
Mysterious poll on Santa Fe mayoral race finds large majority of voters undecided
Pollsters found the 'election is wide open, with no candidate breaking 15% support in initial polling and a staggering 57% of voters undecided.'
Lower in the 'Polling Memo,' released earlier this week, the undecided rate was listed as 58% and Councilor Michael Garcia — the leader of the pack — had seized support from 15%.
He was followed closely by former Councilor Ron Trujillo, with 13%. Tarin Nix, deputy commissioner of public affairs for the State Land Office, secured 5%. The dismal support for the remaining candidates drops to low single digits. However, the combined numbers for 'undecided' voters and all seven candidates — including County Commissioner Justin Greene, who just joined the race Wednesday — accounted for 101.5% of those surveyed.
The new poll, concluding the mayoral race is 'highly fluid and ready for a fresh candidate,' is shrouded in mystery. It's unclear who commissioned the survey, who conducted it and who released the results. The memo states it was conducted May 31 through June 4 and was completed by 508 people who 'organically matched the expected voter composition and demographics.'
'Likely voters were solicited via email and text messages,' according to the memo.
Some voters appeared to receive links to the SurveyMonkey poll as early as May 30, when The New Mexican reported on a 14-question survey that stated at the bottom, 'Paid for by Friends of Joe Geller.'
The results of the poll were provided to The New Mexican by Nix, who said her campaign was not behind it. She did not disclose the names of those who presented her with the results. The memo states it was from 'Palm Media/Friends of JG.' Nix said 'Friends of JG' is a political action committee based in Florida.
A business with the name 'Palm Media' could not be found in New Mexico, and out-of-state companies with the name could be reached for comment. An online filing on the website for VR Systems Inc. — which provides election software and hardware — lists Palm Media LLC in Miami as a contributor to the political committee 'Friends of Joe Geller.'
But a committee with the name 'Friends of JG' or 'Friends of Joe Geller' could not be found in the Florida Division of Elections database or the Political Committee Index of the New Mexico Secretary of State's Office.
A Miami-Dade County candidate named Joe Geller who served in the Florida state House for years was elected in a school board race in 2024.
Bottom four contenders
The mayor's race poll was conducted as rumors emerged indicating Greene was considering a run for mayor, but neither Greene nor his campaign had anything to do with the poll, according to spokesperson Sergio Mata-Cisneros.
The results of the poll place Greene fifth, with support from 2.5% of respondents.
His campaign wasn't discouraged by his poor showing.
'Justin announced his campaign today, calling for change and fresh leadership — and this poll shows that's exactly what Santa Feans are looking for,' Mata-Cisneros wrote in an email to The New Mexican.
Leading candidate Garcia said in a statement, 'Our campaign has always been rooted in addressing the needs of our community, and it's why we've already qualified for the ballot.'
Former Councilor JoAnne Vigil Coppler received support from 4% of respondents. Letitia Montoya — whose name is misspelled in the memo — and former city Finance Director Oscar Rodriguez, who is now the chief financial officer for the New Mexico Finance Authority, both received support from 2%. Vigil Coppler, who has worked in the real estate industry, and Trujillo, a staff manager with the state Department of Transportation, have both run for mayor in previous races. Montoya, a retired financial executive, has also run for county clerk.
No ranked-choice winner?
Voters casting ballots in the mayor's race will get to rank the candidates under the city's ranked choice voting system, also known as an 'instant runoff.' Survey participants, too, were asked to rank the candidates.
'Even in ranked-choice simulations, no candidate earns dominant support across the board,' the memo states. 'Voters appear split, with no consensus on a leading figure.'
The memo offers no explanation for simulations that failed to identify a winning candidate.
In the city's system, ballots would be tallied in multiple rounds — dropping the candidates with the fewest votes and counting those voters' second, third and even fourth or fifth choices — until one candidate has more than 50% of the votes. A ranked-choice election with no winner is unlikely — the last two candidates would have to secure an equal number of votes in a final round.
The poll also asked participants which issues were most important to them. The top concerns: crime and public safety, housing affordability, traffic and infrastructure, and homelessness.
'With more than half of voters undecided and deep dissatisfaction with current leadership,' the memo states, 'the 2025 Santa Fe mayoral race is highly fluid. This presents a rare opportunity for a fresh candidate with a clear, solutions-oriented platform focused on crime, housing, and traffic/infrastructure to emerge as a contender.'
