Opinion No. 24-3747
January 15, 1924
TO: Requested by: Hon. Juan N. Vigil, State Auditor, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Classification of Counties, Fixed by State Auditor of 1921, may not be Changed Prior to January 1, 1925.
OPINION
{*114} We have your inquiry as follows:
"In accordance with Sec. 2, H. B. 108 of the Sixth Legislature of the State of New Mexico I determined the classification of the various Counties of the State and notified the Board of County Commissioners of each County of the class in which their County was placed to determine and fix the salaries of County Officers for the years 1923 and 1924.
Since that time I have been advised that the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico has declared this law unconstitutional.
Will you kindly give me your opinion if it is my duty or if I have the authority to advise the various boards of County Commissioners of this State the action of the Supreme Court. And should I advise them that the classifications of all counties remain the same as made by the State Auditor in the year 1921.
The classification of counties, for the purpose of fixing salaries of county officers, remains the same as that fixed by the State Auditor in 1921. The 1921 classification will remain in full force and effect for the purpose of determining such salaries until the close of the current year 1924. It, therefore, would be advisable that you notify Boards of County Commissioners to disregard the classification you certified out in conformity with Sec. 2, Chap. 49, S. L. 1923.
The salaries of county officers may not be increased or diminished by any classification prior to January 1, 1925.
Several months ago, in the Supreme Court case of R. F. Love v. County Commissioners of Lea County, Mr. Justice Botts, in delivering the opinion of the court, said:
"The salary of the county officers of Lea County having been definitely fixed under the Act of 1915, the State Tax Commission was without power to reduce the budget estimate for the payment of these salaries below the amount required to pay the salaries so fixed. * * * The Legislature has decided that each classification, when made, should remain as fixed for a period of four years and has expressed that determination in plain language.
{*115} In another recent decision of the Supreme Court, State v. Board of County Commissioners of Sierra County, under date of Jan. 4, 1924, Mr. Justice Bratton, speaking for the court, said:
Sec. 2 of Chap. 49, S. L. 1923, which provides that within thirty days after such Act takes effect, the State Auditor shall classify the several counties of the state, using therefor the existing valuation of such counties as finally fixed for the year 1922, and that such classification shall determine the salaries of several county officers during the years 1923 and 1924, is void as to such officer when serving, where it results in either increasing or diminishing their compensation during their term of office.
1923
23-3746
23-3745
23-3744
23-3743
23-3742
23-3741
23-3740
23-3739
23-3738
23-3737
23-3736
23-3735
23-3734
23-3733
23-3728
23-3732
23-3731
23-3730
23-3729
23-3727
23-3726
23-3725
23-3724
23-3723
23-3722
23-3721
23-3720
23-3719
23-3718
23-3717
23-3716
23-3714
23-3713
23-3712
23-3711
23-3710
23-3709
23-3708
23-3707
23-3715
23-3706
23-3705
23-3704
23-3703
23-3702
23-3701
23-3700
23-3699
23-3698
23-3697
23-3696
23-3695
23-3694
23-3693
23-3692
23-3691
23-3690
23-3689
23-3688
23-3686
23-3687
23-3685
23-3684
23-3683
23-3682
23-3681
23-3680
23-3679
23-3678
23-3677
23-3676
23-3675
23-3674
23-3673
23-3672
23-3670
23-3669
23-3668
23-3667
23-3666
23-3664
23-3663
23-3665
23-3662
23-3661
23-3671
23-3660
23-3659
23-3658
23-3657