Recent Columns

© 2026 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES 10/26/26

Hall of Fame and Hall of Shame measure votes on medical malpractice reform

By Sherry Robinson

All She Wrote

     I keep hearing about how the Legislature “fixed” the medical malpractice law that’s sent doctors running like they’re in a theater fire. As my own doctor just told me about this year’s reform, “It was a start. They stopped the bleeding, but they haven’t stitched up the patient.”

     House Bill 99 attempted to reform a medical malpractice law that has spiked doctors’ insurance premiums and multiplied malpractice lawsuits. It almost failed this year. Now some of its critics are running for office, and they’re less than honest about their actions.

     Voters have a lot to think about in this election, but access to doctors should be a priority. It’s why medical malpractice reform was the most urgent issue among a slew of healthcare bills heard this year. That’s what I hear from doctors.

     So, I’ve created the Hall of Fame and the Hall of Shame – only for House members because senators aren’t up for re-election. 

     In the Hall of Fame are state representatives who stood up for your doctor and your access to healthcare. We start with Reps. Christine Chandler, D-Los Alamos, and Gail Armstrong, R-Magdalena, the primary sponsors of HB 99, along with Dem co-sponsors Dayan Hochman-Vigil, Sarah Silva and Doreen Gallegos. (In total, 49 legislators signed on, too many to list here.) 

     Add to this Joseph Sanchez, D-Alcalde, as a primary House sponsor of SB 176, the 2025 predecessor to HB 99.

     Some lawmakers have stepped up repeatedly as champions of effective healthcare legislation: Armstrong, Silva, Gallegos and Sanchez, along with Republicans Nicole Chavez and Joshua Hernandez and Democrats Anita Gonzales and Charlotte Little. Democrat Marian Matthews championed both malpractice reform and professional licensing compacts, which allow licensed healthcare providers in other states to serve patients in New Mexico.  

     Republican Jenifer Jones, a nurse, co-sponsored ten compact and other health-related bills. Jones and fellow Republicans Alan Martinez and Nicole Chavez defended HB 99 under fire.

     The first five members of the Hall of Shame are Democrats on the House Health and Human Services Committee, who voted in January to gut HB 99. 

Chair Liz Thomson, who was openly hostile to doctors testifying before her committee, moved an amendment denying a cap to corporate-owned hospital systems, so HB 99 would have protected just five of the state’s 38 hospitals. She and the committee’s Democrats ranted about “huge multi-billion-dollar corporations.” 

     Republicans on the committee pointed out that corporations provide a great deal of care here and said the amendment exploded a delicate nonpartisan deal. The amendment and the gutted bill passed. Fortunately, Chandler restored the bill in her own House Judiciary Committee, it passed both chambers and the governor signed it into law.

     Of the five Dems running for office, two can’t be held accountable because they’re running unopposed: Thomson and Rep. Marianna Anaya. (Rep. Joanne Ferrary resigned from the House.)

     Anaya, who was paid $10,000 by a trial-lawyer front group in 2024, recently joined the House Democratic leadership board. In 2025 she sponsored a pointless bill to promote medical recruiting, as if doctors outside the state wouldn’t know that New Mexico’s malpractice premiums were sky high. 

     The other three – Reps. Pamelya Herndon, Kathleen Cates and Eleanor Chavez – have opposition. All three voted for HB 99 on the House floor.

     Herndon, with an eye on the election, even signed on to HB 99; her website says only that she voted for HB 99. 

     Kathleen Cates wrote in September on her Facebook page: “I supported medical malpractice reform but knew the (New Mexico) Hospital Association and other organizations were lying about doctors leaving New Mexico. They are not leaving. There are many reasons why we have a shortage.”

     She got blowback from several groups, including the Doña Ana County Medical Society, for citing bad data, misleading her constituents and “taking trial-lawyer money while promising to fix that crisis.” 

     Eleanor Chavez said in the committee hearing that she didn’t believe passing HB 99 would increase the number of doctors in the state. Her campaign website says nothing about malpractice reform.

     The facts: New Mexico lost 248 physicians from 2019 through 2024, an 8.1% decline, as Texas and Arizona increased their numbers by more than 14%. A legislative survey in January reported that 65% of New Mexico physicians were considering leaving the state to practice elsewhere. Of those, 83% reported the cause as punitive damages associated with medical malpractice.

