in Focus is provided by viewers like you.

>>Nash: This week on New Mexico in Focus, a three term incumbent and a political newcomer want your vote for the state's first Congressional district.

>>Stansbury: We need to reverse course and restore health care and food assistance and educational assistance for all New Mexicans.

>>Okpareke: I think a lot of people see Medicaid and their reliance upon the system, and they don't necessarily have to be because they can contribute to society.

>>Nash: And we introduce you to one of the candidates vying to run the state's voting system.

As Election day draws near.

New Mexico in focus starts now.

Thanks for joining us as we continue our coverage of the 2026 general election here in New Mexico.

Tonight, we are going to dive into two key contests the race for Congressional District one and for Secretary of State.

So throughout the month, we have been able to bring you interviews with both candidates for each seat back to back in the same show, but with tonight being our second to last episode before Election Day on November 3rd.

Space is at a premium, so rather than bring you fewer candidate interviews, we decided to show you the candidates for Secretary of State across two different episodes.

So this week, you're going to hear from the Democratic nominee to become the state's next top election official, Amanda López Askin.

And next week, join us right here as we sit down with her Republican opponent, Ramona Goolsby.

In considering who would go first, we factored in polling that had López Askin up by 12 points in August fundraising totals, where she raised more than three times as much as Goolsby and the jobs recent Partisan history.

Democratic Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver has held the post for the last decade, but we begin tonight with both candidates for CD1.

Incumbent Democratic U.S.

Representative Melanie Stansbury and her Republican challenger, Ndidiamaka Didi Okpareke.

While the district comprises much of the Albuquerque Metro, it was redrawn in 2021 to stretch as far east as Santa Rosa and Fort Sumner and clear down to Ruidoso It's the bluest of the state's three districts, according to the Cook Political Report.

Partizan Voting Index, which has Democrats performing about seven points better there than in the nation as a whole in the last two presidential elections.

If Stansbury wins, she will be the first Democrat in district history to get reelected for a third time.

But it's not because her predecessors lost.

Instead, the seats proven to be a strong springboard before Stansbury came.

Former Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, who's now the Democratic nominee for governor.

Prior to Haaland, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, held the seat, which she took over from.

Now, Senator Martin Heinrich.

The last Republican to represent the district was Heather Wilson back in 2008.

Okpareke is hoping to change that, but the first time candidate has a good sized hill to climb to unseat Stansbury, who led by 18 points in this month's Albuquerque Journal poll.

Now, with that background in mind, let's hear from the candidates, starting with Democratic incumbent U.S.

Representative Melanie Stansbury.

>> Nash: Congresswoman, welcome to New Mexico in Focus, thanks for being here.

>> Stansbury: It's great to be here.

>> Nash: So you serve on two House committees, Natural Resources as well as oversight and government reform.

I'd like to kind of focus on those two as as umbrella areas for some of your policy positions as we go through it, starting with oversight.

You've been an outspoken critic of the Trump administration's handling of the Epstein Files.

The documents that the Justice Department has released are woefully incomplete.

The ones we have seen are heavily redacted.

Additionally, no one in the US has been charged as a result of them.

What actions have you taken to pursue justice for Jeffrey Epstein's victims, and how will you proceed if reelected?

>> Stansbury: Yeah, well, the number one priority is getting justice for the survivors.

And what we have seen time and time again is that this administration has actively obstructed this investigation.

They've defied congressional subpoenas, which we voted for in the oversight committee.

They failed to appear before the committee to testify on the investigations that they're doing.

They have actively defied the law and the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and they have actually used the white House Situation Room with cabinet officials at the behest of the president to try to bury this case.

And what we know is that the president himself is potentially implicated in this case, and we know that there are numerous individuals out there who've been accused of crimes, who've not been fully investigated, and who need to be investigated and potentially prosecuted.

And so what comes next is that we have to we have to pass the Epstein Files Transparency Act 2.0.

Mike Johnson actually canceled votes before the election to try to stop that.

We will take that up when we come back right after the election.

And frankly, we need to turn the Epstein files into Epstein trials, and we need a DOJ that's going to prosecute this case.

And that means winning back the House, winning back the white House, and putting a DOJ in place that's going to do its job.

And prosecuting those cases here in New Mexico where we can.

>> Nash: Additionally, over the summer, the AP and the Albuquerque Journal reported that the DEA allowed hundreds of thousands of fentanyl pills to reach the city streets of Albuquerque without intervening.

You led the congressional delegation in writing a letter to the DEA, as well as to the House committees of Oversight and Judiciary, demanding answers and accountability.

What's come of those efforts?

>> Stansbury: I mean, at the current moment, nothing, because the Trump administration has blocked this investigation.

They failed to respond in a timely manner.

And frankly, we have a DOJ that is more concerned with going after who Donald Trump perceives as his opponents than actually going after individuals who may have harmed our communities.

Myself and Senator Lujan spent a lot of time on the phone a few weeks ago at the DEA, and what we heard was excuse after excuse without any accountability whatsoever.

Now, for me, this is a very personal issue.

I lost one of my best friends from high school to a fentanyl overdose.

I've lost multiple members of my family to fentanyl overdoses and to alcohol abuse.

And so addiction and flooding our streets with fentanyl is deeply personal to me.

And I know myself and the entire New Mexico delegation want accountability.

We demand justice, and we need to get that fentanyl off our streets.

And we're going to pursue this case and continue to hold their feet to the fire.

>> Nash: Is there a 1 or 2 top questions that you have that remain around this tactic of walking fentanyl into Albuquerque, what would they be?

>> Stansbury: Well, we asked the DEA, is this a policy that is still happening?

And they said yes, every day.

And so myself and Senator Lujan, and I'm sure the rest of the delegation are going to aggressively pursue not only answers, but changing the law, because if this is their policy, we have to stop it.

>> Nash: Continuing with oversight, the House passed two War Powers Resolution related to the war in Iran, a war that Congress didn't authorize.

The one failed in the Senate.

What do you expect in terms of bipartisanship in Congress after the election is behind us?

