N.M. Supreme Court to hear election law case in Sept.
District attorneys, judges, county officials filed suit over changes
The New Mexico Supreme Court has set a Sept. 13 hearing on three lawsuits filed by district attorneys, judges and various county officials challenging election law changes enacted by the Legislature this year.
House Bill 407 revised schedules for filling some state and local offices, in the process extending the terms of some current office holders beyond the number of years set out in the state constitution.
Touted as a “50-year tune-up” of election laws, the legislation passed by wide bipartisan margins in the House and Senate before Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed it into law.
One section staggered the terms of state district judges and metropolitan court judges and extended the terms of some county officials by four or six years.
One challenge came from the New Mexico Association of Counties, the Otero County County Commission and Eddy County Sheriff Mark Cage. Another was filed by a group of 13 state district judges, including Mary Marlowe Sommer of Santa Fe, plus Albuquerque Metro Judge Victor Valdez and the District and Metropolitan Court Judges Association. The third was brought by eight district attorneys from around the state. (District Attorney Marco Serna of Santa Fe, who is seeking election to Congress next year, is not part of this petition.)
The judges’ petition argues the state constitution requires judges to seek voter approval on the same retention election cycle and doesn’t allow for staggering retention elections. They argue the new law “staggers the retention election cycle in a way that creates maximum confusion.”
Previously, every district judge had been scheduled to be on the ballot for retention next year and every metro judge in 2022.
But the new law pushes the retention elections of several district judges to 2022 or 2026, which means those judges would serve terms longer than the six years set out in the constitution. Similarly, some metro judges after 2022 would be serving terms longer than the four years mandated in the constitution.
The district attorneys’ petition concerns the moving of district attorney elections from presidential election years to the midterm election cycle, which the plaintiffs argue is unconstitutional.
“HB 407 has created a situation where there will be a two-year period, from Jan. 1, 2021 until Dec. 31, 2022, in which the incumbent district attorney’s constitutional terms of office have expired, but a successor has not been duly elected,” the petition says.
The lawsuit by county officials says the new law will extend the terms of some officials from four years, as called for in the constitution, to six years. The petitioners say they are concerned that the conflict with the state constitution could result in parts of the law being found unconstitutional after the 2020 election, “subjecting affected county officers to having their extended terms challenged.”