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 League of Women Voters of New Mexico filed an emergency petition challenging the Secretary of State's refusal to enforce a statutory provision allowing election judges to count hand-tallied votes if voter intent is clearly discernible. The Secretary had relied on an Attorney General's advisory letter deeming the provision unconstitutional under federal law, including the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) (paras 1, 3-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner (League of Women Voters of New Mexico): Argued that the Secretary's refusal to enforce the statutory provision would lead to widespread voter disenfranchisement and that the provision complies with federal law, including Bush v. Gore and HAVA (paras 3-4, 6).
• Respondent (Secretary of State): Contended that the provision is unconstitutional under Bush v. Gore and HAVA due to its lack of uniformity and potential for arbitrary application, and therefore, she had a duty not to enforce it (paras 6, 14).

Legal Issues

• Whether the statutory provision allowing election judges to count hand-tallied votes based on discernible voter intent violates federal equal protection principles under Bush v. Gore.
• Whether the statutory provision complies with the uniformity requirements of HAVA.

Disposition

• The Court granted the writ of mandamus, ordering the Secretary of State to enforce the statutory provision as written and as supported by the Secretary's original guidelines (paras 2, 7, 32-33).

Reasons

Per Bosson J. (Chávez CJ., Serna, Maes, and Daniels JJ. concurring):

• The Court emphasized the fundamental importance of the right to vote and the need to avoid voter disenfranchisement while ensuring uniformity in vote counting (paras 8-9).
• The Court found that the statutory provision, when combined with the Secretary's original guidelines, provided sufficient uniformity to comply with Bush v. Gore and HAVA. Unlike the Florida recount process criticized in Bush v. Gore, New Mexico's law required unanimous agreement among election judges and provided detailed guidelines for interpreting voter intent (paras 15-22).
• The Court rejected the Attorney General's broad interpretation of Bush v. Gore as invalidating all voter-intent standards, noting that the decision was limited to its specific facts and that many states use similar standards without constitutional issues (paras 16-18, 28-30).
• The Court held that HAVA sets minimum requirements for election administration and allows states discretion in defining what constitutes a vote. The New Mexico statute and guidelines met HAVA's requirements for uniform and nondiscriminatory standards (paras 23-27).
• The Court concluded that the statutory provision struck an appropriate balance between preventing disenfranchisement and ensuring uniformity, and it was therefore constitutional (paras 19, 32).