There are no early surprises in the first week of early voting for the 2026 election. About 30,000 votes were cast statewide through Monday, according to the Secretary of State. Democrats dominate the early turnout with 59% of the total, while Republicans sit at 27% and independents account for 14%.

The very early Dem vote is traditionally quite heavier than the GOP whose share should increase as we move closer to Nov. 3.   

If total turnout in the governor’s race reaches around 700,000—matching 2018 and 2022 levels—then over 4% of the total vote is already cast. Early voting is currently limited to absentee ballots and in-person voting at county clerk offices. That expands on October 17, when early voting stations open across the state through October 31.

The latest trend in state party registration shows Democrats slipping below 40%, holding 576,918 registered voters (39.5%). The GOP accounts for 30.5% (445,215), while independents have reached 28.1% (409,219) and minor parties make up 1.9% (27,363).

At this current trajectory, registered independents will soon surpass Republicans. As demonstrated during the recent semi-open primary—when independent voters were first allowed to participate in party primaries—a majority chose Democratic ballots.

That undercuts the GOP argument that Democratic influence is eroding as independent strength grows. These are not the traditional swing voters of past generations who leaned conservative; in a predominantly blue state, today's independents are voting blue.

ENVIROS VS. HEINRICH

Sen. Heinrich

Sen. Martin Heinrich has joined with Republicans to craft a new energy bill that aims to speed up the development of energy projects—especially wind and solar—only to draw fire from an array of environmental groups who normally support Heinrich but now accuse him of "betraying" his long-held environmental practices.

200 environmental groups—usually hardcore supporters of Heinrich—have come out against his latest stab at bipartisan lawmaking:

More than 200 conservation organizations sent a letter today urging Congress to oppose the “Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026,” introduced by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), and Mike Lee (R-Utah). The bill includes sweeping attacks on the Endangered Species Act that would gut protections for nearly every endangered species across the country.

Heinrich said the bill, expected to be voted on in the Senate after the election, “will mean more energy on the grid, more good-paying jobs, and lower electricity costs for families and businesses." 

Perhaps Heinrich is eyeing his possible assumption of the chairmanship of the powerful Senate Energy Committee next year. It would likely happen if the Democrats take back control of the Senate in November. Heinrich is the ranking Democrat on the committee. Would bipartisanship help him guide that panel, or would he be consumed by opposition from his base supporters?

In March, Heinrich drew guffaws and criticism for bolting from his party and voting to support the nomination of Sen. Markwayne Mullin as Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security. Mullin has since run into a buzzsaw of criticism for ICE going overboard and other actions.

Heinrich has a history of quirkiness when it comes to bipartisanship. In 2014, he spent a week on a deserted island with then-Arizona Senator Jeff Flake for a reality TV show. Now, enviros who have heartily supported him are voting to send Heinrich back to the island. 

EYE CATCHING

This one out of Massachusetts is an eye-catcher: 

Ten years after Massachusetts voters legalized recreational marijuana, they're being asked to reverse course. Massachusetts voters approved recreational marijuana in 2016. . .In September the state reported that recreational marijuana businesses had surpassed $10 billion in sales. If approved, the measure would take effect January 1, 2028. Massachusetts would become the first state to repeal a voter-approved recreational marijuana market. . .Supporters point to concerns about youth access, impaired driving, mental health, and the commercialization of cannabis. They argue that the regulated market has brought consequences voters didn't fully anticipate in 2016. Opponents warn that eliminating recreational sales could push consumers toward illicit markets, eliminate tax revenue, and threaten businesses and jobs. 

New Mexico legalized cannabis in 2021 and the industry immediately boomed. Now its been going through a long bust as supply outweighed demand. 

 MORE CONNY AMENDMENT 4 

With the top of the ticket races looking less competitive, the action shifts down ballot and to that proposal to provide New Mexico legislators a salary. Constitutional Amendment #4 continues to draw reader interest with Alan Schwartz writing:

It is really disappointing to me how our state government continuously exploits the economic naivety of the general population. Case in point, Constitutional Amendment 4. Each individual legislator, 112 in all, would receive a "salary" equivalent to the New Mexico median household income. It should go without saying that the typical "household" income more often than not is based on at least two wage earners if not one working two jobs. The "pro" faction argues "It ties legislator pay to what the rest of us make". If that were true than wouldn't a more accurate comparison be to individuals? Like the 65% of single tax filers who reported income of $45,000 or less. This is a textbook case where the mode tells the story and the mean or median is a distractor. If a true "average" individual was making $65,000 a year it would require an hourly wage of over $30 dollars. And that is for a full year, not the 30/60 the part time Legislature has. 

