City of Raton v. Sproule

рur- Such not error. The omission was The State’s cross-examination was pose requirements completeness bring is to directed to the the infor- of these jury imparted by if issue to the doubt exists. mation to the reasonable defendant jury, developed presented Since the issue witness. cross-examination was past trial to that certain conduct court made available defendant of defendant’s every Up- right guaranteed him. had fact to State v. been criminal conduct. There ton, supra. objection Ortega, aspect no State v. was to this (1966) P.2d 219 cross-examination. There two answers defendant’s to Robinson, Pate 383 U.S. First, questions contention. the State’s S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 815 does pertained inquired in the to matters require contrary result. Pate held that direct examination. cross-examination when competency issue defendant’s testimony supplemented modified raised, process requires stand trial due proper on direct examination and was inquiry court concerning make com his Wilcoxson, under State v. petency. inquiry In Pate there was no as Second, objection (1948). 188 P.2d 611 no provided by Illinois statutes. having to the cross-examination been made require We Pate do not understand court, point trial will not be that competency the issue of defendant’s appeal. 21-2-1(20), conidered on Section trial stand trial must be decided Walker, 1953; N.M.S.A.

judge inquiry must decided after an 223 P.2d 943 separate Specifi- conducted from trial. judgment affirmed. and sentence is cally, we do not the Pate deci- understand It is so ordered. prohibit sion the procedures either CARMODY, JJ, concur. approved MOISE and Upton, supra, in State v. procedure Due followed in this case.

process an required of law there be

inquiry concerning competency defendant’s held, inquiry

to stand trial. Such an was conflicting jury deter- evidence competent

mined that defendant was stand trial. P.2d 336 the evi Defendant contends corporation, RATON, a OF CITY satisfactorily dence show Petitioner-Appellee, County. crime was committed in Bernalillo Thus, credibility attacks the he Raton, SPROULE, City Clerk Mae Eva concerning venue. who testified witnesses Defendant-Appellant, Mexico, New matter Credibility witnesses was jury for the to decide. Crawford, Joe V. Anderson, William L.O. Blaine, McBride, B. Torres, Bob F. Reuben testimony Defendant asserts Intervenors-Appellants. Durrett, Ray improp past concerning his offenses was 8214. No. erly father admitted into evidence. The On the defense. defendant testified Supreme Mexico. Court he testified con examination his direct June prior conduct both cerning defendant’s reported the witness and observed testimony This defendant. witness insanity support defenses of incompetency time of crime stand trial. Skinner, Raton, appellee;' S. for

Robert Parmelee, Horan, Jr., L. Frank L. James Albuquerque, Sproule. Mae Eva LeBeck, Jr., Gallup, Albert inter- O. venors Anderson Crawford. Donnell, Fe,

Zinn & Santa for Torres and McBride. Darden, Raton, H. for Blaine

William and Durrett.

OPINION OMAN, Appeals. Judge, Court of Raton, County, City New The of Colfax Mexico, the district of filed suit in court judg- County, whereby sought a Colfax it validity declaring the constitutional ment following: the of 12 of

(1) amendment to article The Constitution, which was the New Mexico the submitted to on November voters Proposal 7; No. Chapter Laws of (2) New Mexico implements the 1965, insofar as the same amendment, and which said constitutional appear implementing provisions now as §§ -9, 1965); (Supp. 14-29-1 to N.M.S.A.1953 resolution, passed the (3) An election city, calling for a governing body of obligation bond special election on adopted purposes, flood issue for control 9, 12 pursuant of Mexico Constitution the New implementing provisions said Mexico statutes. City against brought

The suit Clerk, publish the resolu- refused to who election. Her proceed with the tion and to that the said refusal were reasons for her validly amendment was not legisla- implementing adopted, and that the void. unconstitutional and tion is Durrett, intervenors, are Blaine and Raton, City taxpayers of resident is amendment position their adopted, validly insofar valid and was calling authorizes the same incurring purposes of elections for in- indebtedness, that the amendment but proceed upon provides that then the attacks the valid- valid, non- insofar as ity portion city, of a of the amendment and the who are residents residents of city implementing legislation. disposition is situate and wherein city made the election property and have attack resolu- own within depend entirely upon disposi- during pre- tion will paid property tax therein questions year, concerning at an tion we ceding are make of validity incurring munici- purpose of the amendment and the im- election for the legislation. They plementing contend pal further indebtedness. portion claimed invalid repeatedly We have held that severable, and, thus, does not every presumption indulged is to be in favor portion. validity affect regularity legislative intervenors, McBride, Torres and Directors, enactments. Board of etc. v. County, re- residents but do not of Colfax County Bd., Indigent Hosp. City They side within the Raton. do own 994; City Silver Consol. Dist. Sch. property city, they paid a No. 1 Regents, v. Board of year tax thereon within a P.2d Gruschus v. Bureau of filing petition the of in this cause. Revenue, 775, (1965); 74 N.M. 399 P.2d 105 Co., position Moruzzi v. Federal 42 Their the Life & is that is Cas. amendment 35, 320, However, entirety. they (1938).

