the State Fair. It is painfully obvious that Governor Lujan Grisham is simply ignoring the public opposition to moving the State Fair knowing that she is a lame duck with less than  a year left before her term ends to accomplish a legacy project she wants and to be rubber stamped by her appointed State Fair District Board and State Fair Commission.

Concept Plan 3 is the most draconian of the 3 Concept Plans with the ultimate goal of moving  the State Fair ground. Governor Lujan Grisham said she would like to see the project break ground before she leaves office at the end of this year.

The Governor’s words and her budgetary request for $100 million confirm what she has said and what she has known all along and that is the Governor is hell bent on moving the state fair over strong public opposition and is rushing the project to have a legacy project before she leaves office in a year.

A POLITICAL SHAM OF A BOARD 

The biggest sham is that Governor’s appointed State Fair District Board and Stantec are going along with the Governors efforts to move the State Fair so that all of its property can be dedicated to reviving and benefiting the International District. The Governor and her board have essentially  ignored  the needs and concerns of neighborhoods and businesses to the West, North and East of the Fairgrounds.  Five out of the seven State Fair District Board members are elected officials of the International District with the President of the District 6 Coalition of Neighborhoods all in the International District.   

GOVERNOR BLAMES LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND LEADERSHIP

What is so very offensive is Governor Lujan Grisham blaming local law enforcement and local leadership for failing to deal with crime and the unhoused crisis in the International District. She then turns around in the same breath to argue that there is a need to “re dedicate” the state fair property to solve those problems.

It is clear the State Fairgrounds redevelopment is being promoted by the Governor and her appointed State Fair District Board as being some sort of a great panacea to solve the problems of crime, the homeless, lack of affordable housing and lack of economic development in the International District. It will not.

The Fair Grounds cannot be characterized as the cause or as a magnet for crime within the International District. No statistics have been presented to the State Fair board on the extent of crime that occurs on the State Fairgrounds itself. No discussion has been held or proof offered as to what extent the State Fair grounds is responsible for crime in the International District.

The International District, which is bordered by Central South of the State Fairgrounds has had for decades some of the highest violent crime, property crime and drug offense rates, so much so that it was at one time referred to as the WAR ZONE until it was officially renamed the International District, but the renaming had no impact on the trajectory of the area.  The International District continues to be plagued by high crime rates and  now has become a magnet for the homeless with encampments constantly popping up and cleaned up by the city only to pop up again.

Crime and the unhoused is what is destroying  private investment, job growth and small business development within  in the International District. After all the millions are spent to redevelop the fairgrounds, to improve infra structure and traffic flow, building a park, adding public spaces and allowing businesses and low-income housing, the problems of high crime rates and the unhoused will remain the same in the International District because they have never been solved for decades. No businesses will want to relocate to the State Fair grounds after it is developed into commercial property, and it will become a magnet for crime and for the homeless, especially with parks.

AFFORABLE HOUSING

Efforts to address “affordable housing” continue to be a major target and goal for the State Fairgrounds District Board and is a very big part of the presentations made to the State Fair District Governing Board by Stantec.  The three redevelopment Concept Plans for the property propose to commandeer a good portion of the Expo NM State Fair Property for affordable housing  and it is as absurd as it gets.

The term affordable housing is about as misleading as it gets. It is a term often used by politicians, elected officials and developers to promote their own personal or political agendas. Simply put construction costs are consistent when it comes to housing and in today’s market are extremely high as are existing housing costs.  When the term “affordable housing” is used by the politicians, elected officials and developer’s, what is meant is “subsidized government housing”. 

Affordable housing or subsidized housing for low-income income earners is not the highest and best use of any portion of the 236 acres of prime property for development in the center of Albuquerque. It would put a small dent in the shortage of housing.

The highest and best use of the 236 acres of property is the State Fair itself and keeping it as Expo New Mexico and developing a year-round Entertainment District and to preserve the New Mexico State Fair and Expo New Mexico where it is now.

Efforts for affordable housing use for the State Fair grounds should be abandoned in that it would impair the overall goal and development of the property for projects that benefit the entire community as a whole and for public use.

PARKS WILL BECOME MAGNETS FOR CRIME AND THE HOMELESS

All three of the concept plans place a major emphasis and dedicate large portions of the State Fair property to park areas with access from Central or San Pedro to the parks. Concept One provides a 10-acre  public park. Concept Two provides a 9-acre public park. Concept three provides for a 22-acre  public park.

