Federal Tenth Circuit Court Of Appeals Blocks State’s 7 Day Waiting Period; Appeal To Trump’s US Supreme Court May Be Futile; Governor And Legislature Should Consider Other Measures

Posted on August 20, 2025 by Pete Dinelli

On February 12, 2024 the New Mexico legislature enacted House Bill 129 entitled the Firearm Sale Waiting Period Act. The New Mexico House initially approved a 14-day waiting period in early 2024, but a floor amendment cut the wait time to 7 days before the final passage. Rhode Island, Maryland and New Jersey have adopted a seven-day waiting period, with four states, Colorado, Florida, Illinois and Vermont opting for three days. California has a 30-day waiting period. In New Mexico, supporters argued that the waiting period would help reduce gun violence and gun deaths in New Mexico. On March 4, 2024 Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed the legislation into law and it went into effect on May 15, 2024.

Two New Mexico residents, Paul Ortega a gun owner from Albuquerque and Rebecca Scott, a Farmington woman who owns guns, sued Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and Attorney General Raúl Torrez over the law on May 15, 2024, the day the law took effect. The National Rifle Association (NRA) and Mountain States Legal Foundation, an advocacy group for gun rights, filed the lawsuit on behalf of Ortega and Scott citing concerns about delayed access to weapons for victims of domestic violence and others.

Plaintiffs Ortega and Scott said they were forced to wait to purchase guns despite quickly passing background checks and contended the New Mexico statute is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Their attorneys argued in part that to keep and bear arms, a prospective gun owner needed to acquire the firearm in the first place and therefore purchasing a gun was covered by the Second Amendment United States Constitution providing for the right to bear arms.

DISTRICT COURT RULING

On July 22, U.S. District Judge James Browning of Albuquerque, in an 104-page ruling, refused to grant a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) barring enforcement of New Mexico’s 7 day waiting period for purchasing firearms in New Mexico. Judge Browning sided with attorneys for Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and state Attorney General Raùl Torrez and ruled against the two-gun owners who contended the state’s 7 day waiting period violated their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The US Supreme Court in June upheld a federal gun control law that is intended to protect victims of domestic violence. Judge Browning’s ruling followed a hearing held on the TRO in June.

Browning denied the NRA’s effort to secure a TRO on three grounds:

That the case would not succeed on its merits because the Second Amendment does not cover firearm sales. The waiting period is not “presumptively Unconstitutional” because it is a condition or qualification on firearm commercial sales and the waiting period is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of commercial firearms regulations, which licensed and prohibited the sale of firearms to sections of the populace out of a concern that a purchaser might use the firearm to harm the public.”
The NRA and it’s fellow plaintiffs did not show Browning that “they are likely to suffer irreparable injury if the Court does not temporarily enjoin the Waiting Period Act… and the harm that they stand to suffer should they seek to purchase another firearm is slight.”
That the plaintiffs did not “establish that the balance of the equities weighs in their favor nor that an injunction is in the public interest, because the Plaintiffs’ interest in purchasing a firearm without delay is minimal compared to the public’s interest in keeping the Waiting Period Act in effect.”

EVIDENCE PRESENTED AND COURT’S LEGAL ANALYSIS

During the injunction hearing to prevent the state from enforcing the new law, experts on the history of guns in America testified on both sides. The 7 day waiting period was presented as a way to curb impulsive gun violence, such as suicides, and address New Mexico violent crime rates. Judge Browning considered the plain language of the Second Amendment. He concluded that the right to acquire a firearm in New Mexico, which mandated the waiting period, didn’t impede the right to “keep and bear” a firearm.

Judge Browning found that while gun-related deaths in the United States were higher in 2022 than in any other year on record, he found “the situation is worse” in New Mexico with gun death climbing significantly in the last few years. Judge Browning wrote the age-adjusted gun death rate increased by 87% between 2010 and 2021. Judge Browning found that “The Defendants adduce significant evidence that waiting period laws may help reduce this tidal wave of gun violence.”

Judge Browning noted that testimony given during the hearing that the Waiting Period Act is likely to save about 37 lives per year.

Browning wrote in part:

“On balance … the harm that the Defendants stand to suffer if the Court were to enjoin the Waiting Period Act — the loss of New Mexican lives — significantly outweighs the Plaintiff’s threatened injury. Moreover, the public’s interest in the preservation of dozens of New Mexican lives cannot be understated.”

Browning wrote that having to wait 7 days, as required by the new law, to purchase a handgun is “minimally burdensome” on the plaintiffs’ ancillary right to acquire firearms. Browning wrote the waiting period is a “commercial firearm regulation” that is “presumptively Constitutional.”

Although the lawsuit challenging the law is still pending, Judge Browning found the plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the Second Amendment claims which was a major factor in his ruling to deny a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. Browning wrote this:

“The central question the Court must address here is whether the right … to keep and bear Arms’ encompasses the right to obtain firearms. … In concrete terms, the Waiting Period Act does not limit an individual’s ability to keep firearms in their home nor carry those firearms with them in public for self-defense.”

According to the ruling, to obtain a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must also make “a clear and unequivocal showing it will likely suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief”. Judge Browing wrote that waiting a week to buy a handgun “is insufficient to qualify as irreparable harm.” Browing added that “there is divergence of opinion among United State District Courts regarding whether the Second Amendment’s plain text includes only a right to keep and bear arms, not a right to buy them.” The Ninth Circuit Court and the 5th Circuit Court appellate courts found that right didn’t cover “the conduct of purchasing a firearm”.

Judge Browning wrote in part:

“… [T]he Court concludes that the Plaintiff’s Second Amendment Claims fails because it doesn’t cover the conduct of purchasing a firearm. … The Supreme Court has repeatedly instructed that the ‘most important rule in constitutional interpretation is to heed the text — that is, the actual words of the Constitution — and interpret that text according to its ordinary meaning as originally understood. … Today and in 1791, the normal and ordinary meaning of ‘keep’ is to possess and the normal and ordinary meaning of ‘bear’ is to carry. … [The historical understanding of the Second amendment] provides further confirmation that the Second Amendment was not drafted to protect the right to purchase arms.”

According to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, only three states have longer waiting periods: California, Hawaii and Washington, along with the District of Columbia — that range up to 14 days. Rhode Island also has a seven-day waiting period.

Plaintiffs Paul Ortega and Rebecca Scott appealed Judge Browning’s ruling to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS PAUSES 7 DAY WAITING PERIOD

On August 19, the three-member panel of the Denver-based federal Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period on gun purchases likely infringes on citizens’ Second Amendment rights, putting the law on hold pending a legal challenge. In a 2-1 split decision the Appeals Court reversed Federal District Judge Browning’s decision to deny injunctive relief.

Browning, after hearing legal arguments and testimony from historian witnesses, considered the plain language of the Second Amendment. He concluded that the right to acquire a firearm in New Mexico, which mandated the waiting period, didn’t impede the right to “keep and bear” a firearm. However, the appeals court held the opposite view, stating that “the constitutional injury to the Plaintiffs is so broad and clear that they have met their higher burden entitling them to an injunction changing the status quo.” The court reversed Browning’s ruling, and sent the case back for further proceedings.

Court of Appels Judge Timothy Tymkovich wrote in part for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals majority:

“Even though the potential to reduce impulsive gun violence might be true, once we acknowledge that the Waiting Period Act likely burdens Second Amendment activity, that potential is outweighed. … [The law applies] a blanket burden across all of society, assuming that everyone is dangerous or unstable before they can exercise their Second Amendment right. … Cooling-off periods infringe on the Second Amendment by preventing the lawful acquisition of firearms. Cooling-off periods do not fit into any historically grounded exceptions to the right to keep and bear arms, and burden conduct within the Second Amendment’s scope. In this preliminary posture, we conclude that New Mexico’s Waiting Period Act is likely an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment rights of its citizens.”

In his dissenting opinion, Court of Appeals Judge Scott M. Matheson said New Mexico’s waiting period “establishes a condition or qualification on the commercial sale of arms that does not serve abusive ends.” Matheson noted the majority opinion of the court ignored a prior Tenth Circuit ruling that upheld Colorado’s law barring gun purchases by anyone under the age of 21, or “a law that requires 18-year-olds to wait three years to purchase a weapon.”

However, the majority opinion acknowledges the precedent and acknowledged that “courts have only partially fleshed out the boundaries of these commercial conditions. … even in this murky territory, the Waiting Period Act falls far short of a presumptively constitutional law.” The “historically grounded exceptions” framework was created by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 in a decision that overturned decades of precedent allowing for reasonable regulations on gun purchases.

GOVERNOR MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM REACTS

Governor Lujan Grisham was quick to react to the Court of Appeals decision and issued the following statement:

“Today’s decision by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals is deeply disappointing, plainly wrong and likely to cost lives in New Mexico. New Mexico’s waiting period law was carefully crafted to minimize gun violence while respecting Second Amendment rights. The dissenting opinion in today’s ruling even notes that New Mexico’s law “is likely to save approximately thirty-seven lives per year.”

“This ruling ignores a recent binding Tenth Circuit precedent that upheld Colorado’s law barring gun purchases by anyone under the age of 21 — a law that requires 18-year-olds to wait three years to purchase a weapon. The ruling also mischaracterizes New Mexico’s gun purchase waiting period, saying it applies to “everyone” when, in fact, it doesn’t apply to those who sell guns to immediate family members, those with a concealed carry permit, and law enforcement officers.”

“The evidence is clear––waiting periods prevent impulsive acts of violence and suicide, giving people time to step back and reassess their emotions during moments of crisis. I’m disappointed that today’s ruling doesn’t take this into account.”

“We are reviewing our legal options in reaction to today’s misguided ruling by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.”

https://www.governor.state.nm.us/2025/08/19/gov-lujan-grisham-statement-on-court-ruling-against-7-day-waiting-period-for-gun-purchases/

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION ISSUES STATMEMT

Not at all surprising, the National Rifle Association (NRA) issued a statement commending the decision. NRA-Institute for Legislative Action Executive Director, John Commerford said this in a statement:

“In courtrooms across America, the NRA is successfully leading the charge to protect law-abiding Americans’ Second Amendment rights. … The 10th Circuit has sided with the NRA and held that radical waiting period laws are indeed unconstitutional. This decision not only impacts gun owners in New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, and Oklahoma, but serves as a key piece in dismantling similar gun control laws across the country.”

https://sourcenm.com/briefs/federal-appeals-court-bars-new-mexicos-7-day-waiting-period-for-gun-purchases/

OTHERS REACT

Democrat State Senator Joseph Cervantes of Las Cruces, who co-sponsored the cooling off period measure during the 2024 legislative session, said the 10th Circuit’s conclusion was unexpected, considering that a number of other courts at the same level as the 10th Circuit have upheld such waiting periods as constitutional. Cervantes said this:

“We have tried very hard in the Legislature to stay within the lanes that the U.S. Supreme Court has put up. The challenge is that the Supreme Court keeps changing the goal posts.”

Brandon Harris, spokesperson for the state Senate Republican Leadership office, said Republican legislators predicted this outcome during debate on the bill in 2024. Democrats nonetheless passed HB 129 without a single Republican vote.

Senate Republican Leader Bill of Farmington welcomed the appeal court ruling. Sharer said this:

“The clear language of the 2nd Amendment says that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. … Criminals certainly don’t wait seven days before breaking into our homes and threatening our families and properties… What sense does it make to require law-abiding citizens to wait seven days before being able to defend themselves?”

Republican State Senator Crystal Brantley of Truth or Consequences said the court’s decision came as no surprise to her and said this: .

“The Second Amendment clearly says shall not be infringed. It was an overreach that targeted law-abiding citizens. It did nothing to push back on the crime in New Mexico.”

Gun shop representatives lauded the court of appeals decision. Jason Archie, manager of Right To Bear Arms gun shop at 11200 Montgomery NE said enforcement of the waiting period was a “hassle” and that most of his customers weren’t happy about. Archie said this:

“Justice delayed is justice denied. … It was represented as a way to prevent crime, but I didn’t see that crime went down at all.”

Links to relied upon or quoted news sources are here:

https://apnews.com/article/new-mexico-gun-purchases-waiting-period-da509d979b11af8d3bdeeee224b24adf

https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/19/us/new-mexico-gun-waiting-period-blocked

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/new-mexico-lawmakers-react-to-judges-decision-on-waiting-period-for-gun-purchases/

https://www.koat.com/article/new-mexico-appeals-court-blocks-7-day-wait/65823291

https://www.kob.com/news/top-news/federal-appeals-panel-blocks-waiting-period-to-buy-firearms-in-new-mexico/

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/article_1ec8ef5f-f75f-45ba-b87a-1143979757da.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2025/08/19/appeals-court-blocks-new-mexicos-new-7-day-whttps://www.koat.com/article/new-mexico-appeals-court-blocks-7-day-wait/65823291aiting-period-for-gun-purchases/

https://sourcenm.com/briefs/federal-appeals-court-bars-new-mexicos-7-day-waiting-period-for-gun-purchases/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It is clear New Mexico is suffering a major crisis when it comes to gun violence and gun deaths and there is a critical need for gun control legislation, including a waiting period to purchase guns. New Mexico’s gun violence crisis was laid to bear for all to see on September 28, 2023 when the New Mexico Department of Health released its “Comprehensive Report on Gunshot Victims Presenting at Hospitals in New Mexico.” The report spans the time period from 1999 to 2023. The report provides a detailed analysis of firearm-related violent deaths and injuries in New Mexico. It encompasses data from various sources, including New Mexico’s surveillance systems, state behavioral risk factor surveys, and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) data.

The link to read “Comprehensive Report on Gunshot Victims Presenting at Hospitals in New Mexico” is here:

https://www.nmhealth.org/publication/view/report/8463/

The Governor’s office says it is reviewing its legal options for responding to the ruling. The Governor and the Attorney General need to think long and hard if appealing the ruling to the United States Supreme Court is wise or just a waste of time given the current makeup of the Republican Trump controlled Supreme Court.

The New Mexico legislature is not prevented from enacting other forms of gun control legislation because of the Court of Appeals ruling, including repealing the existing 7 day waiting period. The New Mexico Legislature could enact another version of a waiting day period with sufficient safeguards to pass constitutional muster.

MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE OTHER THAN WAITING PERIOD

Much more must be done by the New Mexico legislature other than a waiting period to curb and reduce the proliferation of guns in the state of New Mexico and to reduce gun violence. If Governor Lujan Grisham and the New Mexico Legislature are truly concerned about the New Mexico’s violent crime crisis, both need to regroup and take and even more aggressive approach than enacting waiting periods. They should work on building a consensus on the enactment of enhance sentencings for crimes and gun control measures.

