"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 |
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. S
ome 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
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.