valid 75 P.2d 115 in its attack A.L.R. 407 A validity legislation statute will implementing the the not be of declared unconstitu requires beyond tional the register them and vote unless court is satisfied all precinct City legislature in a Raton. reasonable doubt the of They went outside the enacting ‍‌​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​​​​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‍further contend that the amendment constitution in the challenged self-executing, therefore, they legislation. Hovey and can ex rel. Mechem, properly regular voting pre- vote in their Concrete Prod. Co. v. 250, cincts, city, voting outside the when 1069 State v. Mc Kinley, an purpose incurring election the of 202 P.2d 964 municipal indebtedness. Logic like,, compel and reason that a intervenors, Anderson and Craw- stronger, presumption even prevail must ford, County are residents of Fe and Santa validity in favor of the of a constitutional County, Mexico, respective- Bernalillo amendment legisla which has received both ly, they but property own situate within the approval approval tive and quali the of City paid property of Raton and tax fied regularly voters the state at a called year during filing thereon the preceding the Kemp election. In the ex rel. case of State petition in this cause. City Rouge, of Baton 215 La. 40 So. position Their is that amendment and 2d (1949), Supreme 477 Court of Louisi the implementing legislation invalid, ana, be- are quoting the earlier from case of cause, the limitation of electors to residents Liquidation Whitney-Central Board of County arbitrary Colfax is an and unrea- Savings Bank, & Trust So. La. sonable classification violates either or rule, stated the relative to process” both the “equal protec- “due presumptive validity aof constitutional tion” clauses of amendment amendment, Con- as follows: stitution of the United States. decision, reaching “In the court upheld validity trial court necessarily must have in mind the uni- amendment, statutes, implementing and the that, versal rule whenever a constitutional election respects, resolution in all and enter- amendment is attacked as constitu- judgment ed accordingly. The defendant tionally adopted, question presented and all the appealed. intervenors have is, condemn, possible not whether it is dispose upon possible