The message that must be sent out loud and clear by our elected officials to violent criminals is that New Mexico has a zero tolerance of violent crimes committed with firearms and the only way to do that is with enhanced sentencings. Also, the availability and proliferation of guns must be recognized as a big part of the state’s violent crime problem.

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT MEASURES

The following crime and sentencing provisions should be enacted:

Strengthen penalties for a felon convicted of possessing a firearm, making the crime a second-degree felony, punishable by a minimum of nine years in prison.

Allow firearm offenses used in a drug crimes to be charged separately with enhance sentences.

Making possession of a handgun by someone who commits a crime of drug trafficking an aggravated third-degree felony mandating a 10-year minimum sentence.

Increase the firearm enhancement penalties provided for the brandishing a firearm in the commission of a felony from 3 years to 10 years for a first offense and for a second or subsequent felony in which a firearm is brandished 12 years.

Create a new category of enhanced sentencing for use of a lethal weapon or deadly weapon other than a firearm where there is brandishing of a deadly weapon in the commission of a felony with enhanced sentences of 5 years for a first offense and for second or subsequent felony in which a lethal weapon other than a firearm is brandished 8 years

Increase the penalty of shooting randomly into a crowded area a second-degree felony mandating a 9-year sentence.

Increase the penalty and mandatory sentencing for the conviction of the use of a fire arm during a road rage incident to a first-degree felony mandating a life sentence.

Update the Children’s Code to deal with charges, increasing penalties and prosecutions of minors as adults as consequences of children using firearms in the commission of violent crimes and aggravated assaults with use of deadly weapon.

Change bail bond laws to statutorily empower judges with far more discretionary authority to hold and jail those pending trial who have prior violent crime reported incidents without shifting the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense.

GUN CONTROL MEASURES

Gun control measures that should be enacted include an assault weapons ban lawfully regulating the manufacture, possession and sale of weapons of war, most often the gun used in mass casualty events and prohibiting guns in parks and playgrounds making it illegal to carry a firearm in county or municipal parks, playgrounds, and their accompanying parking lots.

Restrict the sale, manufacture and possession of AR-15-style rifles along with semiautomatic firearms and make it a second-degree felony to purchase, possess, manufacture, import, sell or transfer assault weapons in the state.

Prohibited magazines with more than 10 rounds.

Prohibited the possession of semiautomatic firearm converter that allows the weapon to fire more rapidly.

Enact a 14-day waiting period for the purchase of any firearm and requiring a prospective seller who doesn’t already hold a valid federal firearms license to arrange for someone who does to conduct a federal background check prior to selling a firearm.

Established a minimum age of 21 for anyone seeking to purchase or possess an automatic firearm, semiautomatic firearm or firearm capable of accepting a large-capacity magazine.

Ban the manufacture, sale, trade, gift, transfer or acquisition of semiautomatic pistols that have two or more defined characteristics.

Revised the state’s Unfair Practices Act to target the sale of illegal firearms and parts, allowing the filing of lawsuits to enforce the act.

Prohibit in New Mexico the sale of “ghost guns” parts. Ghost guns are guns that are manufactured and sold in parts without any serial numbers to be assembled by the purchaser and that can be sold to anyone.

Require in New Mexico the mandatory purchase of “liability insurance” with each gun sold as is required for all operable vehicles bought and driven in New Mexico.

Mandate the school systems and higher education institutions “harden” their facilities with more security doors, security windows, and security measures and alarm systems and security cameras tied directly to law enforcement 911 emergency operations centers.

CONCLUSION

The Governor and the New Mexico legislature need to recognize waiting periods to purchase guns are only one small step. They need to get serious about New Mexico’s gun violence crisis and enact reasonable gun control measures in conjunction with crime and punishment measures. Until then, we can expect our violent crime rates to continue to increase.

The link to a related article is here:

NM Federal District Court Denies Temporary Restraining Order Barring Enforcement Of State’s 7 Day Waiting Period; New Mexico’s Gun Violence Crisis; Legislature Should Enact “Omnibus Violent Crime Sentencing And Gun Control Act.”

Mayor Tim Keller Only Candidate “Flush” With Money Because Of Public Finance; Six Challengers Scramble To Raise Donations As They Self Finance To Compete; Keller’s Financial Advantage Overshadowed By His Low Approval Ratings; Runoff Likely

Posted on August 19, 2025 by Pete Dinelli

On Friday, June 20 the City Clerk qualified 7 candidates out of 11 total candidates running for Mayor for the November 4 ballot. The seven candidates who have qualified for the ballot are:

Incumbent Mayor Tim Keller.
Eddie Varela, a retired Albuquerque firefighter and former California fire chief.
Alex Uballez, the former U.S. attorney for the District of New Mexico.
Louie Sanchez, a retired APD police officer and current city councilor.
Darren White, the former sheriff of Bernalillo County and former CEO of medcal cannabis company PurLife.
Daniel Chavez, president of Parking Company of America was the very first to qualify for the ballot.
Mayling Armijo, the former director of Economic Development for Bernalillo County and deputy county manager for Sandoval County.

On June 20, the City Clerk determined that Mayor Tim Keller was the only candidate to qualify for public finance, and he was given $755,946 in public finance. The remaining six candidates are privately financed.

On August 11, the 7 of the candidates for Mayor were required to file with the City Clerk their fifth Mayoral Campaign Finance report on contributions and expenditures covering the time period of July 14 to August 11. Following is a summary review of those reports:

TIMOTHY KELLER

COMBINED FINANCIAL TOTALS

Total Contributions $757,147.57
Total Expenditures $72,910.00
In-Kind Contributions $1,396.25
In-Kind Expenditures $248.16
Current Cash Balance $684,237.57
Current Debt Balance $0.00

TOP CONTRIBUTORS

City of Albuquerque $733,968.00
Tim Keller $2,500.00
Garcia Realty $781.25
Tim Keller $650.00
Ona Porter $615.00

Tim Keller lists 191 contributors for a total of $733,968.00

Download All Filed Contributions
Download All Filed Expenditures

ANALYSIS: Mayor Tim Keller is the only candidate to qualify for public financing. His reelection campaign has been given $733,968 in public funding on July 17. He ends the period with $684,237 on hand after spending $26,000 with a Chicago-based campaign consulting firm and paying $12,945 to his longtime political consultant Neri Holguin, among other smaller expenses.

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

Click here to review the financial disclosure statement and to download all filed contributions and filed expenditures for

https://campaignfinance.cabq.gov/#/exploreDetails/yoees8S9dosDI1OaCKWi1JP4048PFnxLXRUfdOLcQk01/2/null/2/2025

MAYLING ARMIJO

COMBINED FINANCIAL TOTALS

Total Contributions $77,666.65
Total Expenditures $39,939.18
In-Kind Contributions $2,257.72
In-Kind Expenditures $0.00
Current Cash Balance $37,727.47
Current Debt Balance $15,175.65

TOP CONTRIBUTORS

Mayling Armijo $15,175.65
Beelien Armijo $6,000.00
Mia Armijo $6,000.00
Walter Grodahi $6,000.00
Joseph J. Armijo $6,000.00

Mayling Armijo lists 70 contributors for a total of $77,666.65.

Download All Filed Contributions
Download All Filed Expenditures

ANALYSIS: Mayling Armijo secured $39,500 in new donations from 42 donors. Almost half of her total donations came from Armijo family members, including $6,000 each from Joseph, Mia and Beelien Armijo, and $4,000 from Beeling Armijo, all of Albuquerque. Her largest non-Armijo donor was $6,000 from Walter Groadhi, a housing developer based in Oregon. She has just $37,727 cash on hand.

The link to a relied upon or quoted news sources are here:

Click here to review the financial disclosure statement and to download all filed contributions and filed expenditures for MAYLING ARMIJO:

https://campaignfinance.cabq.gov/#/exploreDetails/lRnEYQd4H9z-h4QAAWqHPZP4048PFnxLXRUfdOLcQk01/2/null/2/2025

EDDIE VARELA

COMBINED FINANCIAL TOTALS

Total Contributions $6,377.66
Total Expenditures $6,820.76
In-Kind Contributions $7,800.00
In-Kind Expenditures $300.00
Current Cash Balance -$443.10
Current Debt Balance $0.00

TOP CONTRIBUTORS

CIPGAW $4,000.00
Eddie Varela $2,827.06
CIPGAW $1,500.00
Angie Custom Design $1,300.00
Chester & Diana Stewart $1,000.00

Eddie Varela lists 30 contributors for a total of $6,377.66.

Download All Filed Contributions
Download All Filed Expenditures

ANALYSIS: Eddie Varela reported a negative cash balance of -$443 at the end of the reporting period. He reported spending over $1,000 on “Food, Beverages and Meals” and raised just $227 for the reporting period.

The link to a relied upon or quoted news sources are here:

Click here to review the financial disclosure statement and to download all filed contributions and filed expenditures for EDDIE VARELA:

https://campaignfinance.cabq.gov/#/exploreDetails/Z9RllTzngK2bi6GfQSm9AJP4048PFnxLXRUfdOLcQk01/2/null/2/2025

DARREN WHITE

COMBINED FINANCIAL TOTALS

Total Contributions $179,993.67
Total Expenditures $63,506.77
In-Kind Contributions $16,029.16
In-Kind Expenditures $25.00
Current Cash Balance $116,486.90
Current Debt Balance $20,000.00

TOP CONTRIBUTORS

Darren White $20,000
Progress Healthcare, Inc $10,000
Darren White $8,765
RGL Investments $6,000
Peterson Properties $6,000

Darren White lists 544 contributors for a total of $179,993.67 contributions.

Download All Filed Contributions
Download All Filed Expenditures

ANALYSIS: Darren White ends the period with $116,486 in cash. White led individual fundraising with 116 new donations totaling $105,993. White’s largest contributors were $6,000 from Pierre Amestoy, a local developer, and $5,000 each from entities associated with the Pitre family’s automotive businesses, cannabis companies Truforia and Elevated Labs, and Peterson Properties run by Doug Peterson. White also reported a $10,000 donation from Progress Healthcare based in Louisiana, though the city’s limit for contributions to mayoral candidates is $6,000. White told the on line news outlet City Desk the extra $4,000 has been returned, but since the check was sent back after the reporting deadline, it won’t appear until next month’s report. Only Darren White and Louie Sanchez enter the next fundraising period with more than $100,000 in cash on hand.

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

Click here to review the financial disclosure statement and to download all filed contributions and filed expenditures for Darren White:

https://campaignfinance.cabq.gov/#/exploreDetails/L7j64Ew1a0rWwbrOJFbL4JP4048PFnxLXRUfdOLcQk01/2/null/2/2025

ALEXANDER M.M. UBALLEZ

COMBINED FINANCIAL TOTALS

Total Contributions $98,411.80
Total Expenditures $68,633.09
In-Kind Contributions $88.70
In-Kind Expenditures $0.00
Current Cash Balance $29,778.71
Current Debt Balance $0.00

TOP CONTRIBUTORS

Aleli Colon $3,610.72
Haley Murphy $2,407.27
Brian Colon $1,203.22
Diane Cox $1,203.22
Gabriela Gomez $1,200.00

ALEXANDER M.M. UBALLEZ lists 503 contributors for a total of $98,411.80 in contributions.

Download All Filed Contributions
Download All Filed Expenditures

ANALYSIS: Alex Uballez ended the reporting period with $29,778 in cash on hand after raising over $19,000 in new contributions. He also spent over $40,000 during the same period. Among 103 new donations, Uballez’s largest contributors were $962 from Miranda Viscolli, leader of the nonprofit New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence, $1,203 each from Brian Colón, former state auditor and managing partner of the Singleton Schreiber law firm’s New Mexico office, and his wife Aleli Colón and multiple donations under $500 from local attorneys.

The link to a relied upon or quoted news sources are here:

Click here to review the financial disclosure statement and to download all filed contributions and filed expenditures for Alexander M.M. Uballez:

https://campaignfinance.cabq.gov/#/exploreDetails/YjD7dBPe243VBfqRi2eazQpRrh19RviUIoO4CmCWDAE1/2/null/2/2025

LOUIE SANCHEZ

COMBINED FINANCIAL TOTALS

Total Contributions $222,488.83
Total Expenditures $58,519.69
In-Kind Contributions $1,000.00
In-Kind Expenditures $0.00
Current Cash Balance $163,969.14
Current Debt Balance $152,500.00

TOP CONTRIBUTORS

Sanchez, Louie $150,000
Sanchez, Louie $10,000
Peterson Properties $6,000
Thomas P. Tinnin $6,000
Alarid, Vanessa $6,000

LOUIE SANCHEZ lists 111 contributors for a total of $222,488.83 in contributions.

Download All Filed Contributions
Download All Filed Expenditures

ANALYSIS: Sanchez raised $6,746 in new donations for the period running from July 8 through August 4. Over $5,800 of Sanchez’s donations came from a single donor from Texas. But Sanchez ends the period with $163,969 with a $150,000 loan he provided to his campaign. Only Louie Sanchez and Darren White enter the next fundraising period with more than $100,000 in cash on hand.

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

Click here to review the financial disclosure statement and to download all filed contributions and filed expenditures for Louis Sanchez.

https://campaignfinance.cabq.gov/#/exploreDetails/t4aI25Nr9EiUnEI8lwunGApRrh19RviUIoO4CmCWDAE1/2/null/2/2025

DANIEL CHAVEZ

COMBINED FINANCIAL TOTALS

Total Contributions $114,375.00
Total Expenditures $106,107.47
In-Kind Contributions $0.00
In-Kind Expenditures $0.00
Current Cash Balance $8,267.53
Current Debt Balance $0.00

TOP CONTRIBUTORS

1. Kathleen Chavez $6,000
Peterson Properties, LLC $6,000
Ava Bataglia $1,000
John Martin Bradley $600
Phillip Ward $500

Daniel Chavez lists 10 contributors for a total of $114,375.00 in contributions.

Download All Filed Contributions
Download All Filed Expenditures

ANALYSIS: Daniel Chavez launched his campaign with a $100,000 donation from personal funds. He ended the reporting period with $8,267 in cash available. He had previously reported spending over $40,000 on paid signature collectors and campaign consultants. Daniel Chavez is considered by many as the only candidate that is capable of self-financing his campaign and has the ability to donate much more if he chooses.

