Recent Columns

© 2026 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES  11/9/26

Lessons learned from Vasquez-Cunningham race 

By Sherry Robinson

All She Wrote

     From a row of screens on the wall of my gym I could see the political ads blazing away. Gabe Vasquez doesn’t support law enforcement! Gabe Vasquez does support law enforcement, and here’s how much funding he’s won for cops! Back and forth, back and forth, in a $21.8 million campaign for Congressional District 2 that political reporters kept telling us was one of the nation’s most watched.

     It’s hard to imagine that a single voter was persuaded by this video slugfest. Still, this was the most riveting of New Mexico’s congressional campaigns.

     Vasquez, seeking a third term in the state’s most competitive congressional district, won decisively. Not because Greg Cunningham, the Republican candidate, was weak. Cunningham was a good candidate when the talking heads said candidate quality mattered. And it wasn’t because Democrats gerrymandered the district. No, it was because Cunningham misread the public mood.

     Cunningham is a lifelong New Mexican, Marine combat veteran and former Albuquerque Police officer and undercover detective who owns an investigative and security consulting business. 

     And he’s a Hispanic candidate from Albuquerque’s South Valley, a traditional Democratic stronghold that was added to CD2 when Democrats redistricted to tilt slightly their way. Before and since, CD2 races have been close, flipping back and forth between Ds and Rs. Trump carried it in 2024. Vasquez won narrowly in 2022 and 2024, but in this election he took 58% of the vote to Cunningham’s 45%. 

     Republicans considered the race so important that U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson and other bigwigs visited twice to campaign for Cunningham. President Donald Trump endorsed Cunningham, opening his October statement with “Hello New America” and claiming, “A lot of people are liking it (the name ‘New America’) a lot.” 

     No, they weren’t. New Mexicans of both parties reacted angrily. 

     With Trump’s approval rating in New Mexico at a new low of 32%, Republican candidates running in the other two congressional districts supported Trump on some issues but pointedly maintained their independence. Not Cunningham. In September Cunningham addressed the Republican Midterm Convention in Dallas.

     On Oct. 12, an Albuquerque Journal poll said Vasquez had a narrow lead: 48% to 44% with a five-point margin of error. The Cunningham camp took that to mean their man was “closing the gap,” according to SourceNM.

Four days later in a gloves-off debate on KRQE, both candidates landed their punches. 

     Republican attack ads for months had tried to tie Vasquez to images of a masked man demanding to defund the police. In a gotcha moment, Cunningham forced Vasquez to admit that he was the man in the image, although Vasquez insisted he no longer wanted to defund the police.

     But in another gotcha moment, Cunningham referred to ICE agents as fellow law enforcement officers with a job to do. Vasquez talked about “Americans getting killed at the hands of ICE” and controversial ICE arrests in New Mexico. “The policy of this administration is cruel,” he said. “It is separating families, it is orphaning children all across our country and it’s targeting people that look like me and you, Greg.”

     From endless post-election analysis we know that opposition to the administration’s heavy-handed immigration policy was significant. 

     “The blue tsunami was caused by a Latino earthquake,” wrote Adrian Carrasquillo, national immigration correspondent for The Bulwark. “Two years after helping Donald Trump return to the presidency, Latino voters swung hard toward the Democrats… There were lots of reasons why—but the administration’s immigration policy was a big one.”

     The stated goal of eliminating immigrant criminals degenerated into racial profiling, workplace raids and street arrests. Hispanics were as unhappy about high prices as anyone – and they also feared getting picked up by masked agents and detained. The bottom line: We want criminals deported, but we didn’t vote for this.

     One poll found that immigration was the second highest issue among Hispanics who supported Trump in 2024 but not this year.

     There is already demand for immigration reform from the next Congress, and Vasquez, a son of the border, has a chance to pull his bill out of mothballs. I hope he does.

     He’ll still be dogged by his younger self, who wanted to defund the police – that’s politics – but he’s not that guy any more. He’s now a mature politician and public servant who represents a challenging mix of conservatives and liberals. He’s learned that he must serve his district from the center. Vasquez, in fact, is more moderate than Reps. Melanie Stansbury and Teresa Leger Fernandez, of CD1 and CD3, and he reminds constituents of that.