We shall but uphold; first attacks whether validity every presumption, reasonable law the entire amendment and both of changes effected the amend- indulged in favor of the Since fact, is to be amendment, entirely ment to article which will not consist additions legality of appears changes clearly overthrown, illegality demon- these be unless People by setting forth section beyond strated a reasonable doubt. [ex amended, Sours, 74 P. underlined. Colo. additions rel. Elder] 34; Am.St.Rep. People The section amended reads: [167], 169; 102 now ment, thus, beyond validity. tained in article ceed to answer more amendments are vote on each of them [ex so submitted unless its rel. Keeping in all violative 129; Tate] reasonable P. 817.” is, that: is first contended Martien v. illegality as to fact, mind our Prevost, attacks “* enable separately doubt, proposed, is made * * requirement Porter, amendments, the New Mexico made duty we the amend If Colo. shall 68 Mont. * * upon two or uphold appear shall con pro *.” its “Sec. therein strictions.] paid shall provide ing town or pal fy raised shall interest “No of, twelve [12] taxable debt proceeds be purposes city, such provided discharged, irrepealable on, except village, [Municipal town or and to debt be of such levy applied, to which the funds to mills on the dollar for shall have been within sufficient and which shall extinguish until the indebtedness village an tax within such indebtedness' —Re- ordinance, fifty and which tax, shall ^[50] contract pay the exceed- applied princi- years. speci- fully shall city, be only payment interest such Constitutional such as ours principal. created debt be No such thirty-two at common to least other incurring the same question of unless the Constitutions, Digest Index states. of State councilmen, shall, at regular a election for (2d 1959). Although ed. 16-17 we have city, such aldermen or other officers of upon never before been interpret called special election village, any at town or or apply enjoinder, or our like constitutional been sub- purpose, called such have for enjoinders many in have states been qualified electors mitted such to a vote of subject litigatiоn seeking the their of inter- property tax there- thereof have a paid as pretation application. the See collec- year, and a during preceding in the tion cases in the at 94 of annotation A.L.R. majority voting question those on the of deposited separate in a ballot ballot constitutional amendment which is The election, voting regular box in a when question separate here first as two in arose creating such shall have in favor voted of The House Resolutions. one called Joint receive proposal debt. A which for of the the addition to article adop- required the number votes of for special Mexico Constitution the elections at any special tion election called for provision. provision The other made for in purpose, be resubmitted shall not increasing quali- enlarging or the class of special one period election ivithin a The fied Senate Rules Committee voters. vot- year. purpose, only, the For [Í] combining drafted a substitute resolution dеbt, any per- ing the the creation provisions. both was substitute corporate owning property within adopted legisla- resolution which was son who village city, limits town ture and submitted the electorate of or during the paid property tax therein at election held has a general New Mexico 63,791 year and is otherwise preceding November 1964. The who 52,237 qualified such against county to vote in the vohere the amendment be city, village situated shall amendment. town or qualified (As a particular “logrolling,” elector.” amended No- pre- vice or the 3, 1964.) vember propositions sentation double vot- ers, lies in fact that such is “inducive reading.of From a the section as it ex- fraud,” and that it becomes “uncertain amendment, isted before which is identi- whether either or propositions more quoted, just cal amended section could have been carried vote had portions, except ap- for the italicized singly.” been submitted parent object in- of this section procedures volved the be followed Courts should reluctant tо over incurring the limitations of mu- legislative turn a determination that a nicipal indebtedness, applica- as the well proposed accomplish amendment will but proceeds tion of the secured from the tax general object purpose. pre one or levied. particular portion of the sec- sumptions favor tion which has been amended en- relates give support further hesi to our tirely incurring to manner of the indebt- tancy overturning legis the actions of the provides edness. The amendment lature and our correct conclusion as question submission of the of whether or not legislative ness determination that the “spe- indebtedness shall be at incurred proposal actually but amend constitutes one elections, cial” “regular” as well as at limits ment. question, time within which rejected by cases, has special majority been which have voters election, may spe- be resubmitted at apply another undertaken to construe and a like con election, provides “qualified cial enjoinder, adopted stitutional seem to have amendment, electors” at general either a or the rule question enlarged election on shall be subjects embraces several or items “any person owning include property change, upheld valid, with- will be corporate in the city, limits of the town submitted to the electorate as one paid village or tax proposition, subjects has there- if all the or items during year the preceding change and who is contained in amendment are otherwise germane general object purpose. one city, where village such town 30; Annot., Ruling situated.” Case Law A.L.R. 1510, Timme, 1511; State ex rel. Hudd v. only The change, as to who are 318, Kerby 54 11 (1882); Wis. N.W. 785 v. electors, consists making “county” of as well Luhrs, supra; People ex rel. Tate v. Pre “municipal” eligible as residents to vote vost, 55 Colo. P. (1913); 134 129 State question, long on the as are other- Hay Alderson, ex rel. v. Mont. 142 49 qualified. wise Shaw, (1914); Rupe P. 210 v. P.2d 286 The recognized purpose of a consti ; (Okl.1955) Meredith, 1094 Hatcher 295 v. requirement, tutional or two more Ky. (1943); 173 665 ex S.W.2d State amendments shall be so submitted аs en Holman, rel. of Board Fund Comm’rs v. able separately, electors to vote on each (Mo.1956); Gray 482 296 S.W.2d v. Gold vice, commonly to avoid the referred to as en, difficulty 785 (Fla.1956). 89 So.2d “logrolling” “jockeying.” by or As stated application arises in the of the rule to the minority opinion Graves in his in Justice concrete in presented factual situations the Memphis State ex rel. Sch. Dist. of v. Gor many Holm, Winget Minn. cases. 187 don, 223 Mo. (1909), 122 1018 S.W. ; 244 (1932) 331 v. Chi N.W. Gabbert reasoning adopted the of which was cago Ry., R.I. P.& Mo. S.W. later County case of ex Pike rel. Annot., 1510, 1514; A.L.R. Gordon, (1916), Mo. 188 S.W. 88 Note, Amending Procedural Problems in quoted approval by which is with the Constitution, New Mexico’s Re Kerby Luhrs, 44 Natural Arizona court in Ariz. J., 151, 94 A.L.R. 1502 the sources regular at difficulty voters both elec- encountered the of Because rule, tions, germane and are the the relate application of in courts the subject purpose tendency rephrase, or of elections in- been a there has of rule, curring municipal in of indebtedness language enlarge amendment, not, fact, one in that the reached result demonstrate order to two case is amendments. particular facts of the under appli- logical and correct with a consistent 63,791 stated, As above the vote was It would the rule facts. of to those cation 52,237 against favor of amendment and try purpose us to dis- no useful serve question presented it. The next is whether reached tinguish to reconcile the results or validly adopted or not the amendment was many The factual situation cases. following provision in ar- because close here not lend itself to a presented 19, 1, ticle Constitution of New Mexico: analogy case or cases “ * * * Provided, That no amend- found. we have apply provi- affect ment shall to or sections and three article sions of one However, opinion we are of the ** hereof, franchise, VII on elective provisions that such should proposed by unless it three- be liberal, or rather than narrow receive of the members elected to each construction, where, fourths especially technical and be ratified a vote of the obviously house here, legislature considered at people state an election of this problem carefully, matter has and the elec- which at least three-fourths people been for their vote submitted to voting in the state and least Shaw, tors whole supra. Al Rupe thereon. See county voting in each object two-thirds of those “singleness” though the matter of for such amend- in the state shall vote purpose or cannot be determined alone 7, 1911.)” (As ment. amended November provisions question of whether are one more the constitution sections of apparent neither three-fourths amendment, affected this should in the whole state nor voting the electors Here, portion considered. we have but one voting each of those two-thirds affected, object single of a section for the failure voted amendment. purpose of the amendment confined requirements particular meet these the manner in indebted urged upon rea- provision is us points incurred. fact ness is son claimed failure ratification. for the involved, fact change are that either “apply af- to or If the amendment does might presented have been electorate fect” the separately, and the fact that there be no doubt then there can why might an elector desired reasons have validly adopt- that the amendment was other, change, one and not that the amendment contended ed. is not adoption hold themselves sufficient to applies provisions of arti- affects the to or rel. of the invalid. ex State restriction, prohibits the 7, 3, cle § 109, Herried, Adams v. 10 S.D. N.W. impairment right to abridgment or Chicago Ry., R.I. P. Gabbert v. & race, etc. religion, reason supra. rel. ex Hudd See also State Meredith, Timme, supra; provides: Hatcher v. su part pertinent of section Wetz, City Fargo pra; ex rel. ** * of the United “Every citizen 835, 299, 40 N.D. A.L.R. 731 N.W. twenty-one age of States, is over the who years, in New Mexico has resided days, months, county ninety opinion twelve We he offers precinct in which whereby and in the changes, were there added еlec- days, preceding the thirty next regard in elections persons, per- idiots, tion, except insane provisions enlarging the number a sons convicted of felonious or infamous amendment was held unconstitutional be- political crime rights, unless restored to cause it would have allowed citizens cast taxed, qualified elections, Indians not shall be at though ballots absent from the is claimed to vote at all elections for That ^[*] portion sji » applies of the to or amendment, affects public these officers. which it provi- article polls. amendment of article failed to It was held that this pass by 3.§ majority required by 7, § constituted and that an it sions of section is the last sentence there- Nothing forth set in the amend of, which is as follows : ment here any way involved is intended in “ * * * purpose, only, For apply vot- qualifications to or affect voter ing debt, any per- the creation in true, set forth article 1. It is that in owning property corporate son within the qualifications addition to expressly re city, limits of the village quired town or section an elector at a munici paid property a during pal has tax therein bond election under the amendment preceding year property who is otherwise must corporate own qualified county to vote in the where such limits municipality and must have city, village town or paid is situated shall a property pre during tax therein qualified elector.” ceding year. However, qualified electors in an prior such election to the amendment obviously Section 1 qualifi relates to the paid must “have tax therein dur cations of public electors at elections for ing year.” preceding However, officers. urged Jones, fact that Klutts v. additional now vote, municipal elections, E.R.A.1917A bond (1916), and in cannot Johnston apply Education, Bd. held to to or affect the voter qualifications set forth in this court held that article article 1.§ qualifications respect voter qualifications, expressly to voter recited applies section 1 exactly remain public more than "elections for same. This sec- provision officers.” tion makes no for or mention of municipal elections, bond qualifica- or the Our applicability concern here n ofthe tions of electors at such elections. The qualification requirements of electors provision of the relating constitution public elections for officers to school qualifications, elector which is affected boards, possibly elections, since and to which the amendment apply, the last sentence of the amendment here in- provision previously contained requires volved that an elector at a muni- 12, concerning qualifications cipal question election on the crea- electors at question elections on the of in- tion of indebtedness must be "otherwise curring municipal rati- indebtedness. The county.” to vote in the This re- fication provision of an amendment quires that municipal elector these requires only simple majority of the votes elections qualifications have the same question, are cast on the ma- and this electors of pub- аt elections for jority was attained. lic However, officers. because the elector qualifications Some of challenged set forth in section 1 are intervenors have applicable constitutionality portion made of that elec- bond tions, it appears amendment not which the follow the amend- last sen- applies thereof, -4, ment tence and to or provisions affects the of 14-29-1 to §§ S.A.1953, implement section which portion of the amendment. holding The of this court in Baca v. Or- provides: The amendment tiz, P.2d con- “* * * cerning voting amendment, an absentee is purpose, ‍‌​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​​​​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‍only, For the applicable case, here. In that the voting debt, any on the creation of the bility registration property, shall serve as the forms owning within the cor- person village municipal for city, the the non-resident electors de- porate limits of town siring paid property tax therein dur- to vote. who has a preceding year is other-

