Both the 2022 and 2024 elections for the district saw total spending eclipse $20 million. In 2022, when Vasquez faced incumbent Republican Yvette Herrell, total spending hit around $23 million. In 2024, Vasquez again faced Herrell (whom he beat in '22), and spending was again in the $23–$25 million band.

However, the high-water mark for NM-02 spending came in 2020 during the rematch between Democrat Xochitl Torres Small and Herrell—the stunning total went over $30 million between direct candidate campaigns and massive independent expenditures of over $23 million from Super PACs and national party committees.

In 2018, when Republican Steve Pearce left the seat to run for Governor, Torres Small and Herrell first faced off, with campaign spending reaching an eye-catching $14 million—notable, but not the enormous sum of today. Torres Small won 50.9% to 49.1%, turning the district blue for the first time since 2008. That razor-thin margin set the stage for their rematch two years later in 2020, when Herrell took the prize.

In those previous cycles, professional handicappers ranked the sprawling district as a "Toss-Up" seat, but this year the seat moved to "Lean Democrat." If Vasquez makes it three wins in a row, will the spending spiral finally end in the 2nd CD in 2028? Maybe, but it will take a win by either candidate of more than a couple of points for national interests to lay down their arms. 

As for the state of the race with a week to go, Polymarket bettors give Vasquez a 91 percent chance of victory. The average of the two public polls in the contest show Vasquez up an average of 3.5 percent. 

 DICHO MAN

García was first elected in 1996 and has been a leading advocate for Hispanic land grants and acequia protections. In his campaign literature, he quotes the Spanish dicho:

 'Hacerle bien al ingrato es lo mismo que ofenderlo' ('To do good to the ungrateful is to turn them into enemies.'    

García’s subtle use of this dicho is a throwback to a time when political attacks required wit rather than volume. In a campaign landscape filled with loud, modern noise, it’s a clever and quiet reminder of why he’s survived in the Roundhouse for three decades."  

MORE AMENDMENT 4

A reader writes of paying state lawmakers a full-time salary:

Where are all these "qualified people" who would just love to be in the New Mexico legislature but won't run because the job does not pay a salary? Have any of them come forward to explain themselves during the heated debate over the proposed constitutional amendment #4 that would provide an inflated salary of $68,000 annually to lawmakers? I say inflated because they already receive nearly $250 each time they attend a legislative session or one of the many interim committee meetings, plus mileage expenses, an overly generous pension and plenty of free meals from your local friendly lobbyist It's curious that we're told there is this shadow group of outstanding but economically deprived individuals just champing at the bit to get their chance to go to Santa Fe, yet we hear nothing of them or from them. That's because there is no such group, and it's why a "No" vote on Amendment 4 is in order.

CRUISE CONTROL 

His campaign has been on cruise control but MAGA Republican Larry Marker tries to apply some final days heat on Dem US Sen. Ben Ray Lujan with this video:

Career politician Ben Ray Lujan voted for policies that opened our borders to fentanyl pipelines. He backed reckless spending crushing families with inflation and federal regulations over energy jobs. It's time for a senator who puts New Mexico first. I'll fight to secure our border, stop fentanyl, and protect New Mexico jobs. Your safety, your paycheck, your future. That's what I'm fighting for. I'm Larry Marker. I'm running for US Senate and I approve this message. 

For his part, Luján has the Dems looking forward to 2028 when the state will host the fourth presidential primary of the season. Some of those expected to make the run turned up at a matanza and rally at Balloon Fiesta Park sponsored by Luján, who is seeking a second term.

THE BOTTOM LINES

A link from the Legislative Council Service explaining the four constitutional amendments on the ballot went to the wrong site for a couple of hours Monday. Here is the LCS summary.

This is the Home of New Mexico politics.    

The early vote is coming in at a rapid clip with an estimated 35 percent of the expected total vote already cast via absentee and in-person voting. 

Our projected turnout is 715,000—the same number that cast ballots in the '22 mid-term election. So far over 250,000 early votes have been tallied. 

Upwards of 75 percent of the final vote is expected to be recorded before the official Election Day, November 3.  

Friday and Saturday of this week--the final days of early in-person voting--are some of the heaviest. That makes it imperative that candidates running behind or in tight races get their last-minute negative ads out to the public. And that they are doing. . . 

State Republicans came with this "Brain Buffering" meme targeting Dem Guv candidate Deb Haaland. The intelligence of the woman who would become the first Native American governor in state history has been an ongoing Republican theme, although GOP nominee Greg Hull has left it mainly to third parties to attack Haaland and her alleged deficient IQ.

