With only days remaining until the November 3 election, the Senior Alligators of La Politica, the wall-leaners at the Roundhouse, and the sometimes-employed political consultants scattered across the state are reaching a consensus. As the keeper of their flame, here are their predictions:

• The Headliner: Deb Haaland is headed for a victory over Republican Greg Hull, but she’ll be hard-pressed to win by double digits. "She should have hit 50 in the polls earlier if she was going to hit that mark" commented one wise observer. "It’s not out of the question, but a six- or seven-point win—à la MLG in ’22—wouldn't be a surprise."

• Statewide Offices: Attorney General, Land Commissioner, and other statewide races will all go to Democrats, with 56% to 57% being the high-water mark for the top performers. "It’s going to happen again," offered one Roundhouse wall-leaner. "We are really a one-party state now, and these wins will reinforce that."

• Congressional Districts: All three districts are safe for the Democrats—including the highly anticipated 2nd Congressional District, where two-term Democrat Gabe Vasquez faces Republican Greg Cunningham. "The Republican can't escape Trump any more than Marie Antoinette could escape the guillotine," commented one gray-bearded Senior Alligator.

• The State House: The shift in the chamber's makeup will be negligible when the dust settles, but Republicans have reason to worry about Nicole Chavez. She is being outspent by Democrat Lisa Curtis in Albuquerque’s NE Heights District 31—the last GOP-held district within the ABQ city limits. "Chavez has the raw numbers in that district," noted one consultant. "But between the money, Trump, and the enthusiasm factor, if a Dem wave strikes, it may not be enough."

• Ballot Measures: Our seasoned observers add that in addition to the Chavez-Curtis race, the constitutional amendment to give legislators a full-time salary could offer suspense. Proponents are heavily outspending the opposition. The state's inherent political DNA cuts against the measure, but in a Democrat-dominated year, that historical resistance might not be enough to stop it.

Of course, we’ll have the real predictions—the ones from the voters—when we bring you all the results on Election Night on KANW 89.1 FM and kanw.com. The only thing we can confidently predict right now? A fun time will be had by all.

A VERY LONG BALLOT

The positions carry prestige and power that make them in the words of one lawmaker, “plum political appointments.” And currently, the governor has sole discretion over who is nominated to a Board of Regents with the appointment subject to confirmation by the state Senate.

A proposed constitutional amendment (Constitutional Amendment 3 on your ballot) that New Mexicans are asked to vote on would instead require governors to choose regents from candidates vetted by nominating committees, or in the case of student regents, from elected student bodies. Striving for bi-partisanship, the proposal states that no more than 50% of the members of the nominating committees could be members of the same political party.  

The amendment requires a nominating committee for each institution to provide a list of candidates for nonstudent regent positions from which the governor chooses. The Legislature would set the rules for the committees, including how members are appointed, with no more than half belonging to the same political party. Student regents would be selected by the governor from a list provided  by a school’s student government. 

(Some of) the institutions affected by the constitutional amendment include the University of New Mexico, New Mexico State University, New Mexico Highlands University, Western New Mexico University, Eastern New Mexico University and the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

The proposal comes as the state continues to deal with the fallout from former Western New Mexico University President Joseph Shepard’s spending. The attorney general has accused Shepard and other former university officials of mishandling millions of taxpayer dollars in a case that is moving toward trial.

Rep. Christine Chandler and Sen. Jeff Steinborn sponsored the resolution to place the question before voters.

“This gives New Mexicans the opportunity to make sure that our universities are run by the most qualified, passionate people who have great ideas to add to our universities,” Steinborn, a Las Cruces Democrat, said.  “The current system that this would replace is really where just political cronies get handed these plum political appointments by a governor. Sometimes they’re qualified but sometimes they’re not and that. . . dumbs down the importance of education in this state.”

Legislative staff, in their guide to the constitutional amendments on the ballot, wrote that nominating committees could insulate appointments from the influence of politics, and ensure that more qualified candidates are chosen. But one potential drawback is that the change could make it harder to hold elected officials responsible for regent appointments. Currently, the governor chooses regents and the Senate confirms them, leaving both accountable to voters for those decisions. 

