New Mexico Conservative News

Commentary: Otero County’s lawmakers, their ethics votes, and the guardrails New Mexico still needs

·

, , , , , , ,
Commentary: Otero County’s lawmakers, their ethics votes, and the guardrails New Mexico still needs

ALAMOGORDO — Before New Mexico voters approved paying legislators a salary, the Legislature took recorded votes on two lobbyist-transparency bills and on the pay amendment itself. Every Otero County legislator voted no on every one of those measures that came before them.

The votes matter as lawmakers prepare for a January session in which Think New Mexico is pressing a package of ethics reforms: recusal on conflicts of interest, a two-year lobbying ban for ex-legislators, fuller lobbyist disclosure and limits on dark money. (Read our story on those proposals.)

Otero County is represented by Rep. John Block (R-Alamogordo, House District 51), Rep. Jonathan Henry (R, House District 54), Sen. Jim Townsend (R, Senate District 34) and Sen. Rex Wilson (R, Senate District 33). Wilson was appointed in January 2026, replacing Sen. Nicholas Paul of Alamogordo, who resigned for health reasons. Rep. Sarah Silva (D-Las Cruces, House District 53), a neighboring southern New Mexico lawmaker, sponsored both lobbying bills.

Lobbyist disclosure: two votes, two no’s

House Bill 143 (2025) would have required lobbyists to file a report within 48 hours of lobbying on a bill, naming the bill, the client and the position taken. It is the bill-tracking reform Think New Mexico now recommends.

  • The House passed it 36-26 on March 4, 2025. Block and Henry voted no; Silva, the sponsor, voted yes.
  • The Senate passed it 22-15 on March 17, 2025. Townsend and Paul both voted no. Republicans opposed the bill in both chambers.
  • Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham vetoed it on April 11, 2025.

Republicans argued the bill did not go far enough. A House Republican amendment to limit lobbyist spending on lawmakers’ meals and drinks was stripped in the Senate. They offered amendments requiring lobbyists to disclose gifts to lawmakers, including food and drink, and requiring grassroots groups to disclose lobbying. Democrats defeated both.

House Bill 164 (2026), a revised version from Silva and Sen. Jeff Steinborn, died on a 32-32 tie on Feb. 14, 2026. Block and Henry again voted no. The vote did not split on party lines: several Democrats, including Reps. Patricia Lundstrom and Linda Serrato, voted no, and Republican Rep. Nicole Chavez voted yes.

The bill died by the narrowest possible margin. A single no vote switched to yes, including from either Otero County House member, would have broken the tie.

Legislative pay, with no job description attached

House Joint Resolution 5 (2026) put Constitutional Amendment 4 on the ballot, setting legislator pay at the state median household income starting in 2029. It carried no minimum duties, outside-income limits or new ethics rules.

  • The House passed it 41-26 on Feb. 13, 2026. Block and Henry voted no; Silva voted yes.
  • The Senate passed it 23-19 on Feb. 17, 2026. Townsend and Wilson both voted no. Sen. Joshua Sanchez of Bosque was the only Republican to vote yes, and no senator was absent or excused. Townsend spoke against it on the floor, saying he opposed it because he did not believe the Legislature had performed, not because lawmakers should go unpaid.
  • Voters approved the amendment Nov. 3, about 62% to 38% in preliminary returns.

Republicans did try to attach guardrails. In the House, Henry offered an amendment barring per diem on top of a salary for work close to home; Democrats voted it down. In the Senate, Democrats rejected Republican amendments for 16-year term limits and for ending per diem for meetings within 50 miles of a legislator’s home.

A competing approach from Republican Sens. Craig Brandt and Pat Boone, Senate Joint Resolution 2, would have had an independent citizens commission set legislative pay, paired with term limits. It did not reach the ballot. That is the model Town News’s editorial board urged before the election.

The local delegation’s no votes on HJR 5 line up with Town News’s objection to pay without guardrails. But their no votes on the lobbying bills cut the other way: those bills were among the few transparency measures to reach a floor vote.