A "concerned taxpayer" writes of Amendment 4:

Will legislators get to continue getting paid a public salary if they are a teacher? Continue to collect a public pension if they are a retired public employee and a legislator, as well as collect a new public salary and daily $247 per deim while in session? And don't forget forget the extremely generous retirement pension. There is a law that a "regular" public pension paid employee can't double dip and work full time at the legislature without stopping their pension, and if you are a state employee they can't serve in the House or Senate. So how much really will these legislator cost in public taxes? We are asking to put the cart before the horse when we don't address these questions through reform measures. How can any of these legislators complain about too much PAC money in politics when this is the vehicle they are using to convince the public we should pay them? Asking for a friend. 

To answer the question for you and "a friend," there is no prohibition in the amendment to prevent a public employee such as a school teacher from getting the full-time legislative salary that, if approved, would be about $67,000.

THE BOTTOM LINES 

The Haaland campaign comes with a 30 second Spanish language TV ad titled Juntos (Together).  In the Oct.1-9 Journal poll the Dem Guv nominee has the support of roughly 64 percent of non-Anglo voters--including Hispanics and Native Americans compared to 26 percent for Republican nominee Gregg Hull. . .

Another Haaland TV spot--Water--touts the success of the former Secretary of Interior in bringing funding to the state for water infrastructure projects and features former State Engineer Mike Hamman. . .

Sen.Ben Ray Lujan has only token opposition with Republican candidate Larry Marker but he is making the re-election rounds. Here's a TV interview where you can size up how he's doing and here's Marker's website. 

This is the Home of New Mexico politics.   

Vasquez & Cunningham

A look through the sole ABQ Journal poll of New Mexico's 2nd Congressional District paints a grim picture for Republican challenger Greg Cunningham, virtually shutting down his pathways to victory.

To stay competitive, the retired APD detective needed to hold off Democratic incumbent Rep. Gabe Vasquez in the populous urban cores of Bernalillo and Doña Ana counties. Instead, the October 1–9 poll shows Vasquez running away with both strongholds: leading 51–37 in the southern ABQ metro area and 57–36 in Doña Ana County.

Districtwide Vasquez holds a 48–44 lead over Cunningham with 8 percent undecided—a four-point margin that mirrors his 2024 victory over Republican Yvette Herrell (52–48).

The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus five percent.  

The only other public poll in the race was conducted Aug. 28 to Sept. 2 by SurveyUSA and showed Vasquez with a 46-43 lead.  

Vasquez, a former Las Cruces city councilor, retains a bedrock local base. Cunningham hails from Albuquerque, but his local track record offers no momentum—having lost back-to-back bids in '22 and '24 against Democratic Rep. Joy Garratt in Westside House District 29. Furthermore, while both candidates are Hispanic, the national GOP brand has eroded among Hispanic voters, leaving Cunningham to pay the price locally.

The Cook Political Report ranks the seat as "Lean Democrat," and this poll, conducted among 338 likely voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percent,  solidifies that status as Vasquez seeks a third term.

While national Republicans have poured substantial funding into effective attack ads, they haven't uncovered fresh dirt on the incumbent. Messaging continues to rehash older controversies around Vasquez's past statements on law enforcement funding—arguments voters have already weighed and moved past.

On paper, the 2nd District looks alluring to Republicans. But it is no longer a rural-dominated seat; over half the electorate resides in the Democratic-heavy urban centers of Albuquerque and Doña Ana County. With Vasquez holding a firm grip on the urban vote, Cunningham is left waiting for an incumbent blunder significant enough to reshape the race.

House Speaker Mike Johnson was back in the district yesterday for a second visit this cycle to aid Cunningham--this time at a Las Cruces fund-raiser, according to Vasquez's campaign. The Speaker appeared in ABQ for Cunningham in late August. 

Bettors at Polymarket give Vasquez a 93 percent chance of victory and 4 percent for Cunningham. 

