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

• Appellants John Whisenant and Elias Barela sought a zoning change from the Valencia County Board of County Commissioners to allow a planned residential subdivision on their adjacent properties. The Board approved the change on a 3-2 vote, with Commissioner Georgia Otero-Kirkham, a first cousin to Barela, voting in favor despite a public inquiry about potential recusal due to her family ties (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Valencia County: Reversed the Board's decision, citing a due process violation due to Commissioner Otero-Kirkham's non-recusal, and remanded the case for a hearing without her participation (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants: Argued that the district court's decision was erroneous as there was no claim of actual bias, and the relationship between Commissioner Otero-Kirkham and Barela (first cousins) did not necessitate recusal under the New Mexico Code of Judicial Conduct or the Valencia County zoning ordinance (paras 13-14).
• Los Chavez Community Association: Maintained that the Board's decision was arbitrary, capricious, and lacked substantial evidentiary support. They also argued that due process was violated due to the appearance of impropriety and bias from Commissioner Otero-Kirkham's participation, denying a fair hearing (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether a county commissioner is required to recuse herself from voting on a zoning map amendment application due to being a first cousin to one of the applicants (para 1).
• Whether the district court's order is final for purposes of appeal and if the issue is properly before the Court pursuant to a discretionary petition for writ of certiorari or as a direct appeal as of right (para 4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court, requiring Commissioner Otero-Kirkham's recusal and remanding the case to the Valencia Board of County Commissioners for action consistent with this opinion (para 26).

Reasons

• The Court, per Chief Judge Celia Foy Castillo with Judges Jonathan B. Sutin and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, held that due process protections under the state and federal constitutions, along with Article VI, Section 18 of the New Mexico Constitution, necessitate recusal in situations where a county commissioner is a first cousin to an applicant in a zoning map amendment case. The Court applied the doctrine of practical finality to allow the appeal despite the policy against piecemeal litigation, emphasizing the importance of the issue to the Board's operation and the fairness to the parties involved. The Court also determined that the appeal arises from the district court's original jurisdiction, given the constitutional question of due process involved. The reasoning underscored the necessity of an impartial tribunal for due process and applied constitutional and statutory standards to quasi-judicial bodies, concluding that the relationship between Commissioner Otero-Kirkham and Barela presented a presumptive risk of bias (paras 5-25).