New Mexico AG Torrez questions TXNM stock sale to Blackstone - Justin Horwath, Albuquerque Journal
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez in a filing Thursday said the sale of $400 million worth of TXNM Energy Inc. stock to an affiliate of Blackstone Inc. in 2025 may have violated a state law requiring New Mexico regulators to approve utility mergers.
“This acquisition must proceed in full compliance with the law,” Torrez said in a statement released Thursday. “State law requires oversight when public utility stock is issued in connection with a transaction like this. We are asking the Commission to ensure that all legal requirements are satisfied and that the public interest remains the guiding priority.”
In August, TXNM, the parent company of the state’s largest provider of electric power, Public Service Company of New Mexico, and Blackstone Infrastructure jointly asked the state’s Public Regulation Commission to approve Blackstone’s proposed acquisition of TXNM for $11.5 billion. That shakes out to $61.25 per share, higher than the $50 per share price of the stock sale at issue.
The proposal for Blackstone to acquire TXNM has sparked public outcry about how one of the world’s largest private equity firms will steward the electric grid that serves some 550,000 New Mexicans.
Torrez made the utility filing in support of a separate Feb. 6 motion filed by Prosperity Works, an Albuquerque nonprofit whose mission is to support New Mexicans living on limited incomes. Prosperity Works initially raised questions about the stock sale earlier this month, arguing that state law requires “prior express Commission authorization for transactions associated with [utility] acquisitions … which has never been obtained.”
The stock sale, which gave the Blackstone affiliate an ownership of 7.59% of TXNM’s outstanding shares, is therefore void and will “likely have severe consequences,” according to Prosperity Works. The nonprofit asked New Mexico’s three PRC commissioners to order TXNM and Blackstone to explain why the transaction does not violate state law and further explain the consequences of the sale on the proposed merger.
Prosperity Works’ filing said if the companies fail to obtain authorization for the sale, “the conclusion must be that Blackstone and its affiliates cannot be trusted to abide by New Mexico law.”
“This should weigh heavily in the Commission’s evaluation of whether it can adequately protect customers and preserve its jurisdiction if the merger is approved,” Prosperity Works added in a reference to the proposed acquisition.
Officials with Blackstone and PNM insisted that the stock sale did not require PRC approval because it was made independent of the proposal for Blackstone to acquire TXNM.
TXNM is using the proceeds of the sale to fund capital projects authorized in the utility’s budget, according to its filing.
“Prosperity Works’ position conflicts with the text, structure, and purpose of the Public Utility Act, serves no regulatory purpose, and threatens utilities’ access to capital,” Paula Chirhart, managing director of global and corporate affairs for Blackstone, said in an email. “Under their interpretation, even the purchase of a single share of utility stock without any control rights by anyone affiliated with a utility would require preemptive Commission approval — an outcome inconsistent with the statute’s language and unsupported by decades of Commission practice.”
Lisa Goodman, vice president for investor and community relations, echoed that argument in an email and added that “Prosperity Works’ position would ultimately raise costs for PNM customers by limiting New Mexico utilities’ financing options.”
Torrez, however, disagreed with the utility’s argument that the stock sale was unrelated to the proposal for Blackstone to acquire the utility.
“This is not a neutral investment,” the filing said. “The record shows the stock purchase was integrated with the merger and used to secure votes in favor of the acquisition. Such actions demand Commission review to preserve transparency and protect ratepayers.”
New Mexico reopens investigation into alleged illegal activity at Epstein's former Zorro Ranch - By Susan Montoya Bryan, Associated Press
New Mexico's attorney general has reopened an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein 's former Zorro Ranch, as allegations swirl about what role the secluded spot played in sexual abuse or sex trafficking of underage girls and young women.
Attorney General Raúl Torrez's office said Thursday that the decision was made after reviewing information recently released by the U.S. Justice Department.
Although New Mexico's initial case was closed in 2019 at the request of federal prosecutors in New York, state prosecutors say now that "revelations outlined in the previously sealed FBI files warrant further examination."
