New Mexico governor goes globetrotting as she nears final year in office
Jun. 5—SANTA FE — With her second term as governor nearing its final stanza, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham has been here, there and everywhere.
Since the 60-day legislative session ended in March, the governor has spent more time outside New Mexico than she has in the state, with trips to Asia, Maryland, Los Angeles and the Kentucky Derby.
Specifically, the governor has spent 40 of the 76 days since the session ended on March 22 fully or partially out of state, according to a Journal analysis of her official calendar and shared records.
Just this week, Lujan Grisham led a state delegation to Alaska, where she met with Trump administration officials and attended an energy summit.
The Governor's Office says the trips are in the interest of the state by forging possible business partnerships and advocating for federal resources.
"The governor's travel is of significant benefit to New Mexico's economic development, efforts to secure federal funding and other policy initiatives," said Lujan Grisham spokeswoman Jodi McGinnis Porter. "Each trip is strategically planned to deliver tangible results for New Mexico families and businesses."
She also told the Journal the Governor's Office is in regular contact with Lt. Gov. Howie Morales about the governor's travel schedule to ensure state business is unaffected and agencies are ready to respond in case of emergency.
Per the state Constitution, Morales serves as acting governor while Lujan Grisham is out of state. He said in April he was in frequent communication with the Governor's Office when he signed more than 30 executive orders freeing up state funding for recovery efforts connected to damages from flooding and wildfires.
With most of New Mexico currently experiencing drought conditions, McGinnis Porter said the governor is staying up to speed on the latest risks even when traveling outside New Mexico.
"The governor ... maintains full engagement on wildfire preparedness from any location while staying informed on fire activity throughout the state," she told the Journal.
Longtime New Mexico political observer Brian Sanderoff said out-of-state travel by elected officials can sometimes be fodder for criticism by political opponents. But he said Lujan Grisham might feel more freedom to travel with her tenure as governor winding down.
"The governor can not seek a third consecutive term, so she's going to feel a lot less constrained politically about travel, both nationally and internationally," said Sanderoff, who is the president of Albuquerque-based Research & Polling Inc.
The costs for the governor's busy travel schedule have been paid for by a mix of state and outside groups, depending on the trip. For instance, her Alaska trip was paid for with taxpayer dollars, while her travel to Chicago for last year's Democratic National Convention event was covered by her political action committee, according to the Governor's Office.
Meanwhile, Lujan Grisham's trade mission to Japan and Singapore in April — and a similar trip to India last year — were paid for by the New Mexico Partnership, an Albuquerque-based nonprofit group that focuses on business recruitment efforts.
Lujan Grisham also traveled out of state extensively last year, including a trip to Mexico. She also crisscrossed the country last fall to stump for Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris.
The governor, who will finish her second term in office at the end of 2026, has increasingly clashed with Democratic lawmakers over crime and public safety issues in recent years.
She said at the end of this year's session she planned to call lawmakers back to Santa Fe this year to tackle legislation dealing with juvenile crime and firearm restrictions, but later said no such special session was imminent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Petition to make city attorney an elected position fails in Grover Beach
A petition to make the role of city attorney an elected position in Grover Beach came up short on Wednesday when the petitioners failed to submit any signatures by the deadline. In August, citizens grassroots group GroverH2O filed a notice of intent to circulate a petition to make the role of city attorney elected, with a 180-day window to collect enough valid signatures by June 4 kicking off on Dec. 7. The petition sought to put the issue of an elected city attorney on the November 2026 ballot, and would have required valid signatures from 10% of the city's registered voters — or a minimum of 811 people — by the June 4 deadline. But as of Wednesday, the city had not received any signature submissions from the proponents, bringing the issue to a close for the time being, according to city manager Matt Bronson. The Tribune reached out to GroverH2O for comment but did not receive a reply as of Friday afternoon. In the past year, GroverH2O has succeeded in gathering enough signatures to get an initiative asking voters if the role of city clerk should be elected rather than appointed, with the issue set to appear on the November 2026 ballot. Grover H2O was also successful in raising enough signatures to get a recall campaign on the November 2024 ballot against District 2 Councilmember Dan Rushing for his vote to raise water and wastewater rates to pay for Grover Beach's share of the now-defunct Central Coast Blue water recycling project. During the recall petition process, city clerk Wendi Sims initially denied Grover H2O's recall petition, contesting the factual accuracy of several of the group's stated reasons to start the petition. The dispute over the recall petition's content led to Grover H2O's lawsuit against the city, which was represented by Lozano Smith attorney Robert Lomeli. In April, attorney Stew Jenkins, speaking on behalf of Grover H2O, said that the efforts to make both the city attorney and city clerk elected are a response to the city's handling of Grover H2O's petitions. 'The appointed Grover Beach city attorney firm has violated the public interest by impairing access to city records, authorizing closed City Council meetings, been complicit in impairing voters' right to circulate and file petitions for recall in violation of California's Constitution and election law, filed appeal of a Superior Court ruling ordering certification of recall without prior City Council approval, has contracts with cities and districts all over California, and charges the City of Grover Beach for part-time civil work more than the state of California pays the attorney general for full-time representation in civil and criminal matters,' GroverH2O's notice of intent said. 'The voters find that the office of appointed city attorney shall be immediately terminated for cause, as against the public interest.' In their statement of reasons to launch the petition included in the initial notice of intent, petitioners argued that the city's current legal representation from firm Lozano Smith also risks a potential conflict of interest becuase they represent multiple government municipalities, though assistant city manager Kristin Eriksson said the firm's other government contracts are all outside of San Luis Obispo County. In California, only around 11 of 482 municipalities have elected city attorneys, with most serving larger cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego due to their population size, according to a 2013 League of California Cities guidebook for new city attorneys. In an email, Eriksson said the city doesn't know how many valid signatures were collected by GroverH2O in the 180-day window because no petition was submitted. Eriksson said the city has not received any further communications with the group on further attempts to make the city attorney an elected position. 'Because they did not submit the requisite signatures on the initial petition, they would have to start the process over by first submitting a new Notice of Intent,' Eriksson said.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Douglas woman fights to keep her backyard chicken coop