ing the and who provision is that contention county qualified the where to vote in wise amendment, the and these of the city, village is situated shall such town or implementing legislation, an arbi- create qualified a elector.” he trary unreasonable and classification qualified process voters and the due violate a implementing legislation creates equal protection guarantee and of Section precinct” the “municipal includes all United Amendment Fourteen of the territory county. within a It then creates ap- guarantees States Like Constitution. division, voting to be known as the “non- a pear in article of the Constitution all voting resident division” includes Mexico. New territory municipal precinct and the in the boundary municipality not within the the is conceded that the State of holding the election. power impose Mexico the rea New has sonable and other residence restrictions on municipal A non-resident elector de- is vote, long right so restrictions as the qualified reg- to be fined a who is elector discriminatory a and are based on are not county in which the istered vote to the classification. Prior reasonable situated, municipality holding the election is qualified a in an elector elec paid property property has a who tax on municipal create had tion to indebtedness municipality during located within the thereof, qualified (1) be a and elector election, year preceding has paid property tax therein (2) had to have a municipal registered clerk his in- with preceding year. during the Under municipal at the election. tention implementing legisla- amendment and the municipal desiring Non-resident tion, qualified person who a elector is a now municipal reg- to vote election must (1) a elector of filing ister to munic- situated, municipality wherein the clerk, ipal sixty days nor not more than corpo- property (2) who owns within election, days less than fifteen before municipality paid has rate limits of the eligibility. a certificate of during preceding a tax therein duty municipal It is the clerk county, year, (3) a resident if provide place polling the munici- a within city, filed certifi- but not of shall have electors, municipal pality for non-resident 14-29-3, eligibility, provided cate separate polling place from and the shall be (pock.supp.). N.M.S.A.1953 any place polling other located impression This case of first is a municipality. Mexico, and our research and the days the date Not less than five before parties has of counsel research election, municipal clerk is re- other failed to a similar case disclose quired place, by alphabetical or- name in McNeill, jurisdiction. Davy In der, kept registration in a book problem (1925), although purpose, eligibility filed certificates of presented quite unlike that involved non-resident electors. here, question there was involved constitutionality classification registration book be delivered This prin announcing the persons. In lands judge and clerks of the election determining whether ciple to be followed polling place for non-resident munici- valid, this court classification regis- pal electors in same manner stated: judges are delivered to tration books “ * * question is: Are remaining then and clerks of the election in repugnant eligi- classifications polling places, these and the certificates of 148 Foy, Amendment to