     In public comments since Election Day, Vasquez doesn’t mention any blue tsunami. Voters, he said, are dissatisfied with both parties. He sidestepped any temptation to gloat and says he’s focused on challenges facing New Mexico. 

© 2026 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES  11/2/26

Legislators must show balance in hunting license dispute 

By Sherry Robinson

All She Wrote

     In New Mexico we’re rightfully proud of our great outdoors, so it was a smart move in 2019 when lawmakers passed a bipartisan bill to create the Outdoor Recreation Division. They believed it was another way to diversify the economy.

     “This is a great move to support an industry that’s already here – tourism,” said then-Sen. William Burt, R- Alamogordo. “I think it will be a big success.”

     The governor stood up the new division within the Economic Development Department. Its mission is “growing and championing the outdoor recreation economy, which we recognize as an immensely powerful engine to grow wealth and job opportunities in our state,” says the division’s website.

     Outdoor recreation has been a stellar success that added $3.6 billion to the state’s economy and supported 31,454 jobs in 2024. That year, according to federal data, the industry added 2,272 new jobs. 

     Hunting was among the fastest growing activities, and now this segment of the outdoor recreation industry is threatened.

     State Attorney General Raúl Torrez recently issued an opinion that the state’s practice of reserving 10% of New Mexico hunting licenses, or tags, for the customers of private outfitters is unconstitutional. It unfairly benefits wealthy, out-of-state hunters over local residents who hunt to feed their families, he argues.

     The Legislature in 2012 provide a 10% set-aside of yearly hunting licenses for people who engage professional outfitters. Another 6% of tags go to nonresidents who don’t employ outfitters.

     In April, 18 Democratic lawmakers complained to Torrez that the outfitter rule was unfair to New Mexico hunters and asked him to issue an opinion. “We know of no other state that confers such a benefit to private outfitters and to hunters who can pay the fees that outfitters charge – ultimately creating a system where those with the greatest wealth from across the country have a better chance of hunting New Mexico’s public lands than average New Mexicans,” they wrote.

     Torrez noted that competition for tags is intense, especially for elk. In last year’s hunting season, for example, more than 102,000 people applied for elk tags and the Wildlife Department chose about one in five, reported Source NM. He concluded that it violates the state’s Anti-Donation Clause, which prohibits state and local governments from financially helping private parties.

     Rep. Nathan Small, D-Las Cruces, led the letter-writing campaign. Small was also a primary sponsor of the bill in 2019 that created the Outdoor Recreation Division. Six other signers of the letter to Torres also signed on to the outdoor division bill. Do they not understand that hunting outfitters are part of the outdoor industry they claimed to support? Or that they need that set-aside to stay in business?

     I get the importance of hunting licenses in rural New Mexico. An elk in the freezer makes a nice dent in your grocery bill. And the meat doesn’t just stay in one freezer; it’s handed along to family members and people in need. I’ve been the recipient of neighbors’ generosity during hunting season.

     But hunting outfitters are important to the state’s outdoor industry. What about the promise legislators and the state made to them in 2019?

     The New Mexico Council of Outfitters and Guides fired back. In a 2024 study, a reputable outdoor research and economics consultant found that New Mexico hosted more than 16,000 guided nonresident hunters and 26,000 guided nonresident anglers in 2023. They spent $232 million on guides, gear, travel, and other goods and services in New Mexico and supported 8,700 jobs. “(I)f guided nonresident hunters and anglers stopped visiting New Mexico, the state’s economy would shrink by $221 million.”

     Pull those tags and you pull the plug on these small businesses.

     The council “strongly rejected” the AG opinion, saying he “erroneously concludes” the 10% pool violates the Anti-Donation Clause. “The opinion is not a neutral legal analysis; rather, it is a transparent, politically motivated attempt to coerce the Legislature,” the council stated. The outfitter pool is a “vital economic driver, and not an unconstitutional ‘donation.’”

     A legal standoff is shaping up. Torrez said if lawmakers don’t act, he might resort to the courts. 