And how could that impact either more oversight of the war by Congress or even bringing it to an end?

>> Stansbury: Yeah, well, I believe this is one of the most disastrous policies that this administration has pursued.

And frankly, we know that not only did Donald Trump not pursue it through appropriate authorization by Congress, it was done unconstitutionally.

It was done illegally.

They lied to the American public, and they have sent our sons and daughters off to die for a war that the American people don't want.

We know that over a thousand civilians have been murdered.

We know that we've lost dozens of U.S.

service members.

Hundreds have been have been wounded.

We've lost capabilities and dozens of our bases in the Middle East.

And we've lost our standing and integrity on the international, you know, national security scene.

And so this has been a disastrous war.

It's raising costs, and it's literally harming every single New Mexican every day.

So we need to end the war.

We need for the war powers to actually be enforced.

And frankly, we need to impeach Pete Hegseth.

And it's notable that right before Mike Johnson, the current speaker of the House, adjourned for the current recess, there was a bipartisan set of articles of impeachment introduced by a Republican.

And we believe the reason he shut down the House is because they thought it would actually pass, because I think people recognize that this Secretary of defense has been a disastrous and dangerous precedent for this country.

And he needs to go.

>> Nash: If Democrats retake the House and potentially even the Senate, do you expect moves related to some of the issues that you're talking about to to actually start to go.

>> Stansbury: I believe the war needs to end before that.

We need this illegal war to cease before that.

But currently, it's very clear the president can't lead his way out of a paper bag more or less get his way out of the Middle East.

And so if they are not going to take action, if my colleagues across the aisle who control Congress are not going to hold this president accountable.

The only answer is electoral.

That's why we have to win back the House.

We have to stop the chaos.

We have to end the war.

And frankly, if necessary, impeachment and remove Pete Hegseth.

>> Nash: Okay, let's shift to issues related to your other committee, natural resources.

This is also a long time focus of years from before you were serving in Congress, particularly around water under settlement terms with Texas over Rio Grande water rights.

New Mexico needs to start pumping less groundwater.

At the same time, there are new stresses on that resource.

Construction of the border wall comes to mind.

Construction of Project Jupiter, the data center in Dona Ana County.

What steps have you taken as a member of Congress to not only make sure that New Mexico is meeting its obligations to Texas, but also the water needs of your constituents here in district one?

>> Stansbury: Well, absolutely.

So, as you know, I'm a water resources professional by my trade, I spent over 25 years working in the sciences and planning around water resources.

And listen, New Mexicans saw it for themselves this summer.

The Rio Grande here through Albuquerque in the central reach, was dry for over 90 days this year, and then we got the largest amount of rainfall and precipitation we'd ever had in recorded history in September.

That is climate change.

That is the signature of climate change.

And the science is telling us that by 2070, we are going to have to store more groundwater to even meet the existing needs.

So what I believe is that the state needs to be actively managing our water resources.

It needs to not be granting additional permits for brand new industrial developments like Project Jupiter, which I believe does not have the appropriate and legal permits to do so.

And it needs to make sure that we're actively managing the water for our people, for our acequias, for our pueblos and tribes, for our farmers and ranchers, and for our cities and communities.

And so, as the congresswoman, I've been investing millions of dollars in infrastructure for our communities.

I'm the co-sponsor of a half dozen tribal water rights settlements.

I'm leading on legislation to modernize our acequias and irrigation infrastructure, and making historic investments in water pipelines for drinking water and wastewater in communities all over the state.

>> Nash: If we can talk about climate change even more broadly.

EPA administrator Lee Zeldin was in Santa Fe recently at the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association meeting, and he announced his intentions to roll back Biden era methane methane regulations.

Earlier this year, the EPA rescinded the endangerment finding the conclusion that greenhouse gas pollution endangers human health, which has underpinned a lot of the country's climate change efforts over the years.

Why were these regulations essential, and if reelected, would you work to stand them back up?

>> Stansbury: Yeah, I mean we can see the endangerment to our communities is not just climate change, but this administration.

Those were hard fought wins that we spent decades trying to put in place.

The Clean Air Act of the United States was the signature legislation, in addition to the Clean Water Act, to protect clean air for our people so that we could breathe air, which is the most fundamental right of all Americans, of all people.

And the rollback of these protections is not just an assault on the environment.

It's an assault on our communities and our ability to have a livable and healthy planet.

We have been fighting this administration since day one, which signed a whole slew of executive orders to end climate protections and international agreements.

And we know that Donald Trump took over to over $1 billion in campaign donations from the oil and gas industry.

Here in New Mexico we had the opportunity to pass comprehensive climate legislation the next legislative session.

I'll be working very hard, hand in hand with our new governor, Deb Haaland, as long along with our state legislature, to try to get that across the finish line and a reverse course in the next Congress when we win back the House and then went back to the presidency.

>> Nash: Affordability is top of mind for pretty much every voter this election.

How have you worked to ease the pain of rising inflation, rising costs here in district one?

Specifically and more broadly, what's standing in the way of bringing costs down?

>> Stansbury: Well, as a native New Mexican, as somebody who grew up in our communities and a low income family that worked multiple jobs just to get by.

You know, I grew up waiting tables and digging trenches, working for my family businesses.

And what I can say is that New Mexicans are suffering, suffering right now.

They're struggling to put food on the table, a roof over their head, gas and their cars, and they can't access health care.

And that is very clearly the outcome of this administration's policies.

As we're seeing soaring inflation, we're seeing gas prices that are off the charts because of the war in Iran.

We're seeing food prices and construction costs that are soaring because of these illegal tariffs.

And what we've seen time and time again is that this administration and this Congress has turned its back on our people.

Last year, they passed the one big beautiful bill which gutted health care and food assistance for millions of Americans.

How do we reverse course?

We need to stop the illegal war, stop the illegal tariffs.

We need to reverse course and restore health care and food assistance and educational assistance for all New Mexicans.

And frankly, we need to end the chaos of this Congress and this administration and actually make sure that we reelect New Mexico's delegation, elect Deb Haaland to governor, and make sure that we don't put another rubber stamp for Donald Trump's disastrous policies in Congress or anywhere else.

