AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Petitioner sought to be placed on the ballot for a magistrate judge position in Doña Ana County, arguing that the legislative requirement for candidates to be members of the bar and licensed to practice law in the state, as per NMSA 1978, Section 35-2-1 (1979), should not apply to Doña Ana County due to a supposed legislative intent to raise the population threshold for this requirement from 200,000 to 250,000.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Contended that the district court should have required Lynn Ellins to place him on the ballot because the Legislature did not intend for NMSA 1978, Section 35-2-1 (1979) to apply to Doña Ana County.
• Respondents-Appellees: The specific arguments of the Respondents-Appellees are not detailed in the decision.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in not requiring Lynn Ellins to place the Petitioner on the ballot based on the legislative intent regarding the applicability of NMSA 1978, Section 35-2-1 (1979) to Doña Ana County.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order dismissing the Petitioner's emergency petition for an injunction and a writ of mandamus.

Reasons

• Per RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge (TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring):
  The Court found that the district court did not err in its decision. The plain language of Section 35-2-1 clearly states that in magistrate districts with a population over 200,000, a candidate must be a member of the bar and licensed to practice law in the state. The Court also addressed the Petitioner's argument regarding the legislative intent to raise the population threshold to 250,000, noting that even if such intent existed, the governor's veto of the amendment was proper under Article IV, Section 22 of the New Mexico Constitution. The Court further clarified that the case cited by the Petitioner, State ex rel. Stewart v. Martinez, was inapplicable as it pertained to the governor's partial veto powers on appropriations bills, which was not the issue at hand. The Petitioner's memorandum in opposition did not provide new facts, arguments, or authority that could lead to a reversal of the district court's decision.