     The Council of Outfitters and Guides responded in kind. Their statement, written in heavy legalese, indicates the AG can expect a fight in the next legislative session, and they may also go to court. Their strident response is to be expected when you threaten somebody’s livelihood.

Between now and January, cooler heads need to work on a compromise.

© 2026 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES 10/26/26

New Mexico, Elon Musk and foreign policy

By Sherry Robinson

All She Wrote

     Sen. Jeff Steinborn, D-Las Cruces, recently told the State Investment Council that he was strongly opposed to investing New Mexico public funds in “entities associated with Russia and companies controlled by Elon Musk” because of Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine and “troubling reports concerning the restriction of Starlink satellite communications used by Ukrainian forces.”

     Steinborn pointed to the suffering, loss and displacement Ukrainians have suffered. “The people of Ukraine have demonstrated remarkable courage in defending their country and their right to self-determination,” he wrote. He was also deeply troubled by reports that Elon Musk had throttled access to his Starlink satellite communications system that Ukrainians have relied on in their defense.

     Steinborn has asked the SIC to review the state’s holdings and divest accordingly. I couldn’t agree more. The Ukrainians have been tough and resourceful, Americans support them, and we shouldn’t be bankrolling dictators and their henchmen.

     A new documentary, “Musk,” adds fuel to that proposal. Veteran filmmaker Alex Gibney informs us that the world’s richest man hasn’t just spun a public persona that Musk and a cult-like following believe is infallible, he unmasks a guy often hailed as a genius and visionary to reveal what one reviewer calls “the world’s most dangerous man.”

     I’m a news junkie, so the film’s revelations weren’t entirely new, but Gibney and his researchers have stitched together a portrait that’s both riveting and, as reviewers have written, frightening. Given Musk’s impact in business and politics and lately in warfare and national policy, we should all be paying better attention.

     Musk has called the film a “hit piece,” but Gibney objectively shows us the young Musk growing up in apartheid South Africa with a wealthy businessman father who wasn’t always very fatherly. We see a bright guy ablaze with ideas start SpaceX in 2002 and flourish in the space industry with partly reusable rockets and a satellite internet service, Starlink. Musk made his fortune as a NASA contractor during the Obama administration and had a surprisingly friendly relationship with Obama. SpaceX this year bought Musk’s AI company, along with X, the former Twitter social media platform. 

     Musk is also well known for Tesla, the electric carmaker, claiming to be a co-founder. That’s a title he wrestled away from the real co-founders in a 2009 legal settlement. Musk’s Tesla told drivers they could easily replace their half-ton car batteries. They couldn’t but it was good for more than $100 million in environmental credits from the state of California. The company also misrepresented the vehicle’s performance and faces a storm of wrongful-death lawsuits over its claims about self-driving. 

     One of the stranger things for a businessman is that Musk’s business failures have been painless. Pushed out of two companies, including PayPal, Musk reaped $272 million to go away. Even losing was winning. Wrote an Austin reviewer: “(H)is most valuable asset has always been that cocky self-assurance Silicon Valley so often mistakes for actual ability.”

     In his personal life Musk strives to plant his seed in as many women as possible, within and without marital vows. (He regards the women in his life as “breeders.”) He’s up to 14 “known” children. The ornamental little boy that Musk often wears in public he simply took from the boy’s mother, singer-songwriter Grimes, according to another of his baby mamas, Ashley St. Clair, a conservative influencer. Grimes’ custody battles with Musk became tabloid fodder. The reality is he’s not that interested in his kids, say St. Clair and first wife Justine Musk.

     After unraveling the legend, Gibney turns to Musk’s data gathering operations. The man who got rich off government contracts became the enemy of government as head of the Department of Government Efficiency. His young techies accessed data about every one of us, and he fired watchdogs who might curb AI or investigate his companies. Meanwhile Starlink gives him internet access from space. 

     In Ukraine, Musk has shown the world that he can and will turn Starlink access on and off like a light switch, kneecapping Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. Russia took deadly advantage. Musk showed no regret – he never does – but the president took political heat from both parties. Then we saw the president of the United States having to ask an executive of private industry to butt out of foreign policy.

     The documentary asks how we combat power like that. Steinborn answers: With money.

© 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.