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 City of Albuquerque held a special election in 1994, where voters approved an amendment to the city charter limiting city councilors to two elected terms. Several current and former city councilors who had served two or more terms challenged the amendment, arguing it was unconstitutional under the New Mexico Constitution, which sets the qualifications for elected office statewide (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, date not specified: Held that the term limits amendment was a constitutional exercise of the City of Albuquerque's powers under the Home Rule Amendment of the New Mexico Constitution (para 3).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants (current and former city councilors): Argued that the term limits amendment was unconstitutional because it imposed additional qualifications for elected office beyond those set forth in the New Mexico Constitution, specifically the Qualifications Clause (para 6).
- Appellees (City of Albuquerque, City Clerk, and intervenors): Contended that the Home Rule Amendment granted the city the authority to impose term limits and that the amendment was a valid exercise of local self-governance (paras 4, 9).
Legal Issues
- Does the New Mexico Constitution's Qualifications Clause preempt a home rule municipality's authority to impose additional qualifications for elected office, such as term limits?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, holding that the term limits amendment was unconstitutional (para 17).
Reasons
Per Flores J. (Pickard and Black JJ. concurring):
The court held that the Qualifications Clause of the New Mexico Constitution, which sets out the eligibility requirements for elected office, preempts any additional qualifications imposed by a home rule municipality. The clause is a positive provision that grants the right to hold office to any qualified voter, subject only to residency requirements, and does not allow for additional restrictions unless through constitutional amendment (paras 7-8).
The Home Rule Amendment does not grant municipalities the authority to impose additional qualifications for elected office. The court rejected the argument that the phrase "not expressly denied by general law or charter" in the Home Rule Amendment allowed for such qualifications, emphasizing that the Qualifications Clause constitutes a general law with statewide implications (paras 9-11).
The court also distinguished cases from other jurisdictions cited by the appellees, noting that those decisions were based on state constitutions with explicit provisions allowing local governments to impose term limits, which New Mexico's Constitution lacks (paras 13-14).
Finally, the court clarified that other provisions in the Albuquerque City Charter regulating conflicts of interest or conduct of elected officials do not impose additional qualifications for candidacy and are not affected by this decision (para 15).