The reality of the city’s homeless crisis is that parks are notoriously magnets for crime and the unhoused. At this point, the State Fairgrounds, does not have a crime problem with the New Mexico State Police having primary law enforcement responsibility to calls for service. The lack of crime on the state fair property will no doubt change with parks.

Area resident Dave Kailer was absolutely correct when he was  questioned whether a proposed park could thrive in the area and he said this:

“You know what is going to happen to that park if you put it in the war zone? It will turn into a homeless park, let’s face it. … I don’t want to be ugly about it or negative about it. I’m just being realistic.”

History tends to repeat itself over and over again especially when it comes to the homeless crisis. Governor Mitchell Lujan Grisham might as well dedicate any park on State Fair grounds property with public access as Coronado Park 2 in remembrance to Coronado Park which was closed by the city as a result of more than 125 unsheltered people taking over the park to camp and it becoming a hot bed for narcotic usage, trafficking illicit drugs and violent crime, including homicides and rapes. Coronado Park became a “de facto” city sanctioned homeless encampment thanks to Mayor Keller’s reluctance to do do anything about the unauthorized use of the park by the homeless and costing the city $50,000 to clean it up each month. Eventually, Keller declared Coronado Park as the most dangerous place in the state to be and ordered the park closed.

FINAL COMMENTARY

The Governor and her appointed State Fair District Board is attempting to use the State Fair property to solve all the crime, economic problems and lack of affordable housing of the International District.  Until you reduce crime and homelessness on Central itself and in the International District itself, redevelopment of the State Fair property as envisioned by the Governor and Stantec will fail and Governor Lujan Grisham will go down as the Governor who destroyed the State Fair for the sake of her ego.

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller, Senate Pro Tempore Mimi Stewart, State Representative Janelle Anyanonu, City Councilor Nichole Rogers and County Commissioner Adriann Barboa who are the elected officials and politicians on the “State Fairgrounds District Board” need to keep their greedy little hands off the State Fair grounds and abandon any effort to move it or dedicate it for affordable housing and parks. Simply put, the surrounding neighborhoods, businesses and their constituents want the State Fair to remain where it is. They need to listen for a change and knock it off pretending to be developers.

The New Mexico Legislature, and especially all State Senators and State Representatives from Bernalillo County, need to VOTE no on any all funding to move the New Mexico State Fair.

The links to other related or quoted and relied upon news sources are here:

Will massive new funding push the New Mexico State Fair out of the city?

Three Preliminary Concept Plans For State Fair Property Presented To State Fair District Board; Governor MLG Embraces Concept Plan To Move State Fair; Gov. MLG Falsely Claims Redevelopment Of Property Will Revitalize International District’; Parks On Property Will Be Magnets For Crime And Homeless Encampments   

The  second session of the 57th New Mexico Legislature began on January 20 and it will end on February 19 when “sine die” or adjournment is declared. Thirty-day sessions are  focused on state budget matters and bills introduced by request of  the Governor or bills introduced by legislators that have a message from the governor identifying them as priorities for the session. February 4  marked the deadline for lawmakers to introduce new legislation for the remainder of the 30-day session.

Nearly 700 bills were filed in advance of the filing deadline with  378 in the House and 313 in the Senate along with roughly a dozen proposed constitutional amendments.  Many of the bills will simply not be considered since only budget-related measures and bills authorized by the governor can be considered in 30-day sessions, which are held in even-numbered years.  As of the filing deadline,  Governor Lujan Grisham had issued executive messages for 130 bills so far to be heard during this year’s session.

According to the Source NM Bill Tracker, Sen. Pete Campos (D-Las Vegas) has sponsored the most bills, with 41 sponsorships as of Wednesday morning. Sen. Elizabeth “Liz” Stefanics (D-Cerillos) is second with 29 bills and Rep. Andrea Reeb (R-Clovis) rounds out third with 26 bills.

HALFWAY POINT OF SESSION

February 4 marked the halfway point of the 2026 legislative session. Only 6 bills out of 533 bills introduced for the session won legislative approval at the hallway mark of the 30-day session. The six measures approved at midpoint are:

• House Bill 1:  Feed bill to pay for session expenses.
• House Bill 9:  Bars local governments from participating in federal civil immigration detention system.
• House Bill 50: Interstate medical compact for social workers.
• Senate Bill 1: Interstate medical compact for physicians.
• Senate Bill 2:  Increases funding for statewide road repairs and construction.
• Senate Bill 19: Allows Public Education Department to reset unit value for school funding after session concludes.