And in comments attached to the resolution, the Higher Education Department raised concern that requiring nominating committee members to have maintained the same political party registration for a set period could exclude otherwise qualified candidates. . . 

Our take: There's no guarantee that the committee system will root out all the politics behind the appointment of regents, but the current method is not getting the job done. We'll vote yes on Constitutional Amendment 3.

THOSE 'CROOKED" ELECTIONS

As you may have heard, President Trump is at it again, renewing his call for New Mexico to be renamed New America. He seems to enjoy getting a rise out of the locals every time he pulls this stunt on social media, but there is a more serious aspect of his attacks that could be taken seriously by voters—he continues to call state elections "crooked," as he did in a Monday tweet, declaring:

Maybe even the Crooked Elections that New Mexico is known for would become honest again!"

There was a time when the integrity of state elections was an issue, but that was generations ago. The Secretary of State, in a rebuttal to Trump, explains why that is not the case today:

. . .New Mexicans know that we have repeatedly received high national rankings for administering some of the most secure and accessible elections in the country. We lead in election accuracy with hand-marked paper ballots, multiple mandatory post-election audits and continual voter roll maintenance. We lead in election security with regular testing of systems, the establishment of a statewide election security division and meaningful collaboration with state and federal safety partners. And we lead in voting accessibility with online, automatic, and same-day voter registration opportunities; no-excuse, secure mail-in voting; and a 28-day early voting period. Yes, New Mexico’s voters know better, and I encourage each and every one of them to make it clear how much we value our robust electoral process by voting in this year’s election. 

Crooked elections are indeed a relic of the past but we would be remiss if we did not roll out that old trope about Election Night in New Mexico way back when:

A candidate calls up the Rio Arriba county clerk's office on Election night and asks: "How many votes do I have? The clerk answered: "How many do you need?"

This is the Home of New Mexico politics.   

Sanchez & Perry (Moore, Journal)

New Mexico's political class continues to break with vehement grassroots opposition to Project Jupiter, and that could mean a major break for the controversial data center development near Santa Teresa following the Nov. 3 election.

In a recent KKOB radio debate (audio here) Democratic land commissioner candidate Juan Sanchez signaled the possible reversal of a decision made by current Land Commissioner and Dem lieutenant governor nominee Stephanie Garcia Richard. She denied Jupiter the right of way across state trust land to construct a natural gas pipeline that would fuel the center being built by tech giant Oracle. Here's Sanchez:

Cunningham and Vasquez

Did Republican Greg Cunningham even once mention the name of President Trump during the one and only TV debate for the southern-based congressional seat? Not that we heard. 

(Full KRQE debate here starting at 1:09.)

Like a hurricane suddenly growing from a Category 1 to a Category 5, inflation, the war in Iran, and Trump's policies regarding both have swept over the nation and sent the GOP reeling. Rather than trying to dig out of that deep hole, Cunningham did his best to deflect (or ignore) Dem. Rep. Gabe Vasquez's continuous attacks on the administration and attempted to score points on crime and other localized issues. It was an uphill battle. 

--Pressed repeatedly on whether he supported the war in Iran, Cunningham said he did not support Iran having a nuclear weapon and that he supported the troops—a non-answer—while Vasquez emphasized that he has voted six times against the unpopular war that has sent energy prices soaring. 

--Cunningham's attempt to rattle Vasquez over his "no" vote on a bill to compensate Trinity Site "downwinders," met with the response that he has the support of the downwinders' coalition, headed by Tina Cordova, and that he voted against the measure because it was part of a bill containing GOP culture-war policy riders. 

--Cunningham, 60, a retired APD narcotics detective, pressed hard on the now-notorious 2020 video showing Vasquez, then a Las Cruces city councilor, wearing a disguise at a protest and calling to defund the police. That video has been rolled out in each of Vasquez's two previous election bids for the 2nd Congressional District and remains the centerpiece of the GOP effort. Cunningham prosecuted the matter effectively, forcing Vasquez to admit he was indeed the masked person in the video. The problem? Vasquez, 42, has repeatedly voted over four years for funding and other measures supportive of law enforcement--and he's gathered the endorsements of sheriffs across the district. 

