487 P.3d 815
N.M.2021Background
- June 2, 2020 statewide primary in New Mexico was scheduled amid the COVID-19 pandemic and statewide public-health emergency; Governor and Secretary of Health issued executive and public‑health orders limiting mass gatherings and directing officials to minimize COVID‑19 spread.
- County clerks (petitioners) anticipated severe election‑workforce shortages (many poll workers elderly) and polling‑place closures, and they stipulated with the Secretary of State that in‑person voting posed serious health risks.
- Petitioners asked the Court for extraordinary relief to avoid in‑person voting by directing the Secretary to mail ballots to all registered voters (adapting special‑election, all‑mail procedures).
- Intervenors (including the Republican Party and legislators) argued the Election Code prohibits mailing primary ballots without prior voter request and that only the Legislature may change election procedures.
- The Court concluded the Election Code does not allow direct mailing of primary ballots, but the Code permits mailing absentee‑ballot applications; balancing the Secretary’s statutory duties and executive orders, the Court issued a mandamus ordering the Secretary to mail absentee ballot applications to all eligible voters while preserving in‑person options required by law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. May the Secretary mail absentee ballots directly to all registered voters (no prior request) for the June 2020 primary? | Needed to protect public health; adapt special‑election, all‑mail procedures to primary. | Secretary (stipulated) and Intervenors: Election Code does not authorize mailing primary ballots without requests; only Legislature can change procedure. | No. Election Code forbids direct mailing of primary ballots without request; special‑election statutes do not apply to primaries. |
| 2. Is mandamus an appropriate vehicle to resolve this election procedure dispute on an expedited basis? | Emergency remedy needed to resolve before election; factual record undisputed. | Intervenors argued separation of powers and that legislative remedy exists. | Yes. Mandamus appropriate given (a) public‑importance election issue, (b) legal (not factual) dispute, (c) need for speedy resolution; legislative special session was impracticable. |
| 3. May the Court (or Secretary) use equitable powers to override the Election Code and implement an all‑mail primary? | Equity should permit remedy necessary to protect public health. | Intervenors: equity cannot displace explicit statutory scheme; separation of powers prevents nonlegislative change. | No. Court’s equitable powers cannot be used to override clear statutory procedures or displace the Legislature’s plenary authority to set election rules. |
| 4. Did the Secretary have a nondiscretionary duty (under Election Code plus executive/public‑health orders) to take steps to minimize COVID‑19 risk, and if so, was mailing absentee‑ballot applications compelled? | Duty to protect health required maximal lawful use of authority; mailing applications facilitates absentee voting and reduces contacts. | Intervenors: Secretary’s duties limited by Election Code; mailing applications is discretionary. | Yes. While prohibited from mailing ballots, the Secretary had a nondiscretionary duty under executive/public‑health orders and her statutory role to promote safe elections; Court ordered mailing of absentee‑ballot applications to all eligible voters. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Clark v. Johnson, 120 N.M. 562, 904 P.2d 11 (N.M. 1995) (original mandamus jurisdiction and separation‑of‑powers considerations).
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1803) (mandamus as a remedy to compel public duty).
- State ex rel. Richardson v. Fifth Judicial Dist. Nominating Comm’n, 141 N.M. 657, 160 P.3d 566 (N.M. 2007) (mandamus appropriate to compel official act).
- State ex rel. Sandel v. N.M. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 127 N.M. 272, 980 P.2d 55 (N.M. 1999) (articulated multifactor test for mandamus).
- Gunaji v. Macias, 130 N.M. 734, 31 P.3d 1008 (N.M. 2001) (equitable remedies must conform to statutory election scheme; courts may analogize only where statute is silent).
- State ex rel. League of Women Voters v. Advisory Comm. to the N.M. Compilation Comm’n, 401 P.3d 734 (N.M. 2017) (mandamus usable for pure legal questions implicating public importance).