The mockery of her intellectual abilities is nasty stuff for a candidate who has graduated law school, served in the U.S. Congress, and in the president's cabinet as Secretary of the Interior. It appears the public isn't taking the bait with Haaland still expected to score a relatively easy victory over Hull, although insiders confirm our earlier read on the race: insider polling shows Haaland weaker in the ABQ metro  than she'd like. That's due in part to Hull having served three terms as Rio Rancho mayor and sporting a likable disposition.

Hull blew the doors off in Sandoval County at the GOP June primary and is expected to tie or win the county against Haaland. His regional appeal has held Haaland to a solid but not overwhelming 51-37 percent lead in the metro area in Journal polling.

CLOSING PITCH

A late negative hit from Republicans over a PAC backing Haaland for taking a $250,000 donation from an energy company doing work for Project Jupiter tries to win over Democrats and independents as polling shows the data center unpopular across the board.

There are negative hits up on Hull from PACS, but Haaland has spent little of the $20 million she has raised directly attacking her foe. This week her campaign airs their final ad of the campaign, called "Fight." They say:

Greg Hull

That covers all the bases: working across the aisle to appeal to the last-minute deciding independents; nationalizing the race with DC budget cuts and President Trump; hitting the public safety angle, which Dems are traditionally seen as weak on; and taking a jab at Hull's chief campaign plan—eliminating personal income taxes in four stages.

Because Hull said he would not engage in negative campaigning, did not end up debating Haaland, and only raised $2 million to Haaland's $20 million, this gubernatorial campaign is ending calmly. 

CONGRESS CONTEST 

Rep. Vasquez

Greg Cunningham

The 2nd CD campaign has been odd on one front. Cunningham, a former APD detective and Marine, was often shown on his motorcycle sporting his tattoos, while Vasquez, apparently trying to defend his manhood from the machismo of Cunningham, cut a video ad showing him lifting weights and giving a threatening look to the camera.

With attacks that did not seem to fully land and overt appeals to masculinity, Vasquez versus Cunningham often seemed cartoonish. 

CURTIS VS. CHAVEZ 

The Our Values PAC, financed largely by oil and gas interests, comes with a harsh video hit on Curtis, whom they call a "filthy rich lawyer," and score her for what they claim is her recent purchase of a McLaren auto, priced in the $300,000 range.

For her part, Curtis has exposed Chavez's family ties to the controversial Project Jupiter data center. 

She also says Chavez—a health professional—is in the bag for corporate health interests, while Chavez retorts that Curtis fought legislative medical malpractice reform tooth and nail because she has made millions from suing doctors and hospitals.

THE BOTTOM LINES

For a few hours Thursday we had the incorrect ABQ Journal August polling numbers posted for Constitutional Amendment #4—the proposal to give state lawmakers a salary of about $68,000 a year. The correct numbers are 39 percent support, 21 percent oppose, 34 percent undecided and 6 percent saying "it depends" which means they could be supportive if specific guardrails or terms are included.

Everything you wanted to know and then some concerning the four constitutional amendments on the ballot is in this summary from the Legislative Council Service.

Thanks for stopping by. See you back here tomorrow.  

"Yes" shares on Kalshi are trading around 47 to 49 cents, meaning the market believes there is roughly a 48% chance that the ballot measure will pass. Essentially, the traders on this platform view it as a toss-up.

That may come as a surprise to some observers who note that dark progressive money reported receiving $3 million to support the amendment and ordered a $1 million media buy to persuade voters. An opposition PAC funded mainly by oil and gas interests, which reported raising $653,000, is up with a digital ad campaign to thwart adoption.

But it is the political DNA that we've previously mentioned that may be slowing momentum for the pay proposal in the final stretch. Since the 1920's voters have repeatedly defeated paying legislators who currently receive $247 in per diem for all their meetings as well as reimbursement for mileage topped off with a generous pension plan. 

The only public poll on the proposal was done in late August by the ABQ Journal and showed a fluid electorate at that point with 39 percent in favor, 21 percent opposed, 34 percent undecided and 6 percent who say it "depends." 

And that's a good launching point today for today's highly anticipated edition of Reader Vox Populi.

Santa Fe attorney and legislative analyst Cliff Rees is an amendment supporter who disagrees with independent journalist Peter St. Cyr, who wrote of his opposition to salaries on Wednesday. 

Says Rees:

 I agree with St. Cyr's suggestions to update public ethics by improving financial disclosure and lobbyist reporting requirements. Other needed modernization includes a more robust website to improve the quality of legislative webcasts, expanding historical information for introduced legislation, and including Motions to Table on the website so the public can know which bills are not moving. I disagree, however, that enactment of the measures must take place before legislators can earn a part-time salary. Legislators in every state but New Mexico currently earn some form of salary, and county commissioners and city councilors earn various amounts of salary.