>> Nash: You already mentioned the big bill, Trump's big bill.

Tens of thousands of New Mexicans lost food aid under that bill, and even more could lose Medicaid as new rules hit in January.

Can you talk more about what you've done so far regarding those losses, and what more you can do on the federal side?

You know, the state has stepped up in big ways to backfill some of these programs.

But on the federal side, how do you support constituents who rely on these programs?

>> Stansbury: We have to reverse the cuts that they passed last year.

One thing that a lot of people don't realize is that when they pass the one big, beautiful building and call it the big ugly bill, that they actually increase taxes on the lowest income people.

So if you make like under $25,000 a year in New Mexico, your taxes went up while they actually decreased taxes on the richest billionaires in America.

And basically the way they paid for that was by cutting your Medicare, your Medicaid, food assistance, educational assistance, and all of these social programs that we know here in New Mexico are essential to making sure that people have access to care.

So starting on day one, we've been fighting this bill.

We've been advocating to reverse its harmful cuts.

We've worked hand in hand with the governor in the state to not only have one, but two special sessions to backfill health care and food assistance.

I introduced a bill called the Snap Back Bill to restore snap cuts at the federal level.

And we're working all across the state to make millions of dollars of investment in really the backstop for our families, which is our food banks, housing programs and other programs that we know will help stabilize families until we can reverse these harmful cuts.

>> Nash: Your challenger this election, Didi Okpareke told Source New Mexico that something she would do differently than you is she would, quote, stop incentivizing poverty.

Adding, quote, these social programs are only holding people back.

Would you like to respond to that?

>> Stansbury: Well, you know, the beautiful thing about democracy is that any person can throw their their hat in the ring.

And I welcome the debate and I welcome the opportunity to talk about the issues.

But all I can say is that as somebody who grew up here in a low income family, the only person that would say something like that does not truly understand the plight of true New Mexicans.

What it means to not be able to see a doctor, what it means to live on a fixed income and social security, or a person with disabilities not being able to access just basic care.

What it means for a family, maybe a grandparent taking care of foster children, being able to put food on the table.

That's what these programs do.

And her president, who she essentially called one of the greatest presidents in American history, has gutted those programs.

And millions of Americans, including New Mexicans and especially our seniors, have lost access to food as a direct result of those policies.

And New Mexicans can not afford to elect another disastrous rubber stamp for these policies.

>> Nash: Democrats are favored to win back the House, and while retaking the Senate is a little less likely, it does appear to be within reach for the party.

If you become part of the House majority this round, whether or not Congress ends up split, how will your constituents see a change in your strategy and what you're able to accomplish?

>> Stansbury: Well, one of the things I'm most excited for for the future, not just of New Mexico, but our entire country, is that New Mexico is now an early primary state in the presidential election.

And so, you know, 2026 is really about saving our democracy.

It's about making sure that we stop the chaos.

We elect a democratic majority.

We put guardrails up against this abusive administration that's harming our people.

But 2028 is really about reclaiming and restoring our country.

And what I'm excited about is not only the accountability the accountability piece.

Obviously, of holding this president accountable and stopping him from doing bad things.

But really, how do we lay out a future that is grounded in our communities?

That's about lifting up our communities, about building an economic future in which every single person can thrive?

That's about investing in our children, fixing education, protecting our lands and waters.

And New Mexico has a front row seat to actually help define what the future of this country looks like now as an early primary state.

And so as I look forward, it's not just about stopping the chaos and bringing accountability next year.

It's really about what comes next.

What's the new deal for New Mexico and for the future of our state?

>> Nash: I appreciate that in looking at the next two years, though, it's kind of grinding Trump's agenda to a halt, kind of the best that the Democratic Party can do.

Or do you believe that there is some hope for a bipartisan effort to actually start to turn the ship ever so slightly, even in a new direction?

>> Stansbury: I mean, I think one of the things I'm hopeful for is that my colleagues, who have been afraid to stand up to the president over the last 20 months.

>> Nash: Republican colleagues?

>> Stansbury: Yes my Republican colleagues who know what's happening is wrong and unconstitutional and illegal will not only suddenly find a backbone, but understand that they can't get anything done if they don't cooperate and work in a bipartisan manner.

And it is possible this president is highly unpredictable, shall we.

say, that he may be in legacy mode his last two years in office.

And so we are preparing both to stop all the bad things we can, but also for the potential of doing good bipartisan lawmaking.

And it's why I work in a bipartisan manner.

It's why I have bills on health care and public lands.

I've actually just passed working with Senator Heinrich and Lujan, our Pueblo Cultural Lands bill, to return Pueblo lands back to the cultural center.

All of that's bipartisan.

So we're going to keep doing the work and we'll see what happens.

>> Nash: Are you hopeful that more of that bipartisanship will come about once the election is behind deal?

>> Stansbury: I hope so, but we'll see what happens.

Yeah.

>> Nash: Representative Melanie Stansbury, thanks so much.

>> Stansbury: Thank you.

>>López Askin: Well, if you know the facts as a leader in New Mexico, then you need to push those facts out there.

I think we really need to talk about not just misinformation, but mal information.

Mal information is specifically set out there to mislead and to encourage distrust.

And so when that is happening, I believe good leaders, not just the secretary of state, county clerk's other elected officials should deliver the truth and actual facts versus theories or what people are scared of.

>>Nash: We appreciate Congresswoman Stansbury dropping by to talk about her reelection bid.

We will be watching her race closely on election night.

Now, while Stansbury is becoming a highly recognizable face here in New Mexico and in D.C., her Republican opponent is brand new to the politics game.

Ndidiamaka Okpareke is a pharmacist by trade and the owner of a compounding pharmacy in Rio Rancho.

Okpareke goes by Didi for short, and she's the daughter of Nigerian immigrants.

She's never run for office before, but she's caught the attention of some longtime New Mexico politics observers in her brief time on the stage with fiery rhetoric and a spirited debate performance against Stansbury on KOAT.

