NM Gov calls out lawmakers for inadequately addressing needs of New Mexico children
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed two bills this week concerning New Mexico children, but called out lawmakers for missed opportunities. (Photo by Austin Fisher / Source NM)
Bills requiring the regulation of cell phones in schools and that hospitals have a safe care plan for substance-exposed newborns were signed into law this week, but Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham used the bills to point out lawmakers' missed opportunities.
Lujan Grisham signed 22 bills into law on Thursday, including Senate Bill 11, which requires local school districts and charter schools to adopt a wireless communication device policy; and Senate Bill 42, which requires hospitals have a plan of safe care in place when newborns are found to be exposed to controlled substances and requires their parents to participate in the Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Act program.
In a memo explaining her decision to sign SB11, the governor said that while it was a 'first step' toward regulating cell phone use in schools, she was 'profoundly disappointed' that lawmakers chose to amend the bill to make compliance optional for local districts. The amendment loosens the wording around the Public Education Department's minimum requirements for local policies.
'Once again, however, the Legislature squirmed out of taking a meaningful step to improve education under the auspices of local control,' the governor wrote. 'That is all well and good until this same body blames the Public Education Department-and not the local bodies-for poor educational outcomes of New Mexico students. I once again encourage the Legislature to hold local school districts accountable for educational outcomes. Our students deserve it.'
Lujan Grisham had a similar response in her veto message about House Bill 65, which would have clarified that local school districts have the authority to determine the number of instructional days in their school calendar. Instead, she voiced her support of a 2024 PED rule – which has not been enforced – requiring local districts to have a minimum of 180 days in their calendars.
PED's 180-day school calendar rule back in the courts
In another memo this week, Lujan Grisham explained that she chose to sign SB42 because of its requirement that parents of substance-exposed newborns receive treatment through the Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Act program. However, she called out lawmakers for continuing an 'unwarranted vendetta' against the Children, Youth and Families Department, particularly for including amendments to the bill, which require department employees to backup electronic device data daily, monthly and annually.
'If the Legislature actually wanted to help children and CYFD, it would have fully funded the agency so that it could hire all the staff it needs to succeed,' Lujan Grisham wrote. 'The Legislature seems to be of the opinion that adding ever increasing administrative burdens on an agency that they refuse to fund at required levels will make children safer. They also seem to believe that piling on criticisms for problems that they bare some responsibility for creating will absolve them of their own neglect. They are wrong.'
She went on to encourage lawmakers to consider becoming foster parents or apply for a job or volunteer position with CYFD.
'It is far too easy to stand on the sidelines and criticize CYFD. I hope the Legislature will commit not only to fully funding CYFD, but also to do their part on an individual level to help make a difference in children's lives,' Lujan Grisham wrote.
The governor voiced similar criticism of lawmakers, as well as Attorney General Raúl Torrez, before the end of the session when she signed House Bill 5 into law, establishing the Office of the Child Advocate. She pointed out lawmakers seem to continuously 'condemn' CYFD and its employees, and 'refuse to fully fund the agency to hire enough staff then criticize [the department's] vacancy rates and unmanageable workloads.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why are more Americans filing for Social Security benefits?