WAY BELOW RADAR 

There is a below-the-radar amendment to be decided by voters--Amendment #1--that addresses the esoteric pocket veto exercised by New Mexico's governors. The amendment—to the delight of many legislators—would do away with the pocket veto. Columbia University student Maya Henry looked into the details and came with this for NM In Depth:

For a bill to become law, it must pass both chambers of the state Legislature, a process that often takes months of negotiation and revision. Then it faces a new challenge: the governor. 

As the state constitution stands, a bill the Legislature has passed goes to the governor who can either sign it into law or veto it, explaining in a written message the reason for a veto. That written explanation gives lawmakers something to go on should they want to revise the bill and send it back to the governor for a second try.

But there’s an exception. If a bill passes in the last three days of a session the governor has 20 days to sign it into law, or to simply let it die without a signature, no reason required. That is called a “pocket veto” because the governor isn’t required to veto the bill outright.   

Pocket vetoes are unpopular with lawmakers who usher bills through the ups and downs of the legislative process, because they don’t provide information about changes necessary to garner the governor’s signature in years to come. 

In protest, a bi-partisan group of lawmakers, representatives Matthew McQueen, Rod Montoya and Reena Szczepanski and senators Joseph Cervantes and Pat Woods, sponsored House Joint Resolution 2 in January 2025. It passed the Legislature without a single no vote.

If voters approve the measure (Constitutional Amendment 1 on your ballot) in this year’s general election, the measure makes a simple switch. If the governor doesn’t sign or veto a bill during that 20-day window, it won’t die. Instead it will automatically become law. In addition, a governor would have to explain their rationale for all vetoes. Currently, the constitution only requires the governor to explain bills that are vetoed while the Legislature is in session. Vetoes typically come in the 20-day-period after a legislative session ends. 

The office of the governor has called the measure “ill advised,” saying it “infringes upon the Governor’s veto power.” In a response to the 2025 legislation, the governor’s office wrote:  “There may be (a) number of reasons for a governor to choose to pocket veto a bill rather than formally veto it. For example, the pocket veto allows the Governor to disapprove of legislation based on unforeseen issues without being compelled to publicly disclose sensitive information in a veto message.”

For McQueen, a Galisteo Democrat, getting rid of the pocket veto is a matter of transparency and good government. “It’s hard to pass legislation. It’s really hard to get through both chambers and to the governor’s desk,” he said in an interview. “If we have a bill that has been approved by both chambers and the governor decides not to sign it into law? The governor should tell us why.” 

The pocket veto is not unique to New Mexico: the President can employ a pocket veto by not acting on legislation within just 10 days of session adjournment, and 11 state governors enjoy some form of pocket veto privilege. The Office of the Governor cited these examples as reason to oppose such a constitutional change. 

The projected cost of such constitutional change would be indeterminate but minimal, a report prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee concluded. The costs could include the additional time and manpower the governor’s office needs to review bills passed by the Legislature and prepare veto messages as well as “legal challenges related to explanations given by the governor.

This is the Home of New Mexico politics.   

More voters in the populous ABQ metro are withholding judgment on the gubernatorial race than most other regions, appearing to prevent Democrat Deb Haaland from reaching the key 50 percent mark in her race against Republican Gregg Hull.

The second and final poll on the contest from the ABQ Journal—taken October 1–9 and released Sunday—has Haaland prevailing over Hull 49 to 42 percent, with 9 percent undecided.  

The first Journal survey released in late September had the race virtually the same—49–43 for Haaland. The margin of error in this survey is a tight 2.9 percent, reflecting the large sample of 1,125 likely voters. 

In the metro area 10 percent of voters are holding back final judgment. Hull is a popular former three-term mayor of Rio Rancho with deep roots here. Haaland leads him 49 to 40 percent in the Bernalillo-Sandoval-Valencia county region.

Statewide 18 percent of independents remain undecided with Haaland favored by 48 percent and Hull 34 percent. 

Haaland has begun targeting the indys in mailers, pledging that she "will work with anyone to lower costs and tackle our toughest challenges." Hull claims the poll shows that Haaland is "stuck." You could make the same argument about Hull who can't break past 43 percent in the polling. 