I sat down with Okpareke to dig into her platform and preparedness for the seat.

Here's that conversation.

>> Nash: Didi Okpareke, welcome to New Mexico in Focus.

>> Okpareke: Thank you, thanks for having me.

>> Nash: So, I'd like to start a little bit on your background, you█re a pharmacist.

You are the President and Founder of Olive Tree Compounding Pharmacy in Rio Rancho.

How does your professional experience prepare you to have a seat in Congress?

>> Okpareke: Very good question.

I think, number one is that when you deal with the public on a daily basis, you have a forward-facing apperance, you serve the community -- that's what my whole career has been about.

It's been about making sure that medications end up in the right hands at the right time, and that patients are getting the right effects from medications.

And so I take that same experience to Congress.

You are there to make the laws.

And hopefully these are laws that really fit the people that you serve, you█re there to be a voice.

You're there to represent your your community.

>> Nash: In terms of your background in pharmaceuticals, on average, name brand drugs in the US are up to four times as is expensive as in comparable countries.

What's one thing that you would pursue to help make trips to the pharmacy a little more affordable for folks?

>> Okpareke: Well, I think I've done that effectively in my current practice, but what I hope to do is take all of the medication that we don't currently use, so, for instance, there are some patients who get refills upon refills of medication, but they don't necessarily need them, and they end up being thrown away rather than them being thrown away.

We can have some sort of collection program, and then we can repurpose those medications for our federal health care system.

>> Nash: Is that a bill that you're looking to introduce if you were to be elected?

>> Okpareke: Yeah, I would love to do that.

Yeah.

I mean, it would probably be a little more challenging than I'm explaining, but I think it would be super effective in bringing down the cost of health care.

>> Nash: You've also said, as a pharmacist, that you have familiarity with the Drug Enforcemen Administration, the D.E.A., which is accused of knowingly allowing thousands, tens of thousands of fentanyl pills into the streets of Albuquerque without intervening.

Where do you stand on that tactic of what's called, “Walking Sentinel” and how would you respond to it happening in District 1 if you were elected?

>> Okpareke: Well.

Definitely accountability.

It's not for me -- I find it hard that no one knew.

I really find it hard that -- none of the leadership knew that this was happening.

>> Nash: State leadership or congressional delegation?

>> Okpareke: Both, I think -- both at the federal level and then also at the state level.

But I do stand for accountability.

I think there are a lot of homes that were impacted by fentanyl, and it's very unfortunate that we lost a lot of people that we love.

I've certainly seen that on a daily basis.

I have patients that I serve and a family member too has been affected by the crisis.

But I think number one, it's accountability.

>> Nash: What would that look like?

What would you like to see, accountability-wise?

>> Okpareke: Prosecution.

Prosecution.

We definitely have to know the names.

We need to know who these people are.

>> Nash: Of the DEA agents?

>> Okpareke: Yes, definitely investigate it and prosecute where it's fit -- >> Nash: Okay, now you oppose the war in Iran, though Congress didn't authorize it in the first place.

The House has passed since two resolutions to limit President Trump's war powers there.

At first, only four, then seven Republicans voted in favor of that resolution.

Had you been there?

Would you have joined them?

>> Okpareke: Definitely, yeah.

I mean, war is very unfortunate.

Obviously, people lose their lives.

This administration told us that this was an operation.

It has turned into something else.

And I don't think that there is any American who is in favor of it.

Because how do we survive when we're spending so much money overseas?

I think it has turned into something that no American anticipated.

We were promised that we wouldn't be in this situation, and now we are.

>> Nash: Well, you say no American supports it, but you had actually -- if you were to join Congress, you would be in the minority among Republican lawmakers there, who are in favor of this resolution.

>> Okpareke: Yeah, but I would be in the majority of the people that I serve.

Like, I'm not -- not serving no other members of Congress.

I'm serving people in my district.

>> Nash: I understand that.

How strategically, though, do you stand up to -- the Republican majority in that case, or rally together a coalition to join you in that?

>> Okpareke: My coalition is the people that I serve.

That's my coalition.

When they say, “Didi, we don't want to be involved in a war.” That is what I am supposed to do on Capitol Hill.

I'm supposed to represent those people.

Clarence Thomas is -- he's an amazing Justice.

And there was a line that he used that -- “if they're going to kill me, they're going to kill me.” That's very deep.

You know, I would rather die than withdraw.

I would rather represent the right thing for the people than to go and do something completely contrary to what I was sent there to do.

>> Nash: This resolution, it didn't end up in the Senate, and it was non-binding anyway.

Do you have a vision of other mechanisms beyond this non-binding resolution to push for an end to this war?

>> Okpareke: I think the best resolution is that America would have its own source of energy and supply.

I really think that that's probably one of the main issues why we're doing what we're doing.

If we could stand on our own -- independent energy supply, independent financial supply, then I think that we would be okay.

I don't know how long it's going to take to get there, but certainly the effects of what's going on is really hurting us, yeah.

>> Nash: Now, another place you break with party leadership not just President Trump, but speaker Mike Johnson as well, is on data centers and AI.

You have said that you oppose new data centers being built in New Mexico because of our water scarcity.

You also support federal regulation for artificial intelligence companies.

Do you have that right?

>> Okpareke: Yes.

>> Nash: Now, how would you stand up to party leaders again -- who as a freshman lawmaker, who aren't backing these kinds of reforms?

And do you believe that you could help create a coalition of folks who want to see AI regulation, who want to see potentially a data center in moratorium?

>> Okpareke: Well, again, I think the coalition is the people.

I think I already have the coalition.

And I think what we stand on is, I've said this before, “you can't build a house by starting with a roof first.” You have to start with the foundation.

And the foundation in New Mexico is water, water security, water infrastructure.

We should█ve been desalinating our brackish water for the longest time now.

We have a lot of money in our reserve.

We can use that to desalinate water, to create that water infrastructure that New Mexico desperately needs.

I think we're coming off of seeing the Rio Grande run dry, if not for God sending the rain.