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

Click here to review the financial disclosure statement and to download all filed contributions and filed expenditures for Daniel Chavez:

https://campaignfinance.cabq.gov/#/exploreDetails/3XlNxpvg2kPbP3TGLUHobwpRrh19RviUIoO4CmCWDAE1/2/null/2/2025

KELLER’S FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE IN A NUTSHELL

In a nutshell, the campaign contributions for all seven candidates stand as follows:

Tim Keller: $757,147 (Raised) Current Balance: $684,237
Louie Sanchez: $222,483 (Raised) Current Balance: $163,969 Personal Contribution: $160,000
Darren White: $179,993 (Raised) Current Balance: $116,486 Personal Personal Contribution: $29,000
Daniel Chavez: $114,375 Current Balance: $8,267 Personal Contribution: $100,000
Alex Uballez : $98,411 Current Balance: $29,778
Mayling Armijo: $77,666 Current Balance: $37,727
Eddie Varela: $ 6,377 Current Balance: – $443.00

Mayor Keller’s campaign manager Neri Holguin said public campaign financing gives Mayor Keller edge in the race pointing out that four of the other six candidates tried unsuccessfully to qualify for the public cash. Holguin said this:

“The Keller campaign enters the fall with the clear advantage of having earned public financing. … Unlike our opponents, we’re not chasing dollars — we’re focused on meeting voters where they are and talking about the future of Albuquerque.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/article_ebb19528-3b80-40c4-bad7-7965cb36638b.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

Brian Sanderoff, the President of Research and Polling and KOAT-TV political expert said this about the current status of the race:

“It’s not a partisan race between one Democrat and one Republican. We’ve got seven candidates running for mayor who have qualified for the ballot. Some of these candidates aren’t exactly household names. Some of them are still working hard to get their name out there. So, the voters actually know who they are. … If a candidate does not receive 50% or more of the vote, there will be a runoff. So, with all these candidates in the race, it’s a very high likelihood that we’ll be having a runoff election one month after the November election.”

“The top three candidates right now in terms of campaign funds — Tim Keller, Louie Sanchez and Darren White, but they’re far behind Keller because they didn’t get the public campaign financing. Louie Sanchez has raised over $200,000, but much of that money came from his own personal contribution to the campaign. Darren White has received a lot of individual campaign contributions, but because the numbers are relatively small, it adds up to about $180,000. … Tim Keller starts out with a big advantage because he was the only candidate who qualified for public campaign financing. That means he received nearly $750,000 of taxpayer money to help out in his campaign, but what counts on election day is the number of votes, not the number of dollars.”

“Tim Keller starts out with a big advantage because he was the only candidate who qualified for public campaign financing. That means he received nearly $750,000 of taxpayer money to help out in his campaign, but what counts on election day is the number of votes, not the number of dollars.”

The link to the quoted KOAT TV news report is here:

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-mayoral-race/65811613

MEASURED FINANCE COMMITTEE FINANCIAL REPORTS

There are three measured finance committees (MFA) formed to promote 3 individual candidates for Mayor . On August 11, the 3 committees filed finance reports for the period of July 14 to August 11 with the City Clerk as follows:

ASEND ALBUQUERQUE MEASURED FINANCE COMMITEE

Ascend Albuquerque is the measured Finance Committee which has been formed for the sole purpose “to support the election of Tim Keller as Mayor of Albuquerque.” On July 14, 2025, Ascent Albuquerque filed it fourth financial disclosure statement as required by the City’s election code. Following is a summary of the Financial Report for Ascend Albuquerque:

COMBINED FINANCIAL TOTALS

Total Contributions $132,350.00
Total Expenditures $30,276.44
In-Kind Contributions -0-
In-Kind Expenditures – 0-
Current Cash Balance $102,073.56
Current Debt Balance $0.00

TOP CONTRIBUTORS

Council of Carpenters, Brotherhood of Carpenters $20,000
New Mexico Building and Construction Trades Council: $20,000
Fresquez Concessions, Inc $15,000
Sangre De Cristo Hotel Investment, LLC $10,000
IBEW PAC Voluntary Fund $10,000

Download All Filed Contributions
Download All Filed Expenditures

The city link to review the Financial Disclosure Statement for Ascend Albuquerque is here:

https://campaignfinance.cabq.gov/#/exploreCommitteeDetail/VMQvJiHXaP1z-Iz2eL_papP4048PFnxLXRUfdOLcQk01/null/null/2/2025

Safer Albuquerque Committee (Safer ABQ)

Safer Albuquerque Committee (Safer ABQ) is the measured finance committee formed to “advocate for Mayling Armijo’s candidacy for mayor during the Albuquerque 2025 mayoral race and align with values that reduce crime, reduce homelessness, and promote job growth.”

COMBINED FINANCIAL TOTALS

Total Contributions $135,080.00
Total Expenditures $133,363.75
In-Kind Contributions 0.00
In-Kind Expenditures 0.00
Current Cash Balance $1,716.25
Current Debt Balance $0.00

TOP CONTRIBUTORS

Katrina Tracy $55,000
Chauling Mary Armijo $40,000
Four Winds Mechanical HTC/AC $40,000
Charles Rolison $80.00

Download All Filed Contributions
Download All Filed Expenditures

The city link to review the Financial Disclosure Statement for Safer Albuquerque Committee (Safer ABQ) is here:

https://campaignfinance.cabq.gov/#/exploreCommitteeDetail/M3FjOgNU2Z3h9u5VXBTrEgpRrh19RviUIoO4CmCWDAE1/null/null/2/2025

CIPGAW: Committee to Elect Eddie Varela Mayor of Albuquerque

CIPGAW: Committee to Elect Eddie Varela Mayor of Albuquerque is the measured finance committee which has been formed “for the purpose to Elect Eddie Varela Mayor of Albuquerque.”

COMBINED FINANCIAL TOTALS

Total Contributions: $7,500,00
Total Expenditures: $6,924.83
In-Kind Contributions: -0-
In-Kind Expenditures: -0-
Current Cash Balance: $575.17
Current Debt Balance: -0-

TOP CONTRIBUTORS

Bradley William Day $7,500

Download All Filed Contributions
Download All Filed Expenditures

The city link to review the Financial Disclosure Statement for CIPGAW: Committee to Elect Eddie Varela Mayor of Albuquerque is here:

https://campaignfinance.cabq.gov/#/exploreCommitteeDetail/feXJuXAYkFJVGJBhl95rMZP4048PFnxLXRUfdOLcQk01/null/null/2/2025

OPINION POLL RELEASED

On July 30, 2025 the New Mexico Business Coalition issued a press release announcing the results of an opinion poll in the 2025 race for Albuquerque Mayor.

The first biggest take away from the opinion poll is that each of the 6 candidates running against Mayor Tim Keller could beat Keller in a runoff. All 6 candidates outpoll Keller in a runoff in the following order:

Darren White with 43% to Tim Keller’s 38% and 19% undecided.
Louie Sanchez with 40% to Tim Keller’s 33% and 27% undecided.
Alex Uballez with 39% to Tim Keller’s 25% and 36% undecided.
Daniel Chavez with 37% to Tim Keller’s 32% and 31% undecided.
Mayling Armijo with 37% to Tim Keller’s 27% and 35% undecided.
Eddie Varela with 34% to Tim Keller’s 33% and 33% undecided.

The very high number of undecided voters of between 19% and 36%, depending on the candidates who make it into the runoff with Keller, will ultimately decide the election in a runoff.

The second biggest take away from the opinion poll is that the two candidates for Mayor who have the highest Unfavorable Ratings are more likely than not will be the ones facing off against each other in a runoff. Mayor Tim Keller has a 60% Unfavorable Rating while Darren White has a 39% Unfavorable Rating.

It is clear from the poll that voters have very strong and negative opinions of both Mayor Tim Keller and Darren White. However, it is the favorable ratings that are the biggest indicator of the level of strength they have with the electorate and who will actually show up to vote for them.

The unfavorable and favorable ratings of all seven candidates compared are:

Tim Keller’s unfavorable rating is 60%, his favorable rating is 33%and a mere 7% have no opinion of him.
Darren White’s unfavorable rating is 39% and his favorable rating is 35% and26% have no opinion of him.
Louis Sanchez’s unfavorable rating 24% and his favorable rating is 16% and 60%have no opinion of him.
Eddie Varela’s unfavorable rating is 16%, his favorable rating is 9%and 74% have no opinion of him.
Daniel Chavez’s unfavorable rating is 13%, his favorable rating is 6% and81% having no opinion of him.
Alex Uballez’s unfavorable rating is 12%, his favorable rating is 19% and 69% having no opinion of him.
Mayling Armijo’s unfavorable rating is10%, her favorable rating is 8% and 81% having no opinion of her.

Based on the poll Democrat Mayor Keller as the incumbent is likely to get into the runoff given his 33% favorable rating which likely represents his base of support among progressive Democrats who will vote for him no matter his unfavorable rating and because of his progressive policies dealing with the homeless and his strong opposition to President Trump and federal cutbacks.

Based on the poll Republican Darren White is likely to get into the runoff given his 35% favorable rating which likely represents his base of support among Conservatives and MAGA Republicans because his stance on immigration, the homeless and crime.

PREVIOUS POLL AND SURVEY RECALLED

On November 2, 2022, the Albuquerque Journal reported and released the results of an opinion poll it commissioned that reported that Mayor Tim Keller at the time had a 40% disapproval rating and 33% approval rating.

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/local/article_ecd8f917-ee43-5ce4-b235-85c1a34a2b03.html

On April 16, 2024, the results of the annual City of Albuquerque Citizen Perception Survey were released. The City’s Citizens Satisfaction survey found as follows:

63% of citizens are concerned over the direction the city is going.
61% “disagree” and 35%“agree” that “the Albuquerque City Government is responsive to our community needs.”

Both survey findings directly reflect on the job performance of Mayor Tim Keller.

https://www.cabq.gov/progress/documents/albuquerque-yearly-survey-2023.pdf

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The fact that Mayor Keller is the only candidate to secure $755,946 in public finance and a measured finance committee that has raised another $132,350.00 to promote him for a grand total of $888,296 is a testament of the power of Keller’s incumbency. Keller has $888,296 that will be used to promote his candidacy while all the other candidates combined have raised $537,310. It is clear evidence Keller is running against a very weak field of candidates given that Keller was the only one who qualified for public finance. The measured fiancé committee will likely raise thousands more to promote Keller and to tear down his opponents. With the November 4 fastly approaching expect Keller to get very aggressive and go negative with his opponents given his unfavorable ratings.

Some politcal pundits and columnists are saying that if Keller’s opponents are unable to raise sufficient campaign donations, there is a possibility that Keller could capture 50% of the vote and avoid a runoff election between the top two finishers. That is likely wishful thinking given the poll results and given just how unpopular Keller really is amongst voters. Keller will need every penny of his public finance and the measured finance committee promotion to deal with and overcome his low approval ratings as the campaign drags on over the summer and into the fall and his opponents hit him hard on the issues until November 4.

Mayor Keller is a known quantity with extremely low approval ratings. No amount of money spent on his behalf to get him elected to a third term may be enough to reform his image in the eyes of voters who have simply had enough of his self-promotion ways with very little accomplished. Notwithstanding, all of Keller’s opponents are relegated to scrambling for private financing unless they are wealthy enough to self-finance. Only Daniel Chavez is believed to be able to self-finance but it’s still unknown to what extent he is willing to spend of his own money.

“ANY ONE BUT KELLER”

City Hall observers and political pundits are saying the election is Keller’s to lose. What they fail to take into account is the “any one but Keller movement”. It can also be called “Keller Fatique” which is what happened with “Chavez Fatique ” when Democrat Mayor Marty Chavez attempted to seek a third consecutive four-year term in 2009 and he lost to Republican Richard Berry with former Democrat State Senator Richard Romero splitting the Democrat vote with Chavez. The fact that the poll revealed that all 6 of Keller’s opponents beat Keller in a runoff is evidence that there is an “any one but Keller movement”. Simply put, people want change.

The “any one but Keller movement ” comes into sharp focus when the local news stations publish stories on FACEBOOK where Keller is interviewed at length about his candidacy and literally hundreds of public comments are made that are all negative and berating Keller for his failure to address and solve the city’s problems. Candidates who are running for city council and who were going door to door to collect nominating signatures and $5.00 for their own candidacies reported they were encountering strong anti-Keller sentiment at the doors with them being asked questions if they support Keller for reelection. One confidential source said they witnessed Keller himself encountering severe push back when he attended weekend public events to collect nominating petition signatures. People refused to sign his petition and refused to donate a $5 qualifying donation for public finance an insisted they would never vote for him again.

FINAL COMMENTARY

Long time and highly respected political pollster Brian Sanderoff summed it up better than anyone:

The link to a quoted or partially relied upon news source article is here:

Less than 90 days until election day, challengers post weak fundraising numbers in bid to oust Keller

Mayor Tim Keller’s “Renters Right Ordinance”, Relaxation of Safe Outdoor Space Restrictions, And “Opt-In” Zoning Ordinance Each Voted Down By City Council’s LUPZ Committee; Keller Doubles Down On His Failed, Divisive Policies As He Seeks A Third Term; It’s Time We Elect A New Mayor

Posted on August 18, 2025 by Pete Dinelli

This article is an in-depth report and analysis on the defeat of 3 major legislative initiatives introduced to the City Council at the request of Mayor Tim Keller. The 3 defeats were a major setback to Mayor Tim Keller’s aggressive approach to regulate the residential rental industry, to increase the number of sanctioned homeless encampments and to change the city’s zoning laws to increase density throughout the city by allowing property owners to “opt-in” to increase density. The 3 measures represent Mayor Tim Keller doubling down on his failed policies as he seeks of third 4-year term as Mayor by dividing the city council and ignoring voter’s opposition. It’s time we elect a new Mayor.

KELLER’S “HOUSING NOW” PROGRAM

August 07, 2025, Mayor Tim Keller launched what he dubbed the “Housing Now” Program. It’s a program designed to alleviate Albuquerque’s housing crisis by reducing rents, preventing displacement, and increasing access to stable housing by making changes to the city’s zoning law that will allow for more development in established neighborhoods to increase density.

The first major piece of Keller’s “Housing Now Program” program is the proposed PATCH Program. It is a 0% interest, forgivable loan initiative that helps low-income homeowners make critical health and safety repairs, such as replacing a failing roof or fixing broken plumbing, so they can remain in their homes.

A second major piece of the “Housing Now Program” is to allow property owners to “opted in” to increased zoning of their properties for development and to increase density in shaping the way housing is added. The “opted in” legislation constitutes major zoning reforms to build on previous changes to the city’s zoning laws known as the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) that allows “casitas” and will allow expanding housing types like cottage courts and corner duplexes in virtually every quadrant of the city.

The strategy includes a zoning code “rebalance” to double or triple density in established neighborhoods. According to the Keller Administration these zoning changes will expand affordable housing options in existing neighborhoods and helping multigenerational households.

https://www.cabq.gov/health-housing-homelessness/news/mayor-keller-launches-housing-now-campaign

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/albuquerque-metro/city-and-state-lawmakers-are-open-ears-for-new-housing-cost-solutions/

Mayor Keller is proposing the enactment of a “renters rights ordinance” that would increase the duties and responsibilities of property owners to renters. It will mandate enhanced rules and regulations for landlords dealing with fees, leases and living conditions.

