This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
During the November 5, 1996, general elections in New Mexico, errors occurred in Precinct 31 of Dona Ana County. An incorrect ballot face was used on a voting machine, listing the wrong candidates for State Senate and County Commissioner races. Sixty-six voters cast votes using the incorrect ballot face before it was replaced, but the votes were commingled with subsequent votes cast on the corrected ballot face. The margin of victory in both races was smaller than the number of potentially invalid votes (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- United States District Court: Dismissed Count III of the complaint, which alleged a civil rights violation, and remanded the case to state court (para 7).
- District Court of Dona Ana County: Granted summary judgment on Count I (election contest) and dismissed Count II (declaratory judgment), holding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to equitable relief as a matter of law (para 7).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiffs-Appellants (Contestants): Argued that the election was not "free and open" under Article II, Section 8 of the New Mexico Constitution due to the ballot errors. They contended that a new election was the proper remedy because the number of invalid votes exceeded the margin of victory, making it impossible to determine the true outcome (paras 1, 10, 30).
- Defendants-Appellees (Contestees): Asserted that the case was moot because the terms of the contested offices had expired. They argued that the Election Code provided the exclusive remedies for election contests and that the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert the rights of voters (paras 9, 22, 27).
Legal Issues
- Was the election "free and open" under Article II, Section 8 of the New Mexico Constitution given the ballot errors?
- Do the plaintiffs have standing to assert the rights of voters affected by the ballot errors?
- Does the Election Code provide the exclusive remedies for election contests, or can courts fashion remedies outside the Code?
- What is the appropriate remedy when ballot errors potentially affect the outcome of an election?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico held that the election was not "free and open" under Article II, Section 8 of the New Mexico Constitution.
- The Court rejected the plaintiffs' request for a new election and instead applied an analogous provision of the Election Code to reject the votes from Precinct 31. The election results remained unchanged (paras 36-37).
Reasons
Per Maes J. (Serna C.J., Franchini, Minzner JJ. concurring):
Mootness: Although the terms of office had expired, the Court found the case was not moot because it raised issues of substantial public interest and was capable of repetition yet evading review (paras 9-11).
Standing: The Court held that the plaintiffs had standing to assert the rights of voters whose votes were affected by the ballot errors. While Article II, Section 8 protects voters' rights, the plaintiffs could represent those interests because the voters themselves were unlikely to litigate (paras 17-20).
Election Code Exclusivity: The Court determined that while the Election Code provides the exclusive procedure for election contests, it does not limit the grounds for challenges or the remedies available. Courts may fashion remedies outside the Code when necessary to address constitutional violations (paras 21-26).
Constitutional Violation: The Court concluded that the ballot errors violated Article II, Section 8 because they deprived voters of the opportunity to choose between lawful candidates, rendering the election not "free and open" (paras 27-29).
Remedy: The Court rejected the plaintiffs' request for a new election, citing concerns about practicality, fairness, and the inability to replicate the original election conditions. Instead, it applied an analogous provision of the Election Code (Section 1-14-13) to reject the votes from Precinct 31. This approach aligned with legislative intent and preserved election integrity without altering the overall results (paras 30-35).
Conclusion: The Court affirmed the election results, holding that rejecting the votes from Precinct 31 was the appropriate remedy for the constitutional violation (paras 36-37).