Fourteenth the Constitu- Burch See also 62 N.M. 308 tion the United States and like the P.2d 199 Gruschus v. Bureau of provision Revenue, supra. our state sification, P.2d in Hutcheson v. stated the will be tion is In state v. Sunset Ditch islative semblance of reason to stitutional that the amount to mere preme Court of the practical that it is sufficient to This ton, 921, 47 L.R.A.,(N.S.), distinguishing, Insurance sarily a Louisville & S.Ct. sonable, arbitrary the sense that whether reasonable to the instance a such basis seems to the court sonable; is classes of P.2d 219 ^[*] “ * * * “ ^[*] “This reasonable, legislature ** language entitled to Constitution if (1940), fiat question stricken down as Legislature ^[*] wide ^[*] question and not U.S. or is or not the classification is * discrimination between 43 L.Ed. guaranties. Co. owners? alone for Is it so must be reasonable and not legislative question Nashville it range there was has v. Daggs, Atherton, wherein the court further selecting, ^[*] it ^[*] is, caprice, depending is valid. to be: palpably great Legislature arbitrary adopted could repeated wholly is reviewed of discrimination in If satisfy S.Ct. ^{[*] [*]} support? an weight.” United States R. R. But the classification support Co., held where state it arbitrary.” unreasonable classification It violating also in Orient the classifica- devoid of and is have seemed ^[*] the demands ^[*] U.S. even classifying; that a clas- Co. by has be unrea- it is held approved fact that 54 unjust?” it, If the first v. Mel- though neces- as to ^{[*] [*]} L.Ed. toas so, con- leg- any rea- two Su- or it intervenors, severable, presents pal elections. Sections ing are sufficient which was and is not foregoing questions concerning the classification classification is reasonable and Mexico, ties maintained the voter available for use in the classification is tion of electors to those county 14-8-5, N.M.S.A.1953. just sonable consideration that in ness city, classification Other considerations town iswho situated.” tax therein Since those Here the classification is that of county electors, legislature changes semblance “ * * * any pеrson owning property relation town or are follows, are amendment, reasonable is based or otherwise where such otherwise registration village palpably arbitrary approved by and are used we do not mean to effected owners Blaine and village, do bears a during from our corporate required upon reason to in the conduct of munici- that the who has county adopt to demonstrate that thing considerations no qualified checking imposed. exist, city, direct, records issue property the amendment 3-2-6 preceding disposition limits of the Durrett, requirement practical clerk, town pay contention of respect but the support paid for determina- have voters reasonable classification, qualifications New are the indebted- suggest The limita- within municipali- are devoid prompted practical, -9 and § village kept year to which and rea- property of New it. forego- Mexico owners readily in the in the such city, and tion. arbitrary, and that the classification at-

tempted in order to avoid constitution- and some the interven- defendant prohibition al must per- Chapter founded ors next contend Laws of tinent and real distinguish- differences as appears Chapter which now ed difference, from artificial pocket supplement ones. Mere Mexico Stat- ” ** itself, enough. Annotated, is not Compilation, utes violates

149 4, 16, Legislature must in er connection. de- art. The provisions of N.M.Const. compre- and subject termine itself how broad than one it more embraces object statute, a hensive shall be clearly expressed in its title. jnuch particularity shall be em- and how 4, applicable provisions The * * * defining ployed in the it.” title are as follows: 16 by quotation from every a 25 clear- This was followed subject bill “The “Statutes,” 99, title, part R.C.L. of which expressed and no bill em- title ly in its quotation subject is that: shall be bracing than one more appropriation except general bills

passed primarily Legislature “It is or revision and bills for the codification title an act shall determine whether the * * laws; *.” and and or narrow re- general be broad pertinent, The and broader the Act, greater stricted. insofar as title to the title, greater particu- number of reads: subjects lars or of which subordinate revising, pursu- codifying ‍‌​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​​​​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‍“An act and be embraced within it.” ant to article section 16 of the New Municipal Code; authorizing the exercise of certain Mexico Statutes * * cities, repealing *» towns Annotated, municipal powers chapter and villages; enacting the Laws 1953 New Mexico by counties; Compilation relating a the title was made on N.M. ment Liens.” In “An ifi act In the relating 320 P.2d 382 ^[*] the act did not Chapter Laws case of disposing ^[*] Ballew v. foreclosure of (1958), a like attack ^[*] clearly express 1933,entitled, ^[*] Denson, claim that ^[*] judg 63 thereof, subject it embraced Appellee urges code is valid ect, subj more than one we stated: (1) because: not embrace than more “ * subject, title, clearly expressed in * one its * primary purpose of the (2) it a is codification or revision of prevent provision is law, excepted expressly which is from the surprise by means of concealed fraud or subject” requirement. “one hidden in an act which the * * * This broad express. title fails to This of our section cоnstitution was first clearly ex- statement title to act] [the applied construed Ingalls, in State v. the foreclosure of presses subject, its prin- P. 1177 135 reading the various judgment liens. On ciples therein announced were reaffirmed Act, find disclosed a provisions of the we Davy McNeill, supra, wherein fore- subject, pertaining to single comprehensive provided act there involved judgment liens.” closure of organization irrigation for the districts. We 205: Cooley, but sions) sions indicated no considered as cover quoted “The ^[*] “The obj one Constitutional Limitations ection to it (referring generality general purpose ^[*] accomplished legislation its title. approval having necessary no fair intendment to constitutional object of the title is long incongruous ^[*] the following when the law has as it is not which is of these ^[*] therefore (7th Ed.) could provi- provi- 5fC fairly itself, prop- made L.R.A. from ty, lor v. single sions A.L.R. 296 code.” cities, Johnson N.W. sult Co. v. has been they all Mirabal, towns and subject, State, For other cases A Iowa the Act here (1898) reading (1928) Central Harrison, reached, 104 Ga. relate namely, villages,” ; ; Cook Widney see State the numerous N.W. 372 the one “laws question discloses 31 S.E. aor Marshall Minn. Georgia Ry. ex rel. relating “municipal broad but Hess, like (1903); provi Coun Tay re 62