The New Mexico Department of Justice said special agents and prosecutors at the agency will be seeking immediate access to the complete, unredacted federal case file and intend to work with other law enforcement partners as well as a new truth commission established by state lawmakers to look into activities at the ranch.
"As with any potential criminal matter, we will follow the facts wherever they lead, carefully evaluate jurisdictional considerations, and take appropriate investigative action, including the collection and preservation of any relevant evidence that remains available," the New Mexico Department of Justice said in a statement.
The investigation was one of several major developments in the continuing fallout from the release of the federal government's so-called Epstein files. Earlier Thursday, British police arrested the former Prince Andrew on suspicion of misconduct in public office related to his links to the late sex offender.
Renewed efforts to investigate the sex trafficking allegations
In Washington, D.C., members of Congress are still working to lift the veil with more testimony from powerful people.
On Thursday, video was released of a six-hour deposition of billionaire retail mogul Les Wexner. In it, Wexner remains defiant that he didn't know of or participate in Epstein's crimes, and he doubles down on the fact that the two "weren't friends."
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is scheduled to appear before the same House Oversight Committee next week, with former President Bill Clinton following the next day.
In New Mexico, the state's truth commission had its first meeting Tuesday. Aside from looking into the abuse and trafficking allegations, New Mexico lawmakers want to know why Epstein was not registered as a sex offender in the state after pleading guilty in 2008 in Florida to soliciting prostitution from an underage girl and whether there was corruption among public officials.
Epstein never faced charges in New Mexico, but state prosecutors confirmed in 2019 that they had interviewed possible victims who visited the ranch south of Santa Fe. They never elaborated on how many accusers were interviewed or what they say took place at the ranch.
Also Thursday, lawyers for Epstein accusers said they've reached a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit against his estate — the latest effort to compensate his victims. Pending a judge's approval, Epstein's estate would pay between $25 million and $35 million, depending on how many victims qualify for the settlement.
The estate previously paid 136 claimants a total of $121 million via its Epstein Victims Compensation Program and paid more than $48 million to settle claims from 59 other victims, court records show.
Property is under new ownership
Epstein purchased the sprawling Zorro Ranch in New Mexico in 1993 from former Democratic Gov. Bruce King and built a hilltop mansion. Nearby was a private airstrip with a hangar and helipad. The property also included a ranch office, a firehouse and a seven-bay heated garage.
The property was sold by Epstein's estate in 2023 — with proceeds going toward creditors — to the family of Don Huffines, a Republican running for state comptroller in Texas. In a social media post on X, Huffines said the property has been renamed San Rafael Ranch after a saint associated with healing and that his family plans to operate a Christian retreat there.
A spokesperson for Huffines has said that the owners have never been approached by local, state or federal law enforcement requesting access to the ranch and if they do, full cooperation will be granted.
Ranch appears many times in released documents
There are thousands of references to the ranch in the documents released by federal authorities.
Former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat, was among the guests to have visited the ranch. Following one of the early investigations into the disgraced financier, Richardson donated $50,000 in 2006 gubernatorial campaign contributions from Epstein to charity.
Emails and schedules recently released by federal authorities also show a long list of entrepreneurs, actors and scientists who were invited to the ranch over the years, including Woody Allen, Robert Redford, Reid Hoffman, Joi Ito and Peter Thiel.
New Mexico Land Commissioner Stephanie Garcia Richard canceled grazing leases held by the ranch in 2019 after her office was denied access to inspect the nearly 2 square miles (5 square kilometers) of leased state land.
Garcia Richard in a letter sent last week called on federal authorities and state prosecutors to ensure a thorough criminal investigation into allegations related to the ranch. She called the allegations "deeply disturbing."
In 2019 after Epstein's death, a woman identified as Jane Doe said in court that he had molested her at Zorro Ranch in 2004, when she was 15. The woman recalled feeling small and powerless, describing how he laid her on the floor so she was confronted by all the framed photographs on his dresser of him smiling with wealthy celebrities and politicians.