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/lawmakers-hit-midway-point-of-the-session-with-some-key-bills-dispatched-others-in-limbo/2974573

https://www.lascrucesbulletin.com/stories/halfway-through-the-30-day-legislative-session,156822

GOV. MLG SIGNS INFRASTRUCTURE, MEDICAL COMPACT BILLS AT MID-SESSION;  BIPARTISAN BILLS ADDRESS HEALTH CARE ACCESS, INVEST IN ROADS STATEWIDE

On February 5,  Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham  signed into law four bills that will strengthen New Mexico’s infrastructure, expand the state’s health care workforce and address concerns about immigrant detention.

The bills Governor Lujan Grisham signed into law are:

 Senate Bill 1: Interstate Medical Licensure Compact.   This bill allows physicians licensed in other compact states to practice in New Mexico more easily. This will help address the state’s health care workforce shortage and improve access to care, particularly in rural and underserved areas.

House Bill 50: Interstate Social Work Licensure Compact.   This bill similarly streamlines the licensure process for social workers, expanding the workforce available to support children, families, and vulnerable populations across New Mexico.

Senate Bill 2: Transportation Bonding Bill. This bill is a  $1.5 billion bonding package to improve New Mexico roads.  The bill provides a reliable source of funding for infrastructure projects across the state, supporting road improvements, bridge repairs, and transportation systems that connect New Mexican communities and drive economic growth. While Senate Bill 2 didn’t receive unanimous approval in either chamber, it did receive bipartisan support.

House Bill 9: Immigrant Safety Act.  This bill  is the most politically divisive measure  to reach the governor’s desk for signature so far. The bill bans local governments in New Mexico from contracting with the federal government to detain undocumented immigrants and others with pending civil immigration cases.  House Bill 9, creates a “bright line” between state and local resources and federal immigration enforcement, potentially forcing the closure of three detention facilities that collectively hold more than 1,000 people.

The bill  sparked heated debate about job and economic losses in the three rural counties that currently house immigration detention facilities. It was opposed unanimously by the Legislature’s Republican minority. A  handful of Democrats, mostly from the Cibola County area where one of the jails is located, also voted against it.

The bill also bans local law enforcement from entering formal partnerships with U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement allowing police to help carry out federal civil immigration enforcement efforts.

HB 9 will go into effect May 20, 2026.

https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2026/02/04/gov-set-to-sign-bill-closing-ice-facilities-in-new-mexico/

GORVERNOR THANKS LEGISLATURE

During the February 5 bill signing ceremony, Governor Lujan Grisham thanked the bill sponsors and legislative leadership for their partnership in moving the legislation forward quickly and efficiently during the session. Governor Lujan Grisham said this:

“Halfway through the session, we’re showing what’s possible when we focus on getting things done for New Mexicans.  … These bills represent major progress on issues that matter to working families, including safer roads, and more doctors and social workers to serve our communities. I look forward to getting even more done with lawmakers during the second half of the session.”

The link to the quoted news source is here:

https://www.governor.state.nm.us/2026/02/05/governor-signs-infrastructure-medical-compact-bills-at-mid-session-bipartisan-bills-address-health-care-access-and-invest-in-roads-statewide/

PROGRESS OF OTHER LEGISLATION

The progress of other major legislation and committee votes worth noting are as follows:

HOUSE BILL 2

On February 2, the House Appropriations and Finance Committee approved House Bill 2 on a bipartisan 15-3 vote a $11.1 billion spending plan that could pave the way for a high-profile New Mexico universal child care initiative to receive a funding infusion for the coming year. Three Republicans cast dissenting votes.

The House Appropriations and Finance Committee’s approved bill requires child care co-pays for higher-earning families.  The budget bill would increase year-over-year state spending by upwards of  $294.5 million, or 2.7%,  over current levels. This is  a smaller increase than in recent years, as state spending has increased by more than 70% since 2019. The  initiative would provide state-subsidized child care to all working New Mexico families, regardless of income levels.  The child care expansion, which made New Mexico the first state with universal child care when it took effect in November, has drawn national attention but also criticism from some legislators.

It’s uncertain  whether the House Appropriations and Finance Committee’s proposal to require child care co-pays for higher-earning families will be approved by the full House. Governor Lujan Grisham has consistently opposed the measure and called on lawmakers to fully fund free child care for all New Mexico families.