Mayor Keller is advocating for the relaxation of rules and regulation governing Safe Outdoor Spaces for the homeless to allow the establishment of 100 Safe Outdoor Spaces by private property owners, charitable organization and churches to accommodate1,000 homeless throughout the city.

LAND USE PLANNING, AND ZONING COMMITTEE

The City Council’s Land Use Planning, and Zoning Committee (LUPZ) reviews all ordinances, resolutions, or other matters pertaining to the city’s Zoning Code known as the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) that contains all the city’s zoning laws, land use appeals, historical designation process, annexations, sector development plans, and general land use, planning and redevelopment policies. The committee is appointed by the City Council President. The current members of the LUPZ committee are:

Progressive Democrat Tammy Fiebelkorn, Chair
Republican Brook Bassan, City Council President
Republican Renée Grout
Republican Dan Champine
Progressive Democrat Nichole Rogers

THREE MAJOR DEFEATS IN ONE NIGHT FOR KELLER’S “HOUSING NOW” PROGRAM AND ZONING LAW CHANGES

On Wednesday, August 13, the LUPZ committee held its regular scheduled committee meeting. On the agenda were three major items introduced by city councilors at the request of Mayor Tim Keller. All three agenda items failed. Each received a “DO NOT PASS” vote recommendation to the City Council. “DO NOT PASS” recommendations by the committee are routinely adopted by the full City Council thereby killing the legislation.

Following are the three agenda items voted down in the order they were presented to the LUPZ committee:

Adopting the Renters Empowerment and Neighborhood Transparency (RENT) ordinance, (0-25-88).

The Renter’s Empowerment and Neighborhood Transparency (RENT) Ordinance is sponsored by Progressive Democrat City Councilor Tammy Feiblekorn at the request of Mayor Keller. The ordinance will give renters more rights and remedies over landlords and property owners. The Keller Administration argued that RENT Ordinance builds on the requirements outlined in the state’s Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act. It does not. It expands the rights of tenants to the detriment of property owner rights. It will increase the rules and regulations for landlords, prohibit hidden fees, mandate terms in the lease contracts, and mandate further maintenance of rental properties.

Some key provisions of the RENT Ordinance include:

Require landlords to be upfront and clear about the rental application process, including what could disqualify someone, using plain language.
Make all costs transparent, so renters know exactly what they’re paying for: base rent, fees, and any charges before or during the lease.
Create a fairer application process, where landlords must review applications in the order they’re received: first-come, first-served.
Ensure landlords accept all types of rent payment and ban fees for paying rent online.
Stop landlords from charging “pet rent” or banning pets unfairly.
Hold landlords accountable if they don’t maintain rental properties. Renters may be eligible for relocation assistance if housing isn’t up to legal standards as decided by the city.
Require landlords to register their rentals with the City, including contact info and basic details about each unit.

Mayor Keller said this about his proposed “Renters Rights” Ordinance:

“Renters deserve clear information, safe homes, and protection from exploitation — nothing less. … This renters’ bill of rights is how we show that Albuquerque stands up for working families, seniors, and everyone who calls a rental home.”

https://www.cabq.gov/mayor/news/city-introduces-renters-bill-of-rights-to-protect-tenants

RENT ORDINANCE FAILS ON A 2 TO 3 VOTE

The RENT ordinance failed on a 2 to 3 vote with Progressive Democrats Tammy Fiebelkorn and Nichole Rogers voting “YES” and Republican Council President Brook Bassan, Renée Grout and Dan Champine voting “NO”. The committee then voted 3 to 2 to send the ordinance on to the full city council with a “DO NOT PASS” RECOMMENDATION which will likely be approved by the council thereby killing the legislation.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS ON RENTER’S EMPOWERMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSPARENCY ORDINANCE

Simply put, the new RENT Ordinance is a sneaky and pathetic rewrite and rebranding of the failed 2022 Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance sponsored by Progressive Democrat Tammy Fiebelkorn that was ultimately rejected and voted down by the previous City Council. The postscript below contains the link to an article that analyzes Fiebelkorn’s Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance. The key provisions of Keller’s new RENT ordinance are identical to the requirements that were in Fiebelkorn’s Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance. The RENT ordinance is a major step towards rent control which was rejected by New Mexico legislature in 2023.

There is no need for the RENT Ordinance. The NM Legislature’s enacted Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act enumerates the duties, responsibilities, rights and remedies of both owners and tenants which are enforced by the Bernalillo County Metro Court. Requiring more of property owners and landlords and less of tenants amounts to interference with property rights and contract rights and obligations between tenants and property owners. The proposed RENT ordinance is too burdensome and constitutes classic government overreaching. The RENT Ordinance is a clear interference with the operation and management of rental properties and it will have a detrimental impact on the rental industry. It will have the unintended consequence of increasing already high rents as property owners and landlords scrambled to take repeated steps to implement and comply with the ordinance each and ever time a new lease is negotiated or renewed.

There is no need to require registration with the city of rental properties in that the city already has much of the information that would be required. The city only needs to consolidate the information on its own from the various city departments. Further requiring disclosure of lease contract information for tenants, property owners and landlords and basic details about each unit amounts to nothing less than interference with private contract rights and privacy rights. One point of major contention was that renters should not be mandated by landlords to carry “renters insurance” and not be subject to extensive background and credit checks. These requirements are reasonable and necessary to manage rental properties and to protect the property owners and renters.

Safe Outdoor Spaces (0-25-89, Amending “Safe Outdoor Space Operators Permits and 0-25-90 amending the Integrated Development Ordinance relating to Safe Outdoor Spaces, sponsored by City Councilor Nichole Rogers at the request of Mayor Tim Keller.)

Under the City’s Zoning laws collectively known as the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO), “Safe Outdoor Spaces” are organized, managed homeless encampments. It was on June 6, 2022 that the City Council enacted a series of amendments updating the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO). One of the amendments was for “Safe Outdoor Spaces.” The legislation passed on a 5 to 4 vote despite very angry opposition from citizens and neighborhood associations. Voting YES to allow Safe Outdoor Spaces were 3 councilors who did not seek reelection. Mayor Tim Keller signed off on the legislation allowing for Safe Outdoor Spaces.

The enacted legislation allows for 2 homeless encampments in all 9 city council districts with 40 designated spaces for tents. The Safe Outdoor Spaces allow upwards of 50 people, require hand washing stations, toilets and showers, require a management plan, 6-foot fencing and dedicated space for social service providers to offer food, mental and physical health services. Although the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) amendment sets a limit of two in each of the city’s 9 council districts, the cap does not apply to those hosted by religious institutions.

After being repeatedly confronted by angry constituents at neighborhood association meetings and functions, Republican City Councilor Brook Bassan, who voted to allow them, issued a formal apology to her constituents saying after her initial support of Safe Outdoor Spaces she had serious doubts. She went so far as to say that the city was not ready to implement them and that they would not provide the type of relief she initially had hoped for.

After tremendous public anger and objections to Safe Outdoor Spaces, Republican City Councilor Brook Bassan did an about face and changed her mind. On June 22, 2022 just a few weeks after helping pass the Safe Outdoor Space amendment, Bassan introduced legislation to repeal the IDO amendment. She introduced two bills. One bill introduced would stop the city from accepting or approving safe outdoor space applications and the other would have eliminated safe outdoor spaces from the zoning code altogether. The legislation eliminating Safe Outdoor Spaces passed the City Council on a 5-4 vote, but Mayor Keller vetoed it and Safe Outdoor Spaces are allowed.

After over 3 years since the passage of the Safe Outdoor Spaces legislation, upwards of 8 applications have been made. Only one Safe Outdoor Space has been approved by the city. The primary reason given for the failure to establish more Safe Outdoor Spaces are what have been dubbed as onerous rules and regulations for them and the ultimate cost of providing 24/7 security.

On June 28, 2025 Mayor Tim Keller held a news conference to announce the legislation to make major changes to the city’s Integrated Development Ordinance governing Safe Outdoor Spaces. The legislation is sponsored by Progressive Democrat City Councilor Nichole Rogers at Mayor Keller’s request. Mayor Keller said he wants to ease costly rules that have stalled efforts to open more Safe Outdoor Spaces saying churches, nonprofits and others should be able to create legal encampments without facing any major financial barriers.

Mayor Keller said he wants to ease Safe Outdoor Space requirements to allow expansion of the program with the goal of increasing the number. Mayor Keller said the city needs to “scale up” by allowing smaller encampments all over the city. Keller said there are individuals either who are not ready for traditional shelters or can’t find available housing. Keller said to meet the need, the city may need as many as 100 smaller Safe Outdoor Spaces to accommodate 1,000 homeless.

According to Keller, there are many unhoused who would accept a Safe Outdoor Space and who have already turned down traditional shelters. Keller said this:

“This kind of option could make a huge difference on our streets. … It’s always worth it to help 10 people. … [Helping] even 10 people makes a huge difference in their lives and that’s never lost on me. … We think there’s at least 1,000 people on the street who would say yes to a Safe Outdoor Space and who currently say no to the Gateway system. … If you do the math, we’d need around 100 Safe Outdoor Spaces. … That’s a lot, but if each one shelters 15 or 20 people, the numbers add up fast.”

There are four major changes to the Integrated Development Ordinance governing Safe Outdoor Spaces Keller wants to make them more affordable and practical. The four changes are:

FIRST: This change would ease the rule requiring 24/7 on-site security. Currently, sites must always have someone on duty. It’s a cost that eliminates 99% of people who establish safe outdoor spaces on their property.

SECOND: This change would drop the rule requiring on-site showers 24/7. Instead, mobile trailers would rotate between locations throughout the week.

THIRD: This change would eliminate the requirement for a dedicated space for service providers.

FOURTH: This change would establish $100 application fees and $50 renewal fees, with permits lasting 12 months before requiring renewal.

RELAXING SAFE OUTDOOR SPACES REGULATIONA FAILS ON A 2-3 VOTE

On August 13 upwards of thirty people attended the LUPZ committee hearing with many in support of the legislation. The Safe Outdoor Space legislation failed on a 2 to 3 vote with Progressive Democrats Tammy Fiebelkorn and Nichole Rogers voting “YES” and Republican Council President Brook Bassan, Renée Grout and Dan Champine voting “NO”. The committee then voted 3 to 2 to send the legislation on to the full city council with a “DO NOT PASS” recommendation which will likely be approved by the council thereby killing the legislation.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS ON SAFE OUTDOOR SPACES

Keller’s original legislation to allow two Safe Out Door spaces in each of the 9 city council districts has been an absolute failure with only one established. After doing nothing for 3 years to get more established, Keller wants to get rid of the rules and regulations. He calls for100 Safe Out Door spaces scattered throughout the city to accommodate1,000 homeless people. Keller’s proposal to relax rules and regulations of Safe Outdoor Spaces and eliminate restrictions on them reflects a Mayor who has learned absolutely nothing from his failures as he doubles down on his failure.

According to the 2024 Point In Time survey, there are 2,394 individuals experiencing homelessness. Therefor Keller wants to provide Safe Outdoor Spaces for 1,000, or 42%, of the chronic unhoused. This defeats and ignores the integrated shelter system of 5 shelters Keller has established at a cost of upwards of $300 million with annual operating costs and service contracts of $56 Million. The city’s goal should be to get the homeless off the streets into shelter or permanent housing and not into tents.

The Safe Outdoor Space restrictions are required to limit the proliferation of homeless encampments in virtually every nook and cranny of the city. The restrictions are designed to prohibit and prevent illegal activity, such as drug use, with criminal activity and even violent crime being a major problem within the unhoused community.

Safe Outdoor Spaces are Mayor Keller’s symbols and legacy of failure as the city deals with its most vulnerable population, its homeless. If Keller had a lick of sense, he would abandon his efforts to establish Safe Outdoor Spaces. He needs to acknowledge and understand that there is very little to no public support for such homeless tent encampments. Keller needs to cease his efforts to cram them down neighborhood’s throats.

“Safe Outdoor Spaces” represent disaster for the city. “Safe Outdoor Spaces” will destroy neighborhoods, make the city a magnet for the homeless and destroy the city’s efforts to manage the homeless through shelters and permanent housing.

Opt-In Zoning Ordinance (R 25- 167 entitled Establishing An Opt-In Process For Legislative Zoning Conversions for Properties Zoned R-1, R-T, or R-ML To Increas Housing Options Citywide And Allow Mixed-Use Development Along Collector And Aterial Streets And Within Established Metropolitan Redevelopment Areas.)

R 25-167 was sponsored by Progressive Democrat Tammy Fiebelkorn, the LUPZ Chair, at the request of Mayor Tim Keller. The Resolution will let property owners voluntarily rezone for higher-density or mixed-use development by simply applying for the rezoning with the Planning Department.

Residential zoning covers 27% of the city’s land and 68% of its properties. City officials have said that 68% of the city’s existing housing is single-family detached homes with 120,000 existing residential lots with already built residences. According to city officials, zoning law allowing only single-family homes has contributed to exclusionary patterns and limits housing options for lower-income households. The new rezoning process is designed to loosen those restrictions and support more housing development to increase density in already established neighborhoods.

According to the Pew Charitable Trust, last year there were about half as many homes available to buy as there where in 2018, driving up home prices by 78% in Albuquerque. According to a 2024 Roots Policy Research study, the city has a deficit of nearly 22,000 affordable units for low-income renters.

The new city ordinance would create a voluntary rezoning process that would let property owners switch to higher-density zoning if they want to build more housing on their residential properties, allowing duplexes, townhomes and small apartment buildings in single-family neighborhoods. The Opt-In plan focuses on corner lots and busy streets to make room for more housing. The application process does not allow adjoining property owners to object or challenge the “opt in” application.

The proposed resolution will let property owners in certain zones apply to change their zoning for more diverse development and increase density. Participation would be voluntary. Single-family homes zoned R-1 would have several options. Corner lots could switch to low-density multifamily zoning, raising the height limit from 26 to 38 feet. Properties on busy collector or arterial streets could move to mixed-use transit zoning allowing apartments and businesses up to 30 feet tall.

The resolution gives the Planning Department very broad authority to increase density in a neighborhood as they ignore adjoining property owner’s rights and remedies. The resolution requires the city’s Planning Department to establish a process and recommend requests, focusing on properties along busy streets and in designated redevelopment areas. Only eligible property owners who apply and agree to participate will have their zoning updated. Residential property owners must complete a participation form confirming eligibility and acknowledging that the new zoning could make existing uses nonconforming.