In the heavily Democratic north-central region, only 6 percent of voters are undecided. Haaland leads there 65 to 29 percent. In the Dem-dominated Las Cruces/Southwest region, undecided voters stand at 7 percent, and Haaland leads there 53 to 40 percent.

Haaland targets Indys

In 2022, when Gov. Lujan Grisham ran for re-election, she also faced a Republican, Mark Ronchetti, who was rooted in the metro area. She ended up carrying the region 52–46, an underperformance for a Democrat that limited her statewide victory margin to that same 52 to 46 on Election Night.

Haaland may or may not be headed on a similar trajectory, but because this final Journal poll comes earlier than any previous conducted in a gubernatorial cycle, there is still time for Haaland to surge more than MLG did, especially with the favorable national environment.

Hull's cash-starved campaign is barely on television, has no debates with Haaland to look forward to, and faces the aforementioned dreadful environment for Republicans this cycle. But he has that Sandoval County base that should help offset the landslide he is expected to suffer in Democratic Albuquerque.

STATE OF THE RACE 

Click to enlarge

Haaland has spent heavily since the last poll, but the peak of her spending has yet to come. Hull has some cash and is expected to be on the air more by October 17—when critical in-person early voting begins. However, Haaland's advantage is so lopsided that the fear among the GOP is that she could break free and head for a double-digit win as voters default to the candidate they have seen and heard the most.

Haaland, a national political figure who has raised over $17 million to Hull's $2 million, was expected to have an easier time of it at this stage. Longtime analyst and Santa Fe attorney Greg Payne says in light of her historic fund-raising he would characterize Haaland's polling performance as "weak." 

There are structural issues that could be impacting the race. 

Haaland is seeking to become the first Native American governor. That draws support from many Democrats, but hardens her opposition, which sees her as an unqualified token candidate.

Haaland is also seeking to overturn other history. Since 1986, the governorship has alternated between Democrats and Republicans. A Haaland win would mean a third consecutive term for the Democrats—a first in 40 years.

There is also her campaign strategy. Haaland has been careful not to throw any red meat to voters. She has run a cautious effort, marketing her personality and pushing out programs that represent gentle change, but nothing transformational. If it's not red meat, voters may need something more to sink their teeth into before moving toward her.

That brings up negative campaigning. The Democratic Governors Association has started an ad blitz tying Hull to Trump, and Hull is defenseless to respond. That could easily make up for Haaland's deficiencies. Also, Hull has pledged to conduct no negative campaigning, and no outside PAC has picked up the slack as the DGA has for Haaland.

There have now been three public polls in the governor's race. The average of those polls is 48 percent for Haaland and 42 percent for Hull. Polymarket bettors give Haaland a 92 percent chance of victory.

CANDIDATE REACTION

In a fund-raising pitch following release of the poll Haaland said:

I just got our newest poll, and the margins are still too close for comfort. They’re saying that my Republican opponent is “within striking distance"! Here’s why I’m concerned: MAGA donors have already poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into this race, and this poll will only encourage them to spend even more to close the gap. Republicans have made it clear: They will spend whatever it takes to buy this election, flip New Mexico red, and bring Donald Trump’s extreme agenda to our state.  

Hull said:

(Pollster) Brian Sanderoff, is already telling reporters that time is running out for our campaign. I’m not buying it, and you shouldn’t either. In the Journal’s last poll, we had a 17 point lead in the Las Cruces area. Now, somehow, that has completely flipped? So which poll was flawed?. . .

Over nine days of calls, only one came after the debate my opponent skipped. Most of the people in this poll answered before New Mexicans saw me standing next to an empty lectern, answering questions she wouldn’t. 

The poll also builds its sample from 2024 voters, a presidential year when turnout is always far higher than in a governor’s race. A lot of those voters won’t cast a ballot. . .We’ve seen this before. In the final week of our primary, the polls said it was close. We won by 10. A poll like this does one thing: it tells Republicans and independents that the race is decided so they’ll stay home. That’s exactly what Deb Haaland needs to happen. She has spent millions. . . and she still hasn’t moved the needle since August. She’s stuck. A large share of independents haven’t made up their minds. 

BALLYHOO

That ballyhooed nondebate featuring Hull in person and Haaland represented by an empty podium fell flat fast. 

Despite having the half hour to himself after the station went forward with his appearance when Haaland turned down their offer, Hull did nothing to compare and contrast his policies with those of Haaland. Only at the end did he even point out her absence from the stage.