150 342, Supreme (1950); 45 233 Our territorial Court Iowa N.W.2d did have 1078, Pete, (1944); 368 explain 206 La. 20 So.2d occasion to define and v. what 847, Commonwealth, by Cortesy meant McClain v. 189 Va. revision of statutes. In ; Territory, 89, (1949) 55 Macke Common v. (1893), S.E.2d 49 v. 32 P. 504 wealth, 1015, (1931); following quoted approval 156 Va. S.E. 148 159 with parte Jimenez, 183, from Statutory Ex Sutherland 159 Tex. 317 S.W.2d Construction: (1958). 189 “ * * * A implies revision of statutes Bryan, Nothing stated in Tindall v. us a re-examination of them. The word is 54 (1949), N.M. P.2d 354 215 or in applied to a restatement of in a the law Greiner, improved corrected or form. The restate- Johnson upon by 183 relied defendant and in- may ment be with or without material ” * * tervenors, compels or even indicates a dif- change. ferent result. Thus a revision implies of statutes opinion areWe also of the one, more or all of following: (1) a re amendment was valid it because is a codi- statutes; examination of existing (2) a re fication and revision of the relating laws existing statement of in a statutes corrected cities, towns, villages and into a improved form; or (3) may the restatement expressly code as stated in the In ad- title. or not include changes; (4) material collecting rearranging dition to and parts and of the former stat prior cities, relating statutes and towns ; or ute statutes that are repealed omitted are villages, changes some therein been have (5) displaces the revision repeals made, including the omission of some mat- former relating law as stood to the sub prior ters contained in the and the statutes ject subjects purview. within its Becker addition of some new matters. County, v. Green 176 Wis. 184 N.W. 715, 186 N.W. 584 (1921). have See We never had also Fort occasion to define Ry. Welch, Worth & D. C. Co. what is meant 183 a codification of S.W. laws. 2d (Tex.Civ.App.1934); Laundry 730 Dictionary (4th 1951) Black’s Law Elite 324 ed. Dunn, Co. v. 126 W.Va. 30 process defines codification as the S.E.2d 454 of cor- Indemnity City American recting arranging Co. v. of a laws Austin, 112 ; Tex. 246 (1922) state into a code. In 1 S.W. 1019 Bouvier’s Law Alexander Dictionary Highfill, 18 (3rd Wash.2d 1914) appears 508 rev. 140 there ; P.2d (1943) quote paper Mfg. Tennessee Min. Judge from a & (rep’t. Clark Co. v. County, Anderson Bar Tenn. 1890), Ga.State Ass’n. in which he con- (1938). S.W.2d 543 substantially cludes codes of three quote part kinds. This inis as follows: Intervenors, McBride, Torres and con- yet latitude, greater -9, “Third. —To N.M.S.A.1953, take tend that 14-29-1 to §§ and, changing sys- without the existing -4, particularly 14—29-1 to N.M.S.A. §§ laws, laws, tem of to add new re- 1953, are in conflict repugnant with and peal laws, it, old harmony both in meaning requirements the clear of ar- so that present code will meet ex- ticle 1 and article [as amended] and, igencies possible provide far of the Constitution of New Mexico. future; for the and this is real codifica- particular The substance of the sections tion.” involved out statutes here is set agree We are inclined to with the view above. expressed by Judge Clark, which inis ac- objectives portion cord with the sought In addition to of article to be attain- ed a code or Mexico above- per- codification of of the Constitution New the law thereof, taining only portion subject quoted, to a matter. Thomas, P.2d рre- rel. question now West pertinent that: sented, provision is the the last sentence otherwise quoted above. to article to voting. regulate the It is S}< “The require the particular portion of the amendment urged that the words “and who 9, as a legislature shall qualified ^[*] § * * 12, requisite for manner, registration of the which is herein involved ” thereof, vote in time and ^[*] voting, and have and which ‡ places of qualified county,” power # shall is is is meaning these they we must conclude place other than ing the that self-executing, cast their conflict with and ment From these They reside to article intervenors, Torres and ‍‌​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​​​​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‍further “municipal of article provisions of votes 9, 12. argue in § that the in premises it is a 7, repugnant precinct” precinct § under elections, 1 and of the they may properly precinct in which legislation, a amendment or separate point to McBride, to argued that at a is the clear requiring in direct amend- polling creat- municipal indebted- amend creation of appearing in the last sentence of the on the By preсinct their residence. necessarily have reference ment to the voter ness in 7, mean their qualification provisions residence precinct of article of their § general elec- Although voting precinct have regular it is not contended that we qualification expressly held that these voter tions.