The city Planning Department would act as the official entity to accept applications. Residential property desiring to “opt-in” for increasing their properties density would be responsible for providing documents including surveys, site plans or easement agreements and covering costs. If property owners don’t qualify or disagree with the outcome, they would be allowed to request a zoning change through the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) that regulates land use, building standards and development procedures.

According to the Planning Department, eligible properties can apply to rezone based on their current zoning and location to allow more housing options and mixed uses. Under the new ordinance if passed by the city council, single-family homes zoned R-1 will have several options. Those options include:

Corner lots on local streets could be converted to low-density multifamily which would allow duplexes, townhouses, and small apartments, and increase the maximum building height from 26 to 38 feet.
R-1 homes along busier collector or arterial roads which are defined as streets that move traffic from neighborhoods to major routes would be allowed to “switch” to mixed-use development, allowing apartments and businesses with buildings up to 30 feet tall.
Townhouses on busy streets would be allowed to convert to mixed-use low-intensity, focusing on townhouses and apartments but no longer allowing single-family homes or duplexes. Buildings could be built up to 38 feet to support more housing and businesses.
Low-density multifamily properties would also increase. Corner lots may convert to high-density multifamily, while properties on collector or arterial streets could switch to medium-intensity mixed-use.
The rezoning process would apply to Neighborhood Retail Properties zoned Neighborhood Retail Commercial Neighborhood Retail Business Park, Neighborhood Retail Light Manufacturing or Neighborhood Retail General Manufacturing and would allow conversion to high-intensity mixed-use.

On August 12, Mayor Keller held a press conference outside the former Range Cafe on Menaul Boulevard to promote passage of R 25-167. Keller said this in part:

“The idea is that if you have your own private property, that you should have a mechanism to choose what you want to do with that property. That maybe the government should not be the one telling you, you can only do one thing on your property. … Vacancy rates are still low and rents are too high. … If passed, this resolution will encourage development that expands housing options for a range of incomes and lifestyles.”

Keller made absolutely no mention of adjoining property owners or neighborhood association rights and remedies to deal the application process.

STRONG NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OPPOSITION

The August 13 LUPZ Committee meeting, after taking a 20-minute break at 7:30 pm, continued late into the night with upwards of 40 people speaking during public comment. Opponents clearly outnumbered supporters by at least a 2-to-1 ratio. Neighborhood association representatives from across the city turned out in force to oppose the R 25- 167 in no uncertain terms.

Past president of the Victory Hills Neighborhood Association Patricia Willson criticized the lack of neighbor notification and told the committee this:

“This resolution should be rejected out of hand. … Rather than continuing to pass crisis legislation… the city could do more to increase housing by providing casita grants.”

Willson aggressively pushed back on claims about current zoning rules. In particular, she pushed back on what Strong Towns ABQ volunteer Joseph Greenwald said at Keller’s August 13 press event that many housing types are “literally illegal to build” under current codes. Willson called that “disingenuous,” saying the city “completely rewrote” its zoning codes in 2018. Willson said under the usual zoning amendment process “neighbors within 100 feet get written notice. This has no written notice, no yellow sign.”

Willson said the city should focus on new development rather than altering existing neighborhoods. Wilson told the committee this:

“If the city is really serious about us being less car centric and having less single family homes, they should concentrate on convincing developers to do better new development … [instead of] targeting longtime homeowners who bought their house 50 years ago, have it paid for [and could see their most valuable asset change] with no ability for them to have any input.”

Willson blamed high rents on corporate investment, not zoning rules and said this:

“Rents are high because private equity moved in the last 20 years from investing in commercial real estate to investing in multifamily real estate to investing in single-family homes. … We have become bulldozer bait for out-of-state investors.”

Jaemes Shanley, the president of the Mark Twain Neighborhood Association questioned the proposal’s underlying data. Shanley said this:

“Albuquerque has not grown. Our population decreased since 2020. … The city’s projection of housing needs based on 2% annual growth through 2045 is pure fantasy. Albuquerque is not actually growing right now. It’s actually shrinking. … And yet the mayor and members of council insist we have an urgent need for 50,000 housing units by 2045. There’s no basis in fact to support that. … What we have is a desperate need for affordable housing, particularly affordable for people earning 50% or less than the area median income. … But that kind of housing cannot be built. It can only be subsidized. ”

Shanley told the committee he did a survey of major city corridors that showed 21% commercial vacancy rate. He argued the city should focus on repurposing empty commercial properties instead of changing residential zoning.

Both Willson and Shanley noted that 62% of Albuquerque residents live in single-family homes zoned R-1 that could be affected.

Jill Yeagley, president of the Molten Rock Neighborhood Association, said her board voted to unanimously oppose R 25-167. Yeagley told the committee this:

“We do not dispute the need for affordable housing. However, we do object to a shotgun approach that relies on inaccurate data. [This proposal] does not meet the state-required process of notification for residents. … We sincerely want to increase affordable housing, and I applaud that. … One of the things that I think we need to look at is zoning changes in large developments, such as we have going on in the Westside. That’s an ideal place where major developers can very easily plat the lots to incorporate town homes and duplexes and deepen those four plexes and do it in a way that creates a coherent and visually pleasing neighborhood.”

Evelyn Rivera, a residential appraiser, called R 25-167 “an attack on single-family homeowners [that] will not provide affordable housing.” Rivera criticized the city’s outdated data and said she was “insulted as a multi-generational Hispanic New Mexican to be called a racist for wanting to protect my home and my value of my home.”

Not all neighborhood association representatives opposed R 25-167. Marit Tully, speaking for the Near North Valley Neighborhood Association, said the group “has supported increases in density” and “supports affordable housing,” but asked for a deferral because “none of us on our board thinks we have a handle on the impacts of this resolution.” Tully told the LUPZ committee that his association had tried to educate members about the proposal but got little response, suggesting that “few of our neighborhood residents and other city residents understand its scope.”

STRONG TOWNS ABQ SUPPORT FOR “OPTED IN” ZONING

Strong Towns ABQ is the local chapter of the national Strong Towns movement. It advocates for a bottom-up approach to community development, emphasizing walkable neighborhoods, affordable housing, and responsible infrastructure spending. The group works to address issues like housing affordability, transportation infrastructure, and local government finances through community engagement and policy advocacy. Strong Towns ABQ has emerged as a major advocate to increase density throughout the city by changing or repealing the city zoning laws. A link for more information on Strong Towns ABQ is here: https://www.strongtownsabq.org/

A representative from Strong Towns ABQ attended the LUPZ meeting and voiced strong support for R 25-16. Jordon McConnell, communications chair for Strong Towns ABQ, said the group collected supportive comments “from every zip code and council district in the city” without actually providing the hard data. McConnell called R 25-16 “a practical, bottom-up approach that allows property owners to opt into the next step up in zoning. It’s not a top-down mandate.”

“OPT IN” ORDINANCE FAILS ON 4-1 VOTE AGAINST

The opt-in zoning legislation failed on a 4 to 1 vote with Progressive Democrats Tammy Fiebelkorn voting “YES” and Republican Council President Brook Bassan, Renée Grout and Dan Champine and Progressive Demoocrat Nichole Rogers voting “NO”. The committee then voted 4 to 1 to send the legislation on to the full city council with a “DO NOT PASS” recommendation which will likely be approved by the council thereby killing the legislation.

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

https://www.cabq.gov/planning/news/opt-in-zoning-conversion-critical-for-more-housing

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/article_a3cbc09d-1f74-409c-b1f1-67d0aa717e65.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

https://citydesk.org/2025/08/14/opt-in-zoning-proposal-suffers-decisive-defeat-in-committee/

https://citydesk.org/2025/08/13/neighborhood-groups-clash-with-city-hall-over-voluntary-zoning-changes-in-albuquerque/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS ON “OPTED-IN” RESOLUTION

R-25-167 zoning opt-in resolution is nothing more than the same old scam and a sneaky rebranding of Mayor Keller’s failed “Housing Forward ABQ Plan” to help developers and destroy existing neighborhoods by increasing density. Keller wants to increase density by simply ignoring adjoining property rights and objections.

Keller is advocating for the increase in the city’s density in established neighborhoods by allowing for mixed use development on single residential homes and allowing duplexes, townhouses, and small apartments, and increasing the maximum building on the false premise that it will increase affordable housing. It will not. Keller’ and Fiebelkorn, the resolution’s sponsor, have a Field of Dreams zoning philosophy of “if we rezone it, they will build it” discarding the limited resources of residential property owners and the likelihood of invertors on the prowl.

Should R-25-167 pass the full 9 member city council, every single R-1 zoned lot in Albuquerque will be able to be up-zoned increasing density. What this means is that any single family home along or in the middle of any street, not just a corner, not just on arterial or collector roads, can have a Townhouse built on it and it will be permissively enabled. Adjacent property owners, residents and neighborhood associations will just have to just shut up and accept it, regardless of its visual impact on the character of their neighborhood.

R-25-167 plan is clearly “overkill” that would affect all quadrants of the city. It will destroy the character of established neighborhoods and lead to gentrification. It will be developers and investors who will purchase existing homes for the development of duplexes, townhomes and small apartment buildings in single-family neighborhoods.

FINAL COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Mayor Tim Keller selected and promoted the 3 most controversial pieces of legislation that divided the City Council and the community and were designed to destroy established neighbors by increasing density.

Voters need to remember on election day November 4 Mayor Keller’s promotion of all three pieces of legislation that have divided the city council and the community. Voters must decide if Mayor Tim Keller is acting in their best interest and in the best interests of the city or if he is acting in his own best interests and simply promoting and doubling down on his failed policies. Voters need to decide if Keller should be elected to a third four-year term. It’s time we elect a new Mayor that will take the city in a new direction.

Links to related articles are here:

Fiebelkorn’s “Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance” And “Rental Permit Ordinance” Are Political Retaliation For Failure To Impose Rent Control And To Subvert State “Owner-Resident Relations Act”

Mayor Keller’s And Councilor Feibelkorn’s New Opt-In Zoning Plan “Sneaky” Rebrand Of Keller’s Failed “Housing Forward ABQ Plan”; Goal Is To Increase Density Through Out Entire City; Adjoining Property Owners Have No Rights To Challenge Neighbors “Opt-In” To Increase Density

Mayor Keller Seeks To Relax Safe Outdoor Space Rules To Allow 100 Smaller Safe Outdoor Spaces And Accommodate 1,000 Homeless To Camp; Keller “Double Downs” On His Failed Safe Out Door Spaces Policy Despite Spending Over $200 Million On His Gateway Integrated System

DA Sam Bregman And NM Cops Assail Juvenile Violent Crime Crisis Again Demanding Action From Legislature; How Many More People Need to Be Killed Before Legislature Confronts Our Juvenile Violent Crime Crisis?

Posted on August 14, 2025 by Pete Dinelli

NEWS UPDATE: On August 14, KOAT TV Target 7 ran a lengthy story entitled “Juvenile Injustice: The cause, solutions and roadblocks to fighting juvenile crime in New Mexico”. The full story can be found at this link.

https://www.koat.com/article/new-mexico-juvenile-crime-problems-answers/65667309

On July 15, Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman, flanked by police chiefs from Farmington, Española, Las Cruces, the New Mexico Department of Public Safety and the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office held a press conference in Albuquerque to address what they all characterized as a “juvenile crime crisis”. Once again they asked the New Mexico legislature to enact major reforms to the state’s juvenile justice system as embodied in the Children’s Code.

Española Police Chief Mizel A. Garcia said that with less than 11,000 residents, his department arrested two 15-year-olds, armed with rifles, who terrorized a homeless shelter where people were sleeping and fired multiple rounds over their heads “for no apparent reason” and he said it was sure “luck” no one was hurt.

Las Cruces Police Department Police Chief Jeremy Story said that in Las Cruces, three juveniles were arrested in connection with a mass shooting at a Las Cruces park on March 21, three people died and 15 others were shot with the shooters being teenagers. Chief Story said a 20-year-old was also charged in the shooting. Story said this:

“Juvenile crime is not just an Albuquerque problem. Unfortunately, it’s a New Mexico problem. Kids are committing crime after crime with no real consequences or accountability. I have six kids that have been arrested 11 or more times as a juvenile. I have 37 additional kids who have been arrested between six and 10 times. That shouldn’t be able to happen in a system that’s functioning correctly.” [Las Cruces police] have been able to charge and convict nearly a dozen juveniles with a federal offense. Now, for most of those kids, that’s the first time they’ve ever had a meaningful consequence or accountability for their actions.”

Secretary of the State Department of Public Safety Jason Bowie said this:

“There’s a clear gap in our system in holding these juveniles accountable. We’re failing miserably in this state. During town halls the governor has hosted [around the state] … the message has been consistent. People in these communities are afraid.”

Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen said this:

“New Mexico has a culture of coddling criminals. As you see, my colleagues from around the state, from the northwest, from the south, from Española, wherever we are, each hits each corner of the state. No longer can any representative or senator say it does not affect their area.

We are begging you, and I’m imploring you, representatives and senators, to look at the proposal that D.A. Bregman gave you. If you don’t agree with it, we understand. We are here to work with you. Pick 3 to 5 items that we can all agree on and move the system forward, since the code has not been enumerated since 1978.

We must have a balance of approach of rehabilitation and accountability. No program, wherever you are in the nation, specifically when it comes to rehabilitation, will work unless you have an enforcement arm. My pundits will say, ‘John, you’re trying to throw away the key and put him in jail.’ I am not saying that.

What I will tell you is if you know that there are no consequences for your actions and you are put into a rehabilitation program, but you re-offend— Juveniles tell us in the back of my deputy’s patrol units, ‘We’re not worried about it. We will be released, and we will get around the system.’ And guess what? They are. Last night, a 17-year-old at Coors and Los Estancia fired a firearm into a car, barely missing the driver’s head, which would have been a homicide.

We have heard from numerous investigations about juveniles that not only don’t care, but they actually laugh about their crime and say “Wow, I can’t believe I shot that person. I have no care in the world.’ ”

Albuquerque Police Commander Kyle Hartsock said this:

“It is a statewide problem. Our detectives work with police in Santa Fe, Roswell, Las Cruces, Taos, Ruidoso all the time. And helping solve their crimes or track some of their offenders that are coming through Albuquerque, many of them juveniles.”

Farmington Police Chief Steve Hebbe said juvenile crime has an impact on law enforcement recruiting efforts, and public perception of how well police can protect New Mexicans. Chief Hebbe said this:

“This is a sign that the public is losing confidence that justice will be delivered.”