(NewsNation) — More older Americans are claiming their Social Security benefits earlier, a potentially alarming trend that could significantly reduce the income many rely on in their golden years. As of May, individual retirement claims are up 13% in the current fiscal year compared to the same period last year, an increase of nearly 320,000 claims, according to the latest Social Security data. To put the recent surge in perspective: From 2012 to 2024, retirement claims rose by an average of just 3% per year, according to an analysis by the Urban Institute, a research group. Plan to garnish Social Security checks for student loan debt paused Part of the recent uptick is due to more retirees claiming Social Security benefits earlier, a choice that permanently reduces their monthly checks if done before full retirement age. Jack Smalligan, a senior policy fellow at the Urban Institute, described the increase in earlier claims as 'disconcerting' because it can impact people's 'long-term retirement security.' 'For most individuals, delaying the time that they claim Social Security is a smart retirement decision,' Smalligan said. While demographic factors, such as an aging population, have contributed to the rise, increased concern over the Trump administration's handling of the system may also help explain the surge. Social Security data shows the spike in monthly claims was especially pronounced in November and January — the month Trump was elected and the month he took office. Polling shows public concern about Social Security is now at a 15-year high, an uptick that coincides with the Trump administration's plans to slash the agency's workforce. The president and advisers, like Elon Musk, have made unfounded claims about rampant fraud within the system, while website outages have also caused confusion. Smalligan pointed to the recent surge in calls to Social Security and the rise in field office visits as further signs of growing anxiety. At the same time, top Democrats, including former President Joe Biden, have amplified those fears with misleading claims that give the impression Americans' monthly retirement checks may not arrive. Democrats sound alarm on Social Security as Biden returns to stage Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has warned that Trump and Musk are coming for people's benefits and hiding behind bogus fraud claims to justify stealing people's checks. The political rhetoric appears to be resonating, but it's also fueling the broader uncertainty, potentially causing real harm. During a meeting in March, Social Security officials said that 'fearmongering has driven people to claim benefits earlier,' The Wall Street Journal reported. Overall, 52% of Americans say they worry a 'great deal' about the Social Security system, up from 43% in 2024, according to Gallup. Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, that figure rises to 65% — a 30-point increase from the previous year. 'No one's scheming right now to privatize Social Security or dismantle it … that type of fearmongering is not helpful,' said Charles Blahous, a researcher at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University who specializes in Social Security. While Social Security does face long-term financial challenges, the system isn't going away, and future policy uncertainty isn't a good reason to claim benefits early today, Blahous said. Trump has repeatedly promised not to cut Social Security benefits, while Democrats argue that staffing reductions will make it harder for retirees to access services, undermining the system in a different way. Other factors, unrelated to political rhetoric, could also be driving the rise in retirement claims. There are three key reasons for the uptick, according to a Social Security official: The start of the peak 65 baby boom, a massive surge of Americans turning 65 years old Implementation of the Social Security Fairness Act, which increased benefits for certain workers receiving pensions from jobs not covered by Social Security Improved outreach notifying spouses of Social Security beneficiaries that they may be eligible for a higher benefit Blahous acknowledged that the three factors are real but thinks 'the jury's still out' on how much of the recent rise is due to anxiety about the program's future. Another possibility is that stock market volatility, partly driven by Trump's ever-changing trade policies, temporarily lowered the balances of millions of retirement accounts and prompted some older Americans to claim their more reliable Social Security benefits earlier than planned. Americans can start collecting Social Security retirement benefits as early as age 62, but that doesn't mean they should. Claiming before full retirement age permanently reduces monthly benefits, which is why waiting often makes more financial sense. It's even more concerning when that decision is driven by fear about the program's future rather than a careful assessment of personal circumstances. 'It's basically an irrevocable decision, which is all the more reason why people should be very cautious about when they make it,' Blahous said. When is the best age to take Social Security? Someone who turns 62 in 2025 would see their monthly benefit lowered by about 30% versus what it would be at their full retirement age of 67. On the other hand, those who delay claiming until after their full retirement age receive an 8% increase for each year they wait, up to age 70. That can amount to thousands of dollars. In 2025, the maximum Social Security benefit is $2,831 for someone retiring at 62, but it rises to $5,108 for those retiring at 70. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
