State ex rel. League of Women Voters v. Advisory Comm. to the N.M. Compilation Comm'n, 2017 NMSC 25

Background

Three amendments to N.M. Const. art. VII, §1 were approved by voters in 2008, 2010, and 2014 (votes: 74.48%, 56.92%, 57.68%) but were not compiled into the Constitution by the Compilation Commission.
Petitioner (League of Women Voters of NM) sought mandamus directing the Advisory Committee to advise the Compilation Commission to compile those amendments, arguing simple-majority ratification sufficed under art. XIX, §1 (as amended 1996).
Respondent (Advisory Committee) took no position on the merits and argued it was not a proper respondent; the Court found the Committee is a proper respondent because its advice/approval is a prerequisite to compilation.
Central legal question: whether the 1996 amendment to Article XIX, §1 narrowed the three-fourths supermajority requirement so it applies only to amendments that "restrict the rights created by" the protected provisions, allowing neutral or rights-expanding amendments to take effect by simple majority.
The Court held the 1996 change to art. XIX, §1 was the later expression of the people’s will and therefore controls; it concluded the three challenged amendments were neutral or expanded voting rights and thus became effective with simple-majority ratification.
Relief: Mandamus granted ordering the Advisory Committee to advise and approve compilation of art. VII, §1 to incorporate the 2010 and 2014 changes (and modernized language from 2010).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petition is time-barred as an election contest under NMSA §1-14-3	Petition: not an election contest; seeks interpretation of constitutional effect, so not subject to 30-day limit	Respondent: challenge filed years after certifications and therefore untimely as an election contest	Court: not an election contest because it does not seek to alter certified election results; 30-day limit inapplicable
Whether League has standing to seek mandamus	League: matter of great public importance justifies conferral of standing	(Respondent disputed party propriety but not merits)	Court: conferred standing under its authority for matters of great public importance
Whether Advisory Committee is proper respondent for mandamus	League: Committee performs the de facto function of advising/approving compilation and is thus proper respondent	Committee: asserts no duty to declare election results; State Canvassing Board handles canvass	Court: Advisory Committee is proper respondent because its advice/approval is a prerequisite to the Compilation Commission’s action
Interpretation of conflict between art. XIX, §1 (1996) and art. VII, §3 — whether three-fourths requirement applies to all amendments to §1 or only to amendments that "restrict the rights created by" §1	League: art. XIX, §1 (1996) controls; three-fourths applies only to amendments that restrict rights; neutral or rights-expanding amendments need simple majority	Implicit counter: art. VII, §3’s language appears broader and historically protected §1 via a three-fourths rule; ambiguity	Court: art. XIX, §1 (1996) is the later expression of the people’s will and controls; the three-fourths rule now applies only to amendments that restrict the rights created by the protected provisions; therefore the three amendments at issue (neutral or rights-expanding) became effective by simple majority

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Witt v. State Canvassing Bd., 437 P.2d 143 (N.M. 1968) (interpreting three-fourths popular-vote requirement and addressing county-weighting requirement later invalidated)
Dinwiddie v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 708 P.2d 1043 (N.M. 1985) (defining election contest as challenge that would alter certified results)
Glaser v. LeBus, 276 P.3d 959 (N.M. 2012) (cautioning against overbroad application of Election Code timeliness rules)
Gunaji v. Macias, 31 P.3d 1008 (N.M. 2001) (confirming New Mexico Supreme Court may confer standing in election-related matters of great public importance)
Baca v. Ortiz, 61 P.2d 320 (N.M. 1936) (example of earlier failed amendment to art. VII, §1 that did not meet three-fourths requirement)