WORSENING “JUVENILE CRIME CRISIS”

Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman for his part said his office has linked 70 different homicides to 53 juveniles in his two and a half years as District Attorney. Bregman said the evidence of the worsening “juvenile crime crisis” has been increasingly clear to him since taking office. He also said the state Legislature has failed to address the rising crime rates among juveniles and involving violent juveniles in particular. Bregman said this:

“These violent incidents are happening in every corner of New Mexico. … We are facing a juvenile crime crisis. … It’s one that continues to get worse every single day in New Mexico. There are teens or younger who are committing crimes all over the state and are getting away with it because they know they can. … I’ve said before and I’ll say it again, that it isn’t, unfortunately, until they are charged with murder, that they finally face any real consequences. And then it’s too late. … This isn’t just a statistic. People are dying. These are real victims. … Our leaders in Santa Fe, with the notable exception of the governor, have been tone-deaf to the crisis on the ground.”

Bregman express the identical concerns last October before the 60 day 2025 legislative session that began on January 21 and ended March 22. The juvenile code has not been updated in decades and Bregman proposed a slate of legislative changes to the Children’s Code which embodies the juvenile justice system. None of Bregman’s proposed legislation passed during the 2025 sixty day Legislative session and much of the legislation didn’t even get one hearing in a 60-day session.

Bregman’s list of proposed changes his office developed to increase consequences for violent crime committed by juveniles included the following:

Expanding the definition of serious youthful offender to include second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, rape and other violent crimes
Extending the age range of “youthful offenders” from 21 to 25 years old to allow for more treatment and supervision
Unsealing juvenile records during certain court hearings
Making it illegal for people under 19 to have any guns, and not just handguns

Bregman said this of his proposals:

“We are now giving these proposals to every single legislator so each and every one of them have no excuse not to have a robust debate about the future of our children. There is no excuse now not to try. Just trying. That’s what I’m asking the Legislature to do. Just try.”

“We need action. … We can be the leader in this nation when it comes to the explosion of juvenile crime, but we need to change our juvenile laws to match the times …. I know one thing, what we’re doing now certainly isn’t working.”

SHORTAGE OF JUVENILE JUSTIC DETENTION FACILITIES

Compounding the problem is that the state has just three juvenile detention facilities, prompting some of the more rural law enforcement agencies to travel to Bernalillo County to house violent juvenile offenders awaiting resolution of their cases.

Bernalillo County’s juvenile detention facility is at capacity, housing 75 juveniles waiting to be tried or awaiting sentencing. Of those, 27 are in for murder. Under state law, it is the county governments that are responsible for detention facilities, both adult and juvenile.

NEW MEXICO PUBLIC DEFENDER REACTS

Ben Baur, New Mexico’s chief public defender, said this through a spokeswoman:

“We all agree that we are seeing heart-breaking violence involving young people, guns and social media, and that people are being hurt. We absolutely need to find solutions, but these proposals basically amount to ‘send kids to prison early and often.’ … This won’t prevent crime. It won’t make them grow into better kids. It will just make them better criminals. It’s not ‘updating’ the juvenile code, it’s taking it back to old, disproven ideas.”

The link to the quoted or relied upon new sources are here:

https://www.koat.com/article/juvenile-crime-albuquerque-new-mexico/65419239

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/bernalillo-county-da-law-enforcement-demands-action-on-juvenile-crime-next-legislative-session/

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/article_d6de5b08-6a3e-4600-bc89-a3ea9d6e6ea6.html

DRAMATIC SPIKE IN VIOLENT CRIMES COMMITTED BY JUVENILES WITH GUNS

Since January 4, 2023, when Bregman was first appointed by the Governor to the fill the vacancy caused by then District Attorney Raul Torrez being elected Attorney General, his office received well over 1,400 juvenile cases, including 119 felony gun crimes up and through 2024 alone. There was a 57% increase from 2022 to 2023 in cases “involving kids with guns” according to data provided by the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s Office.

From January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2025 the District Attorney Office received 24 murder cases, 42 armed robbery cases, 48 rape cases and 65 drive-by shooting cases all involving juveniles. 374 juvenile cases where a received where a handgun was involved in one way or another. There are upwards of 80,000 juveniles between the ages of 10 and 18 living in Bernalillo County. The 553 felony cases cited make up less than 1% of the population.

Last year, Bregman said it was time to make changes to the “Delinquency Act” of the Children’s Code, as times have changed in the 3 decades since it was last updated. Bregman said teens have been sentenced to decades behind bars for murders after being given lenient penalties for lesser crimes. As an example Bregman said one teen was given probation for a hit-and-run crash that killed someone while another teen was given probation after shooting at a county employee. Bregman said this:

“The reality of this case is, if he had better aim, perhaps someone would have been dead. … What we’re trying to do [with the changes in the law] is build in some consequences when a juvenile first gets in the criminal justice system, so they learn something about how you can’t violate certain laws and norms. You can’t continue that behavior.”

Bregman said each case can have ripple effects that devastate families on both sides. He said he hopes the proposed changes to the Children’s Code can stem some of the effect being felt by the community. Bregman said this about juvenile gun violence:

“I understand kids make bad decisions. Every kid makes a bad decision, but when you put a gun in that mix of a bad decision, people die, unfortunately. … each case can have ripple effects that devastate families on both sides. … Those victims of violence committed by juveniles and their families have had their lives destroyed”

Bregman said in the past that he hoped changes to the juvenile code would teach juveniles a lesson before it’s too late and the intent is not to “lock up juveniles and throw away the key”. Bregman said this:

“What we’re trying to do is build in some consequences when a juvenile first gets in the criminal justice system, so they learn something about how you can’t violate certain laws and norms. You can’t continue that behavior.”

Bregman said addressing juvenile crime goes beyond lawmakers addressing the problem and he said this:

“This takes an entire community, including parents and family members, to make a difference in these young people’s lives. We all have to come together as a community and as a state, if you will. … Let’s give them the chance to get on the right path and be productive citizens, because if we don’t give them consequences early on, we end up with juveniles who are sentenced for decades in the corrections department.”

RECALLING PROPOSED CHANGES THAT FAILED

Under the existing Children’s Code, a “Serious Youthful Offender” is a child 15 to 18 years of age who is charged with and indicted or bound over for trial for first degree murder. A child upon conviction can be sentenced as an adult for the crime. There are no other crimes other than first degree murder that a “Serious Youthful Offender” can be charged with. Bregman said this:

“Currently, the only crime that you can charge as an adult is first degree murder. … We want to expand that to include second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, rape, shooting at or from a motor vehicle causing great bodily harm or death.”

Under the existing children’ s code a “Youthful Offender” is defined as a delinquent child subject to adult or juvenile sanctions who is 14 to 18 years of age at the time of the offense and who is adjudicated as committing at least one of a number of listed serious felonies such as second degree murder, kidnapping, robbery, aggravated battery (with a weapon), criminal sexual penetration (rape), aggravated burglary, aggravated arson, shooting at a dwelling or occupied building or shooting at or from a motor vehicle.

The proposed changes to the Children’s Code District Attorney Sam Bregman offered for enactment during the 2025 legislative that were not even given a committee hearing and that failed include the following:

1. Expanding the definition of “Serious Youthful Offender” to include second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, criminal sexual penetration (rape), armed robbery with the use of a firearm, shooting at or from a motor vehicle causing great bodily harm or death, and shooting at dwelling or occupied building causing great bodily harm or death.

2. Extending the age of possible imprisonment for “Youthful Offenders”from 21 to 25 years old. As the law is currently written, once a juvenile offender turns 21, in most cases, the criminal justice system automatically loses jurisdiction. Extending jurisdiction to age 25 would provide more time to get youthful offenders to get the treatment and supervision they need, while also monitoring the progress they are making.

3. Making it a felony for unlawful possession of a firearm for people under 19 to have any guns, including rifles, and not just handguns. Right now, it is illegal for anyone under the age of 19 to be in possession of a handgun. However, it is not illegal for anyone under the age of 19 to possess an assault rifle. The law would be updating language from “handgun”to “firearm,” which will include assault rifles. Bregman is also proposing to increase the penalty for this crime from a misdemeanor to a fourth-degree felony.

4. Moving a person to an adult facility once they reach the age of 18. Bregman believes that when a juvenile convicted of a violent crime turns 18, they should go to an adult facility because he does not want an 18-year-old in custody with a 13-year-old.

5. Remove the use of the “Risk Assessment Tool”to determine if a child is to be detained and allow prosecutors to file charges without having to first consult the juvenile probation office. Bregman said detention risk assessments also often stand in the way of holding young people who have been arrested, adding the assessments fail to give judges enough discretion and law enforcement officers enough credit as people with firsthand knowledge of a crime.

Bregman said this: “I say that if a police officer determines that that person needs to be arrested at the time, they need to be booked into the [detention center], and within 24 hours or so, a judge needs to hear and determine whether or not that person should be detained pending adjudication of the charges”.

6. Unsealing juvenile records during certain court hearings proceedings. This would consist of removing the secrecy laws that seal juvenile records from public review for the most serious offenders. This would allow juvenile records to be used during any adult conditions of release or sentencing hearing without having to obtain a court order to unseal the records. Every judge has the right to know and consider if the person in front of them has a violent past when determining conditions of release or sentencing. This change would allow for additional information to be heard and considered and will ultimately promote public safety.

7. Requiring judges to preside over juvenile detention hearings.

8. Grant judge’s discretion on the length of probation or commitment terms based on a juvenile’s history.

Bregman said this of all the proposed changes at the time:

“Changing the way we do business in our children’s criminal justice system is the single number one priority we can do when it comes to crime in our legislature in the upcoming 60-day session.”

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Simply put, New Mexico’s children are committing more and more violent crimes where guns are involved. The state’s Children Code and our Juvenile Criminal Justice System has not been able to keep up with changing times to deal with what now can only be considered a “juvenile violent crime crisis”. Part of the problem is just how complicated the children’s code really is and its application. The ultimate question that must be addressed is what is in the “best interest of the child” and keeping a family together versus punishment, incarceration and making sure justice is served and the public is protected.

It is very clear that the primary emphasis and purpose of the Children’s Code is not punishment in the form of confinement of child for crimes committed but on rehabilitation, services, counseling and social services. The primary goal of the Children’s Code and the Juvenile Justice System is to keep the family unit intact and what is in the best interest of the child. Such an approach is wise whenever you are dealing with delinquency types of cases and children of tender age. It is teenage juveniles that pose the biggest problem of what approach is in order.

Under the children’s code there is no mandatory sentencing and confinement when delinquency is found and when it does happen it can only be up and until the child reaches 18. However, things do get very complicated when gun violence is involved, protecting the public from gun violence and when it comes to sentencing a child as an adult when charges are brought against the child as a “youthful offender” or “serious youthful offender.”

All of the major proposals and changes to the Children’s Code as outlined and proposed by District Attorney Sam Bregman are reasonable and necessary given the violent crimes being committed by juveniles and should be adopted by the legislature. No doubt many will argue that they run afoul of the purpose and intent of the Children’s Code which is to do what is in the best interest of a child.

DA Bregman’s proposals to expand the definition of “serious youthful offender” so more types of crimes could lead to children being tried as adults is reasonable and necessary given the types of violent crime that is being committed. The challenge for the legislature is to decide what types of offenses for which a juvenile over 15 can be charged as an adult. Right now, that can only happen for first-degree murder. What should be included are all violent crimes involving a weapon and should include the crimes of aggravated assault, aggravated battery armed robbery with a firearm, and child abuse resulting in death. The legislature should also fix the law that currently allows a teenager to wield an assault rifle, though handguns are still illegal.

The New Mexico legislature must decide how many more innocent people need to be killed or be injured before legislature confronts the juvenile violent crime crisis?

City’s 2025 First Sixth Months Crime Stats Reveal Crime Is Down Compared To 2024; Part Of National Trend Having Nothing To Do With Mayor Tim Keller’s Failed Violent Crime Reduction Policies

Posted on August 13, 2025 by Pete Dinelli

The Albuquerque Police Department (APD) has released mid-year crime statistics for 2025. The crime statistics for the first half of 2025 reveal significant decreases in many crime categories compared to the same period in 2024. Specifically, homicide, aggravated assault, auto theft, and other property crimes have seen significant reductions. APD also noted that felony arrests have increased, and they attribute these positive trends to factors like tech upgrades such as gunshot detection, and surveillance cameras, and targeted enforcement actions.

According to APD’s midyear crime statistic for 2025, all major categories of crime are down compared to the same period in 2024. Auto theft has dropped 40%, residential burglary dropped 14%, and commercial burglary has dropped 24%. Major nonviolent crime is down by 25% when shoplifting is added. The three main categories of violent crime of aggravated assault, sex crimes, and robbery are down 12%. Homicides which are identified as a totally separate category, have declined 28%. Murders went from 47 in the first half of 2024 to 34 the first half of 2025 year putting the city on track to finish the year below 80 homicides. In 2024, the city recorded 89 total homicides.

The raw crime statistics reported for the time period of January 1 to June 30 comparing the years 2025 and 2024 are as follows:

PROPERTY CRIMES

Auto Theft ( APD Auto Theft Number)

2025: 1,336 2024: 2,213 %Change -40%

(Auto Theft based on APD Auto Theft Division number.)

Auto Theft (Other Source Reported)

2025: 1,871 2024: 3,023 %Change -38%

(Residential and Commercial burglaries based on Location Category which is identified by reporting officer.)

Auto Burglary

2025: 1,755 2024: 2,117 %Change -17%

Residential Burglary

2025: 983 2024: 1,145 %Change -14%

Commercial Burglary

2025: 754 2024: 993 %Change -24%

Shoplifting

2025: 3,539 2024: 4,146 %Change -15%

TOTALS

2025: 10,239 2024: 13,637 %Change -25%

VIOLENT CRIMES

Agg. Assault

2025: 2,105 2024: 2,362 %Change -11%

Sex Crimes

2025: 240 2024: 271 %Change -11%

Robbery

2025: 364 2024: 447 %Change -19

Totals

2025: 2,709 2024: 3,080 %Change -12%

HOMICIDES

2025: 34 2024: 47 %Change -28%

(Homicides based on Internal APD Homicide calculations as produced and reported by Homicide Unit.