Hull had an ideal opportunity to indict the policies of MLG, Haaland, and the entire Democratic progressive machine, but the audience that stuck around saw a low-key, competent fellow talking ably about his policies while failing to connect them to everyday New Mexicans. If that's all Mr. and Mrs. New Mexico were going to get had Haaland shown up for the debate, they didn't miss much. 

This is the Home of New Mexico politics.   

Sen. Stewart

Mimi's mess is getting messier.

It's revealed in newly released police video from the Santa Fe PD that at her 2024 auto accident, Senate President Pro Tem Mimi Stewart phoned the Governor's office and asked them to send the state police to the scene to handle the investigation. The request was granted. The Governor's office has not released a statement.

The apparent abuse of power raises questions about Stewart's status as the top leader in the Senate.

Just this past Sunday, the Senate Democratic Caucus nominated Stewart to again be President Pro Tem—the powerful post that is responsible for naming senators to individual committees. The caucus did so way ahead of its usual timeline of November—right after the general election. They were criticized for doing so because it appeared leadership was looking to help its favored candidates by shutting down opposition early—Stewart among them.

But the full Senate is required to vote on the pro tem position, usually a routine affair these days, but in the past Republicans have formed a coalition with conservative Democrats to get their own pro tem. However, there are far fewer Republicans and conservative D's today.

Retired APD Sergeant Dan Klein says Stewart calling the Governor's office from the scene is an obvious violation of protocol. He blasted Stewart for releasing a statement saying the practice was "routinely" followed.

You're supposed to call 911 at an accident scene—not pull rank and tell the officer you have contacted the Governor and are President of the Senate. It was a clear abuse of power. Imagine the reaction if a Republican senator did the same. Stewart needs at the least to admit she was wrong and apologize. There is no policy that "routinely" involves state police with lawmakers in accidents. Period.

And the Senate Republicans under the leadership of Minority Leader William Sharer moved to take full advantage:

If you hit a pedestrian with your car and broke his foot, could you tell the officers how powerful you are, say you've called the Governor's Office, and be sent home with no citation?" asked Leader Sharer. "Do everyday New Mexicans have that option? Of course not. But she made the call anyway, because in New Mexico’s Democrat Corruption Culture, knowing the right person is how problems seemingly disappear. Why was the Governor's Office involved in a routine traffic incident? Who called state police, and what was said? Why did it take this long for New Mexicans to find out? These are questions Senator Stewart and the Governor owe the public. I am again calling on Deb Haaland to remove (Stewart's) endorsement from her website and return any (campaign contributions).

An apology by Stewart, 79, could go a long way in defending her turf. The controversy over the accident is on top of others involving her treatment of a Roundhouse staffer and one of her Senate colleagues. If she chooses to insist she did nothing improper, her power could be put to the test. There are over three months before the Senate votes on the pro tem position. That's plenty of time for political machinations. Stay tuned.

SALARIES FOR SOLONS

After the Stewart mishap and others involving Dem state representatives Andrea Romero and Joseph Hernandez, you wonder if there won't be a more intense backlash against the always controversial proposal to pay lawmakers a full-time salary. Against that backdrop comes this... 

Big money is coming in to pave the way for a payday for the 112 state legislators who haven't had a salary since statehood in 1912, but would for the first time get that benefit if voters approve Constitutional Amendment 4 on the November 3 ballot.

Vote for Change is on the air with its first spot in favor of the controversial measure. And they have plenty of cash for more. The progressive-backed group has raised $1.8 million and comes on the air after the Our Values—backed by conservatives—started a much smaller TV ad buy against the amendment.

The pro-amendment spot highlights folks in a variety of everyday occupations and has them carry the water for the proposal that would pay lawmakers close to $70,000 a year. The transcript:

Politicians say they know what we're going through, but try paying for groceries or gas, running your own business. Most politicians don't understand how hard it is to make ends meet. Amendment 4 is simple. It ties legislators' pay to what the rest of us make. No more, no less. Maybe then they'd actually get it when they vote on healthcare, education, and housing. If they want to represent us, they should live like us. Vote yes for Constitutional Amendment 4."