     Three more members of the Hall of Shame are the House Democrats who voted against HB 99 in a 66-3 vote: Janelle Anyanonu, Patricia Roybal Caballero and Angelica Rubio. All three are running unopposed.

     Maybe you think it’s tedious to get into the weeds of legislative committee votes, but year after year we ask ourselves how we get into these messes. The answers lie in the weeds.  

© 2026 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES  10/12/26

Haaland and too many Dems are beholden to trial lawyers

By Sherry Robinson

All She Wrote

     Rep. Marian Matthews, a champion of medical malpractice reform and healthcare compacts, has been a thorn in the side of trial lawyers. So they got rid of her in the Democratic primary.

     Lisa Curtis, queen of trial lawyers, is running against Republican Rep. Nicole Chavez, who defended malpractice reform this year. 

     And governor-hopeful Deb Haaland parrots trial-lawyer talking points in any discussion of healthcare and on her website. Trial lawyers have generously padded her election war chest. 

     Voters need to understand that the gains we made this year for doctors and healthcare access could stall in the coming election.

     To refresh your memory: In 2021, when hospitals were slammed by the pandemic, Rep. Daymon Ely, a former president of the New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association, rewrote the Medical Malpractice Act without any input from doctors. Legislators jacked up caps on malpractice liability and didn’t cap punitive damages, which aren’t covered by malpractice insurance.

     The new law hit New Mexico in a tsunami of lawsuits, eye-popping payouts and spiraling malpractice premiums. The bonanza for trial lawyers sparked an exodus of doctors.

     Two years ago, Think New Mexico, a nonpartisan think tank, rolled out a plan. Two key steps were reforming the state’s medical malpractice act and passing medical licensure compacts, which would allow New Mexico to recognize other states’ professional licenses. It’s the easiest way to increase doctors and other healthcare professionals. 

     But depriving trial lawyers of their two-legged ATMs is like taking a bone from a dog. They and their legislative allies angrily point fingers at corporation-owned hospitals and insurance companies as the root of evil. 

     In 2025 bipartisan malpractice reform and compact bills died in Senate committees controlled by trial lawyers or legislators bankrolled by trial lawyers, Democrats all. State senators aren’t up for re-election this year, so I won’t dwell on this dismal episode except to note that Rep. Marian Matthews, a moderate Democrat from Albuquerque, co-sponsored a physician-compact bill.     It passed the House unanimously. Then Matthews watched in shock as the Senate Judiciary Committee made dozens of amendments until the bill was unacceptable to the compact.

     When that bill died, so did similar bills for psychologists, dentists, physical therapists and other medical professionals.

     Matthews later warned House Speaker Javier Martinez, “If we don’t fix this problem we will have a Republican governor.”

     In 2026 legislators passed a medical malpractice reform bill and two compact bills (eight others died in the Senate, including three carried by Matthews).

     Matthews narrowly lost her primary to political rookie Abby Foster, who waged a condescending campaign of disinformation funded by the trial lawyers. Matthews has endorsed Republican Jahnelle Garcia, a nurse practitioner, even though Garcia has been challenged about whether she lives in the district.

     Another Albuquerque Republican candidate, Rep. Nicole Chavez, has also had an address problem and fibbed about whether she had a degree, but she sponsored four compact bills this year and defended malpractice reform in committee when Democrats were trying to kill it. Her opponent is Lisa Curtis, who once said she’d tried more malpractice cases here than anyone. Curtis testified against the reform bill but told Santa Fe New Mexican columnist Milan Simonich that the bill settled all conflict over medical malpractice. If you believe that I have a bridge over the Pecos I’d like to sell you. 

     Finally, let’s remember another voice we’re about to lose. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham has maintained steady pressure for reform and has not minced words.

     “Just look at the number of malpractice cases brought in New Mexico,” she said. “Look at the number of law firms coming from out of state to prosecute cases here.

     “I worry there are so many trial lawyer leaders in the Senate that it gets caught there. I understand that they will tell you their perspective is patient safety, but if you have no doctors here and nobody can get in, I don’t see how you make the argument that you’re leaning in to patient safety.”

     Republican candidate Gregg Hull is clear on the malpractice issue and states, correctly, that this year’s bills were a good beginning. 

     Democrat Deb Haaland would “track” the medical malpractice reform as if it’s suspicious. She rails against private-equity and corporate-owned clinics and hospitals. And yet, in many areas that’s all there is. How does it serve the public to make it more expensive for them to operate? 