"People deserve to know the truth about what happened on Epstein's ranch and are looking to leaders for answers," Garcia Richard said in a statement.
___
Associated Press writers Sean Murphy in Oklahoma City, Michael R. Sisak in New York and Julie Carr Smyth in Columbus, Ohio, contributed.
Cellphone ban dies; literacy and teacher health insurance bills head to governor's desk - Natalie Robbins, Albuquerque Journal
A bill that would have banned cellphone use in schools across New Mexico stalled at the finish line of the state Legislature.
Senate Bill 23, sponsored by Sens. Crystal Brantley, R-Elephant Butte, and Antonio “Moe” Maestas, D-Albuquerque, faltered in the House of Representatives after passing the Senate 32-6 late Sunday night.
“We were actually pretty surprised,” Brantley said after the Legislature adjourned Thursday. “(The bill) passed the Senate chamber with heavy bipartisan support.”
Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham also listed the cellphone ban as one of her priorities for the session in her state of the state address last month.
The House Education Committee did not meet Wednesday, so it did not take up the bill before the end of the legislative session Thursday, which would have been necessary for the legislation to move forward.
“It got hung up over in the House because House Education, just in the final week, refused to meet,” Brantley said. “There really hasn't been an explanation as to why. I know the (Public Education Department) secretary was pushing hard (for the bill), and we're all pretty disappointed that that wasn't at least blasted to the floor.”
House Education Chair Rep. G. Andrés Romero, D-Albuquerque, said the committee didn't meet because legislators typically get tied up on the floor toward the end of a session. Romero said though he wouldn't necessarily have been supportive of the cellphone ban, he hopes to be able to explore the issue further.
New Mexico already has a law requiring school districts to adopt a policy on the use of cellphones after last year's passage of Senate Bill 11, also sponsored by Brantley and Maestas. Under the current law, schools do not have to completely ban phones, though some may choose to.
“The school districts are able to implement the policy that they see fit,” Romero said. “I think implementing a statewide ban is something we need to look at in the interim and really give some thought and bring all the stakeholders to the table to talk about.”
The passage of SB 23 would have made New Mexico the 27th state in the country to ban cellphones in schools, according to Brantley.
“This is a national trend that is taking place across America,” Brantley told the Senate Education Committee during a hearing. “It is a bipartisan effort.”
The bill would have banned all devices capable of taking photographs or recording video and would have mandated that schools establish policies for confiscating and storing the devices. Up to $1 million in state funding would have been available for lockable pouches to keep phones during the day.
SB 23 received support from the state Public Education, Higher Education and Early Childhood Education and Care departments, as well as multiple education policy groups and both New Mexico teachers unions.
Though no one formally opposed the measure in the Senate committee hearing, several senators showed reservations, including Sen. William Soules, D-Las Cruces, a former teacher, who called the ban “totally unenforceable” and argued that it was an overreach of state authority.
“Good teachers rarely have a problem with devices in classrooms,” Soules said.
House Speaker Javier Martínez, D-Albuquerque, said in a Thursday news conference the proposed cellphone ban did not arrive at the House until the final days of this year's 30-day legislative session. Martínez told reporters the idea would be scrutinized by House leaders in the run-up to next year's 60-day session.
Though it stalled this year, Brantley said she would “be happy to” sponsor a similar bill in the future under a new governor.
“It's something that's important to me,” she said. “I hope that it is discussed in the interim, because we know that New Mexico's education system can use all the help it can get.”
Literacy and school employee benefits bills pass
A bill that would bolster literacy instruction in schools and another that would lower health insurance premiums for teachers both cleared the Legislature and will advance to Lujan Grisham’s desk for her signature.
Senate Bill 37, a measure that would set a grade-specific reading assessment system for kindergarten through third grade, passed unanimously in the Senate at the end of last month and unanimously in the House on Thursday morning.