Eli Cuna of Vote for Change adds:

If approved, legislator pay would rise and fall with New Mexico’s average household income. With every vote they take, legislators will understand how that vote will impact their constituents’ ability to afford healthcare, groceries, gas, utilities—all of the necessities that weigh on our families every day. Legislators should live like us. Someone shouldn’t have to be independently wealthy or retired to serve. The current system is keeping good people out of the legislature, and voting yes on Amendment 4 is a vote for change.

Anissa Tinnin of Our Values PAC rebuts:

This ad from the far-left group behind it makes a blatantly false claim when it says the proposal ‘ties legislators’ pay to what the rest of us make.’ The truth is that New Mexico’s median per-capita income is about $36,000, while this proposal could push lawmakers’ compensation to nearly $70,000, on top of a $247 daily per diem . . . and a pension that can pay roughly $31,000 to more than $90,000 a year for life . . . And when the Legislature has failed to make meaningful progress moving New Mexico out of the bottom of national rankings, voters should ask whether these politicians deserve a pay package that would make them among the highest-paid legislators in the country.

The proposal to pay legislators salaries has been repeatedly rejected by state voters, but this is the first time an organized and well-financed campaign has been conducted in its favor.

OBAMA FOR HAALAND

Democratic gubernatorial nominee Deb Haaland has stalled out in the polls, commanding a six-point lead in the late August Journal survey and the same six-point edge over Republican Greg Hull in the late September poll. So, while it's not exactly Obama to the rescue, the video endorsement of Haaland by the former president is timely as Haaland needs to consolidate the remaining undecided Democrats. Obama said:

New Mexico, you have an opportunity to elect a real fighter as your next governor: Deb Haaland. Deb and I started out as organizers, and we learned that leadership is about listening, getting to know people, and hearing their stories. That's what Deb did on my campaign, knocking on thousands of doors in Indian Country. And all these years later, she's still listening to folks in every corner of New Mexico.

Haaland, who served as New Mexico's Native American vote director during Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign, said she was "honored to earn" Obama's support:

Just like President Obama, I got my start as an organizer where I knocked on thousands of doors, listened to New Mexicans, and heard their stories," she said. "Now, I’m running for Governor to take those concerns to the Roundhouse and create a New Mexico where everyone can thrive.

According to polling, Obama is the most popular politician in the nation with 99 percent name ID and 61 percent popularity. He carried New Mexico in 2008 and 2012.

The Atlantic wrote recently of how the former president has wrestled with the turn the Dems have taken to the left. Haaland was one of the most liberal members of the U.S. House when elected in 2018, but since has moderated.

This is the Home of New Mexico politics.   

Gregg Hull (Journal)

Republican gubernatorial candidate Gregg Hull faced off with the cost-of-living crisis and scored, but to win the argument his messaging may need to be sharpened.

While Santa Fe is tied in knots over what to do with billions of oil revenue flowing into state coffers—and as voters suffer exceptionally high food and fuel prices—Hull reintroduced his plan to cut personal income taxes at a closely watched news conference that could change the narrative over how New Mexicans should directly benefit from historic surpluses.

If anything, Hull undersold his plan that would gradually eliminate the personal income tax which is being scorned by Dems as a tax cut "for the rich."  

Hull pointed out that phase one of his plan would eliminate the income tax for single filers making $25,000 and married couples filing jointly making $50,000. But the key part of the plan—the part that extends this tax cut to hundreds of thousands of households—did not make the headlines. It states:

These amounts apply to taxable income after relevant deductions and exemptions, not to gross salary. 

In other words, a single taxpayer grossing around $45,000 a year who after taking allowable deductions brings their taxable income down to $25,000 would pay no personal income tax at all. That would put about $800 a year back into their inflation-stricken wallets.

For a married couple declaring $50,000 in taxable income, their gross income before deductions could be in the $90,000 range and their tax savings would be on the order of $1,700.

So this first phase of the tax cut is not just for those on the very low end—it is complete tax relief for lower and middle-income taxpayers.

According to U.S. Census Bureau the median income for a single-person household in New Mexico is $35,270. Overall, roughly 60% to 65% of single-filer tax returns in New Mexico report gross incomes below $45,000. 

For married couples the median family income in New Mexico is roughly $79,500. The overall median household income across the state is $64,000 to $67,800. A couple making $90,000 is earning well over the state median. Roughly 55% to 60% of married couples filing jointly in the state earn less than $90,000.   

