KRQE HEADLINE: “Legislative Session Comes To End With Multiple Bills Headed To Governor’s Desk”

On February 18, KRQE news staff reporter Jessica Barron reported as follows:

Lawmakers and Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham are celebrating the end of what they’re calling a productive 30-day session, while also highlighting what didn’t make it through. This session was dominated by changes to healthcare law, universal childcare funding, and crime bills. “Thank you for being here today as we conclude what I believe is one of the most consequential legislative sessions in my time of ten years here in the roundhouse,” said Speaker of the House and Representative Javier Martinez (D-Albuquerque). 

On healthcare, Democrats are celebrating medical compacts, allowing professionals with licenses in other states to more easily work in New Mexico. While eight compacts, including ones for counselors and emergency medical services, didn’t make it. However, Senate and House Democrats said they plan to bring them back during the next session. Two compacts affecting physicians and social workers passed, along with other medical-related tax credits.

“A $10,000 income tax credit for doctors, the highest in the country, also our healthcare loan professional repayment program goes form $75,000 over three years to $300,000 over four years,” said Majority Floor Leader and Senator Peter Wirth (D-Santa Fe). 

The governor is also expected to sign malpractice reform, limiting punitive damages in lawsuits. The governor’s universal childcare program is also continuing, with a bill making a path for funding that includes requiring higher-earning families to provide co-pays if state funds can’t cover costs. “We’re the only state in America to deliver that promise to families, we’re the only state in America that focused in on affordability,” said Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-New Mexico). 

The governor said she’s disappointed with some failed efforts, including stalled juvenile justice reform. “You see states that are overwhelmingly too aggressive on trying juveniles as adults, without really doing the right work. We shouldn’t, for murder, we should be doing more there,” said Governor Lujan Grisham. 

On the other side, Republicans highlighted a failed gun bill as a win. 

“One of the most, maybe the most unconstitutional bills ever to come before us, which was Senate bill 17, the gun control bill, was also defeated,” said Minority Floor Leader and Senator William E. Sharer (R-Farmington). 

Republicans are also criticizing the expected job loss with the Immigrant Safety Act, which is now law, which bars detention facilities from contracting with ICE. Lawmakers also passed a budget worth $11.1 billion and a resolution that will allow voters to decide if legislators should receive a salary. That resolution does not need the governor’s signature and will be on the ballot in the fall. 

The governor has until March 11 to sign the bills passed this session. If she does not sign them, they are pocket vetoed.

The link to the quoted or relied upon the KRQE News report is here:

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/legislature/legislative-session-comes-to-an-end-with-multiple-bills-headed-to-the-governors-desk/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

With the passage of universal child care and amendments to the medical malpractice act, the governor has said there will be no need for a special session. Both measures enacted will be her enduring legacy as she begins to make her final plans to leave office in 10 months. Thanks for a job well done!

NEWS UPDATE: On March 6, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham  signed  HB 99, the medical malpractice reform bill which is intended to reduce the cost of medical malpractice insurance and attract more physicians to New Mexico. The bill creates tiered caps on punitive damages which are  $1 million for independent providers, $6 million for locally owned hospitals and $15 million for large systems and raises the evidentiary standard to from a preponderance of evidence to “clear and convincing,” requiring judicial review before punitive damage claims can proceed. The bill passed the House 66-3 and the Senate 40-2.

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/governor-signs-medical-malpractice-bill-predicts-it-will-deliver-quick-results/2995351

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/legislature/new-mexico-governor-signs-major-medical-malpractice-bill-into-law/article_2e02aa3a-1f65-42a6-b46e-6305882aa26e.html

On February 17, the New Mexico Senate voted overwhelmingly 40-2 in favor of House Bill 99 known as the Medical Malpractice Act, but only after it had been stripped of amendments that had been added by the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier in the day. The amendments would likely have complicated its passage into law.  HB 99 was the subject of weeks of behind-the-scenes negotiations between lawmakers, the Governor’s Office, attorneys, hospital representatives and physicians.

The House approved House Bill 99 on January by a vote of 66-3, sending the measure to the Senate for consideration. The bill limits punitive damages in medical malpractice cases for the first time in New Mexico’s history. House Bill 99 now goes to Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham who is expected to sign it into law having voiced her support for the measure. If Lujan Grisham signs the bill as expected, HB 99 goes into effect May 20.

