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

• More than 25 qualified electors, aggrieved by the denial of their referendum petitions directed to two election-related laws (2023 N.M. Laws, Chapters 39 and 84), sought an order from the Supreme Court of New Mexico. They requested the Court to direct the Secretary of State to approve and certify the two referendum petitions for these laws (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioners: Argued that the Secretary of State should approve and certify two referendum petitions for two election-related laws, asserting their right to referendum under the New Mexico Constitution (para 2).
• Respondent: Denied the petitioners' referendum petitions based on the determination that the relevant laws were exempt from referendum under New Mexico’s “public peace, health, or safety” exception (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the two election-related laws, 2023 N.M. Laws, Chapters 39 and 84, are exempt from referendum under New Mexico’s “public peace, health, or safety” exception.

Disposition

• The petition is denied, and the matter is dismissed (para 9).
• The request for expedited oral argument and/or merits decision is denied as moot (para 10).

Reasons

• Per C. Shannon Bacon, Chief Justice, Michael E. Vigil, Justice, David K. Thomson, Justice, Julie J. Vargas, Justice, Briana H. Zamora, Justice:
  The Court decided that the two election-related laws at issue are exempt from referendum under New Mexico’s broad public peace, health, and safety exception, as established by the New Mexico Constitution and further interpreted by previous court decisions. This conclusion was supported by the Court's discretion under Rule 12-405(B)(1) NMRA to dispose of the case by nonprecedential order rather than a formal opinion. The Court referenced its own precedent, including the cases of State ex rel. Hughes v. Cleveland and Otto v. Buck, to affirm the broad scope of the public peace, health, and safety exception and its applicability to the laws in question (paras 3-8).