ARRESTS (NEW CHARGES)

Felony

2025: 2,580 2024: 2,100 %Change +23%

Misdemeanor

2025: 5,763 2024: 5,108 %Change +13%

(Arrests include all arrest types including taken into custody, on-site, cited and summoned. Felony Warrant includes arrests with felony warrant charge, Misdemeanor Warrant includes arrests with Misdemeanor warrant charge.)

https://www.cabq.gov/police/crime-statistics

HISTORICAL TRENDS

The history of property crime and violent crime totals for a 10 year period were also provided in the 2025 mid-year crime statistics report as follows:

Year	Property Crime	Violent Crime	Totals
2014	30,523	4,934	35,457
2015	34,082	5,410	39,492
2016	38,639	6,248	44,887
2017	41,438	7,687	49,125
2018	34,898	7,997	42,895
2019	31,974	7,995	39,969
2020	28,354	7,875	36,229
2021	25,138	8,439	33,577
2022	27,068	8,016	35,084
2023	26,365	7,575	33,940

https://www.cabq.gov/police/crime-statistics/nibrs/2025-nibrs-quarterly-crime-stats

In 2023, the city’s recorded 19% drop in homicides marked Albuquerque’s largest annual decrease since 2010, when homicide totals hovered in the 30s. Following are the number of recorded homicides for the 8 years:

2017: 70 homicides
2018: 69 homicides
2019: 80 homicides
2020: 78 homicides
2021: 110 homicides
2022: 120 homicides
2023: 93 homicides
2024: 89 homicides
2025: 42 mid year as of August 4

(https://www.kob.com/news/top-news/albuquerque-police-investigated-89-homicide-cases-with-96-victims-in-2024/)

The most significant statistic reported by APD is that the city’s homicides went down 19% from 120 in 2022 to 93 in 2023 and again went down to 89 homicides in 2024. This marks Albuquerque’s largest decrease since 2010, when homicide totals hovered in the 30s.

According to APD, the downward trend in homicides is a result of better staffing, making more arrests in violent crime and solving cases. Police Chief Harold Medina attributed an improving solve rate to boosting the homicide unit to 16 detectives and training them better. He said he believed the sheer number of homicide suspects arrested — 117 in 2023 alone has driven down new cases.

APD detectives solved 53 of the 84 homicide cases from 2023 for a 63% clearance rate. Some involved multiple victims, and several suspects have since died or are on the loose.

Medina said getting thousands of stolen and pandemic-purchased guns off the streets is a major hurdle in reducing violent crime and homicides. Medina said the surplus of guns means more people are armed when a “simple conflict” arises. The “simple conflict” defined by APD as “individual disrespect” accounted for 57% of 2023’s killings.

The city also saw a 6% drop in nonfatal shootings from 353 in 2022 to 332 in 2023. Last year’s total still remained well above the 265 and 285 shootings recorded in 2021 and 2020, respectively.

Following are the Aggravated Assaults numbers for the past 8 years that also reflect a slight decline:

2017: 4,213
2018: 5,156
2019: 5,337
2020: 5,592
2021: 5,669
2022: 5,399
2023: 4,961
2024: 4,404

NATIONAL TRENDS

The city’s downward trend in crime statistics mirrors those seen nationally, even in the most violent cities. Across the country, the decrease has been attributed to an easing of the societal impacts of the pandemic. Locally, authorities say it is a result of better staffing and making more arrests in violent crime.

The Center for American Progress (CAP) is a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization. CAP focuses on a wide range of issues, including economic opportunity, social policy, national security, environmental protection and law enforcement trends.

On August 5, CAP published an article on the released 2024 data from the FBI show historic lows in the national murder rate, violent crime rate, and property crime rate. The report was entitled Nationwide 2024 Crime Data Demonstrate the Value of Violence Prevention and Local Law Enforcement. Following are edited outtakes from the report followed by the link to the full report:

On August 5, 2025, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) released crime data confirming that the overall rates of violent and property crime in the United States declined in 2024, recording the lowest property crime rate and lowest violent crime rate since at least 1969.* These data support a trend of sustained and historic declines in the nation’s crime rate since 2022.

These significant public safety gains follow a catastrophic surge in the nation’s murder rate between 2020 and 2021, which coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic—a surge that saw a 44 percent increase in firearm-related homicides nationally between March 2020 and October 2021. Not only does this newly released data support the finding that the country has returned to pre-pandemic levels of crime and violence, but many communities across the country, including Baltimore, Detroit, and Philadelphia, are now much safer today than before the pandemic started.

This positive trend is a testament to the successful coordination between community-based organizations; law enforcement; and local, state, and federal policymakers that have maximized federal funding opportunities and policies from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), and the Community-Based Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative (CVIPI) to make all American communities safer. … .

Key findings from 2024 FBI Reported Crimes in the Nation Statistics report include:

The national murder rate again recorded the largest one-year decline in homicides, down 9 percentfrom 2023 to 2024. This means that there have been back-to-back years of historic declines after the murder rate declined by 10 percent from 2022 to 2023.*
Gun homicides are down 16.7% in 2024 compared with 2023, and assaults with a firearm are down 8.6% in 2024 compared with 2023. When the national murder rate surged in 2020 and 2021,homicides with a gun were the primary driver while other types of homicides remained flat.
Overall violent crime declined by 4.5% from 2023 to 2024, the lowest recorded rate since 1969.
Overall property crime declinedby 8.1%, the lowest recorded rate since 1961. Motor vehicle thefts decreased by 18.6 percent from 2023 to 2024. However, reported shoplifting nationwide went up by 8.9 percent in 2024 compared with 2023.
Alabama, the District of Columbia, and Iowa each showed double-digit percentage decreases in violent crime rates, and 18 states showed double-digit percentage decreases in property crime rates in the 2024 FBI data compared with 2023.
While cities with a population of greater than 1,000,000 saw the largest declines in murders on average, down 19.1% communities of all sizes experienced significant declines, and no group category of community saw an average increase in violent crime compared with 2023. Nonmetropolitan counties saw a 4.6% decrease in overall violent crime and a 16 percent decline in murders. Similarly, suburban areas saw a 5.7 percent decrease in overall violent crime and a 12.4 percent decline in murders.
Nationwide, law enforcement agencies reportedclearing 43.8 percent of all violent crimes and 15.9 percent of all property crimes in 2024.

EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES HAVE MADE COMMUNITIES SAFER

Progress in 2024 followed the first major gun reform bill passed by Congress in more than 30 years—the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. The BSCA made historic investments in violence intervention strategies and improved commonsense gun laws across the country by closing loopholes in the gun purchasing background check system, establishing federal criminal offenses for straw purchasing and trafficking, addressing dating violence loopholes, supporting implementation of extreme risk protection orders, and funding a 21st century pipeline of mental health professionals.

Jurisdictions that have experienced some of the most significant decreases in their gun victimization rates since 2021 have invested in violence reduction strategies that emphasize coordination with and investment in community-based organizations and can include improved data sharing practices and additional funding for community violence intervention (CVI) programs. CVI programs connect individuals at the highest risk of being involved in violence with resources and services to stop violence before it starts. Evaluations of CVI models consistently show that CVI programs are one of the most effective tools to interrupt cycles of violence. These gains were made possible because of vital federal funding support from ARPA, BSCA, and CVIPI grants.

The latest FBI data also estimate small increases in the rates at which murder, violent crime, and property crime are solved, known as clearance rates. After falling to a historic low of 49.4 percent in 2021, the clearance rate for murder increased to 61.4 in 2024 but has not surpassed pre-COVID rates. Cities such as Houston and Garfield Heights, Ohio, spent federal ARPA funds on new technology and on hiring police investigators and analysts to solve more crimes. While recent increases in clearance rates are encouraging, far too many crimes go unsolved in cities and rural areas alike, enabling many people to avoid accountability for the harm they cause. Cities should follow the lead of cities such as Boston, which increased its homicide clearance rate by 19 percentage points by hiring additional detectives and leveraging data and technology, and Denver, which increased its nonfatal shooting clearance rate from 39 percent to 65 percent in the first seven months after establishing a specialized unit dedicated exclusively to solving nonfatal shootings. BSCA also contributed to reductions in gun crimes by giving law enforcement additional tools to stop illegal gun trafficking, preventing individuals convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence from possessing firearms, expanding background checks, and investing in CVI programs.

The link to the unedited article is here:

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/nationwide-2024-crime-data-demonstrate-the-value-of-violence-prevention-and-local-law-enforcement/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

One thing that is very certain is that the downward trend in Albuquerque’s crime rates and homicides has had nothing to do with Mayor Tim Keller’s failed Violent Crime reduction programs, including Keller’s Violence Intervention Program.

KELLER’S FAILED VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION PROGRAMS

Over 7 years ago, in August, 2017, then New Mexico State Auditor Tim Keller, candidate for Albuquerque Mayor, had this to say about the city’s high crime rates:

“It’s unfortunate, but crime is absolutely out of control. It’s the mayor’s job to actually address crime in Albuquerque, and that’s what I want to do as the next mayor.”

It was in 2019 that Mayor Tim Keller reacting to the spiking violent crime rates, announced 4 programs in 9 months to deal with and bring down the city’s high violent crime rates. Keller also launched his “Community Safety Department” and his “Metro Crime Initiative” which he claimed would fix the “broken criminal justice” system.

All 4 initiatives involve early intervention and partnership with other agencies and are summarized as follows:

THE SHIELD UNIT

In February 2018 the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) created the “Shield Unit”. The Shield Unit assists APD Police Officers to prepare cases for trial and prosecution by the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s office.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1325167/apd-expands-unit-that-preps-cases-for-prosecution.html

DECLARING VIOLENT CRIME A PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS

On April 8, 2019, Mayor Keller and APD announced efforts that will deal with “violent crime” in the context of it being a “public health crisis” and dealing with crimes involving guns in an effort to bring down violent crime in Albuquerque.

THE “VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PLAN” The “Violence Intervention PLAN (VIP program)

On November 22, 2019 Mayor Tim Keller announced what he called a “new initiative” to target violent offenders called “Violence Intervention Plan” (VIP). Mayor Keller proclaimed the VIP is a “partnership system” that includes law enforcement, prosecutors and social service and community provides to reduce violent crime. Mayor Keller stated:

“… This is about trying to get these people not to shoot each other. …This is about understanding who they are and why they are engaged in violent crime. … And so, this actually in some ways, in that respect, this is the opposite of data. This is action. This is actually doing something with people. …”

The “Violence Intervention Plan” can be described as a “fantasy land” experiment especially when there is little that can be done to prevent the violent crime of murder by “trying to get these people not to shoot each other” and “understanding who they are and why they are engaged in violent crime.”

THE METRO 15 OPERATION PROGRAM

On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 Mayor Tim Keller held a press conference to announce his 4th program within 9 months to deal with the city’s violent crime and murder rates. At the time of the press conference, the city’s homicide count was at 72, matching the city’s record in 2017.

FAILED PROGRAMS

All 4 of Keller’s Volent Crime Reduction programs were initiated in 2019. Notwithstanding his programs, violent crimes, aggravated assaults and homicides continued to spike for the years 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022. Simply put, Mayor Keller’s Violent Crime Reduction programs have been failures and did not have any statistical impact on reducing crime. The truth is that for a good 3 years before the COVID pandemic hit the city hard in 2020 under Keller’s watch, violent crime rates were spiking, so much so that 7 years ago then candidate for Mayor Tim Keller made reducing the city’s crime rates a cornerstone of his campaign.

Notwithstanding the 19% reduction in homicides in 2023, the sure spike in homicides during Keller’s tenure as Mayor is an obscene reflection that the city is one of the most violent cities in the country under his tenure. This is our new norm as the city follows national trends.

Keller’s promise 7 years ago when he ran for Mayor the first time was APD would have 1,200 sworn police, but in the entire 7 years he has been mayor Keller’s promise never materialized. Currently the APD has about 900 sworn police with only 350 sworn police patrolling the streets in 3 shifts. The city and APD never once achieved 1,000 sworn police under Mayor Keller. Keller himself has said the 1,100 figure is unrealistic and no longer even mentions his original goal of 1,200 sworn.

There has been a decrease in homicides in big cities including Los Angeles and Detroit, but also in those long besieged by gun violence, like Chicago. Baltimore, with a similar population and reputation as Albuquerque for years has been known as one of the most violent American cities. In 2024, Baltimore recorded a 22.5% drop in homicides, its largest single-year decrease, and a 7% drop in nonfatal shootings. Albuquerque’s trend downward in homicides reflects an identical downward trend nationally, even in the most violent cities. Across the country, the decrease has been attributed to an easing of the societal impacts of the pandemic.

Now Mayor Tim Keller is running for a third consecutive 4 year term, there is no doubt Mayor Tim Keller will try and take all the credit for the City’s declining crime rates when in fact all his efforts have been a failure. Albuquerque and APD are worse off today with Tim Keller as Mayor than when he was elected the first time in 2017.

The link to a related article is here:

Mayor Tim Keller: “Crime Is Absolutely Out Of Control”; 2020 Crime Statistics Report Property Crime Down But Violent Crime, Shootings, Stabbings And Murder Up; Murders Up 3rd Year In A Row Under Keller

NM Business Coalition Mayoral Poll Results: Tim Keller Has 60% Unfavorable Rating, Darren White Has 39% Unfavorable Rating; Both Likely To Make Runoff Because Of Base Support; Keller Defeated In Run Off By All 6 Challengers; Tim Keller’s $857,646 Advantage May Not Be Enough To Overcome Negatives And The “Any Body But Keller” Movement

Posted on August 11, 2025 by Pete Dinelli

On Friday, June 20 the City Clerk qualified 7 candidates out of 11 total candidates running for Mayor for the November 4 ballot after they successfully gathering 100% of the 3,000 qualifying nominating petition signatures from Albuquerque registered voters. If no one of the 7 candidates secures 50% plus one of the vote, the two top vote getters will face each other in a run off election which must be held within 45 days of the November 4 election.

The seven candidates who have qualified for the ballot are:

Incumbent Mayor Tim Keller.
Eddie Varela, a retired Albuquerque firefighter and former California fire chief.
Alex Uballez, the former U.S. attorney for the District of New Mexico.
Louie Sanchez, a retired APD police officer and current city councilor.
Darren White, the former sheriff of Bernalillo County and former CEO of medcal cannabis company PurLife.
Daniel Chavez, president of Parking Company of America was the very first to qualify for the ballot.
Mayling Armijo, the former director of Economic Development for Bernalillo County and deputy county manager for Sandoval County.

Public finance candidates for Mayor were required to collect 3,780 donations of $5.00 to the city from registered voters to qualify for the city to give them $755,946 in city financing for their campaigns. On June 20, the City Clerk determined that Mayor Tim Keller was the only candidate to qualify for public finance and he was given $755,946 in public finance.