Trailing Vasquez 48 to 44 percent in this month's ABQ Journal poll, Cunningham simply could not break through the dense fog of the Iran war and the resulting affordability crisis surrounding Republican candidates in contested districts. In the Albuquerque-area 1st Congressional District, Republican candidate Didi Okpareke threw Trump overboard on the war. That was not an option for Cunningham, whose base voters on the rural east side remain supportive of Trump. That dynamic put him between a rock and a hard place. 

Cunningham's calm, collected, and mature demeanor served him well during the one-hour confrontation, and he may have put to rest fears that he is a raging MAGA minion. However, he simply lacked the ammunition to take down the two-term incumbent. Vasquez, perceived as weak since his first run for the seat in 2022, has grown into the role and appears more sure-footed and confident. Cunningham and the Republicans have put up a good fight, but you can't outrun a hurricane. 

UPFRONT AND PERSONAL

Nikki Santos

New Mexicans are learning more about the personal lives of their congressional representatives as campaigns head toward the general election.

During their Friday night television debate, candidates were asked to share a positive attribute about their opponent. Republican challenger Cunningham, a combat Marine, former APD detective, and father of six, offered up surprising news: Democratic U.S. Rep. Gabe Vasquez is about to become a father for the first time. Vasquez thanked Cunningham for the recognition but did not elaborate. 

While Vasquez is single, his campaign confirmed earlier this year that he is in a “loving, committed relationship with his partner and fiancée" Nikki Santos, a former Biden administration appointee and  member of the Coeur d’Alene Tribe, was recently named CEO of the National Native American Boarding School Healing Coalition. The release announcing her appointment said: "She lives in Washington, D.C., with her daughter, partner, and two dogs."

When it was his turn, Vasquez commended Cunningham for his long-standing dedication to public service.

The father-to-be disclosure follows another recent revelation regarding Democratic U.S. Rep. Melanie Stansbury who has maintained strict privacy regarding her personal life. But at her recent debate voters learned that Stansbury is now married to the brother of Democratic state Rep. Andrea Romero making Stansbury Romero's sister-in-law. 

When Stansbury’s Republican opponent, Dede Oparake, brought up the relationship during the debate, Stansbury neither confirmed her marriage nor her connection to Romero—who chairs the state’s Truth Commission investigating Jeffrey Epstein’s Zorro Ranch. However, Stansbury did not dispute the claims.

Personal details vary across the rest of the state's congressional delegation: 

U.S. Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (D): Divorced with three sons who have been featured in her campaign ads.

U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich (D): Married with two college-aged sons who are not in the spotlight.

U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D): Single. On the campaign trail he references his family’s experiences caring for his elderly mother and includes her in social media posts.

NO SUPER MAJORITY?

It could be a Blue Wave year, or maybe not. However it comes down in New Mexico, pollster Brian Sanderoff says don't expect head-turning gains by the Democrats in the state House, where they currently hold a 43–25 majority with two vacancies. Says Sanderoff:

I think that there won’t be a significant net change in legislative seats. I think that, because of redistricting over the years, there are a lot of safe Democratic seats [and] a lot of safe Republican seats. . . The rural areas are becoming more conservative, the cities are becoming more liberal, and it’s hard to flip seats anymore.

A supermajority—two-thirds of the 70 members of the House or 47 members—would give House Dems the ability to override a gubernatorial veto and could reshape legislative strategy between the House and governor. With a supermajority, they could also require that approved legislation take effect immediately instead of waiting for the standard effective date.

Records show the last time there was a Dem supermajority in the House (maybe the only time) was in 1992. Democrat Bruce King was governor at the time. The Speaker then was Rep. Raymond Sanchez of ABQ, who got along well with the Governor. Ditto for then-Senate President Manny Aragon.

This is the Home of New Mexico politics.   

This is the Home of New Mexico politics.   

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.