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

• The Governor of New Mexico signed the General Appropriation Act of 2011 but altered an appropriation from $150,000 to $50,000 by vetoing the digit "1" from the allocated amount intended for the Department of Finance and Administration to disburse to the New Mexico mortgage finance authority. The Governor justified this action by stating the original amount was excessive, despite agreeing with the necessity of the expenditure (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioners: Argued that the Governor's partial veto, which effectively reduced the appropriation by vetoing a single digit, was an unconstitutional application of the Governor’s veto authority (para 2).
• Respondents: Defended the Governor's action by asserting that the partial veto power includes the ability to veto parts of an appropriation, suggesting that vetoing a single digit to reduce an appropriation amount falls within this power (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Governor's partial veto power allows for the reduction or "scaling" of an appropriation by vetoing part of the numerical figure allocated in the appropriation (para 5).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico issued a writ of mandamus ordering the reinstatement of the Legislature’s $150,000 appropriation, finding the Governor’s partial veto that allowed scaling of appropriations invalid and unconstitutional (para 10).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Justice Petra Jimenez Maes and concurred by Justices Patricio M. Serna, Richard C. Bosson, Edward L. Chávez, and COA Judge Roderick T. Kennedy, reasoned that the separation of powers doctrine delineates distinct roles for the Legislature and the Executive in the appropriations process, with the Constitution vesting exclusive power to appropriate money in the Legislature. The Governor's partial veto authority does not extend to altering the specific amounts appropriated by the Legislature, as doing so would distort the Legislature's intent and create legislation inconsistent with that enacted by the Legislature. The Court distinguished between the permissible veto of entire items or parts of a bill and the impermissible action of altering an appropriation amount by vetoing individual digits. The Court also noted that while past actions by governors might have gone unchallenged, it remains the Court's role to determine the constitutionality of such actions (paras 3-9).