Under the City of Albuquerque’s campaign finance laws, a Measure Finance Committee (MFC) is a political action committee (PAC), person or group that supports or opposes a candidate or ballot measure within the City of Albuquerque. Measure finance committees are not bound by the individual contribution limits and business bans like candidates. Ascend Albuquerque is the measured Finance Committee which has been formed for the sole purpose “to support the election of Tim Keller as Mayor of Albuquerque.” On July 14, 2025, Ascend Albuquerque filed its fourth financial disclosure statement as required by the City’s election code and it reported that it has raised $101,700.00

NM BUSINESS COALITION COMMISSIONED POLL

The New Mexico Business Coalition (NMBC) is a statewide nonpartisan, pro-business, conservative organization. NMBC focuses on trying to improve the business environment for companies. The organization engages heavily in promoting a conservative business agenda including promoting right to work laws thereby opposing labor unions, opposing any and all increases in the minimum wage, opposing increases in taxation and opposing city zoning laws viewed as detrimental to development. The organization is considered highly supportive of law enforcement holding law enforcement appreciation events. The organization is known to get involved in municipal, county and legislative races going so far as to sponsor debates between candidates. For more information, you can visit NMBC website: https://nmbizcoalition.org/

On July 30, 2025 Carla J. Sonntag, the President and CEO of the New Mexico Business Coalition issued a press release announcing the results of an opinion poll in the 2025 race for Albuquerque Mayor. The press release is entitled “NM Albuquerque Residents Express Strong Discontent with Mayor Tim Keller’s Leadership, Signal Desire for Change, Survey Finds’’.

Following is the press release:

Albuquerque, NM – July 30, 2025 – A recent survey conducted from July 8 to July 12, 2025, reveals significant dissatisfaction among Albuquerque voters with the direction of the city under Mayor Tim Keller’s leadership. The poll included 529 likely 2025 Albuquerque election voters.

The survey results indicate that a substantial 64% of respondents disagree with the statement, “I am happy with the direction the City of Albuquerque is heading in,” with 50% strongly disagreeing and 14% somewhat disagreeing. Only 8% strongly agreed and 22% somewhat agreed with the statement. 5% of respondents were unsure. This overwhelming disapproval underscores an apparent shift among voters from what was seen in the last two mayoral elections.

When asked specifically about their opinion of Mayor Keller, only 33% of respondents viewed him favorably, while a striking 60% held an unfavorable opinion, and 7% had no opinion. These numbers highlight a significant lack of confidence in the two-term incumbent as he approaches the November 2025 General Election.

In hypothetical head-to-head matchups with each of the six challengers qualified for the November ballot for mayor, Keller trailed each of them. A substantial portion of voters are currently either supporting alternatives or remaining undecided. A noteworthy point of the poll is that little was known at this phase of the campaign about many of the challengers

“The data clearly shows that Albuquerque residents are deeply dissatisfied with the current trajectory of our city under Mayor Keller’s leadership,” said Carla Sonntag, President and CEO of the New Mexico Business Coalition that commissioned the poll. “Voters are signaling a strong desire for fresh ideas and a new direction in the upcoming election.”

The survey was conducted from July 8 to July 12, 2025, by Rival Strategy Group. There were 529 respondents randomly selected from a demographically proportionate sample of New Mexico registered voters likely to vote in the 2025 Albuquerque Election. The poll has a margin of error of ±4.2. The survey with demographic details is posted on the NMBC website under “2025 Voter Information.”

The link to the press release is here:

https://nmbizcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/News-ABQ-Residents-express-strong-discontent.pdf

SURVEY QUESTIONS AND RESULTS

The opinion poll commissioned by the New Mexico Business Coalition (NMBC) was conducted by Rival Strategy Group which is a full-service political consulting firm which provides general political consulting, digital advertising services, web designing, direct mailing and polling. Rival Strategy Group is known to engage in political consulting for Republican candidates. In New Mexico, Rival Strategy Group boasts of having done work for the Republican Party of New Mexico, Republican Yvette Harrel for Congress and Republican Nella Domenici for US Senate.

https://www.rivalstrategygroup.com/

The poll was taken from July 8 through July 12, 2025 . 529 likely 2025 Election voters participated in the survey. The margin of Error is +/-4.2%. Following are the questions asked and the results:

Question 1: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? “I am happy with the direction the City of Albuquerque is heading in.”

Strongly agree: 8%
Somewhat agree: 22%
Somewhat disagree: 14%
Strongly disagree: 50%
Not sure: 5%

Question 2: What is your opinion of Mayling Armijo?

Favorable: 8%
Unfavorable: 10%
No opinion: 81%

Question 3: What is your opinion of Daniel Chavez?

Favorable: 6%
Unfavorable: 13%
No opinion: 81%

Question 4: What is your opinion of Tim Keller?

Favorable: 33%
Unfavorable: 60%
No opinion: 7%

Question 5: What is your opinion of Louie Sanchez?

Favorable: 16%
Unfavorable: 24%
No opinion: 60%

Question 6: What is your opinion of Alex Uballez?

Favorable: 19%
Unfavorable: 12%
No opinion: 69%

Question 7: What is your opinion of Eddie Varela?

Favorable: 9%
Unfavorable: 16%
No opinion: 74%

Question 8: What is your opinion of Darren White?

Favorable: 35%
Unfavorable: 39%
No opinion: 26%

Question 9: If the candidates in the November 2025 General Election for Mayor of Albuquerque were just Daniel Chavez and Tim Keller, for whom would you vote?

Daniel Chavez: 37%
Tim Keller: 32%
Undecided: 31%

Question 10: If the candidates in the November 2025 General Election for Mayor of Albuquerque were just Tim Keller and Louie Sanchez, for whom would you vote?

Tim Keller: 33%
Louie Sanchez: 40%
Undecided: 27%

Question 11: If the candidates in the November 2025 General Election for Mayor of Albuquerque were just Tim Keller and Darren White, for whom would you vote?

Tim Keller: 38%
Darren White: 43%
Undecided: 19%

Question 12: If the candidates in the November 2025 General Election for Mayor of Albuquerque were just Mayling Armijo and Tim Keller, for whom would you vote?

Mayling Armijo: 37%
Tim Keller: 27%
Undecided: 35

Question 13: If the candidates in the November 2025 General Election for Mayor of Albuquerque were just Tim Keller and Eddie Varela, for whom would you vote?

Tim Keller: 33%
Eddie Varela: 34%
Undecided: 33%

Question 14: If the candidates in the November 2025 General Election for Mayor of Albuquerque were just Tim Keller and Alex Uballez, for whom would you vote?

Tim Keller: 25%
Alex Uballez: 39%
Undecided: 36%

DEMOGRAPHICS OF VOTERS SURVEYED

Following are the demographics break down of the poll:

% FROM CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS

District 1: 79%
District 2: 21%

% OF PARTY AFFILIATION

Democrat 52%
Republican 31%
Non-Partisan 17%

% OF IDEOLOGY

Conservative 34%
Moderate 30%
Liberal 36%

% OF GENDER

Female 54%
Male 46%

% OF AGES

Ages 18-49: 29%
Ages 50-64: 32%
Age 65+ : 39%

% OF RACE

White 53%
Hispanic 32%
Other 15%

The link to review the poll in its entirety is here:

Click to access ABQ-Mayor-Poll.Survey.pdf

ACCURACY OF POLL

Known critics of the poll who support Tim Keller for election to a third term are very cynical of the poll with one going so far as proclaiming it is a “push poll” which is an opinion poll that has the objective to sway voters using loaded, leading or manipulative questions. Critics also say because the poll was taken by a Republican Political Strategy company the poll is not to be believed.

The poll is straight forward. The questions asked can not be characterized as “loaded” nor manipulative. The poll can be characterized as a “horse race” poll simply to determine who the front runners are. The demographics of voters surveyed as to party affiliation, ideology, gender, age and race reflect that those polled are a healthy representation of the demographics of the city leading credence that it is a legitimate poll.

The percentage breakdown for each of the 14 questions asked and the percentage demographic breakdown of the survey can be found here:

Click to access ABQ-Mayor-Poll.Survey.pdf

PREVIOUS POLL AND SURVEY RECALLED

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/local/article_ecd8f917-ee43-5ce4-b235-85c1a34a2b03.html

On April 16, 2024, the results of the annual City of Albuquerque Citizen Perception Survey were released. The City’s Citizens Satisfaction survey found as follows:

63% of citizens are concerned over the direction the city is going.
61% “disagree” and 35% “agree” that “the Albuquerque City Government is responsive to our community needs.”

Both survey findings directly reflect on the job performance of Mayor Tim Keller.

https://www.cabq.gov/progress/documents/albuquerque-yearly-survey-2023.pdf

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The first biggest take away from the opinion poll is that each of the 6 candidates running against Mayor Tim Keller could beat Mayor Tim Keller in a runoff. All 6 candidates outpoll Keller in a runoff in the following order:

Darren White with 43% to Tim Keller’s 38% and 19% undecided.
Louie Sanchez with 40% to Tim Keller’s 33% and 27% undecided.
Alex Uballez with 39% to Tim Keller’s 25% and 36% undecided.
Daniel Chavez with 37% to Tim Keller’s 32% and 31% undecided.
Mayling Armijo with 37% to Tim Keller’s 27% and 35% undecided.
Eddie Varela with 34% to Tim Keller’s 33% and 33% undecided.

The very high number of undecided voters of between 19% and 36%, depending on the candidates who make it into the runoff with Keller, will ultimately decide the election in a runoff.

The second biggest take away from the opinion poll is that the two candidates for Mayor who have the highest Unfavorable Ratings are more likely than not will be the ones facing off against each other in a runoff. Mayor Tim Keller has a 60% Unfavorable Rating while Darren White has a 39% Unfavorable Rating.

The unfavorable and favorable ratings of all seven candidates compared are:

Tim Keller’s unfavorable rating is 60%, his favorable rating is 33% and a mere 7% have no opinion of him.
Darren White’s unfavorable rating is 39% and his favorable rating is 35% and 26% have no opinion of him.
Louis Sanchez’s unfavorable rating 24% and his favorable rating is 16% and 60% have no opinion of him.
Eddie Varela’s unfavorable rating is 16%, his favorable rating is 9% and 74% have no opinion of him.
Daniel Chavez’s unfavorable rating is 13%, his favorable rating is 6% and 81% having no opinion of him.
Alex Uballez’s unfavorable rating is 12%, his favorable rating is 19% and 69% having no opinion of him.
Mayling Armijo’s unfavorable rating is 10%, her favorable rating is 8% and 81% having no opinion of her.

Democrat Mayor Keller as the incumbent is likely to get into the runoff given his 33% favorable rating which likely represents his base of support among progressive Democrats who will vote for him no matter his unfavorable rating and because of his progressive policies dealing with the homeless and his strong opposition to President Trump and federal cutbacks.

Republican Darren White is likely to get into the runoff given his 35% favorable rating which likely represents his base of support among Conservatives and MAGA Republicans because his stance on immigration, the homeless and crime.

According to the poll, those polled state they had “NO OPINION of the five remaining candidates as follows:

Louis Sanchez: 60%
Alex Uballez: 69%
Eddie Varela: 74%
Daniel Chavez: 81%
Mayling Armijo: 81%

The “NO OPINION” poll numbers for the 5 are extremely high. This indicates they are virtually unknown to the general voting public meaning they have their work cut out for them to get their messaging out.

KELLER’S FINACIAL ADVANTAGE MAY NOT MATTER

Mayor Tim Keller is seeking a third consecutive four-year term despite the fact he has a very high unfavorable rating of 60%. Keller’s unfavorable rating has gone further up since November 2022 when the Journal poll found that he had a 40% disapproval rating. Notwithstanding Keller’s low polling, he will likely make it into a run off, either first or second, because of his loyal base of progressive Democrats he has relied upon every single time he has run for office including New Mexico State Senate, New Mexico State Auditor and twice as Mayor.

The fact that Mayor Keller is the only candidate to secure $755,946 in public finance and a measured finance committee that has raised another $101,700.00 to promote him for a grand total of $857,646 is a testament of the power of incumbency. It is clear evidence Keller is running against a very weak field of candidates given that Keller was the only one who qualified for public finance. Given the involvement of two well-known, respected progressive Democratic fundraisers, the measured fiancé committee will likely raise thousands more to promote Keller and to tear down his opponents. With the November 4 election so close, Keller will no doubt be forced to get very aggressive and go negative with his opponents given his unfavorable ratings.

“ANY ONE BUT KELLER”

City Hall observers and political pundits are saying the election is Keller’s to lose. What they fail to take into account is the “any one but Keller movement”. It can also be called “Keller Fatique” which is what happened with “Chavez Fatique ” when Democrat Mayor Marty Chavez attempted to seek a third consecutive four-year term in 2009 and he lost to Republican Richard Berry with former Democrat State Senator Richard Romero splitting the Democrat vote with Chavez. The fact that the poll revealed that all 6 of Keller’s opponents beat him in a runoff is evidence that there is an “any one but Keller movement”. Simply put, people want change.

The “any one but Keller movement ” comes into sharp focus when the local news stations publish stories on FACEBOOK where Keller is interviewed at length about his candidacy and literally hundreds of public comments are made that are all negative and berating Keller for his failure to address and solve the city’s problems. Candidates who are running for city council and who were going door to door to collect nominating signatures and $5.00 for their own candidacies reported they were encountering strong anti-Keller sentiment at the doors with them being asked questions if they support Keller for reelection. One confidential source said they witnessed Keller himself encountering severe push back when he attended weekend public events to collect nominating petition signatures with people refusing to sign his petition and refusing to donate a $5 qualifying donation for public finance an who insisted they would never vote for him again.

FINAL COMMENTARY

The poll confirmed voters are dissatisfied with the direction the city is going with 50% saying they strongly do not agree the city is going in the right direction with 14% somewhat not agreeing the city is going in the right direction for a whopping total of 64%. The poll confirmed the April 16, 2024 Citizens Satisfaction Survey that found 63% of citizens are concerned over the direction the city is going. The polls underscore Keller’s poor performance as Mayor.

Eight years of Tim Keller as Mayor has been more than enough. Simply put, Albuquerque needs a new Mayor. Keller is completing 8 years as Mayor and he is still struggling with the very issues he dealt with 8 years ago: high violent crime rates, drugs, the homeless crisis and a corrupt APD. Things have not gotten any better under his leadership and some would say the city is worse off today than when he was first elected in 2017. What can Keller really accomplish with 4 more years when he has had 8?

Mayor Tim Keller has overstayed his welcome and voters want change, but Darren White clearly is not the change the city needs. Darren White would be a “chaotic disaster” given the repeated controversies he was embroiled with during his public service career and the politcal baggage he carries with him to this day.

Hope springs eternal that over the course of the campaign that Alex Uballez , Louis Sanchez, Mayling Armijo, Daniel Chavez or Eddie Varela will break out of the pack, will in fact raise enough money to compete and emerge as a viable candidate and succeed in removal of an entrenched politician. Otherwise the city will again be dealing with the choice of the lesser of two evils, as in the last election between Tim Keller and Sherriff Manny Gonzales, and electing a Mayor no one really likes nor wants and have to decide between Tim Keller and Darren White.

Please vote on November 4, 2025.