SB 37 would set guidelines on reading instruction materials, require teachers to be trained in literacy instruction, and would assign a literacy coach to elementary schools with low average reading proficiency.
The measure is a companion bill to Senate Bill 29, legislation aimed at improving math instruction that cleared both the House and Senate.
Public school employees will also get cheaper health insurance premiums if the governor signs House Bill 47, which passed both chambers of the Legislature unanimously.
The bill requires employers to pay at least 80% of health insurance premiums, giving school workers parity with other state employees, who have had this benefit since last year.
The governor has until March 11 to sign legislation, or it will be automatically vetoed.
Journal Capitol Bureau Chief Dan Boyd contributed to this report.
Dems push to revert to earlier immigration policy to rein in Trump’s crackdown - Ariana Figueroa, States Newsroom
As they seek to curb President Donald Trump’s aggressive approach to immigration enforcement, congressional Democrats are looking to formalize some guidelines previous administrations used.
Of the 10 policy proposals Democratic leaders offered in negotiations to reopen the Department of Homeland Security, which has been in a funding lapse since Feb. 14 in the midst of widespread uproar over the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens by immigration officers in Minneapolis last month, seven have been employed in at least some form by previous administrations.
Democrats are asking the Trump administration to reinstate policies it has rejected in its controversial push to carry out mass deportations. Prior policies Democrats want to formalize include use-of-force standards, allowing unannounced visits by members of Congress to facilities that detain immigrants and obtaining judicial warrants before entering private residences.
“Many of the things the Democrats are asking for are to revert to prior policies,” said Theresa Cardinal Brown, a senior DHS official during the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations. “Some of them are responding to the ways this administration is carrying out its operations that previous administrations did not.”
Formalizing the policies in law, as part of a deal to pass a fiscal 2026 funding bill for the department, would make them more permanent.
“Policies and guidance … apply as the current leadership applies them,” Cardinal Brown said. “They’re not absolutes, and they can be changed much more frequently.”
But an agreement between congressional Democrats and the White House on changes to immigration enforcement appears elusive. The White House’s response to the proposals was “incomplete and insufficient,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a Feb. 9 statement.
No recent movement on negotiations
Democrats late Monday sent over a counterproposal to Republicans and the White House, but did not make public what those changes were, according to a statement from party leaders.
While there is bipartisan support for some of the proposals, like requiring body-worn cameras, others, such as barring immigration agents from wearing face coverings and requiring judicial warrants to enter private property, have been rejected outright by the Trump administration.
A White House official said the “Trump Administration remains interested in having good faith conversations with the Democrats.”
“President Trump has been clear – he wants the government open,” according to the White House official.
Even with the department shut down, immigration enforcement will continue, due to $170 billion in funding in the massive tax cuts and spending package Trump signed into law last year.
Democrats’ proposals do not include consequences if DHS doesn’t comply, which raises an issue of effectiveness, said Heidi Altman, vice president of policy at the National Immigration Law Center, an advocacy group that aims to provide free or low-cost legal services for immigrants.
“When Congress is negotiating policy measures, are they also putting teeth to those policy measures, and are they yanking away the funds that we know ICE and CBP will use to violate guardrails to begin with?” Altman said.
Changes demanded after Minneapolis deaths
After Renee Good was shot and killed by immigration officer Jonathan Ross on Jan. 7, lawmakers amended the Homeland Security funding bill to add guardrails, such as appropriating $20 million for body cameras and adding a requirement for DHS to report how funds from the tax cuts and spending package are being spent.
But a second death in Minnesota, that of intensive care unit nurse Alex Pretti on Jan. 24, spurred Democrats to reject funding for DHS without stronger policy changes to the enforcement tactics used by immigration officers at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection.
Only three of the 10 proposals from Schumer and Jeffries, both of New York, would be entirely new.
They are: prohibiting ICE and other immigration enforcement agents from wearing face coverings, barring racial profiling after the Supreme Court cleared the way for the practice last year, and standardizing uniforms of DHS agents.
