Los Chavez Cmty. Assn. v. Valencia Cnty., 277 P.3d 475

Valencia County Board approved a zoning map amendment for about 40 acres into 15 residential lots; Commissioner Otero-Kirkham, a first cousin to applicant Barela, voted in favor.
Before the vote, a neighbor asked Otero-Kirkham if she would recuse herself; she said the relationship was not close and sought an opinion that she need not recuse.
Los Chavez Community Ass’n and others appealed to district court alleging the Board’s decision was arbitrary and lacked substantial evidence, and that Otero-Kirkham’s failure to recuse violated due process by creating an appearance of bias.
The district court remanded for a hearing without Otero-Kirkham, ruling that recusal was a due process violation; Los Chavez appealed.
This appeal addresses whether recusal is required under due process, and whether the district court’s remand plus threshold jurisdiction/finality issues permit appellate review.
The court ultimately holds that recusal is required under constitutional and statutory standards for quasi-judicial tribunals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the district court’s remand order final and appealable under practical finality?	Los Chavez argues finality should allow appellate review.	The state’s finality policy would bar piecemeal appeals.	Yes; practical finality applies; appeal allowed.
Was the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction appropriate (original vs. appellate) to address due process claims?	District court could address due process claims under original jurisdiction.	Appeal under appellate jurisdiction would be improper.	Appeal properly arises from district court’s original jurisdiction.
Does due process require recusal of a county commissioner in a quasi-judicial zoning matter when a relative is a party?	Yes; constitutional language and case law require recusal.	Flexible/impartial approach; no automatic recusal absent bias or statutory duty.	Yes; recusal required under Article VI, §18 and due process principles.

Albuquerque Commons P’ship v. City Council of Albuquerque, 144 N.M. 99 (2008-NMSC-025) (board adjudication requires ethical standards akin to court proceedings)
Reid v. N.M. Bd. of Exam’rs of Optometry, 92 N.M. 414 (1979) (due process in administrative adjudication; impartial tribunal)
Siesta Hills Neighborhood Ass’n v. City of Albuquerque, 124 N.M. 670 (1998-NMCA-028) (council member participation acceptable if no appearance of impropriety)
High Ridge Hinkle Joint Venture v. City of Albuquerque, 119 N.M. 29 (Ct. App. 1994) (finality/practical approach to appeals; efficiency considerations)
State v. Begay, 148 N.M. 685 (2010-NMCA-089) (threshold finality discussion; context matters for appeal)