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

• In 2014, Judge Albert J. Mitchell, Jr. was not retained by voters in a nonpartisan retention election for the Tenth Judicial District Court, which oversees Quay, DeBaca, and Harding counties. Despite a recommendation for retention by the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, Judge Mitchell failed to secure the required fifty-seven percent of votes for retention. Subsequently, both Judge Mitchell and former Judge Donald Schutte applied for the vacancy created by Mitchell's nonretention. The nominating committee considered both applications and recommended both names to the governor, who then reappointed Judge Mitchell to the bench (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner: Argued that the New Mexico Constitution prohibits a district judge who loses a nonpartisan retention election from being appointed to fill the resulting vacancy created by that judge’s nonretention. Asserted that Judge Mitchell’s appointment defeats the will of the voters of the Tenth Judicial District (paras 9, 27).
• Respondent (Judge Mitchell): Contended that the case is governed by the Constitution’s rules of judicial succession, not retention, and that the Constitution does not prohibit a judicial nominating commission from considering, and the governor from appointing, an otherwise qualified applicant to fill a vacant judicial office based on the applicant’s nonretention in the immediately preceding election (para 10).

Legal Issues

• Whether the New Mexico Constitution prohibits a district judge who loses a nonpartisan retention election from being appointed to fill the resulting vacancy created by that judge’s nonretention (para 1).
• Whether Judge Mitchell’s appointment to his former office constituted “retention of the judicial office” under Article VI, Section 33 of the New Mexico Constitution (para 11).
• Whether Judge Mitchell’s nonretention in the immediately preceding election disqualified him from lawfully succeeding himself (para 13).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico denied the petitioner’s petition for a writ of quo warranto, allowing Judge Mitchell to lawfully succeed himself (para 32).

Reasons

• The Court, with Justice Petra Jimenez Maes authoring the opinion, held that the New Mexico Constitution does not prohibit a judicial nominating commission from considering and nominating, or the governor from appointing, an otherwise qualified judicial applicant to fill a vacant judicial office based on the judicial applicant’s nonretention in the immediately preceding election. The Court reasoned that the Constitution’s provisions governing judicial succession, not retention, apply in this case. The Court found that the language of Article VI, Section 33 does not expressly prohibit a nominating commission from considering and nominating, nor the governor from appointing, a judicial applicant based on the applicant’s nonretention in the immediately preceding election. The Court also noted that other states have explicit prohibitions against the appointment of judges who lose retention elections, which New Mexico does not. The Court concluded that Judge Mitchell’s appointment did not defeat the will of the voters, as the process by which he was appointed followed the Constitution’s dictates, and his nonretention has practical and legal consequences, including the requirement to run in a partisan election to keep his seat (paras 11-32).