Ethics Complaints Filed Against Andrea Romero | What You Need To Know

Background on the Situation

Two formal ethics complaints now target State Representative Andrea Romero, a Democrat from Santa Fe. These filings stem from her part-time employment at the First Judicial District Attorney's Office, a role she began in May 2026. House Republican Whip Alan Martinez filed one complaint, while a private citizen submitted the second. Both actions question the legality of a sitting legislator concurrently holding a paid position within a prosecutor's office that represents the jurisdictions of Santa Fe, Los Alamos, and Rio Arriba counties.

The District Attorney's Office, led by Mary Carmack-Altwies, issued a statement defending the hire. They asserted that they performed proper due diligence and received communication from the New Mexico Department of Justice that the arrangement was permissible. Despite this, Department of Justice Chief of Staff Lauren Rodriguez clarified that her agency warned both the Legislature and the District Attorney's office in late 2025 that state law prohibits legislators from serving as assistant district attorneys. The agency noted that while a limited appointment for a specific case might pass legal review, no such exception exists for ongoing employment.

Confusion Over Employment Terms

The exact nature of Romero's employment remains ambiguous, complicating any ethical analysis. While she and office spokespeople describe her role as a limited, part-time position focused on reviewing case files, job offer letters refer to her title as Assistant District Attorney. This specific designation is precisely what the Department of Justice explicitly prohibits for legislators. A records custodian later identified her role as a document review attorney, a position which lacks any written job description within the office.

Romero remains a graduate of the University of New Mexico School of Law and has held her legislative seat since 2019. She maintains that she sought and received guidance from the Attorney General’s office before accepting the role, though she has not provided a dated or signed document confirming this advice. The confusion surrounding her specific duties and official designation appears to be a central point of contention for those challenging the hire.

Ethical Investigations and Next Steps

The complaints trigger different administrative tracks for potential resolution. Martinez lodged his complaint with legislative leadership, which necessitates an internal review process. This could result in censure, reprimand, or expulsion by the Interim Ethics Committee. Martinez noted that Romero co-chairs this very committee, creating a problematic overlap in oversight authority. He also called for an investigation into District Attorney Carmack-Altwies for her role in the hiring process.

A separate complaint by private citizen Pablo Lujan went to the State Ethics Commission. Lujan argues that Romero’s employment violates the Governmental Conduct Act, which forbids state officials from using their position for personal gain or creating conflicts of interest. Because the legislature holds the power of the purse regarding the office's funding, Lujan alleges a clear conflict exists. The DA’s office recently received substantial state funding, much of which was directed toward high-profile, contested cases.

Legislators are tasked with drafting and voting on the very laws that govern the operation and funding of the District Attorney’s office. This incident highlights the tension between dual-role employment and legislative integrity. The outcome of these ethics reviews will determine if Romero’s employment was a lawful pursuit of outside work or a breach of the separation of powers. All eyes remain on the upcoming proceedings as the state evaluates these conflicting accounts of legal compliance.