You know, it would still be dry.

But I think that is really the first step, and I don't -- I mean, if I -- receive opposition from anyone in Washington because of that, then make a cloud and make it rain and then we'll be friends, But if you can't do that, you really have to figure out how do we secure water for New Mexico?

>> Nash: And what about AI regulation -- President Trump, House speaker Mike Johnson have said that A.I.

companies can self police.

Why would you like to see the federal government step in to help regulate -- >> Okpareke: What happened when we let social media self-police?

Got out of control.

It never works that way.

There needs to definitely be guardrails, especially for our children.

You know, we -- our children and then there is a lot of fraud that's taking place.

There are a lot of people hacking systems, getting into people's bank accounts and all these crazy things that can happen.

But I think there needs to be guardrails without inhibiting free -- you know, the free enterprise, without inhibiting free enterprise.

But there needs to be some structure around it.

We saw what happened with Meta and our babies.

So, yeah.

>> Nash: Okay.

>> Okpareke: Yeah.

>> Nash: Now, switching gears a little bit to affordability.

One of the top issues this election without a doubt costs and inflation are continuing to rise despite Republican control of Congress, despite Republican control of the white House.

What do you say to a District 1 voter who has concerns about what success you would have as a Republican Congresswoman in bringing costs down?

>> Okpareke: Well -- [clears throat] to bring costs down, to me, I see it as -- we have to reduce the amount of money we are spending in taxation.

So, I look at myself, right, as a business owner, a commercial real estate owner, a homeowner.

So I pay property taxes, personal income taxes, GRT, [Gross Receipts Tax] commercial real estate property tax.

We're just being taxed out of our livelihood.

So, one of the first things that we can tackle -- is bringing down the cost of living by reducing taxes -- >> Nash: Which tax brackets?

>> Okpareke: I think all across the board, I think all across the board, I don't necessarily agree with “tax the rich!” And I think all across the board there is a fair share that any able-bodied citizen who is working that they should pay -- into the system so that we can keep America going.

And then there's also the -- that same percentage range that should be reduced per person, who -- you know, the burden shouldn't be so high just on one class of people or another class of people.

>> Nash: Where do you stand on President Trump's tariffs policy?

>> Okpareke: Well, I think that it should be fair.

I think trade should be fair.

And if there was an imbalance -- I think that -- if any work has been done to correct that balance, that's where I stand.

I think that trade should be fair -- because that's how America generates money.

That's one of the ways that we as a nation, and you can see the nation as a country, that's the way that we make money -- is by charging tariffs and taxes.

So as long as it's fair that I'm in favor of it.

>> Nash: Now, the Republican-backed Big, Beautiful Bill, cut federal Medicaid spending by up to $1 trillion over the next ten years.

Tens of thousands of New Mexicans are set to lose their Medicaid coverage come January, when some rules around eligibility and eligibility checks come into play.

None of New Mexico's congressional delegation voted for the Big, Beautiful Bill.

Had you been in Congress, how would you have voted?

>> Okpareke: Well, first, I would like to say it█s unfortunate that a lot of these bills come in these big packages, because things get lumped together.

There are some things -- >> Nash: It was a big, big -- >> Okpareke: Yes, there are things that you favor and then things that you don't favor.

But as far as Medicaid -- I think this is really a critical time where we need to evaluate the system.

We need to know who is dependent upon these funds and if they should not be recipients.

If they're not eligible, then those are funds that we can recoup, right?

I think a lot of people see Medicaid and their reliance upon the system, and they don't necessarily have to be because they can contribute to society.

I stand for restoring dignity to work.

I feel like people should take pride in building businesses, like I did.

I started from nothing, from absolutely zero, and I built this company and I now offer opportunity to other people.

So I think that's kind of where I stand, when it comes to eligibility, whether or not funds are going to be cut and who should receive the funds and who should not.

>> Nash: And now you're talking about Medicaid recipients who don't work.

But more than half -- 70% of New Mexico Medicaid recipients have a job.

They work either part-time or full-time.

So, that is a reality for a lot of New Mexicans.

You simply aren't bringing in the amount of money that they need in order to afford health insurance.

>> Okpareke: I've been through that situation as well.

What would happen if for those people you reduce taxes, you reduce the money that they're paying into the system so that they can survive, right?

What would happen if you actually raise minimum wage?

That's something that I've kind of thrown -- >> Nash: Are you in favor of that?

>> Okparkeke: That would be amazing.

What happens if you actually recouped some of the money that is not being used appropriately for these systems, and you increase the amount of SNAP dollars that each person is actually getting.

So instead of, let's say $10 a day, what if it was $20 a day?

So there are other ways to make the system work, reducing the burden on the system, but making it so that whoever is dependent upon it, they're actually -- they have a full livelihood on the system.

>> Nash: Speaking of that, you█ve criticized your opponent, Representative Melanie Stansbury, for her support of Medicaid and SNAP, or what's often called, “Food Stamps” saying that, “that incentivizes poverty” or that she has been incentivizing poverty.

Stansbury, I asked her about that statement of yours, she said that your statement shows that you, quote, “don█t truly understand the plight of true New Mexicans.

And she's talking about New Mexicans who struggle to afford food, struggle to afford health care.

Do you have a response to that?

>> Okpareke: Yeah, the response is, I've been through my own trials and tribulations in this life Like I said, I started a business from absolutely nothing and look at where I am today.

But that's because I was dedicated to working exceptionally hard.

I never gave up, and I never felt like I was a victim, or that I needed to rely upon a system in order to get to where I am today.

>> Nash: Do you think people who rely on SNAP and Medicaid understand themselves as victims?

>> Okpareke: No, but I think that there can be a level of thinking where people may feel like they just can't do it.

We are in charge of making sure that we create opportunities for people to succeed.

That's where my focus is, not for people to be dependent on a system that kind of makes it easy to coast through life when all the talent you have -- like we need that in the world, bring that out of you instead of making it -- so that the system can just kind of harbor you and make you comfortable, you can actually have a better life if you stepped out on some of your talents and some of the visions and the dreams that you have, you can probably have a better life by doing that, by working on that, so yeah.