provisions than apply to elections other agree that the do not We officers, it public urged that we those for 7, person other that a provide article § Jones, implied v. have least so Klutts place but one vote can have wise (1915); P. 494 N.M. Klutts elections, be a that he can in all or to vote Jones, 21 N.M. L.R.A. ter precinct fixed resident of but one (1916); ex 1917A 291 State rel. Board expressly Article boundaries. ritorial County County Com’rs, Board etc. v. regulate legislature “shall directs that ; Com’rs., (1954) N.M. 277 P.2d 960 voting.” manner, places of time meaning and and in our discussion of the says nothing in this directive There is “qualified between the terms differences geographically precincts must be voting “qualified elector” and to vote” in Chase electiоns, that an elector all or identical for Lujan, P.2d 1003 place at the same his vote is entitled to cast Although may be as there some doubt 3-2-1, Section N.M.S.A. in all elections. implication of the claimed provisions for the division 1953 makes regard from our drawn decisions districts, fixing of precincts into election cases, opinion these we are district, the con polling place in each a language have ref voting precincts divisions or solidation qualification require erence to voter circumstances. under certain ments 1. No other section of provides: 3-2-3.1, N.M.S.A.1953 Section qualifications. our constitution voter defines personally present himself to precinct Baca v. Mabry, ly Scheier, (1936); It is further held that article Chase v. 40 N.M. Ortiz, of his residence. urged Lujan, supra; Arledge that we have 197 P.2d 884 57 P.2d 293 requires Thompson 61 P.2d 320 a voter repeated- (1936); boundaries be one [1] more altered, elections, all school defined “For all counties.” or all the area elections, including hereby precinct, whether purposes any declared hereafter school relating to district, as and defined be created in one school any and exterior ^[1] bond now or or provides 3-2-32, N.M.S.A.1953 County ex rel. State Board of Com’rs etc. v. Section voting divisions County Comm’rs, supra; ex Board of for the consolidation precinct the case of within a state-wide or and is particular not confined to affair county-wide special elections. or precinct. applies equally affairs of municipalities to all and to all counties nothing find our consti We in New Mexico. A relating statute legislature limits the tution which persons things or class precinct voting divi establishment of one statute, hand, law. A on the other opin sion for elections. are of We particular is one persons that relates expressly ion our constitution contem class, things 'of a isor made for individual plates legislature that the and directs cases, persons or for less than class of provide proper machinery for conduct things or requiring appropriate to its laws purposes ing elections for different and that peculiar State condition and circumstances. provisions contained in the amendment v. Ry., Atchison T. & F. 20 N.M. S. Cooley, self-executing. was not See Con ; Wooten, (1915) Scarbrough P. 305 v. (8th 1927). Limitations 167-69 stitutional ed. 616, 170 P. (1918). If a statute The defendant and some of the interve- general is application particular its to a through nors next contend that 14-29-1 §§ of persons things class or of the and to all 14-29-9, Supp.), (1966 N.M.S.A.1953 con- circumstances, gen class within like it is a special legislation stitute in violation of ar- eral Albuquerque Arroyo law. Flood Met. ticle of the New Mexico Constitu- § A. Swinburne, Con. P.2d v. tion. ; McNeill, (1964) Davy supra. argument Their seems be that stat- opinion It is our that the statutes utory requirement, that non-resident munic- question here do not within the fall ipal single polling electors must vote aat prohibition special or against place municipality, constitutes precinct local laws affairs. regulating special legislation regulates precinct questions disposition In view of our affairs, provision violates of article validity concerning the of the amendment Legislature pass 24 that “The not shall and the implementing legislation, it fol- * * * special Regulating local or laws that contention, lows defendant’s last that county, precinct affairs; district may spend public she monies publication illegal holding of notice of an They position cite as authorities for their election, must fall. Co., the cases of State v. Sunset Ditch It follows from what been said has supra, and State ex. rel. Board of Education judgment be the trial court should Saint, Roy Village of affirmed. 210 P. 573 It so ordered. Co., supra, State Sunset Ditch in- legislative volved a classification based CHAVEZ, J.,C. and CAR- MOISE wholly element, upon a time when time MODY, JJ., concur. selected had no reasonable relation to the object legislation, and such was NOBLE, (dissenting). Justice held to section 1 violate Fourteenth agree I generally the people of a state Amendment to the Constitution of supreme are state determining what the United States and article 18 of the constitution shall be and that in exercise of New Constitution Mexico. sovereign power of their they may alter In ex. rel. Board Education v. or amend their constitution as choose. Saint, supra, expressly it it stated however, New Mexico necessary

