This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
Elected county officers in New Mexico, serving staggered terms, were granted salary increases by their respective county commissions effective January 1, 1995. However, the New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration refused to approve the budget for midterm salary increases, citing Article IV, Section 27 of the New Mexico Constitution, which prohibits compensation changes during an officer's term. This resulted in some officers receiving raises while others, including the Petitioners, were denied increases (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- District Court, Twelfth Judicial District: The court ruled in favor of the Petitioners, issuing a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus compelling the Department to approve the midterm salary increases (para 2).
- New Mexico Court of Appeals: The case was certified to the New Mexico Supreme Court for resolution (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Petitioners-Appellees: Argued that the salary increases were valid under Article X, Section 1 of the New Mexico Constitution, which grants the Legislature authority to set county officer salaries. They contended that this provision implicitly allows midterm increases and that the Department's refusal to approve the raises was unconstitutional (paras 7, 9).
- Respondents-Appellants: Asserted that midterm salary increases violated Article IV, Section 27 of the New Mexico Constitution, which prohibits changes to public officers' compensation during their term unless explicitly allowed by the Constitution (paras 1, 3).
Legal Issues
- Does Article IV, Section 27 of the New Mexico Constitution prohibit midterm salary increases for elected county officers?
- Does Article X, Section 1 of the New Mexico Constitution provide an exception to the prohibition in Article IV, Section 27?
Disposition
- The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment, holding that midterm salary increases for elected county officers violated Article IV, Section 27 of the New Mexico Constitution (para 3).
Reasons
Per McKinnon J. (Franchini C.J. and Minzner J. concurring):
The Court held that Article IV, Section 27 prohibits midterm salary increases for public officers unless explicitly allowed by another constitutional provision. Article X, Section 1, which grants the Legislature authority to set county officer salaries, does not expressly or implicitly provide an exception to this prohibition. The framers intended to prevent arbitrary or politically motivated compensation changes during an officer's term. The Court emphasized that any remedy for the inequities caused by staggered terms must come through constitutional amendment, not judicial interpretation (paras 3-14).
Dissent by Serna J. (Baca J. concurring):
Justice Serna argued that Article X, Section 1 implicitly grants the Legislature authority to set salaries, including midterm increases, and that the majority's interpretation of Article IV, Section 27 was overly rigid. He contended that the Legislature acted reasonably to address inequities caused by staggered terms and that the prohibition in Article IV, Section 27 should not apply to general salary adjustments affecting all county officers equally. Serna J. emphasized the need for judicial deference to legislative decisions in ambiguous constitutional contexts (paras 16-32).