State judge rules secretary of state has oversight on repealing laws
Court dismisses lawsuit seeking to overturn Toulouse Oliver’s decision to reject adding referendums on 2024 ballot
A state district judge has sided with Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver in a case challenging her office’s decision to reject efforts to repeal New Mexico laws.
Judge James Noel of the 13th Judicial District Court on Thursday granted Toulouse Oliver’s motion seeking dismissal of a civil case filed by Ramona Goolsby of Rio Rancho, who is part of a coalition that aims to put questions on the general election ballot in November 2024 asking voters to decide whether to repeal a handful of new state laws, including abortion protections.
Toulouse Oliver had declined a referendum attempt for the law protecting access to reproductive care, asserting it is exempt from referendum under the state constitution because it is “necessary for the preservation of public peace, health or safety.”
Goolsby argued in her April 11 case the Secretary of State’s Office had overstepped its authority.
House Bill 7, which prohibits local governments from limiting access to abortion services and gender-affirming health care, has proved contentious in some conservative areas of the state, where cities and counties are challenging it and creating their own ordinances aimed at restricting access to abortion services.
Under the New Mexico Constitution, residents can seek to repeal state laws enacted by the Legislature expect the following:
♦ General appropriations.
♦ Laws providing for the preservation of the public peace, health or safety.
♦ Payment of public debt or interest.
Goolsby wrote in an email Friday the statewide movement to repeal the abortion law and others is “amazing and bigger than any group. It is synergistic. The coalition was formed because we love God, our families, our children, life and the freedom to make our own decisions about how we take care of and honor what we love.”
Toulouse Oliver’s motion to dismiss Goolsby’s lawsuit, filed May 3, said state law “obligates” the secretary of state
to review referendum petitions for their validity. She argued the one at the center of Goolsby’s complaint included “extraneous materials” that were not part of any proper referendum petition process, lacked required instructions and statements of penalties, and needed minor corrections to the name of the bill and related statutes.
The judge’s dismissal order says the petition could not go forward “until the defects are corrected.”
It also notes Goolsby’s petition does not say who would be authorized to review and decide referendum petitions if the secretary of state does not have that authority.