Constitutional amendments approved by the voters create the basis for enabling legislation to follow. House Bill 102 was introduced in the 2026 session to provide the 'road map' for how legislative salaries will be implemented if authorized. It will no doubt be re-introduced with other legislation to implement legislative salaries once authorized by the voters, along with other much-needed modernization initiatives in the 2027 session.

ELECTION NIGHT 

This reader is emphatic in their opposition to paying legislators:

Joe, That yearly salary of $68,000 that the amendment would give them is over the top. For a 60-day legislative session, that would equal a hypothetical salary of $408,000 per year. How many of us rake in that kind of money? For a 30-day session, $68,000 (times 12 months) would equal a hypothetical salary of $816,000 per year. So the TV commercials that claim legislators 'need to live like us' are total BS. Remember, $68,000 per year is the average New Mexico household salary, not the individual yearly salary--which is much less. Remember, legislators also have full-time jobs they can still keep while drawing this salary. Wake up New Mexico and smell the movida!

DIDI VS. "THE STANS"

Rep. Stansbury

There's also been much reader interest in that mini October surprise when Republican Didi Okpareke came out swinging—and often effectively so—in her TV debate with Democratic U.S. Rep. Melanie Stansbury. Albuquerque attorney Armand Huerta is one of those weighing in on our coverage:

 Joe, Didi absolutely mopped the floor with 'the Stans.' Stansbury looked tired and worn out. She is known to be a firecracker on the Hill but did not prepare for the debate and completely mailed it in. Meanwhile, Didi brought the hammer and dominated the night. It was a complete TKO victory. 

Some outspoken Democratic blog readers cannot comprehend a Black woman as a Republican. Didi is a business owner (a pharmacist) who is sick and tired of New Mexico being last in all the 'good' categories and first in all the 'bad' categories. We have had this mantle a long time, with one party dominating our politics. So my question to readers Kevin and Karl is simple: Why would Didi join the anti-business party and the undefeated champions of last place?

HEINRICH VS. ENVIROS

Our coverage of Sen. Martin Heinrich's bill--the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026—which aims to speed up regulatory approval for energy projects and has been spurned by a variety of environmental groups—brought this reaction from Patrick Gonzales-Rogers, Lecturer and Distinguished Practitioner in Residence at the Yale School of the Environment:

 Hi Joe, One thing that has not been captured regarding the bill that Martin has co-sponsored is that it would have an incredibly negative impact on Tribes. In fact, not a single tribe or tribal organization supports the bill—not a single one out of 578 tribes—nor was there any consultation done with any tribes for the bill. For a state with one of the largest per capita representations of tribes, over 12 percent, there is sure to be profound political blowback.  Just some of the abject rejection of the proposed bill is here, here, and here.

Dem consultant David Alcon points out that if the US Senate tips to the Dems Nov. 3 Heinrich is likely to assume the chairmanship of the powerful Senate Energy Committee. If so, he will be in the catbird's seat on national energy policy

This is the Home of New Mexico politics.   

• 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

This year's election ballot is "mighty long," advises Democratic consultant and lobbyist Sisto Abeyta, who will be with us for our Election Night coverage. He is advising voters to take extra time to prep before casting their ballots. To that end, we take a look at another of the four constitutional amendments that voters will decide. This one changes how regents are selected for the state's many institutions of higher learning. Reporter Maya Henry of NM In Depth picks up the story from there. . . 

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.

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?"

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:

"I understand where the commissioner is coming from," Sanchez said. But he added that the alternative to the 0.6-mile route is longer and would run through adjacent federal land.

This is a big deal for the biggest construction project in New Mexic0 history (up to $165 billion). A go-ahead for the pipeline would be a major push forward for Jupiter, which continues to deal with challenges—including a battle for a state air permit vital to continued construction.

Sanchez is making no friends on the Democratic left with this statement, but he is ahead in the polls and has taken oil and gas campaign contributions. His GOP opponent, Roswell County Commissioner Michael Perry, goes even further than Sanchez regarding Garcia Richard's rejection of the pipeline:

"I think it’s a poor decision, and the reason I think it’s a poor decision doesn’t have anything to do with the data center," Perry said, adding that the State Land Office has a fiduciary responsibility to New Mexicans.

Project Jupiter

Already on board with Jupiter is Governor Lujan Grisham, as well as Democratic gubernatorial nominee Deb Haaland, who has taken a least $87,000 in contributions from companies affiliated with the project and rejected a call from her left wing to return the money. Haaland has called for a moratorium on future data center projects, but not Jupiter. Republican governor nominee Greg Hull is also supportive of the giant development.

