An examination of El Paso Matters’ reporting on El Paso City Council District 8 candidate Arturo Alluin finds that El Paso Matters pursued records and sought his response before publishing allegations involving the 2021 incident. But the review also identifies unresolved questions about how the publication explained the legal significance of an expunction order and whether repeating the allegations in a subsequent candidate profile was necessary and proportionate.
As we explained in our October 5 article, we are auditing of El Paso Matters’ election coverage because El Paso voters depend on local journalism to help them understand the candidates and the issues behind the election. Because of the voters’ dependence on accurate information, the quality, context and accuracy of election reporting is important to understand.
Our second review looks at how El Paso Matters handled its September 8th report about Alluin’s charge on a misdemeanor domestic violence charge in 2021. Our audit asked the question, was it responsible journalism and was the issue accurately reported to the voters that will be casting ballots starting on Monday.
According to El Paso Matters’ article, a woman alleged that Alluin slapped, choked and pushed her, causing her to hit her head and fall. The story reported that Alluin was charged with assault causing bodily injury and arrested in 2022, although the case did not appear in criminal court records reviewed by El Paso Matters.
The allegations cited by El Paso Matters in a police report are not proof that the alleged incident occurred. The fact is that Alluin was not prosecuted for the alleged incident because there are no known court cases showing that he was prosecuted on the charges. Also, lost in the reporting is the nuance that the alleged victim declined to pursue prosecuting the case in addition to the fact that police did not arrest Alluin, until he turned himself in at a police station almost a year after the charges were filed.
The Reporting Timeline
El Paso Matters reported that it had requested criminal court records and police reports covering the preceding 10 years for all City Council candidates. The publication said Alluin was the only District 8 candidate for whom records containing criminal allegations were produced.
We reviewed the responsive documents city officials provided El Paso Matters and found that they had requested criminal records for various candidates.
The chronology shows that El Paso Matters reporter, Priscilla Totiyapungprasert, submitted a Texas Public Information Act request to the city before August 6, 2026. The police report provided to the publication bears a date stamp indicating it was printed on August 6.
On August 26, Totiyapungprasert contacted Alluin seeking comment about the arrest. Alluin accused El Paso Matters of “continuing to engage in unauthorized political activity” and requested records of the communications used to obtain information about him. He also said he was notifying the judicial officer who issued the 2026 order and requested preservation of related records and communications.
When the Totiyapungprasert asked him to provide relevant court orders, Alluin responded that the order required that it “NOT be mentioned” and “NOT be provided.”
Bob Moore, the CEO of El Paso Matters, subsequently contacted Laura Cruz-Acosta, City of El Paso, Strategic Communications Director, about whether it had received an expunction order. On August 28, Cruz-Acosta confirmed to Moore that the El Paso Police Department did not have an expunction order on file.
Expunction Order Predates El Paso Matters’ Article
We independently reviewed the expunction court order showing a file stamp dated April 16, 2026 – nearly five months before the September 8 the El Paso Matters’ article. The order states that it found that Alluin is entitled to an expunction under Chapter 55A of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and granted the request.
We do not know whether El Paso Matters knew of the expunction order or had reviewed it before publishing the first article or the second one.
El Paso Matters’ September report acknowledged Alluin’s claim that the case had been expunged and reported that the police department had no order on file.
But the acknowledgement does not answer the question of whether the story gave readers sufficient legal and procedural context to understand what was known, what was disputed and what the absence of an order in police records meant.
The absence of records in law enforcement or court systems is consistent with an expunction order, which can require agencies to remove or restrict records and public references.
Dear reader, I hope you appreciate this article. Before reading more, I ask that you consider my work and make a small donation to help keep this publication open for everyone. El Paso lacks news diversity. I offer 20+ years of historical knowledge about El Paso’s politics and public policy. Media diversity matters. Make a small donation today to help keep my work going for another 20+ years. Thank you.
