Hand v. Winter
2017 NMSC 5
| N.M. | 2016Background
- Judge Daniel Viramontes announced his intent to resign March 10, 2016 and resigned effective August 26, 2016, creating a district court vacancy after the June primary and after the deadline for the governor to amend the primary proclamation.
- Under the New Mexico Constitution (Art. VI, §§ 33–37) the governor appoints a temporary replacement from nominees submitted by a judicial nominating committee; the appointee serves until the next general election.
- The Sixth Judicial District Nominating Committee submitted nominees; Governor Martinez appointed Jarod Hofacket to start November 4, 2016. Petitioners did not challenge the appointment itself.
- The Republican State Central Committee timely (September 9, 2016) submitted Hofacket’s name to the Secretary of State under NMSA 1978 § 1-8-8, which governs vacancies occurring after a primary when an office was not included in the governor’s proclamation.
- Petitioners (Hand, Nuner, Smith) sought a writ of mandamus, injunction, and declaratory relief arguing placement of Hofacket on the November 8, 2016 general-election ballot was arbitrary, unlawful, and deprived nominees/voters of primary/general election participation.
- The Secretary of State placed Hofacket on the general election ballot as the sole nominee because no other party nominees were filed by the 56-day deadline for ballot preparation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Secretary must place the appointee’s name on the general election ballot after a post-primary resignation | Hand/Nuner/Smith: placement was arbitrary and deprived candidate/voters of electoral rights; governor’s appointment should not make appointee the ballot candidate | Winter: Election Code §1-8-8 governs post-primary vacancies; party central committee timely nominated Hofacket and Secretary must place nominee on ballot | Held: Yes. Secretary had a clear, indisputable duty under §1-8-8 to place Hofacket on the ballot; mandamus denied |
| Whether governor may unilaterally put an appointee on the ballot | Petitioners: governor’s appointment should not substitute for statutory nomination/ballot procedures | Respondents: governor appoints to fill until next general election, but Election Code prescribes ballot placement; governor cannot place appointee on ballot | Held: Governor cannot place appointee on ballot; Election Code controls ballot placement |
| Whether §1-8-8 applied given timing and proclamation status | Petitioners: vacancy timing and proclamation context make placement improper | Respondents: vacancy occurred after primary and the office was not in governor’s proclamation; §1-8-8 permits state party committees to file nominees at least 56 days before election | Held: §1-8-8 applies; all statutory elements satisfied and party timely nominated Hofacket |
| Whether mandamus was an appropriate remedy to block placement | Petitioners: mandamus should issue to prevent an alleged unlawful act | Respondents: Secretary’s duty was ministerial and clear; mandamus only issues to compel performance of a clear duty | Held: Mandamus denied because Secretary’s duty to place the nominee on the ballot was clear and indisputable |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Noble v. Fiorina, 355 P.2d 497 (N.M. 1960) (interpreting “until the next general election” to require placement on same-year general election when vacancy occurs after primary)
- New Energy Econ., Inc. v. Martinez, 247 P.3d 286 (N.M. 2011) (standard for writ of mandamus requires clear, indisputable ministerial duty)
- Johnson v. Vigil-Giron, 146 P.3d 312 (N.M. 2006) (district court judges classified as district offices requiring central committee nominations)
- State ex rel. King v. Raphaelson, 356 P.3d 1096 (N.M. 2015) (appointment serves until next general election; winner holds remainder of original term)