CAPS ENACTED BY LEGISLATION

Currently, under the New Mexico Medical Malpractice Act, there are no caps on the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded. HB 99 as enacted puts caps on the amount of punitive damages juries can award in malpractice cases. Proponents said the caps  are  a critical step to reverse severe doctor shortages.  Opponents argued it would leave malpractice victims with no path to justice without improving the state’s supply of providers.

Under the enacted HB 99, punitive damages would be limited to around $900,000 for independent doctors, $1 million for independent outpatient clinics and $6 million for locally owned and operated hospitals. These are  the same caps set for most compensatory damages in medical malpractice cases.  HB 99 creates  a higher tier for claims against large hospitals and hospital-controlled outpatient facilities, capping punitive damages at two and a half times the limits the bill establishes for local hospitals.

PROBLEMATIC AMENDMENTS REMOVED

On February 16 and 17, extensive hearings lasting hours were held on House Bill 99 by the Senate Judiciary committee which is chaired by Senator Joseph Cervantes of Las Cruces.

The lawyers on the Senate Judiciary Committee started their discussion on HB 99 with their disclosures that they are attorneys.  Senate Majority Leader Peter Wirth, D-Santa Fe disclosed that he  serves as a personal representative in wrongful death cases and handles wrongful death cases in his mediation practice.  Both Senators  Cervantes and Katy  Duhigg said  they work directly in field of medical malpractice law. Sen. Moe Maestas, D-Albuquerque, said he has worked as a lawyer for nearly 30 years and is a member of the New Mexico.  Trial Lawyers Association historically has opposed all efforts to change the state’s  medical malpractice law.

All four attorneys made it clear that they had no cases where the legislation would benefit or impact  them financially and saying they had no conflicts of interest and that they intended to vote for the bill.

Senator Cervantes said this:

“I can’t see any way in which this particular legislation as it’s being proposed right now directly benefits me with any cases I have right now or any outcomes that I would have right now. ”

Senator Duhigg said this:

 “There’s no direct pecuniary benefit to me voting on this bill, so I’ll be voting on it as well.”

Majority Floor Leader Peter Wirth said this:

“As a court appointed personal representative, I am paid by the hour. Any statewide changes to medical malpractice law and punitive damages law do not in any way change my fee in a pending or future case.”

On Tuesday afternoon, February 17,  the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 8-1 to advance House Bill 99 to the Senate floor but only after amendments were offered by Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Joseph Cervantes.  The Judiciary Committee’s amendments left intact the key feature of House Bill 99 that would limit punitive damage awards for the first time in New Mexico.

Senator Katy Duhigg, D-Albuquerque cast  the lone vote against the do-pass recommendation by the Judiciary Committee.  Senatore Duhigg and others argued insurance premium costs would not decline if HB 99 was signed into law. Duhigg said this during a Senate Judiciary Committee debate:

“We are lying to our health care providers, and we are lying to the public. … We are representing to the public that malpractice insurance premiums will go down, when that is not what history shows, and that access to care will go up, when that is not what history shows. … We are abandoning New Mexicans who have been injured as a result of medical malpractice.”

Rep. Christine Chandler, D-Los Alamos, the bill’s lead sponsor, said after the vote that the Judiciary committee’s actions were “problematic” because they create uncertainty about the value of injuries in medical malpractice cases. Chandler said most of the amendments considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee would have changed provisions previously agreed upon in negotiations and she said “I find that extremely disappointing.”

An amendment offered by committee chair Sen. Joseph Cervantes was approved by a 5-4 vote altered the way medical care is valued in malpractice cases where an insurance company provides compensation to an injured person. Under the original version of House Bill 99, an injured person can recover the actual amount they paid but not the full amount billed. Cervantes said his amendment was intended to prevent constitutional challenges.

Representative  Chandler told the Senate Judiciary committee this:

“There is significant potential for windfalls and thereby jacking up the cost for everyone across the state. The patient is entitled to recover damages they actually pay. … We’re trying to keep the cost of health care down and the cost of premiums down. We should be looking at keeping costs down.”

