State ex rel. League of Women Voters v. Advisory Comm. to the N.M. Compilation Comm'n
35,524
| N.M. | Aug 3, 2017Background
- The League of Women Voters petitioned for mandamus directing the Advisory Committee to the New Mexico Compilation Commission to advise compilation of three amendments to Article VII, §1 (submitted in 2008, 2010, 2014) that had passed by simple majority but not by a three-fourths supermajority; the Compilation Commission had not compiled them.
- The amendments: 2008 and 2014 clarified timing of school elections (allowing consolidation with nonpartisan elections) and replaced gendered pronouns; 2010 modernized voter-qualification language (removed offensive terms, aligned state language with federal standards, clarified exclusions for felons and mental incapacity).
- The central legal question: whether Article XIX, §1 (as amended in 1996) or Article VII, §3 controls the three-fourths supermajority requirement for amendments to Article VII, §1 — i.e., whether the heightened three-fourths threshold applies only to amendments that "restrict the rights created by" §1, or to any amendment "to the provisions of" §1.
- Procedural posture: original mandamus proceeding in the New Mexico Supreme Court; court granted standing (exercise of inherent conferral for matter of great public importance), held the petition was not an untimely election contest under the Election Code, and that the Advisory Committee was a proper respondent.
- Court concluded the 1996 amendment to Article XIX, §1 changed the trigger for the supermajority: the three-fourths rule now protects only amendments that restrict the rights created by Article VII, §1; amendments that are neutral or expand rights become effective by simple majority.
- Applying that rule, the court held the 2008 and 2014 amendments were neutral (and effective), and the 2010 amendment modernized and expanded/clarified voting qualifications (and was effective); it ordered compilation of Article VII, §1 to incorporate the 2010 and 2014 changes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to bring mandamus | League: matter of great public importance; court may confer standing | Advisory Committee: procedural objections to party status | Court exercised inherent authority and granted standing given constitutional importance |
| Timeliness / Election-contest bar | League: this is a constitutional-interpretation question, not an election contest, so §1-14-3 doesn’t apply | Advisory Committee: petition filed years after elections; Election Code 30-day contest rule applies | Court: not an election contest (does not seek to alter certified results); §1-14-3 inapplicable |
| Proper respondent for mandamus | League: Advisory Committee effectively blocks compilation by withholding advice/approval, so it is proper respondent | Advisory Committee: state canvassing board declares election results; Advisory Committee has no duty to declare winners | Court: Advisory Committee must advise/approve compilation; it is a proper respondent for writ of mandamus |
| Which constitutional provision controls three-fourths rule; were the amendments effective? | League: Article XIX (1996) limits three-fourths to amendments that "restrict the rights created by" §1, so neutral/expansive amendments need simple majority; thus 2008/2010/2014 effective | Implicit (respondent took no position on merits); historical protections in Article VII, §3 and Article XIX originally required three-fourths for amendments "to the provisions of" §1 | Court: 1996 amendment to Article XIX is latest sovereign expression and controls; three-fourths applies only to amendments that restrict rights created in §1. 2008 & 2014 neutral; 2010 modernized/expanded qualifications — all effective by simple majority; ordered compilation incorporating 2010 and 2014 changes |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Witt v. State Canvassing Bd., 78 N.M. 682, 437 P.2d 143 (N.M. 1968) (discusses historic three-fourths requirement and prior amendments to Article VII)
- Dinwiddie v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 103 N.M. 442, 708 P.2d 1043 (N.M. 1985) (defines election contest as challenge to result or inherent validity of an election)
- Glaser v. LeBus, 276 P.3d 959 (N.M. 2012) (cautions against applying Election Code limitation to essentially every post-election governmental-action challenge)
- City of Albuquerque v. N.M. State Corp. Comm’n, 93 N.M. 719, 605 P.2d 227 (N.M. 1979) (governing rule: when provisions cannot be harmonized, the later expression of sovereign will controls)
- State ex rel. Bird v. Apodaca, 91 N.M. 279, 573 P.2d 213 (N.M. 1977) (recognizes New Mexico Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction over extraordinary writs like mandamus)
- Cobb v. N.M. State Canvassing Bd., 140 N.M. 77, 140 P.3d 498 (N.M. 2006) (illustrates public importance of clarifying election laws and canvassing processes)