Cynthia Miller of The New Mexican contributed to this report.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CBS News
9 minutes ago
- CBS News
California says Trump's L.A. military deployment was illegal and caused "anxiety and fear"; Feds say president had authority
Lawyers for the state of California and the federal government faced off in court Tuesday over President Trump's deployment of thousands of National Guard troops to Los Angeles. The attorney for the state, Meghan Strong, argued that having what she called a "standing army" in Los Angeles is "unprecedented" and goes against a "deep-rooted policy against military involvement in civilian life." She said that Mr. Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth "think that they can disregard that policy on a whim." Californians "have been forced to endure anxiety and fear caused by the pervasive presence of this standing army," said Strong. Mr. Trump sent in around 700 Marines and 4,000 California National Guard troops to protect federal property and law enforcement agents during a series of protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in early June. The deployment prompted a lawsuit from Gov. Gavin Newsom, who did not approve of the use of his state's Guard forces and called the move an illegal "power grab." At issue in the three-day bench trial pitting Newsom against the Trump administration is whether the troops violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits military personnel from carrying out domestic law enforcement. Strong alleged that the federal government acted in violation of that 1878 law, saying troops were used to provide armed security for federal agents, set roadblocks and perimeters that restricted civilian movement, and detained civilians. California asked U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer for an injunction that would let the military protect federal property — like courthouses and ICE facilities — but block it from continuing the support for immigration enforcement operations, which the state's lawyer called an "unlawful military crusade." Meanwhile, Eric Hamilton, a lawyer for the Justice Department, argued that the military deployment is legal, with the purpose of protecting federal property and personnel. He said that no violation of the Posse Comitatus Act exists. The federal government's only witness — Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, who was at one point commanding general of the Guard task force in Los Angeles — said he was instructed "that we were not conducting law enforcement operations and that we were there to serve the United States." "We took our duty very seriously, and care and professionalism was always exhibited," he said. Mr. Trump justified the deployment using a law called Title 10, which allows the president to call up Guard forces during a "rebellion," or if he is unable "with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." In an early June memo, Mr. Trump said the protests in Los Angeles "constitute a form of rebellion" and endangered federal agents. Breyer had previously ruled that Mr. Trump used Title 10 unlawfully, but he was overruled by an appellate court that said Mr. Trump had discretion to decide if that law applied. Since then, most of the troops have left Los Angeles, with roughly 300 Guard forces remaining. But the issue has drawn more attention in recent days, as the Trump administration deploys National Guard forces to Washington, D.C. The administration says that deployment is necessary to support law enforcement and crack down on violent crime, but local leaders have condemned the federal government's intervention. Strong cautioned that "Los Angeles is only the beginning," citing recent comments from Mr. Trump that she said indicated he may deploy the National Guard to other cities, including Oakland and New York. A "constitutional exception?" Parts of Tuesday's testimony hinged on an alleged "constitutional exception" to the Posse Comitatus Act. At one point, Sherman referred to a "constitutional exception." He testified that he was advised federal troops were allowed to do "four things" that would normally be barred under the law — security patrols, traffic control, crowd control and riot control — "because it was in line with what the President was directing" and "what the Secretary of Defense was directing." But Judge Breyer was unaware of such an exception and pressed Sherman on the issue. "I'm not a lawyer," said Sherman. "That may be to your credit," responded Breyer. Breyer later asked if Sherman ever received legal advice that if the Guard task force engaged in certain activities, it would violate the Posse Comitatus Act. Sherman testified that he was told, since Mr. Trump's memo said the Los Angeles protests were a form of rebellion that prevented federal agents from doing their jobs, that triggered the constitutional exception. "This is all the way from the top of DOD down to Task Force 51," he said. California's attorney, Strong, disputed this "mysterious constitutional exception," arguing that neither the president nor the secretary of defense "can create an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act." "That means all the directives we've seen the past two days are wrong and what they told soldiers to do was illegal," she said. "Those directives are based on a constitutional exception that doesn't exist." One exception to the Posse Comitatus Act is the Insurrection Act, which lets the president use the military to enforce the law during an insurrection. Mr. Trump has not invoked that law. "If he calls something a rebellion, it is a rebellion?" Mr. Trump's description of the Los Angeles protests as a "rebellion" was raised again in court on Tuesday, after Sherman testified Monday that he didn't hear the term used to describe the demonstrations. Sherman clarified on Tuesday that he knew Mr. Trump's memo called the protests a rebellion. The judge later pushed back against the idea that Mr. Trump has the discretion to decide if a "rebellion" is occurring. "If he calls something a rebellion, it is a rebellion?" Breyer asked, repeatedly. The federal government's attorney, Hamilton, said that the president is commander in chief, and he's entitled to deference in that judgment. But when asked by the judge multiple times, he acknowledged that it doesn't make it a rebellion. Breyer further questioned Mr. Trump's ability to dictate what the law allows, when Hamilton argued that there was no violation of the Posse Comitatus Act because the military was serving a protective function in Los Angeles. "Are you saying that because the president says it, therefore it is?" said Breyer. "If the president says you can do X," he continued, "because the president has said it, that's sufficient to take it out of the Posse Comitatus Act?" The trial will conclude on Wednesday.