     From a donor list I received I see that Lisa Curtis, her associates and her law firm have supported Haaland with nearly $100,000. That doesn’t count other trial lawyers on the list. 

     These are not the only troubling races in this election cycle in terms of medical malpractice reform. Next week I’ll return with a Hall of Fame and a Hall of Shame.

     So if we lose more champions of reform, how do we safeguard the future?

     In March Marian Matthews said: “We were able to get it done because of public pressure. They were blowing up our inboxes. People were so pissed about this.”

     Stay angry.

© 2026 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES  10/5/26

Deb Haaland and Gregg Hull: Who are they, really?

By Sherry Robinson

All She Wrote

     Watching social media chatter and newspaper letters to the editor, I see two questions dominating discussions of the governor’s race: Will she or won’t she? Is he or isn’t he? 

     Democrat Deb Haaland answered the first recently, saying she won’t debate. Republican Gregg Hull isn’t saying if he’s a Trump supporter. Neither strategy is working.

     Lately, Haaland feigned interest in a debate, fussed over dates, backed out – again – and blamed Hull. From the beginning of her campaign, she’s dodged debates and public appearances, and people have noticed. Maybe a debate doesn’t change anybody’s mind, but it’s important to hear candidates talk about their ideas and see how they respond under pressure. 

     Hull has been evasive in a different way. As one letter writer put it, “Gregg Hull needs to tell us what his relationship is with Donald Trump.” It was telling that when Democrat-turned-Independent candidate Ken Miyagashima dropped out of the race and endorsed Hull, he got pushback on his Facebook page. Trump is deeply unpopular in New Mexico; potential crossover voters question whether to trust Republicans. 

     That said, let’s look at some positions the candidates have staked out.

     They’ve been asked repeatedly about their day-one priorities. Hull responds: Education and CYFD. Correct answer. Haaland says: Working on the budget, as if this is something new and not standard practice.

     After five secretaries in eight years and a national ranking in the basement, education is one of New Mexico’s five-alarm fires. Both candidates understand the importance of kids reading by third grade. Haaland favors reading coaches. 

Hull wants the Public Education Department to work more closely with local districts to understand their specific needs and provide tools. He would demand accountability from both PED and districts. He’s also called for smaller classroom sizes.

     In an interview with Source NM, he said the state needed the most qualified individual it could hire. “As a leader, when that qualified individual tells you, ‘This is the way things should be done’ and they give you advice and bring their experience to the table, that needs to be listened to. That experience needs to be put to work.” (Consider this in the context of the governor’s reputation for micro-management.)

     The other five-alarm fire is the Children Youth and Families Department. Both candidates would hire a qualified, experienced secretary and overhaul the department. Hull has a detailed plan for CYFD reform on his campaign website.

     Haaland would make CYFD answerable to an independent commission and not the governor. In an August column I wrote that watchdog Maralyn Beck of New Mexico Child First Network has said this is a terrible idea because CYFD must work closely with other state agencies and not from its own silo. I asked Haaland if she was listening. She wasn’t but Hull was. He’s publicly criticized Haaland’s commission proposal. 

     Something Haaland gets right is the need for local governments to move housing development along. “Time is money,” she said in an interview on PBS’s “New Mexico In Focus.” She proposes a “shot clock” like the one used in basketball to penalize players who take too long at the basket; hers would apply to local governments considering housing projects. If bureaucrats take too long an approval would be automatic.

     As a former mayor Hull doesn’t like the idea of overriding local permitting processes and would prefer incentives and gross receipts tax rebates.

     On the subject of data centers, I’ve been looking for common sense. Yes, I’m aware of their water and power needs and the potential for environmental harm, and I share the concerns over AI. Still, at their core these are economic development deals. Local communities are not at their mercy, and we have laws on the books to protect ourselves.

     Haaland has said she would order a moratorium on data centers. Hull, whose city has navigated many economic development proposals, talks about process.

     During his “Focus” interview, Hull said, “You look at everything included in each deal.”

     The deal is, basically, we build in your community, pay taxes and create jobs; you provide incentives, infrastructure and amenities. Elements of the deal include siting, limitations, guardrails and penalties if the company doesn’t live up to its promises. At any point in the process either side can say no. 

     “A moratorium on Jan. 1 takes away the decision from local governments,” Hull said. And it signals the outside world that New Mexico isn’t open for business.

