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 New Mexico Legislature passed House Bill 59 to amend sections of the Unemployment Compensation Law, addressing the fund's impending insolvency by altering benefits and employer contributions. Governor Susana Martinez partially vetoed the Bill, specifically a provision crucial for calculating employer contributions for 2012, leading to a legal challenge by several legislators (paras 1, 6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioners: Argued that the Governor's partial veto was invalid as it left the Bill unworkable by removing a key provision for calculating 2012 employer contributions without affecting other related provisions, thus exempting employers from mandatory contributions for that year (paras 10, 22).
• Respondents: Contended that House Bill 59 was a bill appropriating money, and the Governor's complete veto of Section 51-1-11(I)(6) was constitutional (para 11).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Governor's partial veto of House Bill 59 was constitutional and whether it resulted in an unworkable piece of legislation (paras 10-12, 22-23).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus ordering the reinstatement of House Bill 59 as passed by the Legislature, holding the partial veto unconstitutional (para 24).

Reasons

• Justice Edward L. Chávez, with Justices Patricio M. Serna, Petra Jimenez Maes, Richard C. Bosson, and Judge Roderick Kennedy concurring, reasoned that the Governor's partial veto was invalid because it left the legislation unworkable by removing a provision necessary for calculating employer contributions for 2012 without altering other related provisions. This action effectively exempted employers from mandatory contributions for that year, contrary to the legislative intent and the Act's purpose of ensuring compulsory employer contributions to the unemployment compensation fund. The Court assumed, without deciding, that House Bill 59 was a bill appropriating funds but focused on whether the veto left a workable piece of legislation, concluding it did not. The decision emphasized the importance of a Governor's veto power not distorting legislative intent or leaving legislation incomplete and unworkable (paras 13-23).