EDITORIAL: Municipal election change proposals are a mixed bag

The introduction of Ordinance 13 changing the Rio Rancho municipal election code took us a bit by surprise.

The current system of elections is something we’ve been keeping an eye on. In fact, as the March 2026 elections approached, we were all set, based on cost and low turnout, to call for a move to holding municipal elections in November.

Just for context, let’s look at the numbers from 2024. According to the official canvass reports, out of 74,290 eligible voters on March 5, 5,139 (6.92%) turned out to cast their ballot. The cost? $254,314.75.

Two of the three council seats up for election in 2024 went to a runoff election the following month. Turnout was even lower. Out of 25,238 eligible voters, 1,651 cast ballots (6.54%). It cost the city an additional $53,661.46.

In total, the 2024 municipal elections cost the taxpayers of Rio Rancho $304.976.21. With a total of 6,790 ballots cast, that amounts to $44.92 per ballot cast. City projections estimate that cost at $449,311 for 2026. That is simply too expensive for our taxpayers to continue in this manner for less than 7% turnout.

Moving the elections to the November cycle removes that cost burden from the city, and it’s a move we support.

However, there are parts to the ordinance change that we don’t agree with.

By statute, municipalities hosting elections in November are to do so in odd-numbered years. The ordinance change the council voted for April 24 proposes extending the terms of Mayor Gregg Hull and council members Jeremy Lenentine, Bob Tyler and Karissa Culbreath, which are slated to end March 31, 2026, out through Dec. 31, 2027.

The terms of councilors Deborah Dapson, Paul Wymer and Nicole List would be extended to Dec. 31, 2029, rather than March 31, 2028.

The council is slated to vote on the second reading May 8. If that passes, the ordinance would take effect.

However, we feel this move is a disservice to the residents of Rio Rancho. These officials, per the municipal code, were elected to four years of service. This would extend their terms to nearly six years. It leaves the residents of the city without a voice in who their elected representatives are for 21 months.

As we are currently in an odd-numbered year, we propose that those seats slated for the March 2026 ballot should be moved up to November of this year, with terms beginning Jan. 1, 2026. This shortens the terms by a mere few months and is much more in line with the current election cycle than what the ordinance currently proposes.

This would not be out of line with what state law would allow for a move from the March election cycle to the November cycle. According to the ordinance cover page from the city of Rio Rancho, “State Statute requires a Governing Body to determine if the terms of office for the current office holders will be lengthened or shortened to correspond with a new election date.”

Additionally, according to the New Mexico Secretary of State’s Office, “... any municipality may by ordinance opt in to the election of its municipal officers in the regular local election if the municipality passes an ordinance and files the ordinance with the secretary of state no later than June 30 of the year in which the next regular local election is scheduled.”

This allows for nearly two months for the city to revise the ordinance and file it with the SOS office. As quickly as they’ve been moving on it in its current form, the timeline shouldn’t be a barrier to an adjustment.

However, he city claims that moving the election up to November 2025 “reduces candidates’ time to plan/organize and inform the public (candidate declaration filing day shifts from January 2026 to August 2025).”

However, August is still several months away, and November is six months away. This argument does not hold enough water when you’re weighing the convenience of the candidates against the right of the people to elect their representatives.

These officials work for the residents of Rio Rancho. Those residents deserve to have a say in who is representing them and creating laws and regulations they must abide by. It is a disservice to those residents to extend the terms of service for elected officials. While the SOS office says the option to extend is allowed by law, it makes us think of an old adage: Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.”

The Rio Rancho Governing Body needs to revisit the changes in the ordinance and do what’s best for the people, not the candidates.