Hand v. Winter

2017 NMSC 5
New Mexico Supreme Court·Decided November 7, 2016·No. 36,142·Published

Opinion

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document New Mexico Compilation Commission, Santa Fe, NM '00'05- 15:25:00 2017.02.13

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Opinion Number: 2017-NMSC-005

Filing Date: November 7, 2016

Docket No. S-1-SC-36142

EDWARD L. HAND, DIANE M. NUNER and JEFFREY SMITH,

Petitioners,

v.

BRAD WINTER, New Mexico Secretary of State, and STATE CANVASSING BOARD,

Respondents,

and

JAROD K. HOFACKET,

Real Party in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

Richard Wellborn, Attorney at Law, LLC Richard B. Wellborn Las Cruces, NM

for Petitioners

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Sean Cunniff, Assistant Attorney General Santa Fe, NM

for Respondents

Hofacket Law Firm, L.L.C. Jarod K. Hofacket Deming, NM

1 Real Party in Interest, pro se

OPINION

CHÁVEZ, Justice.

{1} May the Secretary of State place on the general election ballot the names of political party nominees to fill a vacancy created by a district court judge who resigns effective after a primary election but more than fifty-six days prior to the general election? The answer is yes, because under NMSA 1978, Section 1-8-8(A) (2015), the vacancy occurs for a public office that is not included in the governor’s election proclamation, and pursuant to Article VI, Sections 35 and 36 of the New Mexico Constitution, the judicial vacancy is required to be filled at the next general election, provided that the political parties file their list of nominees with the Secretary of State more than fifty-six days before the general election.

DISCUSSION

{2} Judge Daniel Viramontes wrote a letter dated March 10, 2016 to Governor Susana Martinez, informing her of his intent to resign as district court judge of Division 4 of the Sixth Judicial District Court, effective August 26, 2016. Judge Viramontes did in fact resign on August 26, 2016. When a metropolitan, district, or appellate court judge resigns his or her position, both the appointment process and the electoral process are implicated. The appointment procedure and its deadlines are governed by Article VI, Sections 35 to 37 of the New Mexico Constitution, and the election procedure and its deadlines are governed by the Election Code, NMSA 1978, Sections 1-1-1 to 1-24-24 (1969, as amended through 2015).

A. Judicial Nominating Procedure

{3} Article VI, Section 36 creates the district court judges nominating committee and incorporates by reference all of the provisions of the appellate judges nominating commission under Article VI, Section 35 except for the committee make-up. Article VI, Section 35 requires the nominating committee to meet within thirty days of an actual vacancy,1 and within that time frame it must submit to the governor the names of persons qualified and recommended by a majority of the committee to fill the vacancy. The governor may request additional names only once, and absent such a request, the governor must appoint one of the persons nominated by the nominating committee within thirty days after receiving its final nominations or the appointment becomes the responsibility of the Chief Justice of the New Mexico Supreme Court.

1 The nominating committee may meet after a judge officially announces his or her intent to resign but before the actual vacancy so that the governor may appoint a successor to fill an “impending vacancy.” N.M. Const. art. VI, § 35.

2 {4} The appointee serves until the next general election, which has been interpreted to mean the general election nearest in time to the actual vacancy. See State ex. rel. Noble v. Fiorina, 1960-NMSC-107, ¶¶ 3, 5, 6, 17, 67 N.M. 366, 355 P.2d 497 (interpreting “until the next general election” in the antecedent to Article VI, Section 35 to require a judicial appointee to a vacancy occurring after the primary to be placed on the general election ballot of the same year when nominated by a political party). An appointee who is the prevailing candidate in the general election or that appointee’s prevailing opponent holds the office until the expiration of the original term of the judge whose resignation created the vacancy.2 See State ex. rel King v. Raphaelson, 2015-NMSC-028, ¶¶ 14-16, 356 P.3d 1096.

{5} With respect to the vacancy created by the resignation of Judge Viramontes, the Sixth Judicial District Court Nominating Committee timely met on September 22, 2016 and submitted the names of Petitioner Edward Hand and Real Party in Interest Jarod Hofacket to Governor Martinez for her consideration. Governor Martinez timely appointed Hofacket by letter dated October 21, 2016, stating that his term would begin on November 4, 2016.3 Hofacket is to serve until the next general election, which in this case is scheduled for November 8, 2016. Either Hofacket or his successor, whoever is elected during the upcoming general election, will hold office until the expiration of the term held by Judge Viramontes, at which time he or she will be eligible for a nonpartisan retention election. See N.M. Const. art. VI, § 33(A).

{6} Petitioners do not challenge Governor Martinez’s appointment of Hofacket. Instead, they filed a petition for writ of mandamus, injunction, and declaratory judgment asking this Court to declare that Secretary of State Brad Winter acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and in violation of law by placing Hofacket on the November 8, 2016 general election ballot. Petitioner Hand, a Republican attorney, was also recommended to Governor Martinez for appointment to the vacancy created by Judge Viramontes’s resignation. Petitioner Diane Nuner is a registered Republican in Luna County, and Petitioner Jeffrey Smith is a registered Democrat in Luna County. Hand contends that placing Hofacket on the general election ballot as the only candidate deprives Hand of participating in a partisan election and renders the Governor’s appointment moot. Nuner and Smith contend that placing Hofacket on the general election ballot deprives them of the opportunity to vote in both a primary and a general election to fill the vacancy created by Judge Viramontes’s resignation.

{7} A writ of mandamus will issue to “compel the performance of a ministerial act or duty that is clear and indisputable,” as long as there is not “a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” New Energy Econ., Inc. v. Martinez, 2011-NMSC-

2 After prevailing in the general election, the judge will stand for retention election pursuant to Article VI, Sections 33 and 34 of the New Mexico Constitution. 3 We do not comment on the propriety of the governor specifying a commencement date for the appointee’s term.

3 006, ¶¶ 10-11, 149 N.M. 207, 247 P.3d 286 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In this case, Secretary of State Winter had a clear and indisputable duty under Section 1-8-8 to place Hofacket on the general election ballot. We therefore deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

B. The Election Code Governs the Placement of Judicial Appointees on the Ballot

{8} Once Judge Viramontes resigned, Governor Martinez appropriately exercised her authority to appoint Hofacket to serve until the next general election. However, a governor does not have the authority to place his or her appointee on the ballot. The Election Code prescribes how candidates are placed on the ballot. In this case, the vacancy occurred on August 26, 2016, which was after the June 7, 2016 primary election. The vacancy also occurred after March 1, 2016, which was the last day that Governor Martinez could amend the primary election proclamation for elections in 2016.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hand v. Winter, 2017 NMSC 5 (N.M. 2016).

2017 NMSC 5 (Hand v. Winter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

NEW ENERGY ECONOMY, INC. v. Martinez
2011 NMSC 6 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 2011)
State Ex Rel. Noble v. Fiorina
355 P.2d 497 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1960)
King v. Raphaelson
2015 NMSC 028 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 2015)
Johnson v. Vigil-Giron
2006 NMSC 051 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 2006)