(On the higher end, the Hull plan would reduce annual income tax for a married couple filing jointly with a $200,000 income from $8,989 to $7,250--a savings of $1,700).

THE GOLD 

There could be more political gold in rephrasing the message and emphasizing phase one by declaring:

"Under this plan, single workers earning up to $45,000 and married couples making up to $90,000 will pay $0 in state personal income tax."  

That framing brings in a whole lot of Democrats and independents that Hull needs if he is to overcome Democratic nominee Deb Haaland, who continues to tread cautiously on providing more direct relief to New Mexicans. Her plan is to expand the child tax credit and the working families tax credit. But that sounds like breadcrumbs given the projection of a possible $1 billion state general fund surplus in fiscal year '28 on top of the billions already in reserve.

Hull's phase one would appear to cost around $500 million a year, with the full plan eventually reaching $2 billion. That full elimination may not be realistic, but Hull is already putting majority Democrats on the defensive. House Taxation Committee Chairman Derrick Lente rejects the proposal, but now says he is working on eliminating the personal income tax for lower- and middle-income brackets.

Isn't that exactly what phase one of Hull's plan does? Indeed it does.

THE INFLATION  MONSTER

Majority Leader Trujillo

And more on the inflation front: retired state employees—some 47,000 of them—may have found their champion in another retired state worker: new state Senate Majority Leader Linda Trujillo.. 

The retirees have been fighting for years over their lost cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) that used to be 3% annually before fiscal hawks stepped in and stripped that benefit from them, arguing that the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) fund's long-term soundness would be jeopardized. But the Democrats are staring at an inflation monster, and so we get this from Leader Trujillo:

We’re looking at using a good chunk of the money that is considered to be 'new money' to help make that [increased COLAs] a reality. We’re going to work really hard to take some action to try to make sure that those retirees are getting a better cost-of-living increase than the small amount that they’ve been getting the last few years.

Retired APD Sergeant and government watchdog Dan Klein adds:

In 2020, SB 72 changed the cost-of-living raise for PERA retirees from 2.0% (it had already been reduced from 3%) to a calculation that tied the COLA to the actuarial health of the fund. If PERA ever gets to 100% funded, then the COLA goes back to 3%. No matter what, the COLA will always be at least one-half of one percent (which amounts to about $150 annually, or $13 monthly, for the average PERA retiree). This COLA has not kept up with inflation since 2020.

What the legislature and governor lack is an overall macro plan to deal with the unprecedented flow of cash into state coffers that has gone on for multiple years and is forecast to continue for several more. That plan needs to include direct taxpayer relief—or else taxpayers (both Republicans and Democrats facing a cost-of-living crisis) will make their own plans at the ballot box. Hull gets that, and it may help him win some votes.

JOURNAL GOING EARLY

You just can't count on tradition anymore. Take the ABQ Journal polling schedule. The paper now says it will release their second and final poll of the gubernatorial race on October 11, when for decades the last survey came two or more weeks later—after plenty of early votes had been cast and the candidates' strategies and media message had fully unfolded. This Sunday's release is not on a timetable to predict the election outcome, and that's probably the point—they don't want to. The early release may help Hull, who in the SurveyUSA poll taken Sept. 25–30 was six points behind Haaland, and something similar can be expected in this early poll from the Journal.  

Back tomorrow with more.  

This is the Home of New Mexico politics.   

She’s a political superstar on the national stage, but Deb Haaland has yet to close the deal with New Mexico voters in her race to become the next governor, despite raising over $17 million and holding a massive name ID advantage over Republican Gregg Hull.

The SurveyUSA poll taken for KOB-TV September 25–30 has Haaland leading the contest 47% to 41% with 12 percent undecided—the same six-point lead she sported in the late-August ABQ Journal survey. That poll showed her with 49% and the former Rio Rancho mayor at 43%. The margin of error in this survey, conducted among 567 registered voters, is on the high side at 5.1 percent. (Crosstabs here.)

Coincidentally, six points is the margin by which Democrat Michelle Lujan Grisham defeated Republican Mark Ronchetti in her bid for a second term four years ago.

MLG did not hit 50 percent in the polling until very late in October of '22, but expectations are higher for Haaland given the tremendous financial advantage she holds over Hull, who has raised only about $2 million. Ronchetti raised $10 million four years ago.

