SANTA FE, N.M. - This year's legislative session is winding down, and while some bills introduced will go on to become law, many others have stalled. One bill that has hit a wall would provide funds to reimburse nonprofit groups and public intervenors that challenge big utilities like PNM in cases over rate hikes, consumer rules or other issues before the Public Regulation Commission (PRC).

PRC Commissioner Jason Marks (Dist. 1-Albuquerque) says utilities can spend over $1 million on a case, often leaving groups that advocate for the environment, low-income people or other public interests seriously out-gunned.

"They come in with just one attorney, maybe one or two witnesses, depending on which organization it is, and there's a real disparity there."

The way the law works, Marks explains, customers end up footing the bill for the hefty utility company legal fees.

Utilities have argued, and Marks acknowledges, that multiple public interest intervenors can go up against a utility, which evens things out a bit. However, at a recent hearing PNM admitted spending $2 million on the current rate case.

Rep. Eleanor Chavez (Dist. 13, Southwest Albuquerque) sponsored the reimbursement bill. She says reimbursing public intervenors frees up funds for nonprofits to use to serve people in other ways, not to mention pushing back against rate hikes.

"Intervenors in the past have been successful, but it has been very costly for them. It can really drain, for example, a nonprofit organization that wants to be an intervenor. I think this really levels the playing field."

The bill, HB488, is currently stalled in the House Business and Industry Committee.




get more stories like this via email

Pro-worker and pro-democracy organizers and activists in Nevada are coming together to oppose some of the policies of President Donald Trump, Elon Musk and the current administration.

The Hands Off! protest set for Saturday in Carson City is one of more than 1,000 taking place around the country.

Kimberly Carden, a leader of Indivisible Northern Nevada, said the national protest will be the largest single day of action since Trump took office for a second term. Carden said they'll be advocating for strengthening programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and they'll demand an end to federal worker layoffs and attacks on immigrants and transgender people.

"We aren't scared, we aren't going to be intimidated, and this is a big movement," she said, "and it's going to help our elected representatives buck up and fight back."

Carden said it's all about calling out attacks on democratic principles that affect everyone, regardless of political values and beliefs. The protest comes after an eventful week in the nation's capital - including enacting a range of tariffs on goods from foreign countries that are expected to increase prices.

A new survey finds Trump's approval rating has fallen to its lowest point so far.

The "Hands Off" event starts at noon outside the Legislative Building.

Lois Stokes, a member of the group Bans Off Our Bodies, said she's astonished by the number of people now unemployed because of federal mass firings. As a former statistician with the state who worked on employment and wage data, Stokes said she thinks the situation is particularly dire in Nevada.

"Getting rid of the federal maintenance workers that handle these old buildings - and well, even the new ones," she said. "The people that are monitoring our water quality, they've been fired. Who's looking out for those interests?"

Stokes said she hopes this weekend's event serves to remind folks they have a voice and power.

"For too long, we've let things like this slide," she said, "or, 'Oh well, that's too bad - maybe next time, you know, we'll vote someone in' - and I am really hoping it's a wake-up call."


get more stories like this via email

Some Colorado lawmakers are scrambling to protect voter rights after President Donald Trump issued an executive order to require proof of citizenship to register to vote. They say the requirement would disproportionately affect low-income voters and people of color.

David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, said the language in the U.S. Constitution is very clear that the authority to run elections is delegated to individual states.

"Everyone - Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative - wants to keep ineligible voters off the list. And there's always some value in discussing how to do it better," he explained. "Unfortunately that's not what this executive order does. It's really a remarkable seizure of power from the states."

Trump has cast doubt on the integrity of American elections for years, despite evidence that fraud is extremely rare. The new order claims the nation has failed "to enforce basic and necessary election protections," and would allow the Department of Homeland Security and 'DOGE' to access state voter rolls. Colorado Senate Bill 1 - which would bar voter discrimination based on race, sexual orientation or gender identity - has cleared the state Senate and now moves to the House.

Becker noted that Congress does have constitutional authority to change election rules, and did so most notably after passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. And in 2021, he says House Democrats passed a sweeping set of election reforms that ended up dying in the Senate.

"But at least that was done through congressional action. What we have here is an executive power grab - an attempt by the President of the United States to dictate to states how they run elections, how they should exercise the power that is granted to them by the Constitution," he continued.

Becker noted the new order suggests serious misunderstandings, intentional or not, about the nation's election system, which he says is secure. It's already illegal for non-U.S. citizens to vote, and voter lists are as accurate as they've ever been. More than 95% of all U.S. voters use paper ballots, which are available in all states, and ballots are audited to confirm results.


get more stories like this via email

Indiana's school board elections moved closer to becoming partisan after the House of Representatives narrowly approved a bill requiring candidates to list political affiliations on ballots.

If enacted, candidates must declare a party affiliation, list themselves as independent or remain nonpartisan. Party-affiliated candidates would have their designation appear on ballots.

Rep. Chuck Moseley, D-Portage, spent nine years on a school board and opposes the bill.

"The whole premise of this bill is there's politics in the schools, let's just put more politics in the schools," Moseley pointed out. "You can choose to believe me or not believe me, but the fact of the matter is we kept politics out of that."

Supporters argued school boards already operate along party lines and said voters should know candidates' political leanings. The bill passed 54-40 with 14 Republicans joining 26 Democrats who voted no. It now returns to the Senate for final approval.

Opponents of Senate Bill 287 claimed the change would inject unnecessary partisanship into local education, making elections more divisive. Only Democrats spoke against the measure during debate, warning it would deepen political divides in schools.

Rep. Jim Lucas, R-Seymour, said school boards are already partisan.

"One party is saying it's OK that biological males can compete with our daughters in sports; another party is pushing against that," Lucas contended. "One party thinks it's OK to sterilize and mutilate children; another party's pushing against that."

If the Senate approves the changes, Indiana will join a handful of states with fully partisan school board elections.


get more stories like this via email