All political power is vested in and derived from the people: all government of right originates with the people, is founded upon their will and is instituted solely for their good.

ANNOTATIONS

Cross references. — See Kearny Bill of Rights, cl. 1, on NMOneSource.com.

Comparable provisions. — Montana Const., art. II, § 1.

Utah Const., art. I, § 2.

Wyoming Const., art. I, § 1.

A partisan gerrymandering claim is justiciable under N.M. Const., Art. II, Sec. 18. — Where plaintiffs filed suit in the district court alleging that the congressional districting maps enacted in 2021 violate New Mexico’s equal protection clause and sought a declaration that the challenged map is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, and where petitioners, defendants in the district court, moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ lawsuit, arguing that the lawsuit raised a nonjusticiable political question, and where the district court denied the motion, reasoning that plaintiffs had alleged a valid case that the challenged map is an unlawful political gerrymander that dilutes Republican votes in congressional races in New Mexico but also denied plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction, and where, following the district court’s orders denying the motion to dismiss and for preliminary injunction, petitioners, in their capacities as elected officials, filed a petition seeking a stay of proceedings and a writ of superintending control to resolve whether N.M. Const., Art. II, Sec. 18 provides a remedy for a claim of alleged partisan gerrymandering and whether the issue of alleged partisan gerrymandering is a justiciable issue, the New Mexico supreme court held that a partisan gerrymandering claim is justiciable under N.M. Const., Art. II, Sec. 18, because the right to vote is of paramount importance in New Mexico and vote dilution can rise to a level of constitutional harm for which Art. II, Sec. 18 provides a remedy. Grisham v. Van Soelen, 2023-NMSC-027.

Three-part test for an equal protection claim asserting a partisan gerrymander. — Where plaintiffs filed suit in the district court alleging that the congressional districting maps enacted in 2021 violate New Mexico’s equal protection clause and sought a declaration that the challenged map is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, and where petitioners, defendants in the district court, moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ lawsuit, arguing that the lawsuit raised a nonjusticiable political question, and where the district court denied the motion, reasoning that plaintiffs had alleged a valid case that the challenged map is an unlawful political gerrymander that dilutes Republican votes in congressional races in New Mexico but also denied plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction, and where, following the district court’s orders denying the motion to dismiss and for preliminary injunction, petitioners, in their capacities as elected officials, filed a petition seeking a stay of proceedings and a writ of superintending control to resolve whether N.M. Const., Art. II, Sec. 18 provides a remedy for a claim of alleged partisan gerrymandering and whether the issue of alleged partisan gerrymandering is a justiciable issue, the New Mexico supreme court held that for an equal protection claim asserting a partisan gerrymander under N.M. Const., Art. II, Sec. 18, the plaintiffs challenging a districting plan must prove that state officials’ predominant purpose in drawing a district’s lines was to entrench their party in power by diluting the votes of citizens favoring its rival, and must establish that the lines drawn in fact have the intended effect by substantially diluting their votes, and, if established, the state must come up with a legitimate, non-partisan justification to save its map. Grisham v. Van Soelen, 2023-NMSC-027.

Intermediate scrutiny is the proper level of scrutiny for adjudication of a partisan gerrymandering claim under N.M. Const., Art. II, Sec. 18. — Where plaintiffs filed suit in the district court alleging that the congressional districting maps enacted in 2021 violate New Mexico’s equal protection clause and sought a declaration that the challenged map is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, and where Petitioners, defendants in the district court, moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ lawsuit, arguing that the lawsuit raised a nonjusticiable political question, and where the district court denied the motion, reasoning that plaintiffs had alleged a valid case that the challenged map is an unlawful political gerrymander that dilutes Republican votes in congressional races in New Mexico and also denied plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction, and where, following the district court’s orders denying the motion to dismiss and for preliminary injunction, petitioners, in their capacities as elected officials, filed a petition seeking a stay of proceedings and a writ of superintending control to resolve whether N.M. Const., Art. II, Sec. 18 provides a remedy for a claim of alleged partisan gerrymandering and whether the issue of alleged partisan gerrymandering is a justiciable issue, the New Mexico supreme court held that intermediate scrutiny is the proper level of scrutiny for adjudication of a partisan gerrymandering claim under N.M. Const., Art. II, Sec. 18, because intermediate scrutiny properly balances the competing constitutional interests of a partisan gerrymandering claim. Therefore, when applying intermediate scrutiny, a court must examine the governmental interests served by the restriction of the right affected, and whether the restriction of the right affected under the statute bears a substantial relationship to any such important interests. Grisham v. Van Soelen, 2023-NMSC-027.

Guidance for courts considering a partisan gerrymandering claim. — To satisfy the effects prong of the partisan gerrymandering test, a plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence that the plaintiff’s own district was either packed or cracked, depending on the allegations, and that the resultant dilution of the plaintiff’s vote is substantial. For a district court to find a violation of N.M. Const., Art. II, Sec. 18, such district-specific evidence of disparate treatment should be as objective as possible, by comparing such evidence as voter registration percentages or data for the political party affiliation of the individual plaintiffs under the prior districting map against parallel percentages or data under the challenged districting map. Further, a district court adjudicating a partisan gerrymandering claim must determine whether the evidence shows the challenged redistricting map substantially diluted the votes of plaintiffs within their district, though statewide evidence may also be relevant. Grisham v. Van Soelen, 2023-NMSC-027.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 16 Am. Jur. 2d Constitutional Law § 2; 16A Am. Jur. 2d Constitutional Law §§ 625 to 627.

16 C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 3; 16A C.J.S. Constitutional Law §§ 444 to 451; 29 C.J.S. Elections § 1.