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 case concerns a contested mayoral election in the Town of Edgewood in 2004. The canvassing board certified the Contestee as the winner by one vote, but the Contestant challenged the election, alleging that certain votes were cast by ineligible voters and that procedural errors occurred. The district court found that some votes were improperly cast and concluded the election resulted in a tie, necessitating a decision by lot under New Mexico law (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- District Court, Santa Fe County, 2004: The district court determined that certain votes were cast by ineligible voters and ruled that the election resulted in a tie, requiring resolution by lot (paras 1-2).
Parties' Submissions
- Contestee (Appellant/Cross-Appellee): Argued that the Contestant could not challenge the legality of non-resident voters in district court without first raising the issue before or during the election. Also contended that the vote of Dorothy Brown, who failed to activate the cast vote indicator, should be counted (para 2).
- Contestant (Appellee/Cross-Appellant): Asserted that the vote of Madelyn Hastings, who voted by a required challenge ballot, should be counted. Did not dispute the ineligibility of non-resident voters (para 2).
Legal Issues
- Whether a candidate can challenge the legality of voters in district court without raising the issue before or during the election.
- Whether the vote of Dorothy Brown, who failed to activate the cast vote indicator, should be counted.
- Whether the vote of Madelyn Hastings, cast by a required challenge ballot, should be counted.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment that the election resulted in a tie and upheld the district court's rulings on the contested votes (para 31).
Reasons
Majority Opinion (Per Wechsler J., Bustamante CJ. concurring):
Timing of Challenges: The Court held that the Municipal Election Code permits post-election challenges to voter eligibility in district court under Section 3-8-64(A). The Court rejected the Contestee's argument that challenges must be raised before or during the election, emphasizing that the statute allows for post-election review to ensure the purity of the electorate (paras 3-13).
Vote of Dorothy Brown: The Court concluded that Brown's vote could not be counted because she failed to activate the cast vote indicator, as required by Section 1-9-4.2(A). The Court found that the precinct board had no authority to correct this error after the election (paras 14-19).
Vote of Madelyn Hastings: The Court determined that Hastings' vote could not be counted because she did not meet the statutory requirements for voters whose names are not on the signature roster, including obtaining a certificate of eligibility. The Court emphasized that Section 3-8-43(C) mandates that such ballots "shall not be counted" (paras 20-27).
Authority of the District Court: The Court clarified that the district court's authority under Section 3-8-64(A) is limited to determining the lawful winner based on "legal votes" cast in accordance with statutory procedures. Votes that do not comply with these procedures cannot be counted, even if the voter was otherwise qualified (paras 29-30).
Dissenting Opinion (Vigil J.):
- Vigil J. dissented in part, arguing that the votes of Dorothy Brown and Madelyn Hastings should have been counted. He emphasized the fundamental right to vote and the need to liberally construe election statutes to ensure that every vote cast by a qualified voter is counted. He contended that the district court had the authority under Section 3-8-64(A) to determine the intent of qualified voters and count their votes, even if procedural errors occurred (paras 33-55).