was not to consider claimed prescribes may the method it violation 24. altered revised. regulat- Such application legisla ing its mandatory, own amendment are tion is not any precinct here confined to a strict every observance substantial question. on the The issue requirement is essential to the Stockett, before us not whether such a constitu- Hillman v. an amendment thereto. provision rather 803; Tipton tional receive a liberal 641, A.2d v. Mitch- 183 Md. ell, Boyd strict, 110; than narrow or con- technical 97 Mont. P.2d struction, legisla- nor does the fact that the Olcott, 102 Or. single ture submitted the amendment as general principle enun- I agree with question give greater efficacy. The ma- every majority opinion that ciated in the jority aptly point originally out that as indulged in presumption is to be reasonable proposed legislature there were amendment to legality an favor of sеparate amendments, mu- permitting one principal law. the state’s fundamental nicipal bond issues to be submitted difficulty are faced with which we stems elections, as well as at the other general much from a statement authorizing certain non-resident application legal principles but in their question bond owners vote on the factual can concrete situation. We agreed issue. there must be attempt entirely an sympathy why might reasons an have desired elector owners, permit to non-resident change one but not the other. This exact of whom much of the burden munici- presented Supreme situation was eventually pal bonded indebtedness must Luhrs, Kerby Court of Arizona in fall, determining have a in whether to voice Ariz. A.L.R. are, such shall be issued. But we bonds Court, Supreme while where Arizona nevertheless, limitations by bound and holding present that other reasons imposed by of restrictions the framers our in the instant of three case the submission constitution. propositions single as a majority except must concede it, amendment did not never- invаlidate IX, for the 1964 amendment to article § general- theless condemned such submission State non-residents of the ly. particularly language That court’s not vote in could bond elections. apt under the circumstances this case: of validity portion of ch. Laws essentially propositions “These are so appeal subject is the this dissimilar is obvious that depends upon 1964amend- pass thereon, view, legislators, my must will majority ment. In determi- validly nation that the amendment was probably opinion as to be divided in their adopted First, is erroneous. the amendment earnestly their merit. them Some XIX, violates the restrictions of article A, opposed, being proposition desire while 1, reading: “If more amendments two or degree, B and C. though in a lesser they proposed, are so submitted prop- enactment of Others consider as to enable the electors vote on each importance while pafamount B osition ” * * separately Secondly, of them C, the members A objecting to and while because the amendment to be ratifiеd failed sacrifice group willing of a third are by a vote of least at three-fourths A B for their convictions on in voting the whole state and of fram- securing original C. The sake voting in least two-thirds of those each realizing propositions, three ers county, prohibited XIX, it is article situation, in meas- place them all one of the New Mexico Constitution. ure, vote ei- legislator must so that a yes a whole. ther no on measure incorrectly majority I think the has forced, in to secure order applied He is thus principles of construction proposition the enactment in this single instance. This important, most he considers the sought change both at which the time Such disapproves. he for others of which bond issues could to a be submitted universally con- been practices have people eligibility and the of those case, adopt in the instant public Under facts by impartial students of demned reject notoriously one and not result affairs, yet they other would are Indeed, absurdity. my mind, is, principle This Legislatures. prevalent proof sеparate this, per- almost conclusive that two true our Constitution single separate propositions items contained in the were the Governor to veto mits bill, people, and reject- amendment submitted to the appropriation without an submitted, they separately that if had been ing Mexico does the whole bill. [New * * * adopted But, might well these ac- one have been if likewise.] rejected. propositions here Legislature, are evil where tions clearly objects only statutes, purposes had they much more different deal view, dependent upon or related to are vicious when constitutional effect, my view, each far-reaching changes other. In the two changes, in their ” * * * sought in the instant case cannot said to be submitted to the voters. single controlling purpose. have pointed As Lockwood in out Justice Throughout history of this entire case, principle the Arizona involved State, VII, provided has up is well summed the dissent of Justice eligibility minimum of electors at all elec- Graves in State ex rel School Dist. of requirements tions. The are: Memphis Gordon, Mo. S.W. * * * “Every adopted which was later citizen of the United States, age twenty-one reasoning majority ex who is over the years, County Gordon, Pike has resided in Mexico rel. Mo. months, days, ninety twelve 188 S.W. was there said: and in precinct in which he offers “However, holding going to the before thirty days, to preceding vote next state, might of the courts of this be well * * * election, shall be to proposition to submit the of law public vote at all elections for officers. resulting from the examination of » * * * upon question. cases bearing In 21 Although majority holding disavow English Encyclopedia American and applied only this section to elections for (2d 47) Law Ed. it is said: public officers, conclusion, their of neces- propositions ‘Two cannot united in be sity, implies. so the submission one ex- so to have prior decisions of this court are pression prop- of the vote answer both unanimously disagreement ositions, might thereby as voters in- be reasoning VII, that article not con- § propositions duced to both vоte for municipal trol bond elections because it is would questions not have done so if the not one calling for the election public- ” singly.’ had been submitted officers. Many by decisions relied A school district election to determine- majority upheld of the amend- pur whether bonds shall issued for against ment a contention that it contained pose buildings of the construction of school separate propositions upon the ground has been held be an to election questions that the two were so interrelated purview VII, of article 1 of the New § was one not desirable without the oth- Jones, Mexico Constitution. Klutts v. er, adopt reject or that to one and the other 490; Municipal N.M. Roswell would lead to an absurd result. Dist., Patton, School etc. v. 40 N.M. 1192; This is 58 P.2d changes not case where Board the two v. of Educa Johnston tion, intimately are so pro- connected that 333 P.2d 1051. The priety changes place, of both words “other taking or of elections” as used in article- VII, place, apparent neither taking Constitution, sepаrat so of the State § provide ing otherwise be absurd. school district “other would elections from the electors municipal of at least tíiree-fourths of elections,” held embrace was by contrary- at least voting in the state and election, whole notwithstanding the bond county in each two-thirds of those voting Ros Comp., 120-703. provisions of 1929 § Patton, Constitution, Dist., of the state. New Mexico etc. Municipal well School XIX, agreed that 1. Furthermore, Laws 1947 .supra. ch. § 1964 amendment was not ratified. The repealed) permitted annexation (since IX, county to article parts adjoining § of an and, validly adopted accordingly, cannot of the majority of the electors .after a requirement affect VII, the residence of article area, .affected but article § VII, applicable in 1. held State Constitution was Com’rs, County etc. ex rel. Bd. of State Being convinced that 1964 amendment Comm’rs, County 277 P.2d Bd. of purporting eligibility re clear that the It is thus change qualification of so as by article quirements provided for electors permit certаin non-residents VII, 1 of the State Constitution elections, municipal allowing bond and also officers, as public 'limited elections purpose, elections held for that to be that, majority, but must held prohibited by require- contrary, restric these constitutional ments, majority. I must dissent from the repeatedly held this court tions have been applicable elections

to be to such concern are now

(cid:127)as one with which we

(cid:127)ed. vote,” as used language, “offers VII, ‍‌​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​​​​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‍supra, contemplates in article voter, Baca v.

personal presence requires Ortiz, 429 P.2d 353 by the delivery ballot manual Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, of New STATE precinct in which he resides. voter 199, 57 P.2d

Thompson Scheier, 40 N.M. NIETO, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. intendment, requirement legal Albert 293. In certain 1965,providing that of ch. Laws No. 8215. may cast property owners non-resident Supreme Court New Mexico. place within special voting at a their ballots June 1967. n be to the statute municipality, is fatal personally appear such voters do not (cid:127)cause precinct of their ballots within to cast VII, required article

(cid:127)their residence as Constitution. of the State

.§ repeatedly held having court

This VII, the State Constitution

.article 1 of elections, including requires an elector manually elections, cast bond precinct in which he

his within ballot IX, resides, the 1964 amendment says majority authorizes which the '§ within to cast ballots

(cid:127)certain non-residents af- not reside

precincts in which do VII, requirements of article

fected accomplished by a con- only

'This can by a vote ratified

stitutional amendment

Case Details

Case Name: City of Raton v. Sproule

Court Name: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date Published: Jun 19, 1967

Citation: 429 P.2d 336

Docket Number: 8214

Court Abbreviation: N.M.