New Jersey's field for governor is set. It will be a test of Trump's appeal
Democrat Mikie Sherrill and Republican Jack Ciattarelli will face off for New Jersey's governorship in November following a historic primary election. Sherrill, a four-term congressmember, prevailed over five high-profile and often well-funded opponents. Ciattarelli, the 2021 Republican nominee for governor who came within 3 points of ousting incumbent Democrat Phil Murphy,easily defeated his four rivals. The primary was the most expensive in New Jersey history, with more than $120 million spent over two years of campaigning, and the first in 44 years without a ballot design that gave party bosses extraordinary influence. Nevertheless, the Democratic and Republican establishments, who in the main backed Sherrill and Ciattarelli, came out on top. The general election will be watched nationally as a test of Trump's appeal in a traditionally blue state that he lost by a closer-than-expected six points last year. Only one other state, Virginia, has a gubernatorial election this year, so both states' outcomes in November will also be read for clues into next year's midterms. Ciattarelli thanked Trump for his support in his victory speech, but then turned his attention to Sherrill. "If this campaign were a drinking game and you took a shot every time Mikie Sherill says Trump, you'd be drunk off your ass every day between now and November 4th," he said. Sherrill called Ciattarelli a "Trump lackey" in her victory speech. "'I'm ready to shake up the status quo and Jack is the status quo. He's not change, he's a re-run. He's a ghost of elections past.' The results show New Jersey's traditional political party machines were still able to perform without the 'county line' — a structure used for decades by party leaders that gave the candidates they endorsed favorable placement on the primary ballot. That follows a judge's 2024 decision to toss the line in the Democratic primary and a new law mandating office block ballots for both parties, similar to those used in every other state. Among the Democrats, Sherrill had long been the frontrunner, but not the prohibitive one. With the backing of many but not all of New Jersey's county leaders, the four-term former Navy helicopter pilot and former federal prosecutor has found herself her opponents' top target for allying with power brokers in Democratic-rich counties in North and Central Jersey. She defeated Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop, Rep. Josh Gottheimer, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, New Jersey Education Association President Sean Spiller and former Senate President Steve Sweeney. But Sherrill projected herself as the top general election candidate early, using the last few weeks of the primary to reinforce Republican frontrunner Jack Ciattarelli's association with Trump and touting legislation she introduced in April to require Elon Musk and top DOGE staff to take drug tests. 'MAGA's coming for New Jersey, with Trump -endorsed Republican Jack Ciattarelli. We've gotta stop them,' says a recent Sherrill ad. Sherrill faced the most caustic criticism from Fulop, the longtime mayor of Jersey City who eschewed the political bosses he once courted and has run to Sherrill's left with aggressive and detailed policy plans, including support for the type of suburban residential development that has proven a liability for Democrats in general elections. He called her 'Tammy 2.0,' referring to First Lady Tammy Murphy's dropped bid for U.S. Senator last year that stirred resentment in the party base, and criticized her for refusing to 'take any position that is risky.' Ras Baraka, the mayor of Newark, also ran to Sherrill's left and appealed to Democrats by aggressively challenging the Trump administration, resulting in his widely-condemned trespassing arrest at a Newark ICE facility last month. The arrest gave him massive publicity, but it failed to propel him to the top of the field, and his fundraising lagged his rivals. Sweeney and Gottheimer ran more moderate campaigns, with Sweeney voting to repeal New Jersey's policy that limits local law enforcement's cooperation with immigration authorities and Gottheimer pledging to cut property taxes by 15 percent. Meanwhile, Sean Spiller, the former mayor of Montclair and president of the 200,000-member New Jersey Education Association, ran a campaign with progressive messaging fueled almost exclusively by a super PAC funded with $40 million from his union, making it by far the most expensive of any candidate's effort. The size of the field and their extensive resources led to the most expensive statewide primary in decades. That was largely because of progressives' successful challenge of the county line last year. While this was the second Democratic primary not to feature it (and the first Republican one), the 2024 U.S. Senate primary was over before a judge barred the line since Murphy dropped out and effectively handed the party nomination to Andy Kim. The Republican primary was nothing like the Democratic one. Two of the main candidates, former radio host Bill Spadea and Ciattarelli, spent most of it competing as much for an endorsement of Trump as they did appealing to the state's 1.6 million registered Republicans. The other, state Sen. Jon Bramnick, ran as an anti-Trump Republican. Spadea, who has long aired anti-vaccine conspiracy theories and cast doubt on the results of the 2020 election, appeared to be in the running for Trump's endorsement. Ciattarelli had in 2015 called Trump a 'charlatan' and, while he