Sent to newspapers 10/23/2026
Thoughts on New Mexico’s Long Ballot
I voted this week and it was a very mixed ballot. I voted for a lot of Republicans, which might make some of my friends on the left jump to the conclusion that I support President Trump’s agenda word for word. I voted for some Democrats, which might make my conservative friends break out the same old insults – RINO, socialist, liberal.
And I voted for the sole independent candidate on my ballot; independents are just about to hit the 30 percent benchmark in New Mexico voter registration and it was cool to see one actually available to vote for.
If you’ve been reading this space for any time at all, I hope you’ve ascertained that I’m not MAGA, not liberal, and not a tinfoil-hat wearing anti-government zealot. I’m a center-right fiscal conservative. When I vote, I hunt for the candidates who will do the best in the job, or in some cases, the least damage.
There was a lot on the ballot besides the usual political candidates. We had a lot of judges up for election or retention, and then four constitutional amendments and the ever-present bond questions. As usual, I have some thoughts.
In general, I vote to retain judges and then vote a preference in a contested race. This year, I was a little different. I did some research. And I voted against, or not to retain, every candidate or judge who is an Emerge graduate. You can look them up quite easily at nm.emergeamerica.org.
I’ve written a lot about Emerge; this is a “grassroots” organization funded by left-wing dark money, Big Labor, and trial lawyers. In New Mexico in particular, Emerge has become a power clique for the trial lawyers’ lobby. As we work our way out of our healthcare provider crisis, this movement must be stopped at every turn as the Emerge alumnae are in apparently lockstep to overturn medical malpractice reform. It’s this simple: If you are concerned about keeping providers in New Mexico, oppose Emerge.
The constitutional amendments are a mixed bag. Amendments One and Two I support; Three and Four, I do not. They all sound pretty good. My issues with Three and Four are a bit subtle. Don’t worry! I have plenty of column space left to explain them.
First, the good stuff. Amendment One ends the governor’s pocket veto. So much yes. The line item veto remains. That’s plenty of veto power. The pocket veto allows the governor to just do nothing on a piece of passed legislation, and it dies. No explanation has to be given – just don’t sign it - and it goes away. Nope. Let’s dump that. If the Legislature wants the governor to have veto power, the governor can document the veto with justification.
Amendment Two would move school elections out of the odd years so that they are held at the same time as state and Federal elections. Also, yes! No one shows up to school elections, meaning a tiny group of ultra-partisan voters decides on our school boards and education questions. Consolidating elections also saves cost.
Amendment Three would change how state university and college regents are chosen, creating a legislative commission to select regents. Currently candidates submit their names and credentials to the governor. State law requires roughly the same number of regents from each major party to be named to each institution’s board of regents.
I just don’t see how adding another layer to this process would de-politicize it or make it any more efficient. I think it will pass, but I don’t think it will make the process any better. Essentially, instead of the governor choosing regents, the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House will via their chosen commission members. It’s a no for me.
Amendment Four would pay members of the Legislature a salary based on the median income of the state. Now, I support paying our legislators, but the number should be based on the time they are in session, not a yearly salary. I wrote on this a couple years ago and came up with a figure of $26,000-$30,000. The current figure based on the median income requirement is about $65,000. Coupled with the current per diem and pension plan, this is far too much for a Legislature that meets on an alternating 30- or 60-days-per-year basis. This needs to go back to the Legislature for rework.
Finally, there will be bond questions. With gross receipts taxes and mineral royalties, bond questions burn me up as a fiscal conservative. Just no.
As of Oct. 22, nearly 188,000 early votes have been cast statewide, according to the Secretary of State’s office. That’s nearly 13 percent of eligible voters. Democratic turnout is surging with nearly 107,000 ballots cast, 57 percent of the total, followed by Republicans with nearly 52,000 or 28 percent. Independents have cast about 28,000 votes, or about 15 percent of the total.
This tracks with national predictions that Democratic gains would come from their own increased turnout and not from GOP “conversions.” Pre-election polling show that Republican enthusiasm is low, and they remain unconvinced by Democratic platforms, compelling many to stay home. Political analyst Charlie Cook calls this trend a “red undertow.”
Total voter registration in the state is split with Democrats leading with about 39.5 percent, and Republicans following with 30.5 percent and independents with 28.1 percent.
Merritt Hamilton Allen is an executive and former Navy officer. She appeared regularly as a panelist on NM PBS and is a frequent guest on News Radio KKOB. A Republican for 36 years, she became an independent upon reading the 2024 Republican platform. She lives amicably with her Democratic husband north of I-40 where they run one head of dog, and one of cat. She can be reached at merritt@merrittocracy.news.