SENATE BILL 241 (UNIVERSAL CHILD CARE)

On  February 6,  Senate Bill 241 authorizing  universal child care statewide passed the Senate Education Committee  on a 6-3 vote.  SB 241 was  filed last  week.  SB 241 was sponsored by Sen. George Muñoz, D-Gallup.  Republican State Senator Gabriel Ramos from Silver City joined Democrats in voting in favor of the legislation. The committee’s remaining Republican members cast “no” votes.

Universal child care exists now after being implemented by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham with a governor’s  Executive Order. New Mexico became the first state to offer state-subsidized child care for all working families when Governor Lujan Grisham announced the program in September.

Lawmakers initially balked at the Lujan Grisham administration’s request for an additional $160 million in the coming year to pay for the universal child care initiative.  The approval of SB 241 by the Senate Education Committee signals a growing embrace of the program by the legislature along with more than $60 million in state funds earmarked in a separate budget bill.

The state appropriated funding to provide no-cost child care to 32,000 children last year.  According to a legislative analysis of the bill, that number is projected to increase to 58,000 children by the 2029 budget year under the universal child care program,  Already, roughly 10,000 more New Mexico children have enrolled in the state’s child care assistance program since November.

Senate Bill 241 as passed by the Senate Education Committee contains built-in “triggers” as follows:

• Allowing co-pays for higher-income families and child care wait lists.
• A state early childhood agency would be required to take certain steps if any of four different conditions occur.
• Those conditions are higher-than-expected child care enrollment, less than $50 per barrel oil prices, higher than 3% inflation and state revenue growth lagging behind inflation.
• Under any of those scenarios, the agency would either have to enact a waiting list or charge co-pays for working families making more than 600% of the federal poverty level. That amount is currently $198,000 per year for a family of four.

Early Childhood Education and Care Secretary Elizabeth Groginsky, who’s been tasked with implementing the universal child care rollout, told the Senate Education Committee the legislation would ensure state-paid child care remains in place even after Lujan Grisham leaves office at the end of this year.

Sen. George Muñoz, D-Gallup, one of the bill’s sponsors, told the Senate Education Committee  the legislation will provide lawmakers and state residents with stability as the state expands child care assistance. Muñoz said it is important lawmakers build a steady “runway” for the initiative with triggers if economic conditions deteriorate or if enrollment in the child care assistance program exceeds expectations. Muñoz said  the expansion would put “real money” in New Mexicans’ pockets by not forcing them to choose between working and expensive private child care.

Making universal child care a reality will require an estimated 5,000 additional early childhood workers around the state, and supporters of the idea say pay raises are a key part of making that happen.

Supporters of SB 241 said the creation of the early childhood trust fund in 2020 could provide a financial lifeline for the program. The trust fund has seen its value skyrocket over the last several years. It has gone  from $300 million to nearly $11 billion  thanks to record-high oil production levels in southeast New Mexico. Sen. William Soules, D-Las Cruces said even if $100 million is taken out of the fund every year to help pay for child care assistance, it would still remain solvent for decades even if investment income over that time period is flat.

The bill now advances to the Senate Finance Committee with 10 days remaining in this year’s 30-day legislative session.

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/bill-would-enshrine-universal-child-care-in-state-law-with-a-few-economic-off-ramps/2976125

HOUSE BILL 99 (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REFORM)

On Friday, January 30, (HB-99)  known as the Medical Malpractice Reform bill passed the House Health and Human Services Committee by a vote 7-3, but only after the committee passed an “unfriendly amendment” that  eliminated  caps on punitive damages for corporately owned hospitals. An “unfriendly amendment” is one  that the bill’s sponsor does not support. House Bill 99 is a bipartisan attempt to overhaul New Mexico’s medical malpractice laws.

House Bill 99 would set caps on punitive damages in malpractice cases, pay for plaintiffs’ medical costs as they’re incurred and increase the standard of proof needed to award damages. The amendment excludes hospital systems and hospitals owned by out-of-state corporations from a proposed $6 million cap on punitive damages. A smaller $1 million cap would be put in place for independent doctors.  The medical malpractice reform bill is co-sponsored by Rep. Christine Chandler (D-Los Alamos) and as originally introduced is backed by New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham.