>> Nash: Now, in the debate on KOAT recently, referring to the federal raid on Minnesota Democratic Representative, Ilhan Omar home, you said the Somali-born Congresswoman is someone who, quote, “doesn█t like the United States, adding, “if you don't like it, leave.” What specifically has Representative Omar done or said to make you make a statement like that?

That she doesn't like the United States?

>> Okpareke: Well, I'll preface my answer by saying first, you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Did you see the rest of my my comment to that question or to my answer?

>> Nash: Sure, I watched the debate.

>> Okpareke: Yeah, so, my parents came here.

They were legal immigrants.

They came to the United States and they started from the very bottom.

And I just feel like you should never take for granted the opportunities that our country gives you as an immigrant.

America has done a lot, for a lot of people in the world, and it's not okay to -- Now, these are accusations, but we'll see what happens when they investigate.

But it's not okay to be wrapped up in fraudulent -- fraudulent dealings.

So, if you don't like it, leave.

if you don't like it go to -- >> Nash: Is part of your criticism that she has criticism of the United States because -- as I was watching the debate, that's how it landed.

And correct me if I'm wrong about your intent, that the criticism of the United States that would lead someone to be a congresswoman or to run for Congress.

Isn't that what you are doing right now, right?

Criticizing American policies and practices that you don't agree with and -- fighting to make the country a better place -- >> Okpareke: But I'm pro America.

There is a level of criticism that you get to where you become anti-American.

>> Nash: And where's that line?

>> Okpareke: Well, I think for her, that line is when you've entered the country fraudulently, >> Nash: Allegedly.

>> Okpareke: Allegedly.

You have allegedly siphoned federal dollars to certain programs that were non-existent.

That's our money, that's our taxpayer dollars.

That's anti-American.

You're not working for the people.

>> Nash: But you're not saying that criticizing America, American policy, and fighting to change it is un-American.

>> Okpareke: Let me tell you, this is what I stand for.

This is a Constitutional Republic, and it will never change.

It will never change because I know what it looks like when it's not.

This is America, this is my country and I will stand and I will be a patriot and fight for this country.

And anyone who is against that, you can go somewhere else.

>> Nash: Didi Okpareke, thanks so much for your time and for breaking all of that down for us.

>> Okpareke: Of course, thank you.

>> Nash: Thanks.

>> Okpareke: Thanks.

>>Nash: Thanks so much to Didi Okpareke for taking the time to walk us through her long shot campaign for Congress.

And remember, early voting is in full swing.

An election day is on November 3rd.

Speaking of voting, New Mexico is about to get its first new top elections administrator in a decade.

Democratic Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver is termed out Come January 1st, the contest to replace her is between the elected clerk for one of the state's most populous counties and a political outsider who spent years challenging New Mexico's election systems.

Tonight, we will introduce you to Amanda López Askin, a Democrat who has served as Dona Ana County clerk since 2018, when county commissioners appointed her to the position.

She was elected twice since and beat Santa Fe County Clerk Katherine Clark by just about 13,000 votes in the Democratic primary to secure her spot on November's ballot.

López Askins sat down with in Focus politics correspondent Gwendolyn to talk about her plan for the secretary of state's office starting in 2027, Should she win.

>> Gwyneth: Amanda Lopez Askin, Thank you so much for being with us today -- >> Lopez Askin: Thank you very much for having me.

Happy to be here.

>> Gwyneth: You've been a Dona Ana County clerk since 2018 What have you learned about running elections that you didn't understand when you first took the job?

>> Lopez Askin: Well, I always say part of me thinks that had I known what I didn't know, I might not have taken it at the time.

I learned a lot of things that I called my mom always said the hard way.

Right.

So I learned from the ground up how we run elections.

One of the things that I continue to say is every New Mexican should be proud of the elections that New Mexico administers.

And what I discovered was a system that was had so many checks and balances that had so many people involved, so many eyes on an election that I felt really good about talking about elections, promoting elections, the transparency, the access, and really being able to say that New Mexico runs free and fair elections that are secure is something I learned along the way.

Probably the first year of my job, I really had to dig in and it continues to be so, and I continue to be somebody that promotes that and will always stand up for New Mexico elections and how we administer them, and the county clerk's across our state.

>> Gwyneth: You didn't have that much time before.

It got pretty stressful.

You became county clerk just days before voting in 2018, and almost immediately self found yourself in the middle of the Torres Small, Herrell race.

Yvette Herrell declared victory on election night before all the absentee ballots could be counted.

Then the result changed the next day, bringing national attention.

Lawsuits.

What did that teach you?

About what?

Election officials?

Oh, the public, when the results are not immediately clear.

>> Lopez Askin: So when I talk about the hard way, that was one of the ways the election night was very challenging, as you would imagine, when you have nearly 9000 absentee ballots that haven't been processed.

And, you know, the process is very time consuming and it's not going to happen then.

I should have communicated that that was the lesson the next day, is I should have over communicated it to the press, to the public, in any kind of way.

We could have that.

Those were outstanding.

So there wasn't this kind of shadow the next day of what happened, something is amiss.

So over communicating, working on our comms, updating every hour of necessary press releases and continuing to talk to the public in the media to get that information out there.

>> Gwyneth: You have said that you had to fight the election denial narrative at that time.

And I want to ask you, is it the Secretary of State's job to fight a narrative or to provide the facts and let the public decide what to believe?

>> Lopez Askin: Well, if you know the facts as a leader in New Mexico, then you need to push those facts out there.

I think we really need to talk about not just misinformation, but mal information.

Mal information is specifically set out there to mislead and to encourage distrust.

And so when that is happening, I believe good leaders, not just the secretary of state, county clerk's other elected officials should deliver the truth and and actual facts versus theories or what people are scared of.

>> Gwyneth: You've said the bigger threat to New Mexico elections isn't fraud, but exactly that misinformation spread by people trying to mislead voters for their own agenda.

So you do believe that the Secretary of State should get out ahead of that stuff?