The heads of ICE and CBP rejected Democrats’ request to have their immigration officers forgo face coverings when asked during an oversight hearing before the House Homeland Security Committee last week.
Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons and CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott, along with congressional Republicans, have argued that masks and face coverings prevent their officers from being doxed.
Local cooperation
Other proposals, including barring of immigration enforcement of so-called sensitive locations such as religious places, child care facilities, hospitals and schools, would expand previous DHS guidance that restricted enforcement in such places.
The Democratic proposal calls for enforcement to be prohibited at those sensitive locations. Prior guidance allowed for the practice on a limited basis.
Then-acting ICE Director Caleb Vitello rescinded the policy shortly after President Donald Trump took office in January last year. There are several lawsuits brought by religious groups challenging the move by the Trump administration.
A requirement that immigration officials gain permission from local and state governments before undertaking large enforcement operations like the one in Minneapolis would build on previous policies of federal-local cooperation.
But that measure would be a long shot, Cardinal Brown said.
“I think that’s going to be a hard one,” she said. “The federal government has the authority to enforce immigration law anywhere in the country it wishes.”
She said a more realistic option would be for the federal government to inform or coordinate with local authorities for large-scale immigration operations.
Another proposed requirement that DHS officials present identification also builds on a previous policy.
Another proposal builds on DHS policy of targeted enforcement by ending “indiscriminate arrests,” without warrants.
Under current immigration law, if an officer encounters a person believed to be in the U.S. unlawfully and can escape before a warrant is obtained, a warrantless arrest is lawful.
Democrats want to increase standards on the forms ICE uses to authorize an arrest. These administrative forms are not signed by a judge but instead by an ICE employee.
Judicial warrants
The remaining proposals would revert DHS policies to those in place under prior administrations’ guidance. Those include use-of-force standards, use of body cameras when interacting with the public, allowing members of Congress unannounced oversight visits at detention centers that hold immigrants and requiring a judicial warrant to enter private property.
An internal ICE memo, obtained by The Associated Press, showed that Lyons instructed ICE agents to enter private residences without a judicial warrant – a departure from longstanding DHS policy.
“This judicial warrant issue is so disturbing,” said Ben Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, or AILA.
He said the question of whether a warrant is needed to enter private property was already decided under the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment.
“The fact that it’s being discussed now is really frightening,” Johnson said.
Body cameras
Providing funds for DHS to acquire body cameras for immigration officers is one proposal Democrats and Republicans seem to have agreed on.
Earlier this month, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced that body cameras would be provided to all immigration agents in Minneapolis, and said that as “funding is available, the body camera program will be expanded nationwide.”
During an oversight hearing on Capitol Hill, Lyons said about 3,000 ICE officers currently have body cameras with another 6,000 cameras on the way. Scott said roughly 10,000 Border Patrol agents, about half the total force, have body cameras.
But body cameras are not a guarantee against misconduct, Altman said.
CBP officials were wearing body cameras when Pretti was shot and killed. Scott said that footage would be released after the investigation is over.
“We see officers in the field right now wearing body-worn cameras engaging in abuse and violence on the daily,” Altman said.
Oversight visits
One of the proposals would also end a DHS policy to require members of Congress to provide seven-day notice of oversight visits at facilities that hold immigrants, despite a 2019 appropriations law that allows for unannounced visits.
Since last summer, several lawmakers have been denied oversight visits at ICE facilities prompting them to sue in federal court.
On the day funding for DHS lapsed, Feb. 14, the Department of Justice submitted a brief, noting that because of the shutdown, unannounced oversight visits by lawmakers can be denied.
The administration argued that during the shutdown, immigration enforcement has been funded by the tax cuts and spending bill, which does not include language allowing unannounced visits, rather than regular appropriations.
“There is no lawful basis for the Court to enjoin Defendants’ conduct so long as the restricted funds have lapsed,” according to the document.