El Paso Matters Defends Reporting Process
On October 7, we submitted a detailed request for comments for this report to El Paso Matters publisher and CEO Bob Moore, editor Cindy Ramirez and reporter Priscilla Totiyapungprasert. Our questions addressed whether any attempt was made to verify the expunction order, the disposition of the criminal case, the distinction between allegations and established facts, the proportionality of the coverage, and whether the story should be updated considering the expunction order exists.
Moore responded in an email that the allegations of wrongdoing and an arrest involving someone seeking public office are matters of significant public concern. He said his publication checked criminal court records and requested police reports for all City Council candidates.
Moore added that Totiyapungprasert repeatedly asked Alluin to respond to the allegations in the police reports and asked him to provide any expunction order, but that Alluin declined to do so.
Moore’s response explained El Paso Matters’ rationale and described its attempts to obtain comment and documentation. However, it did not directly answer the questions we raised, including whether the newsroom had subsequently reviewed the April 16 order, how it assessed the legal significance of the order, or whether it intended to revise either article.
A Second El Paso Matters Article Repeated the Allegations
Another El Paso Matters article again raised Alluin’s arrest.
The second article, also by Totiyapungprasert, reported that Alluin declined an interview and did not respond to a candidate questionnaire.
The second article again reported the arrest, again raising the question of whether the reference was necessary and proportionate to a story primarily devoted to comparing candidates’ policy positions, and whether it gave readers sufficient context about the status of the allegations and the expunction Alluin claimed.
Essentially, was repeating Alluin’s arrest absent a conviction and the existence of an expunction order a matter of “significant” public concern for the voters, or was it an editorial decision based on a bias against Alluin?
Review Results
What we found in our review of El Paso Matters Alluin supports several conclusions.
Investigating an arrest and allegations involving a candidate for public office falls within a legitimate public-interest purpose. El Paso Matters sought public records, contacted Alluin for comments and sought confirmation from the police department about the order.
The existence of the April 16 expunction order provides important context to the story.
But the police department’s inability to locate the court order is not proof that the order does not exist.
In both articles, El Paso Matters reports that Alluin has repeatedly said that an expunction record exists in the case. Although an expunction does not determine the guilt or lack of guilt of the accused, the fact that it has been granted erases the criminal record against Alluin.
Additionally, El Paso Matters reported that other law enforcement agencies and prosecutors could not provide criminal records to El Paso Matters about Alluin, suggesting that the expunction record had removed the criminal record from Alluin’s background.
The central question is not whether El Paso Matters was justified in reporting Alluin’s arrest, but whether its coverage gave readers a fair and proportionate account of an old case whose legal status had changed before the article was published.
Several facts are important in evaluating that decision. The arrest warrant dates back approximately four years, and Alluin turned himself in about a year after it was issued. A court subsequently granted his request for expunction in an order filed April 16, 2026, nearly five months before El Paso Matters published its September story. The police department later confirmed that it did not have an expunction order on file. It is not known whether the order was served on the El Paso Police Department or whether it was not processed appropriately.
A second important question is why El Paso Matters choose to repeat the allegation in a subsequent report comparing the candidates’ policy positions. By the time of the second article, El Paso Matters had already reported the arrest and disclosed Alluin’s claim that the case had been expunged. Repeating the allegations in a candidate profile was a separate editorial decision.
This second editorial decision warrants scrutiny about the information provided to the readers that includes the relevance of the allegations on the candidate’s election profile, and the prominence given to an allegation in comparison with all the candidates’ policy positions that voters use to make informed decisions.
Reporting on allegations involving a candidate for public office can serve a legitimate public interest. But that interest does not eliminate the responsibility to distinguish allegations from established facts, explain relevant legal developments, and consider whether repeating potentially damaging information is justified for the purposes on an election.
Ultimately, readers must judge whether El Paso Matters struck the important journalistic balance of informing voters about the candidates. Did the two articles leave the question about whether the legal context and the decision to repeat the allegations were handled with sufficient journalistic intent by El Paso Matters.
We will continue our auditing of El Paso Matters’ election coverage on Monday after another candidate steps forward and complains of unfair reporting by El Paso Matters.
Election Day is November 3rd. Early voting begins on Monday and runs through October 30.