But where is the line between correcting false information and a government official deciding which political claims are true and which are false?

>> Lopez Askin: You know, I don't know if there's an absolute line.

I think it's a fuzzy line and gray area.

It depends on the severity.

It depends on how the information catches.

Sometimes if you bring attention to something that has no merit, then you're almost making the problem worse.

And frankly, that's what I dealt with initially, as I thought I needed to ignore everything, but because if I ignored it, then they would move along.

I thought that if I didn't feed it, it wouldn't build.

But what ended up happening is it did catch on.

And so in every county commission meeting when there was misinformation or mal information, I had to as a public official at that point and say things like, oh, in fact, New Mexico does have voter ID, and in fact we do have hand mark paper ballots.

Let's talk about facts.

And so I don't think the truth is something as vague as people think.

And I think that's where it would be my job.

And it has been my job the last eight years, to stand up in front of that and promote what is actually true, in my experience and in around the state.

>> Gwyneth: You mentioned earlier that you were really impressed finding out that New Mexico has so many checks and balances, that learning about the process made you feel very confident, and that you think the public would be very confident.

Is there something about the way we run elections now that could be improved?

>> Lopez Askin: Well, I always think there's way that ways that we could improve elections, even in terms of customer service and how we greet people at the door.

I've been proud the last eight years to sit Friends Center of all the legislation that has been very pro voter, including the Voting Rights Act that we passed, that embedded in it was the Native American Voting Rights Act, which is the first in the country.

Those are the things reaching out to people who don't necessarily feel invited to what I call the table of democracy.

Why are they not there?

What are we doing?

Is there official policy that could help and support that, whether that's more rural locations, whether it's doing things like allowing, you know, putting in laws specifically that the, our indiginous communities have right to have precincts and things the way that they choose to.

And the answer is absolutely yes.

And so sometimes I hear like, well, it's hard or it's a lot of work or I don't have to.

It's not the law.

The things that we do in outreach, outreach and support.

And I say, but that's why we were elected.

This is why we chose to step up to do the hard things.

>> Gwyneth: Voter I.D.

your opponent wants New Mexico to require voters to present identification at the polls.

You have argued that the state already has enough identification checks.

But really, why shouldn't voters be required to show an ID before they cast a ballot?

>> Lopez Askin: So they are, frankly, I would say the narrative that there is no voter ID in New Mexico needs to stop.

That is something that is not helpful and frankly, harmful.

There is voter ID you cannot register to vote in New Mexico unless you have proven who you are.

And even if you store online the first time you come to vote, we will ask you for that photo ID that people very rigidly want.

But subsequent to that, you are able to identify yourself in three ways, which would be a voter ID, your voter registration card, or information known only to you, your year of birth, your address, etc.

so those are the things that we have in place.

And what I also know to be fact is, I'm a very data person, which I think people find surprising on some level.

But I do know that when we have a rigid way that we require voter ID, the people that suffer the most, and the folks that don't feel invited to this table of democracy are the poor, the rural, the young, the elderly, and I. Anything that we can do to help and support those folks, to get involved and to participate, I want to do I have been that person that didn't feel like I was part of a bigger picture, and so I do not support that rigid voter ID we do have voter ID in New Mexico, and we need to start fighting that narrative with that fact.

>> Gwyneth: What evidence would persuade you that New Mexico needs some stronger protections?

>> Lopez Askin: I think some widespread, absolutely proven incidents or hosts of incidents of voter fraud or nefarious behavior, which we have not seen.

There has been many allegations in the last X amount of years, as long as I've been Dona County clerk, I run elections in the second most populous county in our state, in the borderlands with the probably the most contentious elections.

So I understand more than I think anybody, the narrative.

But I've not been given to this day any definitive proof that there is something amiss in elections.

>> Gwyneth: Your opponent cites an outside analysis that flagged about 113,000 New Mexico voter registrations as belonging to people who may have moved.

You say the state continually maintains its voter rolls under federal law.

What happens when somebody brings a county clerk a list like that?

How do you determine whether those people actually belong on the rolls or not?

>> Lopez Askin: Well, the best thing and the worst thing about the job that I do as a Dona Ana County clerk and frankly, will be as secretary of state, is that I follow the law.

It doesn't matter if I like it or not, I must implement it.

What I know to be true is that the federal government in 1994 had a very specific way that we remove voters who have moved, and we follow that process just like every other state in the country.

And all the county clerk's do it, and we do it consistently.

Basically, it is helpful for us when we get a return mail piece, because that starts the process of removal, because of the history of voter suppression in our country.

We cannot just remove people because you said or they said we must have a process.

We follow and we follow it.

If we have a voter roll that is absolutely 100% accurate at 12 by 12:01, it is not because people are transient.

They move, they die.

These things happen.

So it is a continual, rigorous, every single day effort to remove those who don't belong on the voter rolls.

And we continue to do it.

So again, that's a narrative that we must combat.

There's nothing that we are doing that is not absolutely dedicated to making sure our voter rolls have the best and most accurate information.

And I heard some allegations.

Oh, I received 11 absentee ballots in the mail.

That is just not true.

You may have received absentee applications from outside entities.

Secretary of state's office does not have enough money to send 11 of those.

And I will also say is that it is always helpful when we have family members who have had those who have passed, let us know that they have passed, because that in itself, an obituary would help us remove them from a voter roll.

>> Gwyneth: I want to talk about turnout.

New Mexico has made voting pretty easy relative to other states.

We have early voting, no excuse absentee voting, and same day registration, but turnout is sometimes still embarrassingly low.

About 1 in 4 voters cast a ballot in this year's primary election.

At what point do we have to acknowledge that access just isn't the whole problem?

What can a Secretary of State realistically do to improve turnout among people who just aren't that interested in voting?

>> Lopez Askin: So I think one of the biggest things that we have talked about already is election deniers, election denialism.

You can't on one hand say something is amiss.

Something's wrong, your vote doesn't count.

And then encourage turnout.

That is just not helpful.