Rep. Christine Chandler, D-Los Alamos, who crafted  House Bill 99 and is sponsoring  it along with  two dozen other lawmakers, called the  amendment  to the bill “short-sighted.”  Chandler  pointed out most of New Mexico’s hospitals, including those run by Presbyterian Health Services,  would not be covered by the proposed punitive damages cap. According to the New Mexico Hospital Association, the only hospitals covered by the cap would be hospitals in Taos, Grants, Gallup, Farmington and Las Cruces. Chandler told the Albuquerque Journal this  after the  hearing:

“I don’t think it strikes the right balance in the legislation we need. ”

 Supporters of House Bill 99 argue that the bill is a key step in fixing the state’s health care worker shortage. Republicans and Democrats worked on the original  bill  in a unified effort. The unified effort was destroyed when Representative  Liz Thomson (D-Albuquerque), who proposed the amendment, said she believed it was important not to cap punitive damages for hospitals owned by out-of-state corporations or private equity firms. Thomson said this:

“We want to tell these huge national corporations that they cannot cut corners on medical care and leave people damaged.”

Feliz Rael, President of the New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association,  an organization that historically and consistently has opposed medical malpractice reform, said this:

“While the bill isn’t perfect, we are very pleased to see protection for patients that are harmed by multi-billion-dollar corporations.”

 State Rep. Alan Martinez, R-Bernalillo, warned that the last-minute amendment was simply unfair because Republicans and Democrats had agreed to the original bill text and it was “gutted” by the amendment.

House Minority Whip Alan Martinez, R-Bernalillo, who voted against the committee amended bill, said this:

“It’s very hard for me to support the amended bill, because I think we gutted a good bill with that. … We were going to fix medical malpractice. Now we’re carving out certain people. … You have taken a good, negotiated bill and poisoned it with this amendment.”

Committee Democrats who voted to support the bill after the  “unfriendly amendment” said they believed it would empower plaintiffs. Rep. Joanne Ferrary (D-Las Cruces) said the amendment would give “the right back to the jury to hold multi-billion dollar corporations accountable.”

Representative Chandler  told reporters she believes the majority of physicians in the state work at the corporately owned hospitals that the amendment would impact. Although the amendment still extends protections to those practitioners, Chandler said she believes the lack of a cap for their employers could still affect whether doctors want to work there.

HB 99  approved as amended by the committee did make several other changes in addition to the punitive damages cap. That includes clarifying how many medical malpractice claims can be filed for a single medical injury and extending hospitals’ participation in a patient compensation fund through 2029.

House Bill 99 as amended will now be heard by the House Judiciary Committee which bill sponsor Rep. Christine Chandler chairs. The bill must pass the full House and Senate before the session ends Feb. 19.

The links to relied upon or quoted news sources are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/house-panel-advances-111-billion-budget-bill-that-includes-co-pays-for-universal-child-care-plan/2973156

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/legislature/lawmakers-promise-more-big-wins-for-new-mexico-as-governor-signs-years-first-bills/article_960040ba-4868-4e21-891f-3d9930aa29c0.html

https://sourcenm.com/2026/02/04/nm-legislature-day-16-recap-last-minute-bills-and-long-running-debate-over-11b-budget/

https://www.kanw.org/new-mexico-news/2026-02-05/nm-legislature-day-16-recap-last-minute-bills-and-long-running-debate-over-11b-budget

Senate Bill 17: (“STOP ILLEGAL GUN TRADE AND EXTREMELY DANGEROUS WEAPONS ACT”)

On February 7, after six hours of heated debate, and a few failed amendments, the New Mexico Senate passed on a 24-17 vote Senate Bill 17 (SB 17) known as the “Stop Illegal Gun Trade and Extremely Dangerous Weapons Act. ” The bill is sponsored by several Democratic lawmakers, including Sens. Debbie O’Malley and Heather Berghmans, both of Albuquerque. Senators Joseph Cervantes of Las Cruces, Benny Shendo Jr. of Jemez Pueblo and Angel Charley of Acoma Pueblo were the lone “NO” votes among Democratic lawmakers.

It was on February 4 that the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance SB 17.  Democrat Committee Chair Sen. Joseph Cervantes (D-Las Cruces), a prominent trial attorney, voted to advance the bill to the full Senate for a vote.  Cervantes said this after his committee vote:

“I think that the provisions of the bill that relate to dealer regulations are very appropriate, and I could support those …  [But] I think this is unconstitutional.”

SB 17 aims to stop firearms from getting into the wrong hands and ban the sale of certain types of weapons. SB 17 would require licensed gun dealers to keep inventory records and implement security measures, similar to those placed on state-authorized recreational cannabis dispensaries. The bill also would ban the sale or possession of certain “military-grade weapons,” including machine guns and gas-operated semiautomatic firearms.