     This is a small sampling of issues before us. What we see is Haaland the administrator presenting herself as someone who can govern and Hull, who has governed, wanting us to believe he’d be his own man in Trump’s party. 

     We need to know who they are. 

© 2026 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES 9/21/26

Pay our legislators and demand ethical behavior: Support Constitutional Amendment 4

By Sherry Robinson

All She Wrote

     After years of debate, voters will have the chance to weigh in on a paid Legislature in Constitutional Amendment 4. In all the pros and cons so far, however, nobody has raised the big question: Who benefits by having volunteer legislators?

     Supporters (mostly Democrats) have long maintained that paying lawmakers would open the field to people who can’t afford to serve now. In rural areas, I would add, the candidates are often the only people who can afford to be without a paycheck during legislative sessions. Paying lawmakers would make races more competitive and recognize the time they put in all year long. 

     Opponents (mostly Republicans) argue that it rewards lawmakers for not solving the state’s problems and prompts some candidates to run just for the paycheck.

     Since 2023 New Mexico has been the last state in the nation with an unpaid Legislature, an outlier status we’ve held for years. Opponents have defeated ballot measures many times, and legislators themselves have often been opposed.

     It’s time to ask who benefits from this arrangement? One answer is: People who can reap the unpaid benefits and connections of being a legislator.

     Lawyers, for example. In private practice they can arrange their own schedules, and the perception of being connected brings more clients in the door. The higher they rank in the legislative hierarchy, the greater the benefit. This has been true since I first covered the Roundhouse in the days when Raymond Sanchez and Manny Aragon were House and Senate honchos. It’s no accident that the same leadership roles are still held by lawyers; if you could peer into the books of the House Speaker and Senate Majority Leader you would probably find they’ve done well for themselves.

     Add to this category self-employed folks, such as real estate and insurance agents, marketers, consultants and the like. How many deals come their way because they have access to people and information? 

     A second category of people who benefit are those who work for large organizations that enable them to serve because it benefits the organization. 

     One example is Sheryl Williams Stapleton, the former House Majority Leader whose corruption trial just ended. Stapleton worked for Albuquerque Public Schools. For years, Stapleton and APS were the 800-pound gorilla in any education debate, and she was effectively an APS lobbyist. The outcomes didn’t necessarily favor smaller districts. I covered such stories.

     Not every lawmaker is self-serving, of course, but our current system makes us dependent on “volunteers” who may have irons in the fire. Who, exactly, are they serving? As former Sen. Dede Feldman wrote in 2014,    “Almost every day, legislators are called upon to vote on issues that have a financial effect on them.”

     Conflicts of interest have always been with us, but in recent years it seems worse.

     The most egregious was the trial lawyers’ 2021 change in state law that targeted doctors, clinics and hospitals. Trial lawyers tried to kill the medical malpractice reform bill; failing that because of public outrage, they severely limited the reform. And one doctor-suing trial lawyer killed bills to ease our doctor shortage before the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by another trial lawyer who sues doctors. That same chairman persuaded his buddy, the Senate Majority Leader, to carry a bill creating a new judgeship to hear the rising tide of medical malpractice and personal injury cases. That would have cost taxpayers more than $450,000. It died on bad publicity.

     I’ve been shocked at how blatant and shameless it all is. Aren’t they required to recuse themselves when they have a conflict? 

     In a new report from the nonpartisan, good-government group Think New Mexico, we learn there are no rules. The state Constitution gives each legislative chamber the power to regulate voting and recusal. Not only that, the chamber insists on a vote even when conflicts are apparent. 

     “New Mexico’s approach is at odds with the practices of most other states,” according to the report. And the group’s survey in August found that 81% of New Mexico voters wanted legislators to recuse themselves when they had a conflict of interest.

     Ethics experts have told us for some time now that unpaid legislative service and conflicts of interest go hand in hand; in New Mexico we wink at bad behavior because they work for free. “The volunteer status of New Mexico’s legislature has long ben cited as the primary reason for the state’s relatively lax approach to ethical requirements,” the report says.

     In other words, if we were paying them, we would insist on ethical standards.

     The full proposal calls for a salary of about $67,800, the state’s gross median annual household income, beginning in 2029. That’s about $7.6 million a year. The amount would be adjusted annually. It may be a median, but in this state that sounds like a lot of money for alternating 60- and 30-day sessions and interim meetings. And the salary would be on top of per diem and pension benefits. Opponents don’t like it.

