The New Mexican

Attorneys for House Speaker Brian Egolf submitted a motion Friday to dismiss an ethics complaint filed by a retired judge who claimed the Santa Fe Democrat stands to benefit if the New Mexico Civil Rights Act becomes law.

Egolf’s 24-page motion argues the complaint — filed earlier this month with the State Ethics Commission by former judge Sandra Price, who served 12 years on the bench in the 11th Judicial District — should be dismissed because it is frivolous, unsubstantiated, and doesn’t state a “claim upon which relief can be granted.”

In a brief statement, Egolf said he looks forward to the State Ethics Commission’s decision.

House Bill 4 would create the New Mexico Civil Rights Act. It has passed the House and is making its way through the Senate committee process. If passed by the Senate and signed by the governor, the legislation would allow people to file complaints in state District Court against government violations of the state Bill of Rights. Currently, such cases are filed in federal court and cite violations of the U.S. Constitution.

In her complaint, Price claimed Egolf, an attorney, should have disclosed civil rights cases are among those his Santa Fe firm handles.

In the motion to dismiss, Egolf’s attorneys, Andrew Schultz and Linda Vanzi, argued there is no basis to conclude the enactment of HB 4 constitutes “a current or potential conflict of interest.”

“The complaint disregards the fact that New Mexico has a part-time ‘citizen legislature’ in which many (if not most) legislators have jobs in a variety of professions,” Schultz and Vanzi wrote in the motion. “Legislators are medical professionals who, in the course of representing the citizens who elected them, are called upon to act on legislation concerning medical issues and practice. They are farmers who act in a legislative capacity on legislation affecting agriculture. ... And they are attorneys who act in a legislative capacity on legislation that might become a law that one day might be the subject of future litigation.”

Schultz said Price’s claim that passage of the bill would automatically benefit Egolf — or any attorney serving in the Legislature — is misguided.

“It ignores the realties of the legislative process and the litigation process,” he said.

Reached by phone, Price said she had reviewed Egolf’s documents. She said that in filing her original complaint, she did not realize legislators, who are not paid for their service, were exempt from the state’s conflict-of-interest statutes regarding governmental officials.

Noting the contention that farmer/legislators may end up voting on bills that affect the agricultural industry as a whole, she said: “But this is much closer for him [Egolf]. He is an attorney pushing a bill directly tied to cases his firm handles.”

Still, she said, “If he’s right and what he is doing is perfectly fine, or if I’m right — that’s the commission’s decision. I’m glad they’re there to look at those things.”

(2) comments

Stefanie Beninato

Seems like Price, a former district court judge, should have done a little more research. And yes, this bill could benefit Egolf and other plaintiffs' attorneys but as pointed out, people in agriculture get to vote on agriculture bills including appropriations, and so do people in the medical field, the insurance field, liquor licensee holders etc. I am more concerned that Egolf took undue advantage of a pandemic loan but then again look at the megabuck corporations, many of whom, were Individual #1 supporters, who got millions from these programs. This issue, however, is a federal issue and the question is did Egolf improperly apply for and receive the loan--and the PPP program is a loan (yes, it can be forgiven under certain circumstances)--not a grant-- as far as I can tell.

William Craig


“. . . Egolf's law firm . . . received PPP loans in the first round. He said it got ‘about $240,000’ on April 9, [2020] . . . ‘We applied for [it] because it was available,’ . . . Egolf said. ‘Any business would be foolish not to participate in this program . . .’ ”

Our great leaders don’t like to be disturbed while they gorge themselves, which is why they like keeping fences around the capitols.

Maybe they should add zoo-style signs to their cages: “Please don’t feed the critters — they’re already stuffed.”

Welcome to the discussion.

Thank you for joining the conversation on Please familiarize yourself with the community guidelines. Avoid personal attacks: Lively, vigorous conversation is welcomed and encouraged, insults, name-calling and other personal attacks are not. No commercial peddling: Promotions of commercial goods and services are inappropriate to the purposes of this forum and can be removed. Respect copyrights: Post citations to sources appropriate to support your arguments, but refrain from posting entire copyrighted pieces. Be yourself: Accounts suspected of using fake identities can be removed from the forum.