SB 17 would more closely regulate gun dealers across the state.  SB 17 particularly targets straw purchases which is where someone buys a gun from a reputable retailer and then sells it under the table to someone who is not legally allowed to own a firearm. It would require gun stores to maintain thorough records of each sale, only employ people 21 or older and put employees through an annual training program.

The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives trains gun store owners on red flags for straw purchases, such as someone buying guns in bulk, or a single person breaking away from a group in a gun store to purchase the weapon. SB17 would extend that training beyond store owners to employees who are on the sales floor. It would also ban the sale of certain weapons.

Two amendments, from Republican respectively, sought to strike a section that banned specific types of weapons and, separately, add a clause that would allow a person under 21 to work at a gun store if they took a hunter safety course or were a veteran. Both amendments failed.

As lawmakers debated in the Senate Chamber, more than 100 people, some with rifles slung across their chests, took part in a Second Amendment rally outside the Roundhouse in Santa Fe. In the Capitol Rotunda, dozens bill supporters gathered to listen to stories from those who lost loved ones to gun violence and advocates with Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action.

Angela Ferrell-Zabala, executive director of Moms Demand Action, said this in a statement after the vote:

“[The Senate] took an important step to stop illegal guns from flooding our communities. … SB 17 is about holding gun traffickers and bad actors accountable so fewer guns — including dangerous military-grade weapons — end up in the hands of kids and in our neighborhoods. … Moms, students, and families showed up at the Roundhouse today because we’re tired of inaction, and today, lawmakers listened.”

In a statement after the bill’s passage, Senate Minority Leader William Sharer, R-Farmington, said this:

“Today, Democrats in Santa Fe decided that the rights of New Mexicans to protect themselves and their families should be eliminated. …  Listen to the words they say, they have repeatedly admitted this bill is unconstitutional, yet they are forcing it upon law-abiding citizens.  New Mexicans deserve to be represented by elected officials who take their oaths of office seriously, not by activists who hate our Constitution and who promote fringe radical policies designed to undermine the very foundation of our Nation.”

In a statement, Governor Lujan Grisham applauded the passage of the bill and said this:

“I’m grateful for the Senate’s vote today and I encourage the House to follow suit at the earliest opportunity.  … [This legislation] holds gun dealers to the same basic standards expected of any responsible business — securing inventory, training employees, and preventing illegal sales.”

The firearm death rate in New Mexico has historically had higher than average violent crime rates. New Mexico’s violent crime rate was the nation’s fourth highest as of 2023, according to Johns Hopkins’ Bloomberg School of Public Health. Of the 530 gun-related deaths in the state that year, there were slightly more suicides than homicides. Firearm-related deaths also represented the largest cause of death for state children between the ages of 1 and 17.

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, who has supported several gun laws passed by the Legislature in her tenure, urged for the passage of Senate Bill 17 during her State of the State address. Since first taking office in 2019, lawmakers have passed bills expanding mandatory background check requirements for gun purchases and allowing guns to be seized from those deemed to pose a threat to themselves or others.  At least one piece of past legislation, a 2024 law implementing a seven-day waiting period for gun purchases, is in limbo after a Denver-based federal appeals court ruled the law unconstitutional.

Senate Bill 17 will now be referred to the New Mexico House for committee hearings and potentially a full vote by the House of Representatives.

The link to the relied upon or quoted news sources is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/senate-passes-gun-bill-after-lengthy-debate/2976590

https://www.kob.com/politics-news/new-mexico-politics/senate-lawmakers-pass-bill-to-increase-regulations-for-gun-dealers/

https://sourcenm.com/2026/02/05/nm-senate-committee-advances-anti-gun-trafficking-bill/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYIS

During the February 5 bill signing ceremony, Governor Lujan Grisham said this:

“Getting legislation passed is hard.  Even with an interim and years of work, it’s hard. … I am really proud of the Legislature. They don’t need that, but I think the public needs to know that they are getting incredible things done.”

There is no doubt that the two most defining issues of the 2026 New Mexico legislative session are medical malpractice reform and free universal childcare to New Mexico families, regardless of income.  If enacted, both measures will be the final defining and enduring legacy of Governor Michell Lujan Grisham.

If one or both fail to get enacted by the legislature, you can expect Governor Lujan Grisham will likely call a special session to get passage before her term ends on January 1, 2027, when the new Governor is sworn in. Such is the fate of a Lame Duck Governor who cannot influence enough votes from her own party to get legislation she wants passed.