     But let’s remember that this is just part of needed reforms. Sixty days are inadequate to hear and vet complex bills, and 30 days are a bad joke. Other states pay their legislators and hold longer sessions. 

     Constituents are fed up. I believe the same public outrage can fuel the entire reform. As I’ve said before, slapdash governance from unpaid lawmakers during short sessions is one of the reasons New Mexico stays poor.

© 2026 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES 9/16/26

Fans flexed their muscles to save “Coyote vs. Acme”

By Sherry Robinson

All She Wrote

     I always thought of Wile E. Coyote and Roadrunner as New Mexican. After all, we have the vast desertscapes and endless roads depicted in the cartoons, and the roadrunner is our state bird. But “Coyote vs. Acme” made it official.      Coyote gets his day in court, and it’s a New Mexico courthouse.

     Filmed in Albuquerque and on Jemez and Zia Pueblo lands in spring 2022, the production employed about 180 New Mexico crew members, 49 New Mexico principal actors and some 2,120 New Mexicans as background talent, according to the state Film Office. Thanks to the insistence of those crew members, Albuquerque could play itself instead of standing in for Phoenix as initially planned. As they pointed out, Bugs Bunny had joked for years, “I shoulda taken that left turn at Albuquerque.”

     In this zany movie’s marriage of animation and live action, those of us who grew up with Looney Tunes characters get to see many of them on full display and with some new personas. For the most part, we’re treated to sheer entertainment from the cartoon and human cast, but the film does dip into a few serious themes: Coyote as the dissatisfied consumer, Acme as the untouchable corporate giant, Coyote and his billboard lawyer (Will Forte) as underdogs. 

     And there’s resentment of the rich and powerful. In one scene, Coyote deploys a Rube Goldberg device that imprisons Acme CEO Foghorn Leghorn and his slick corporate lawyer (John Cena). The lawyer shouts, “Do you know how much I’m worth?”

     In a twist that could have been part of the movie, “Coyote vs. Acme” almost didn’t reach the big screen because of a foolish corporate decision. 

     The movie was scheduled for release in July 2023. Its makers had invested much love in the project and worked hard, said the director, "to honor the legacies of these historic characters and actually get them right." Despite praise during test screenings and interest from buyers, Warner Bros. released “Barbie” instead and shelved “Coyote” to claim a tax loss during some cost-cutting after its merger with Discovery. 

     The decision blindsided crew members, according to multiple media and trade reports, and sparked a storm of criticism within the industry. But in November 2023 Warner reversed its decision and allowed filmmakers to shop “Coyote” to other distributors. There was interest from Paramount, Netflix and Amazon, but Warner rejected their bids; nobody was willing to meet Warner’s price, and the company again threatened to shelve the film. The hashtags #ReleaseCoyoteVsAcme and #SaveCoyoteVsAcme and others were trending for weeks in early 2024.

     Will Forte released a public statement addressed to the cast and crew: "Please know that all the years and years of hard work, dedication and love that you put into this movie shows in every frame." Not until March 2025 did Ketchup Entertainment acquire the film and announce its release this year.

That’s why this statement appears at the end of the film’s credits: “Dedicated to everyone who posted, shared, held up signs and spoke out when it counted. This film made it to the big screen because of you.”

     “Coyote vs. Acme” is getting its revenge at the box office. In the first two weeks after its release, it had earned $39.9 million at the domestic box office and $50.89 million worldwide. Compare this with the $30 million Warner thought it was worth as a tax write-off. As many a reviewer has written, it also demonstrates the power of fan support.

     The comeback of “Coyote” is also a bright note to New Mexico’s film industry, which has suffered a long dry spell that began with the writer’s strike in 2023. The downturn continued as the United States lose productions to places like Bulgaria that can offer lower costs, cheaper labor and competitive incentives. In addition, streaming platforms have changed. 

     At a recent conference sponsored by the New Mexico Film Office, one expert said production spending between 2022 and 2025 was down 60% in New Mexico, reported the Albuquerque Journal. On the other hand, Netflix brass revealed that “something big is coming, and we’re thrilled about it.” The union rep promised, “Work is coming. Shows are starting up.”

     Speakers were also cheered by a post from President Trump supporting a national film production incentive.

     Film industry professionals have shown they’re a tenacious bunch, staying the course even if they have to take side gigs to pay the bills. It’s not unlike our hero Wile E. Coyote who never gives up no matter how many falling anvils, ill-timed explosives and dislodged boulders come his way.