A second amendment, also offered by Cervantes and approved by the committee, altered  the definition of “occurrence.”  The original bill used a definition that limited each incident of alleged malpractice to one claim. The altered version would have allowed multiple complaints over actions taken by providers in a single incident expanding the number of injuries that can be alleged in a single malpractice claim.

Chandler, a Democrat from Los Alamos, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that at least four provisions of HB 99, including the bill’s definition of “occurrence”,  were expected to help reduce insurance premiums. Chandler said  the committee’s definition of “occurrence” will not achieve the bill’s goal of reducing premiums.

Cervantes  said the original bill would result in lengthy litigation as attorneys in malpractice cases dispute the number of injuries included in a single malpractice claim.

A  third amendment adopted by the Judiciary Committee would have changed the way medical costs were calculated in a malpractice claim. Sen. Joseph Cervantes  argued the original language of the bill would upset a long-held legal rule and decades of precedent. Cervantes, the committee chair, said this to  Rep. Christine Chandler, the bill’s sponsor:

“You and I will disagree about that, but I’m right,”

Chandler said the amendment “creates ambiguities” about the meaning of an occurrence and said this:

“I think there’s going to be more litigation over whether there’s an occurrence or not, not less”.

Senator Cervantes ultimately voted to advance HB 99 to the Senate floor  but he voiced concerns the bill will lead to more litigation and said this:

“This will keep a lot of us lawyers busy for a very long time.”

A fourth amendment adopted by the Senate Judiciary Committee took aim at the tiered system, but lawmakers argued the change would retain the tiered damage caps while eliminating a separate legal issue.

On the Senate floor, Sen. Sen. Crystal Brantley, R-Elephant Butte, led the successful effort to strip the amendments added by the Senate Judiciary Committee.   She accused the lawyers on the panel of inserting “poison pills” into the bill and prioritizing the interests of trial lawyers over patients. Brantley said the attorneys knew the amended bill would “keep them rich by passing it or keep them rich by not passing it” and said this:

 “Today’s Senate Judiciary Committee was not a hearing. …  It was a hijacking. …  Unfortunately, a small group of plaintiffs’ attorneys are now holding over 2 million New Mexicans hostage.”

The full Senate removed  the Senate Judiciary Committee’s amendments in a vote of 25-17. The full Senate went on to enact the legislation voting 40-2 for its passage.  Senators Linda López, D-Albuquerque, and Shannon Pinto, D-Tohatchi, cast the lone “no” votes.

REACTION TO PASSAGE

Dr. Robert Underwood, President of the New Mexico Medical Society said this in a statement:

“[HB 99] is vital step toward restoring stability to New Mexico’s medical liability environment, making this a state where physicians want to both move and stay.  For years, our medical liability climate has pushed doctors out of the state and placed patient care at risk.  This bill represents real, meaningful reform and is a critical step in stabilizing our healthcare system.”

State Senate Republicans issued the following statement celebrating its passage:

“Today, New Mexico finally heeded our advice to put the needs of patients and our healthcare providers above the greedy desires of trial attorneys who have taken advantage of a previously broken system for their own financial benefit. It is a successful restoration of balance and common sense. This legislation ensures a fairer environment for medical providers to practice in New Mexico while maintaining accountability for patients who may have experienced negligent care.”  

Links to quoted ore relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/senate-passes-medical-malpractice-bill/2982910

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/legislature/new-mexico-senate-sends-hard-fought-medical-malpractice-bill-to-governor/article_2353f534-9017-4ef1-84de-749792ebd541.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

House Bill 99 was the most closely watched and most contentious measure of the 30-day session.  Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, who supports the proposal, insisted she would call a special session if the Legislature failed to pass a substantial overhaul to the malpractice law. There is no doubt she will sign the measure sooner rather than later.

As is the case with any legislation as complicated and as contentious as the major changes to Medical Malpractice Act were, it will likely be years before its full  impact can be gaged. No doubt future litigation will occur and the constitutionality of the caps will be challenged by the trial attorneys.

Success will be measured if insurance premiums in fact go down and if the physicians stop leaving the state. The blunt reality is that the unintended consequences just may wind up being that victims of medical malpractice will in no way be adequately compensated for their life changing injuries and medical malpractice will not be adequately addressed, in which case the legislature will be revisiting and wind up  repealing  what they have enacted and the state will be back to square one.

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