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 the final hours of the 2014 legislative session, the New Mexico Legislature passed the General Appropriations Act of 2014, which included two salary increases for the state judiciary: a 5% raise funded within general appropriations to the judicial branch and a separate 3% raise for all eligible state employees, including judges. Governor Martinez vetoed the section authorizing the 3% raise, referring to the combined 8% increase as "dramatic" and expressing her support for only a 3% raise. This action led to a petition by a group of judges, judicial associations, and legislators, challenging the constitutionality of the Governor's veto and seeking to implement the full 8% raise or, alternatively, the 5% raise (paras 1-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioners: Argued that the Governor's veto of the 3% raise did not affect the 5% raise included in another section of the Appropriations Act and sought a writ of mandamus to declare the veto unconstitutional and to implement the full 8% raise or, alternatively, the 5% raise (para 4).
• Respondents: The Governor contended that her veto effectively eliminated both raises, arguing that the Legislature's intent was to provide a single 8% raise, which she vetoed. The Secretary of State supported the Governor's position (paras 22, 24).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Governor's veto of the 3% salary increase for judges also effectively vetoed the separate 5% raise included in the General Appropriations Act of 2014 (para 4).
• Whether the Legislature's method of appropriating funds for the 5% pay raise was constitutional and whether it circumvented the Governor's veto power (paras 37, 42).

Disposition

• The petition was denied in part and granted in part. The Court ruled that the Governor's veto was effective with respect to the 3% raise but did not affect the 5% raise, which survived intact. A writ of mandamus was issued consistent with this ruling, ordering the implementation of the 5% raise (para 6).

Reasons

• The Court found that the Legislature intended two separate raises and provided appropriations for them in two separate sections of the Appropriations Act. The veto of Section 8(A)(2) effectively destroyed the whole of the 3% raise but had no effect on the 5% raise funded in Section 4(B). The Court reasoned that the appropriations in Section 4(B) were sufficient to establish judicial salaries, including the 5% raise, and that the Governor needed to veto the appropriations in Section 4(B) to eliminate the 5% raise. The Court also rejected the argument that including the 5% raise in the Section 4(B) appropriations was unconstitutional "subtle drafting" aimed at circumventing the Governor's veto power, emphasizing the Legislature's broad authority to fashion appropriations acts (paras 23-42).