The case for three guardrails

Voters approved a salary. They did not approve a blank check. Three guardrails proposed in the 2025 and 2026 sessions deserve a second chance now that lawmakers will be paid.

Limit per diem once the salary starts

Legislators collect $247 a day in per diem during sessions and interim meetings, on top of mileage and a pension. Starting in 2029 they will also draw about $67,800 a year. In a 60-day session year, salary plus session per diem alone reaches $82,620, according to Town News’s October analysis.

Per diem exists to cover the cost of being away from home. Paying it to a lawmaker who sleeps in their own bed after a meeting across town is extra pay, not reimbursement. The legislator pension is also calculated from the per diem rate, so every per diem increase raises retirement pay too.

The fixes are modest. Henry’s House amendment would have barred per diem on top of salary for work close to home. Senate Republicans proposed ending per diem for meetings within 50 miles of a legislator’s home. SJR 2 would have tied per diem to the federal government’s lodging rate for Santa Fe. Democrats rejected the first two; SJR 2 never got a hearing.

Cap lobbyist meals and gifts

Lobbyist spending on New Mexico lawmakers set a record in 2025, passing $1.25 million by October. Current reports rarely say which legislators were treated. One 2026 filing listed $22,710 on flowers for legislators; another listed 31 restaurant meals for “various legislators and staff.”

State law caps gifts from lobbyists at $250 per donor per year, but meals and entertainment still flow freely during session. In 2025 the House adopted a Republican amendment to HB 143 that many read as a $50-a-day cap on lobbyist spending per legislator during session. The Senate Rules Committee stripped it out.

The bill’s Senate sponsor, Sen. Jeff Steinborn, called the cap a distraction from disclosure but said he would back a full ban on such meals in separate legislation. That opening should be taken. A paid legislator has less reason to accept a free dinner from someone seeking their vote.

Set term limits

Sixteen states limit how long legislators may serve. New Mexico does not. In 2026, Senate Republicans proposed a 16-year cap as an amendment to HJR 5, and Sens. Craig Brandt and Pat Boone proposed a 12-year cap in SJR 2. The amendment was rejected and SJR 2 was postponed indefinitely on its first day.

The case is strongest now. A salary turns a citizen post into a paying job, and limits keep it from becoming a career. Turnover breaks up long-standing relationships between lawmakers and the lobbyists who court them, and it opens seats to newcomers in a district like Henry’s, where he ran unopposed this year.

Term limits carry real costs, covered below. A 12- to 16-year cap is long enough to let lawmakers build expertise while still forcing regular renewal.

Where each lawmaker stands on each guardrail

The per diem, meal-cap and term-limit amendments were decided without a recorded roll call, so no individual votes exist in the Legislature’s or LegiScan’s records. SJR 2 died before any vote. The Legislature broadcasts floor sessions, and these lawmakers can be asked directly where they stand.

Reforms that never got a floor vote

Most of what Think New Mexico now proposes has never reached a floor vote, so there is no recorded position for local lawmakers.

  • Two-year lobbying ban for ex-legislators. Sen. Harold Pope introduced it in 2023, 2025 and 2026. A 2017 version passed the House 58-2 but died in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  • Itemized lobbyist spending. A 2025 bill from Pope and Sen. Natalie Figueroa died in Senate Judiciary.
  • Lobbyist pay disclosure. Proposed as recently as 2023; never passed either chamber.
  • Recusal on conflicts of interest, true-source dark money disclosure and specific-source financial disclosureare newer proposals with no floor votes on record in the last two sessions.

Accountability beyond the Ethics Commission

The State Ethics Commission cannot carry this load alone, and its own rules show why.

  • It cannot touch votes. The commission has no jurisdiction over “legislative acts,” which are protected as speech or debate. A lawmaker who votes on a bill that pays their own employer is beyond its reach. Recusal is left to House and Senate rules, enforced by the lawmaker’s colleagues.
  • Its penalties are small. Under the Governmental Conduct Act, a civil penalty is $250 per violation, capped at $5,000. For a lawmaker earning a salary plus per diem, that is a cost of doing business.
  • Its reach is short. Complaints must be filed within two years, and most hearings are barred within 60 days of an election, which is when voters most need answers.
  • Its budget depends on the people it polices. The Legislature sets its funding each year, and Think New Mexico notes it still lacks an independent recurring source.