gradually warmed to him, largely sought to avoid association with him in his 2021 campaign. But Ciattarelli recently expressed unbridled support for Trump, while his allies dug through thousands of hours of Spadea's programs to find Trump criticism. They also highlighted fundraising and poll results that showed Ciattarelli way ahead. It culminated with an ebullient Ciattarelli getting a photo op sit down with Trump at his golf club in Bedminster. Not to be outdone, Spadea showed up the next day and met with Trump in the golf club's hallway, but did not post a photo of the encounter. It paid off for Ciattarelli with a Trump endorsement, writing on Truth Social that 'Jack, who after getting to know and understand MAGA, has gone ALL IN, and is now 100% (PLUS!)' Spadea sought to reassure disappointed supporters by saying Trump 'endorsed a poll, not a plan' in Ciattarelli. But most political observers counted that as the end of the Republican primary, and subsequent events showed it. Spadea has struggled in fundraising, earning only about half of the matching funds he was eligible for from the state. New Jersey's off-year general election in November — along with Virginia — will be read as a bellwether for the 2026 midterms. While Democrats have an 800,000 registered voter advantage over Republicans, New Jersey voters have often been willing to elect Republicans as governor. And the GOP in recent years has gained more than 100,000 voters, while Trump's relatively close loss in the state in 2024 has given Republicans hope of taking the governorship. Daniel Han and Dustin Racioppi contributed to this article.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Arizona Gov. Hobbs vetoes antisemitism bill, citing 'attack' on public schools
Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed a bill that would have allowed students and their parents to sue K-12 and university teachers and potentially make them pay damages for teaching or promoting antisemitism. Hobbs announced the veto of House Bill 2867 in a letter June 10. In it, she said the bill was "not about antisemitism" but rather, "it's about attacking our teachers. It puts an unacceptable level of personal liability in place for our public school, community college, and university educators and staff, opening them up to threats of personally costly lawsuits." She rebuked the Legislature, writing, "It is disappointing to yet again see this Legislature single out and attack our public education system." The governor said despite the veto, she continues to stand with the Jewish community against hate and remains "committed to fighting antisemitism in all its forms." Students who experience antisemitism in the classroom already can report unprofessional conduct to the State Board of Education, Hobbs said. She said she was "confident that by using those tools, we can fulfill our moral and legal responsibility to eradicate hate and discrimination in our public school system." Hobbs also pointed to several Jewish groups that opposed the bill, including the National Council of Jewish Women Arizona, the Tucson Jewish Museum & Holocaust Center and the Rabbi Joseph H. Gumbiner Community Action Project. HB 2867 would have prohibited teachers, administrators, contractors and volunteers at K-12 public schools and public or private universities from: teaching or promoting antisemitism; requiring students to advocate for anti-Semitic points of view; and receiving professional development "in any antisemitism" that creates a "discriminatory" or "hostile" environment. The proposal provoked concern from public-school advocates about exacerbating the teacher shortage and had raised red flags about First Amendment violations due to what the proposed law considered "antisemitism." The Arizona Education Association, the main teachers' union in the state, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona had urged Hobbs, a Democrat, to veto the bill. The teacher's union said the bill "weaponizes legitimate concerns about antisemitism to attack public education" by stripping teachers of professional liability protections. The ACLU said it would "chill the First Amendment rights of students, teachers, speakers and administrators" and target those who criticized Israel. The bill included specific examples of speech the state would have prohibited, which a Federal District Court in Texas said amounted to "viewpoint discrimination that chills speech in violation of the First Amendment" when used to punish university students. Arizona's bill mostly applied to teachers, but one provision targeted university student groups — a fact First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh said was "pretty clearly unconstitutional." Supporters of the bill, such as sponsor Rep. Michael Way, R-Queen Creek, said it was needed because existing anti-discrimination laws "either weren't clear enough or didn't contain the necessary enforcement mechanism to address this problem." Rep. Alma Hernandez, a Democrat from Tucson and co-sponsor of the bill, was another vocal proponent of the legislation. Neither she nor Way immediately responded to requests for comment regarding Hobbs' veto. Could teachers be sued? Under a bill on Hobbs' desk, Ariz. teachers could be sued for what they say in classroom Taylor Seely is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at The Arizona Republic / Do you have a story about the government infringing on your First Amendment rights? Reach her at tseely@ or by phone at 480-476-6116. Seely's role is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Arizona Gov. Hobbs says antisemitism bill an 'attack' on schools