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oregon tourism suffers as Canadians boycott US over Trump
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — Canadians are skipping Oregon as a vacation destination this year in light of recent actions made by President Trump. The Oregon Tourism Commission, , recently shared some of the messages they received in response to a handwritten post card campaign meant to engage Canadian visitors. 'We will miss our visit and spending money in your lovely state,' said one person in an email. 'As a Canadian, it's my duty to say 'Sorry', but I'm not sure I mean it.' They said that the words and actions of the president have left them no choice but to boycott U.S. goods and services, in addition to cancelling their travel plans to Oregon. 'Due to your President's ongoing threats of tariffs and even threatening to make our country the '51st state' – a literal threat of annexation – my friends and I have decided to cancel our hotel reservations and move our vacation destination to within Canada instead,' another person said in an email. 'Our original plans to the Oregon coast would have seen our 6 families spend around a week on the beautiful Oregon coast likely spending well over $20,000 in direct investment in your economy. Instead, we will spend that money at home in Canada,' the email said. Another person said they had cancelled the trip they were planning to Washington and Oregon later this year. 'The reason is, you see, your president is waging an unprecedented economic attack on my country, Canada. Canada is the United States' largest customer, we've integrated our economies, and shed blood with each other in global conflicts as allies,' they said. 'And now, our country is under siege by your president. Canadians are angry, and they're acting. They are rapidly shifting to non-U.S. products, and canceling trips to America.' Overall visits to the U.S. from Canada have declined 23.7% since the beginning of the year, according to a July 2025 Oxford Economics Tourism Economics report. International visits to the U.S. have declined across the board, but fallout from Canada has been the steepest. Cities located close to the U.S.-Canadian border are the hardest hit. The steepest year-over-year declines are expected in Seattle, Portland and Detroit, according to the report. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword

Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jax Chamber calls off annual ‘Painting of the Paws' due to new state policy on street art
Action News Jax has learned the annual tradition to paint the jaguar paws along Bay Street in Downtown will not be happening this football season. The Jax Chamber said it's because of a new state policy restricting street art. The Florida Department of Transportation memo said surface markings, signs, and signals that do not directly contribute to traffic safety or control can lead to distractions. It calls for the removal of road art that is associated with social, political, or ideological messages or images. 'We should be able to express ourselves through our paint,' said Jasmine Rodriguez, a Jaguars fan. [DOWNLOAD: Free Action News Jax app for alerts as news breaks] It is a policy opponents said is meant to target rainbow crosswalks, like those in Jacksonville's Five Points neighborhood. But in the case of the paws, Republican City Councilman Rory Diamond is hopeful FDOT will give the green light. 'Everybody loves the paws,' said Diamond. 'So my hope is that FDOT figures this out for the non-controversial stuff and just says yes soon.' Fans told Action News Jax the paws need to stay so they can continue to let others know how much they love their team and their city. 'To take that would be taking a lot of things for our children and our families,' said Ledondre Riley. 'Let us put our paw prints on the ground because that's where they belong,' said Rodriguez. The mayor's office sent Action News Jax the following statement: 'Since it's a chamber activity, we'll defer to their posture on this as they wait for clarity on the matter.' Action News Jax reached out to FDOT and asked if this violates the state rule and if those already-painted prints will be covered up. We did not hear back. >>> STREAM ACTION NEWS JAX LIVE <<< [SIGN UP: Action News Jax Daily Headlines Newsletter] Solve the daily Crossword