Real accountability means rules with consequences voters can see:

  1. A written job description. Put minimum duties in law: constituent-service hours, town halls, interim committee attendance and a public attendance record. Paid public servants elsewhere have expectations; legislators should too.
  2. Recusal with teeth. Put it in the constitution, as Colorado, Texas and Oklahoma have. Kentucky’s penalty is expulsion; Arizona makes a knowing violation a felony.
  3. An independent pay commission. Let citizens, not lawmakers, set salaries and decide whether per diem continues, as SJR 2 proposed.
  4. Real disclosure. Lobbyists should report which bills they lobby, what each client pays them and which legislators they wine and dine, on a schedule that lands before votes, not months after.
  5. Higher penalties. Raise civil fines to a level that deters, and let the commission fund itself through a recurring source rather than annual favor.

What critics say

These ideas have serious opponents, and readers should weigh their arguments.

  • On term limits: Research reviewed by Missouri’s nonpartisan MOST Policy Initiative found that term limits drain expertise, can raise spending, and shift power to lobbyists and governors, who outlast short-tenured lawmakers. Idaho repealed its limits in 2002.
  • On per diem: Lawmakers from rural districts face real travel and lodging costs, and some say per diem barely covers them. Most surveyed legislators told researchers per diem and mileage fall short.
  • On meal caps: Sen. Steinborn argued disclosure matters more than caps and that the amendment was meant to sink the bill.
  • On lobbying bills: Senate Republicans said HB 143 was too narrow because it ignored gifts and grassroots lobbying. Some lobbyists warned that 48-hour reporting was burdensome.
  • On legislative pay: Townsend said he did not oppose paying lawmakers in principle, only rewarding a Legislature he believes has not performed.

Call, email and demand reform

The 60-day legislative session opens Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2027. Block, Henry and Silva won re-election Nov. 3, Wilson won his seat outright, and Townsend’s term runs through 2028. All five will be voting. Gov.-elect Deb Haaland takes office Jan. 1, 2027, and will decide whether any reform that passes becomes law.

Lawmakers voted themselves a path to a paycheck. Now it is your turn to set the terms. Call or email every official below before the session opens. Ask each one, by name, to commit publicly to:

  • Term limits for state legislators, and an independent citizens commission to set pay
  • A written job description for paid legislators, with public attendance records
  • A constitutional amendment requiring recusal on financial conflicts of interest
  • Ending per diem for meetings close to home once salaries begin
  • A cap or ban on lobbyist-paid meals and gifts
  • Lobbyist disclosure of bills, clients, compensation and the legislators who benefit
  • Real penalties for ethics violations, beyond what the State Ethics Commission can impose today

Your Otero County legislators

Neighboring southern New Mexico lawmaker

Legislative leadership, which decides which bills get heard

State party leadership

The incoming governor’s office

Not sure who represents you? Use the Legislature’s district finder.

Capitol offices are staffed mainly during session; email works year-round. A reform that dies in committee never reaches your legislator’s vote, so contact leadership, both parties and the governor’s office too. Ask for a yes or no. Write down the answer. Then hold them to it at the ballot box.

Commentary by Journalist Chris Edwards a recognized constitutional purest who advocates for transparency, political ethics reform and citizen responsiveness by elected representatives.

Sources

Related coverage

Official records, HB 143 (2025)

Official records, HB 164 (2026)

Official records, HJR 5 (2026)

Legislators

Guardrails and enforcement

Make the call. Send the email. Demand term limits, a job description and real accountability before the session opens Jan. 19.

More News from Alamogordo

Leave a Reply

New Mexico’s #1 Source for Unbiased Conservative News

Not alligned to any party nor platform, we are an independent voice for conservative news representing a constitutionalist outlook to conservative values. New unbiased, unfiltered and timely. NewMexicoConservativeNews.com

Latest Stories

Translate »