Protesters have sophisticated backing from the environmental group New Energy Economy, whose stiff opposition to Jupiter has rallied enviros. But the political tea leaves—and the impracticality of shutting down a project already 26 percent completed and employing thousands—make stopping it unlikely.

The PR on the project has been a case study on how not to win and has cost the data center developers time, money and goodwill. But the boiling rage over the project finally seems to be cooling with the fall temperatures, and perhaps the realization that the data center is too late to halt.

Jupiter is finally starting to get the PR right, opening the center for a media tour and announcing that there are now 4,400 full-time construction workers at the site, with 600 of those workers coming from Doña Ana County and a total New Mexico workforce of 1,200. They say eventually the construction employment will hit 7,000.

No wonder the state's major labor unions have rallied behind the project, and why Democratic politicians like Juan Sanchez and Haaland have room to compromise. The livelihoods of too many families are on the line to take a rigid ideological position.

PRITZKER FOR VASQUEZ

JB Pritzker

Billioniare Illinois Governor and possible '28 presidential candidate JB Pritzker is paving the way for a friendly welcome from state Democrats for when the presidential primary season comes around. Take a look:

. . . In a somewhat unusual move, Pritzker’s Ready for the Fight PAC recently took over $2.8 million in ad reservations supporting New Mexico Rep. Gabe Vasquez in his competitive reelection race, freeing up money for the House Majority PAC as it tries to play more offense. Like Michigan, New Mexico is a new addition to the early-state window, slated to hold its primary a week after New Hampshire in February 2028. 

National Dems have approved a February 15, 2028, presidential primary for New Mexico that must still be approved by the legislature. 

Pritzker has also been warm with MLG, who won't be governor when the prez primary is held but surely has her resume ready for any billionaire politicos who might be interested.

DIDI A DEM? 

Didi Opareke

Reader Kevin Bersell writes of our write-up on the TV debate between Dem US Rep Melanie Stansbury and Republican challenger Didi Okpareke:

I read your piece about Didi Okpareke with interest. She sounds like a real dynamo. But she seems to be missing the main point: If she is concerned about the war, food programs for families and investment in New Mexico she joined the wrong party. 

The Republicans started the war, they slashed funding for food programs and are grifting whatever money is left over. The good news is the Democratic Party is working to improve those issues. I realize she can't change her party right now, but after the election, she's welcome to join us.  

Hear that, Didi? Maybe Melanie can give you some fund-raising tips if you switch.

Okpareke certainly got the attention of the Dem intelligentsia with her spunky performance against Stansbury. Here's reader Karl Kiser: 

I find it perplexing that Didi Okpareke is a Republican candidate for CD-1. Her parents migrated from Nigeria to the United States because of discrimination and violence against the Igbo people. I lived in Kaduna during a portion of these times. Igbo, in the north, had to flee or be killed simply by being a member of the wrong tribal group. Many were born in the Northern Region and never lived in the Eastern Region. The current Republican Party is on record promoting tribalism and a select form of nationalism. This is the antithesis of the opportunities Didi enjoys in the United States. I ask: Why is she a Republican Party candidate? 

Didi fan Amanda Castillo answered the critics with two words in her debate reaction: "Rock star!" 

NO ON FOUR 

St. Cyr

Peter St. Cyr, a veteran journalist and more recently a widely published political cartoonist, has reported on the New Mexico legislature for decades. He says the proposal on this year's ballot to pay the 112 lawmakers a full-time salary while they still get to keep another full-time job is too flawed for voters to give their approval:

New Mexico voters should reject Constitutional Amendment 4—not because public service lacks value, but because the amendment gets the cart before the horse. Before approving salaries New Mexicans must demand fundamental accountability reforms.

Amendment 4 would tie legislative salaries to the state’s median household income—nearly $68,000—while retaining per diem, mileage reimbursements, and generous pensions. However, turning legislative service into a paid public office requires clear, uncompromised standards.

First, financial disclosure rules must be ironclad. The public deserves certainty that lawmakers face strict disclosure obligations so no elected official profits from legislation they help pass.

Second, New Mexicans should know who is paid to influence legislation and which officials receive lobbying perks or donations—with activity made transparent during legislative sessions, not buried in opaque post-session reports. Furthermore, the state must close the revolving door by barring lawmakers from immediately returning to the Roundhouse as lobbyists to cash in on public service.

Third, a salary demands measurable work in return. A modern Legislature should offer a simple, searchable dashboard tracking lawmakers' attendance, votes, committee participation, and district hours. Citizens shouldn't have to wade through scattered records just to verify if their representative showed up, engaged, or simply rubber-stamped party leadership.

Every worker understands that a paycheck comes with performance expectations; public officials seeking a constitutional salary should be no exception.

This is the Home of New Mexico politics.   

Cunningham and Vasquez

(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

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.

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.