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 response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the New Mexico Legislative Council issued a directive on June 9, 2020, prohibiting in-person attendance at an upcoming special legislative session intended to address pandemic-related issues. This directive aimed to curb the virus's spread while allowing the session to proceed with some in-person media coverage and provisions for public participation through webcasting and online comments (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioners: Argued that the Council's directive violated Article IV, Section 12 of the New Mexico Constitution and general notions of due process by effectively closing the special session to the public, thereby exceeding constitutional limits (para 6).
• Respondent: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Council's directive prohibiting in-person attendance at the special legislative session violated Article IV, Section 12 of the New Mexico Constitution and general notions of due process (para 6).

Disposition

• The petition challenging the Council's directive was denied (para 1).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico, per Justice Nakamura, held that the Council's directive did not violate the New Mexico Constitution. The decision was based on a narrow challenge focusing solely on the textual analysis of the term "public" in Article IV, Section 12. The Court found the term "public" to be ambiguous, with historical dictionary definitions providing no clear guidance on whether it mandated in-person attendance at legislative sessions. The Court concluded that the petitioners failed to establish a clear and indisputable right to in-person attendance under the Constitution. The majority declined to undertake a sua sponte historical analysis of the drafters' intent behind Article IV, Section 12, emphasizing the need for adversarial briefing on such complex constitutional questions. Justices Bacon and Thomson dissented, arguing that Article IV, Section 12 requires legislative sessions to be open to the public in a manner that allows for in-person attendance and that the Council lacked the authority to make policy decisions on behalf of the Legislature to close the session to the public (paras 7-66, 69-97).