DOUGLAS, Mich. (WOOD) — A Douglas woman is in a legal fight to keep the chickens that she has been raising in her backyard for months. Kathy Sarkisian told News 8 that she has been a big advocate of health and wellness for much of her life. She said that having backyard chickens felt like the next step in that journey, for the added health benefits chicken eggs have. 'It was just absolutely perfect,' she said. 'It fit right into everything I believe in.' So, Kathy went through the permitting process with the city. Ultimately, a zoning official approved her permit and she began building, which she said costs her about $23,000. Shortly after her permit was accepted, the dream started to fade away. She said a city zoning official said a neighbor had objected to her chickens, which according to their city's ordinance would mean that her permit quote 'Shall not be granted, with no right of appeal.' 'When cities subjugate their authority to an individual, another property owner, they create dissension among their residents and that really bothers me,' Sarkisian said. Ultimately, Kathy said she was told to get rid of her chickens, which she did not do, leading her to being fined everyday that she has them. So, she filed a federal lawsuit against the city. A complaint was filed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan stating: 'The city is depriving Kathy of her constitutional and civil rights, including the right to make productive use of her land without unreasonable governmental interference.' 'What if I had the authority to just say 'Nope, I don't want you to use that, so you can't.' It's kind of the same thing,' Sarkisian said. The lawsuit goes on to add that the city violated its own process by allowing neighbors to object to this after a permit had been granted. Kathy is being represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation. One of her attorneys told News 8 that the ordinance is unconstitutional and a violation of her civil rights protected by the Constitution. 'Neighbors can't wield government power like they are here,' Austin Waisanen, a property rights attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation told News 8. 'The threat is that next time it won't just be chickens in your backyard, it'll be chickens playing in your backyard or barbequing or many other ordinary uses of land.' Sarkisian told News 8 that this means more to her than just chickens. It's about doing what is right. 'Most everybody told me 'Don't do it, it's going to be a problem, it is going to cost you a fortune, just get rid of the chickens,' and I am like, 'It's just not right. Sometimes you have to stand up and do what is right,'' she said. 'I am not holding any grudges, I just want the city to make it right and create a constitutional law.' News 8 did reach out to the City of Douglas for comment, but they declined due to the ongoing litigation. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
The 911 presidency: Trump flexes emergency powers in his second term
WASHINGTON (AP) — Call it the 911 presidency. Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors. Whether it's leveling punishing tariffs , deploying troops to the border or sidelining environmental regulations , Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion. An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump's 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors. The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress' authority and advance his agenda. 'What's notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president,' said Ilya Somin, who is representing five U.S. businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs. Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it. Growing concerns over actions The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump's strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there's growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the U.S. is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address. 'The temptation is clear,' said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program and an expert in emergency powers. 'What's remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we're in a different era now.' Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy. 'It's the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit,' Bacon said of Congress' power over trade. 'And I get the emergency powers, but I think it's being abused. When you're trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that's policy, not emergency action.' The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority. 'President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden — wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. Trump frequently sites 1977 law to justify actions Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports. The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces 'an unusual and extraordinary threat' from abroad 'to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.' In analyzing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on U.S. soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the U.S. economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act , to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion. Congress has ceded its power to the presidency Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers — including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited — that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice. Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-Sept. 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort , forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals. Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II. Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump's eventual veto. 'Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges,' said John Yoo, who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. 'Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act.' Trump, Yoo said, 'has just elevated it to another level.' Trump's allies support his moves Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump's actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy. 'We believe — and we're right — that we are in an emergency,' Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax. 'You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies,' Vance said. 'I'm not talking about toys, plastic toys. I'm talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I'm talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain.' Vance continued, 'These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency.' Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president's emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance. Similar legislation hasn't been introduced since Trump's return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency. 'He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there's oversight and safeguards,' said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a 'path toward autocracy and suppression.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
