The New Mexico Attorney General election of 2010 was held on November 2, 2010. Incumbent Democrat Gary King defeated Republican challenger and Ninth Judicial District attorney Matthew Chandler.
Both Ballotpedia and Governing magazine predicted a Democratic victory.
2010 Race Rankings for New Mexico Attorney General | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Race Tracker | Race Rating | |||
Ballotpedia | Likely Democrat | |||
Governing[1] | Leans Democrat | |||
Overall Call | Leans Democrat |
Republican Party - Ninth Judicial District attorney Matthew Chandler
Democratic Party - Incumbent Gary King
2010 Race for Attorney General - General Election[2] | |||
---|---|---|---|
Party | Candidate | Vote Percentage | |
Democratic Party | Gary King | 53.7% | |
Republican Party | Matthew Chandler | 46.3% | |
Total Votes | 597,644 |
On October 12th, Eastern New Mexico University (ASENMU) hosted a debate between the two major party candidates in the state attorney general contest - Democratic incumbent Gary King and Republican challenger Matthew Chandler. Topics of the discussion included restoring confidence in state government, sealing the border with Mexico, improving the effect illegal immigrants have on the state with extra costs and more crime, and the federal health insurance mandate. The Associated Students of Eastern New Mexico University (ASENMU) and the Clovis High Plains Patriots sponsored the event.
The New Mexico State University College Republicans student organization sponsored the second debate between King and Chandler held on Sunday, October 17th at the Corbett auditorium in the Corbett Center Student Union on the New Mexico State University campus.
Lake Research Partners, a national public opinion and political strategy research firm, interviewed 600 likely New Mexico voters from across the state between August 2 and 4, 2010. The polling data shows that District Attorney Matthew Chandler has his work cut out for him in the campaign to replace Democratic incumbent Gary King. In addition to being behind King overall by nineteen percentage points, Chandler has a severe lack of support among independent voters, who back his opponent 47-17 percent. Name recognition is a serious issue, as only seventeen percent of those surveyed knew who the young D.A. was as opposed to King, with whom 2/3 of voters interviewed were familiar with.
Lake Research Poll - August 2 - 4, 2010[12] | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Candidates | Percentage | |||
Gary King (D) | 47% | |||
Matthew Chandler (R) | 28% | |||
Undecided | 25% | |||
Total voters | 600 |
Albuquerque Journal Poll - August 23 - 27, 2010[13] | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Candidates | Percentage | |||
Gary King (D) | 48% | |||
Matthew Chandler (R) | 33% | |||
Undecided | 19% | |||
Total voters | 942 |
According to the New Mexico Campaign Finance Information System, as of September 23, 2010, here is the breakdown of campaign finances for each of the candidates:
Matthew Chandler Campaign Finance Reports | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Report | Date Filed | Beginning Balance | Contributions | In-Kind [14] | Other Sources | Expenditures | Cash on Hand | |
July 2 - September 6, 2010[15] | September 13, 2010 | $125,002.84 | $113,437.07 | $7,557.60 | $0.00 | $71,985.80 | $166,454.11 |
Gary King Campaign Finance Reports | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Report | Date Filed | Beginning Balance | Contributions | In-Kind [14] | Other Sources | Expenditures | Cash on Hand | |
July 2 - September 6, 2010[16] | September 13, 2010 | $145,370.73 | $273,415.00 | $3,000.00 | $0.00 | $78,436.87 | $340,348.86 |
According to the New Mexico Campaign Finance Information System, as of July 13, 2010, here is the breakdown of campaign finances for each of the candidates:
Gary King Campaign Finance Reports | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Report | Date Filed | Beginning Balance | Contributions | In-Kind [14] | Other Sources | Expenditures | Cash on Hand | |
May 25 - June 25, 2010[17] | July 1, 2010 | $137,282.42 | $21,760.00 | $3,000.00 | $0.00 | $13,671.69 | $145,370.73 | |
May 3 - May 25, 2010[18] | May 27, 2010 | $103,123.11 | $57,975.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $23,815.69 | $137,282.42 | |
April 5 - May 3, 2010[19] | May 10, 2010 | $93,221.83 | $14,140.00 | $1,475.00 | $0.00 | $4,238.72 | $103,123.11 | |
January 1 - April 5, 2010[20] | April 13, 2010 | $0.00 | $166,271.14 | $4,250.00 | $0.00 | $73,049.31 | $93,221.83 |
According to the New Mexico Campaign Finance Information System, as of July 13, 2010, here is the breakdown of campaign finances for each of the candidates:
Matthew Chandler Campaign Finance Reports | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Report | Date Filed | Beginning Balance | Contributions | In-Kind [14] | Other Sources | Expenditures | Cash on Hand | |
May 25 - June 25, 2010[22] | July 1, 2010 | $108,433.71 | $22,372.97 | $3,940.00 | $0.00 | $5,803.84 | $125,002.84 | |
May 3 - May 25, 2010[23] | May 27, 2010 | $98,975.69 | $13,825.00 | $150.00 | $0.00 | $4,366.98 | $108,433.71 | |
April 5 - May 3, 2010[24] | May 10, 2010 | $62,720.27 | $41,837.63 | $1,050.00 | $0.00 | $5,582.21 | $98,975.69 | |
January 1 - April 5, 2010[25] | April 12, 2010 | $3,548.41 | $67,883.43 | $1,353.08 | $0.00 | $8,711.57 | $62,720.27 |
On April 16, 2009, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published an editorial centered on the practice of state attorneys general accepting campaign donations from law firms and retaining those firms in contracts for lawsuits.[26]The article said a Houston-based firm of attorney F. Kenneth Bailey contributed"$50,000 to New Mexico AG Gary King" before his 2006 election.[27]
The law firm was later retained by the state to sue a pharmaceutical company. The New Mexico Independent said, "five months lapsed between two contracts that the state attorney general’s office signed," and "the law firm continued to work" between contracts.[28]
King said hiring outside lawyers is "one of the only tools I have to level the playing field on behalf of consumers, given the significant financial firepower that big pharma, big banking and any number of other industries have...The attorney general is virtually the only protection the consumer has against abuse by those industries.”[29]