Haaland was also up with a major TV buy unanswered by Hull while the poll was taken, but that was still not enough to get her to the magic number of 50 percent. Commented Hull:

She has outraised me nearly nine to one, and this race is still within reach. This poll also shows something else. I'm the only candidate in this race whom more New Mexicans view favorably than unfavorably. Deb Haaland is underwater, and she's even further underwater with independents. Once voters get to know me, they like what they see. That 12% will decide who leads this state.

Still, there is nothing in the poll to take away Haaland's mantle as the clear front-runner which is reinforced at Polymarket where bettors Monday were placing her chance of success at 96 percent. 

Veteran political consultant, former state legislator, and Santa Fe attorney Greg Payne provides the analysis:

Neither of the candidates looks strong. It’s Haaland's race to lose and I doubt she’ll do that. But she should be over 50% at this stage of the game given the anti-Trump political environment and her record-breaking fundraising. I suspect we’re looking at an Election Day win for Haaland around the 54%–46% range. A win, but I’m not sure it will be viewed as a sweeping mandate for the new Governor.

GOING NEGATIVE--OR NOT

Of concern in the poll for Haaland was that unfavorable rating of 35 percent compared to a 31 percent favorable,19 percent neutral and 16 percent unfamiliar. 

More of our continuing coverage now of constitutional amendment #4 to allow New Mexico legislators to draw an annual salary of $nearly $70,000. A Roundhouse Wall-Leaner supportive of the measure writes: 

Joe: Thanks for your ongoing coverage of the Legislative Salary constitutional ballot proposal.  New Mexico's Amendment #4 is based on Alabama's 2012 Amendment 8, adopted overwhelmingly by Alabama's voters--68.5% for and 31.5%. That successful measure now bases Alabama legislators' compensation at the median household income level for the state just as Amendment No. 4 does for New Mexico. Household income rather than median individual income is used since wage earners typically use their salaries to support their families, not just themselves. 

Join us tomorrow for more of Campaign '24. 

This is the Home of New Mexico politics.  

 NEW AMERICA ENDORSEMENT 

Trump endorsing Cunningham

Was it a timely endorsement or a kiss of death? Such were the questions after President Trump gave southern GOP congressional candidate Greg Cunningham a glowing review, but did so while aggravating New Mexicans by calling the state by his new favorite name—"New America." Trump's suggestion that the state rename itself has seen GOP governor nominee Greg Hull disagree but Cunningham, a retired APD cop trying to unseat Dem US Rep Gabe Vasquez who is seeking a third term, has embraced MAGA—warts and all.

That loyalty led to over 90 seconds of presidential praise that included Trump mispronouncing the name of Vasquez. How did the White House let that go? Intentionally? The Trump endorsement is here and here is a partial transcript. 

"Hello, New America, formerly known as New Mexico. I'm asking you to get out and vote for Greg Cunningham to be your next Representative for New Mexico's Second Congressional District. He has my complete and total endorsement. Greg is a retired United States Marine who bravely served his country in combat. 

He then served over 20 years in the Albuquerque Police Department. He'll always fight to keep America strong and keep New Mexico safe and free.

And I do like the change by the way to New America. What a beautiful change. That would be up to you. I'm not going to push it but a lot of people are liking it a lot.

Greg is running against radical left Democrat Gabe Vasquez who supports defunding the police. . .and destroying New Mexico's oil and gas industry. . .Greg Cunningham will never ever let you down. He's outstanding. In Congress, Greg will vote for the strong borders and total American energy dominance that we've created. . . He will vote to keep your taxes low and he'll always protect your Second Amendment. . . Go vote for Greg Cunningham. . . He's great, respected by everybody, a real patriot. You'll be happy.

"You'll be happy." That's vintage Trump, who earlier endorsed Cunningham in April. This reiteration of his backing will help solidify the conservative base in the district, and combined with national GOP funding, Cunningham is the only prominent Republican able to put up a decent fight this cycle. But Trump's rave for Cunningham in more liberal BernCo and Doña Ana, where six out of ten votes in the district will come from, will be greeted far less warmly. 

DEM REACT 

Join us tomorrow for more of Campaign '24. 

This is the Home of New Mexico politics.