So I would love to work with PED, the public education department, to embed some type of real civics that starts not in high school, not in middle school, but in elementary school to institutionalize the idea of being standing up and being counted literally.

And so I agree, we have to figure out all the ways in which people don't feel seen and heard, because I refuse to believe that the average New Mexican doesn't care, doesn't care about the community, doesn't care about their state.

The reality is, is it doesn't connect with their day to day lives.

What we do, we're sitting here talking about this.

We have big ideas.

You know, this there maybe, maybe, maybe trying to get overtime to pay their electric bill.

And so there is a disconnect when we start personalizing the decisions and policies that leaders are making and connect it to their day to day life is how we're going to engage people.

So we have to do a better job of connecting with them in all ways, in all spaces in which they get their information.

>> Gwyneth: Some of those disconnected people aren't involved in political parties.

They're independent.

New Mexico just held its first semi-open primary, allowing those independent voters to cast a ballot in the primary without changing their party registration.

The Republican Party strongly opposed this move, arguing that political parties should be able to control the process that decides who will be their candidate without interference from voters who are not involved in the party.

What do you say to that argument?

>> Lopez Askin: Well, I think it's also we look at the idea of turnout.

I was not necessarily a huge proponent of open primaries or even semi-open primaries when I started as a county clerk in 2018.

But I implemented a program in Dona Ana county in which we go to every single high school, and we talked to every single senior before they leave their school and graduate about the importance of voting and etc.

and participation.

And what I found was a very.

Really free.

They have unlimited, unlimited access to information.

And so what they're passionate about, they're focused on, but they also do not love this, this continual battle between parties.

It's discouraging to them.

It feels negative.

It feels defeat like defeating on some level.

They overwhelmingly continue to register as DTS, otherwise known, declined to state otherwise known as a dependance in New Mexico.

So I couldn't on one hand say to them, you need to be voting and then say, oh, but not in this primary.

So I do support it.

I do believe that they should have a say because they also pay taxes, right?

And so when they're paying for an election and they want to participate, I think we should support that in anything support that supports participation, I will get behind.

>> Gwyneth: Republicans also argue that semi-open primaries are a stepping stone toward ranked choice voting and other changes that could also weaken political parties.

Is that a legitimate concern?

>> Lopez Askin: I was the 13th person to implement ranked choice voting in our country in 2019.

That was my second election.

So 2018 and 2019 and then two after that were the pandemics.

But what I found was and we have to legitimize some of the fears and concerns, I would do a lot.

I did 50 community presentations about ranked choice voting, thinking people were going to really get on board, and there was a lot of they wanted to do with the way they've always done it, and I understand that.

And I think it's important we meet people where they are.

And I would say to them, well, just vote classic, then just show up at the ballot box, right.

If you just want to vote for one, that's fine.

Maybe next time you'll rank right.

Maybe next time we'll do that I don't I actually engages more people in a more diverse crop of candidates, so to speak.

We had ten mayoral candidates that year, and we had people that had voted that never had because they had candidates they could connect to.

>> Gwyneth: Santa Fe has been using ranked choice voting since 2018, and even after nearly eight years, voters and candidates still say they find it confusing.

Why should we consider expanding a system that some voters in Dona Ana County in Santa Fe County still say they don't understand?

>> Lopez Askin: Well, I don't know if we're considering expanding it right now.

I've not necessarily heard that.

>> Gwyneth: You said you█re open to the idea of implementing it statewide.

>> Lopez Askin: I think when New Mexico is ready and fully educated and informed, I don't know if that's during the term that I plan to serve.

Frankly, if we're being realistic, I do think it is a good discussion point, and I think it creates this talk about participation and why people aren't.

And I believe, frankly, we should call it instant runoff.

The idea of ranked choice voting is very intimidating people.

But when I talk about runoffs, they like that better.

It makes sense to them.

>> Gwyneth: You've described Maggie Toulouse Oliver.

The current secretary of state, as a close friend.

She won the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor overwhelmingly and then withdrew just over two weeks after the primary, citing health issues.

That did mean that hundreds of thousands of Democratic primary voters made a choice that was ultimately replaced by a few hundred members of the state's party Central Committee.

As someone who has spent eight years of your career administering elections.

Do you think that that process served voters well?

>> Lopez Askin: I hadn't thought about that extensively.

I think that at the end of the day, in a primary, it is a nomination process and it is very party specific.

And the party had specific rules.

It definitely was an ideal >> Gwyneth: Okay you just told me a few minutes ago that it wasn't a problem to kind of disrupt the party influence over primaries with semi-open primaries.

So which is it?

Should the parties control it or not?

>> Lopez Askin: I think the party should have a say.

I don't think they should control it.

>> Gwyneth: Okay.

Should New Mexico have a different process when statewide nominees withdraw after the primary, something that might give voters, rather than party officials more of a say?

>> Lopez Askin: I think part of the challenge with that is administratively, the clerks are working around the clock getting ready for elections.

We do what's called a ballot review, where we look at every iteration of the ballot and we edit it to make sure everything is absolutely correct.

And they're very specific timetables in law.

If there were timetables that worked for the clerks in terms of the administration and presentation of the election.

Yes.

I don't see that currently in the process because I understand the weeds of an election.

>> Gwyneth: Amanda Lopez Askin, thank you so much for being with us -- >> Lopez Askin: Thanks for having me.

It was great to be here, I appreciate you all.

>>Nash: Thanks to Amanda López, Askin for talking with Gwyneth about her run for Secretary of State.

Gwyneth will be back next week with Ramona Goolsby, the Republican hopeful in that race.

Catch that interview alongside the two candidates running for New Mexico's third Congressional district next week, when we wrap up our pre-election coverage this year.

Thanks for following along this cycle, and if you would like to catch up with our election coverage, you can find our interviews with the candidates for governor, Congressional District two and Land Commissioner, as well as a debate on the merits of constitutional amendment for right now on the New Mexico in Focus YouTube channel or the PBS app.

For New Mexico PBS, I'm Nash Jones, until next week, Stay focused.

Funding for New Mexico in Focus is provided by viewers like you.