The New Mexico Supreme Court put to rest some of the on-going drama about Public Service of New Mexico’s (PNM) plans for closing down the San Juan Generating Station. The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the Public Regulation Commission (PRC) must apply the Energy Transition Act (ETA) to PNM’s case for shuttering the coal-fired San Juan Generating Station, granting a writ of mandamus requested by a group of stakeholders, including Speaker of the House Brian Egolf, Senator Jacob Candelaria, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, Navajo Nation President Jonathan Nez and others. A writ of mandamus is an order from a court to a subordinate government body or lower court to fulfill official duties required by law or correct an abuse of discretion. In December 2019, Lujan Grisham and others asked the court to force the PRC to apply the ETA to the San Juan Generating Station case. The decision comes after six months of back-and-forth between the PRC and investor-owned PNM on the applicability of the ETA on PNM’s plans for phasing out its coal-based energy generation.
Former New Mexico Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Daniels died. He was 76. Chief Justice Judith K. Nakamura announced Daniels’ passing Sunday morning. “Members of the New Mexico Supreme Court and the entire Judiciary are saddened to learn of the passing of our colleague, Justice Charles W. Daniels,” Nakamura said. “Our state has lost a titan of the law.
The New Mexico Supreme Court vacated the death sentences of the final two inmates on death row Friday, ruling the sentences were not in line with sentences for similarly “horrendous” crimes. The court sent the cases of Timothy Allen and Robert Fry back to district court in San Juan County to instead impose sentences of life in prison. New Mexico last executed an inmate in 2001 when convicted murderer and rapist Terry Clark died by lethal injection; before Clark, New Mexico had not executed an inmate since 1960. In 2009, Gov. Bill Richardson signed a bill repealing the death penalty in New Mexico. Both Allen and Fry were sentenced under the 1979 law which allowed for prosecutors to seek the death penalty in certain cases.
All eyes are on Governor-elect Michelle Lujan Grisham. With about two months until the legislative session starts and just weeks until she takes office, speculation and rumors about how she’ll run the state are growing. Lujan Grisham will appoint new department heads for the state agencies, but she has another list of important appointments to make shortly after taking office. Lujan Grisham will also have to fill state judicial vacancies and a New Mexico Senate seat in southern New Mexico as she takes office in January. During her campaign, Lujan Grisham also said she would like to see all new members of the University of New Mexico Board of Regents.
Reproductive healthcare and abortion access may be profoundly personal decisions, but changes to public policy in New Mexico could generate repercussions that extend far beyond the most private experiences of women across the state. According to recent analysis by the Guttmacher Institute, nearly one-in-four women in the United States have had or will have an abortion by age 45. And since Associate Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced in June that he would retire July 31, attention to a 50-year-old New Mexico law has intensified. Dormant since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in 1973, the statute would go back into effect if Roe is overturned, meaning anyone who performs an abortion in New Mexico could be charged with a 4th-degree felony. Read this story’s companion piece, “Midterms could be key, with New Mexico’s abortion rights protections at a crossroads,” here.
The social stigma attached to abortion means that many people don’t talk about it openly, said Planned Parenthood of New Mexico CEO Vicki Cowart in a recent interview, but there are millions of women for whom it has played a part in their personal and family histories.
The saga of ten invalid vetoes ended Wednesday, when the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Gov. Susana Martinez failed to follow the state constitution. That means the bills she vetoed more than a year ago without explanation remain law, upholding a lower court ruling. During the 2017 legislative session, Martinez vetoed ten laws, but failed to explain those vetoes. The state Legislature sued, saying she had violated the state constitution. With the court’s ruling, those laws are in effect immediately.
The saga of ten vetoes by Gov. Susana Martinez hit another twist. The state Supreme Court said Tuesday a district court ruling invalidating the vetoes should be stayed until the appeals process is over. A district court judge ruled last year that the vetoes were invalid and so the bills in question should become law. After this order, the Secretary of State chaptered them into law. Now, in a 3-2 decision, the New Mexico Supreme Court paused this order.
An Albuquerque mayoral hopeful who sued the city and said she was wrongfully disqualified from the ballot is now taking her case to the New Mexico Supreme Court. Stella Padilla sued the city, specifically naming City Clerk Natalie Howard, in an attempt to get her name on the city ballot this October. This came after Howard ruled Padilla did not have enough signatures to make the mayoral ballot.[perfectpullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]The state’s best political coverage. [/perfectpullquote]Last week, district judge Nancy Franchini ruled Padilla could not sue to reinstate qualifying petition signatures. Franchini ruled to dismiss the lawsuit, agreeing with city attorneys that only petition signers could file such a suit.
The New Mexico Supreme Court denied the Legislature’s lawsuit against Gov. Susana Martinez for her line-item budget vetoes, saying that the case is “not ripe for review.”
Their denial was announced Thursday morning, a day after the Legislature filed its response to the governor’s filing. All five members of the Supreme Court concurred with the order. Now, legislators and the governor will have to battle over the vetoes in a special legislative session, which Martinez called to begin on May 24. Note: This is a breaking news story and more information will be added as it comes in. The Legislature sued over line-item vetoes of the entire legislative and higher education budgets.
Attorneys for Gov. Susana Martinez argued to the New Mexico Supreme Court that a legal challenge of her sweeping line-item budget vetoes should be dismissed. At a minimum, her lawyers argued last week, the case should be postponed until an upcoming special legislative session is complete. In response to a motion filed by the Legislative Council last month, Martinez’s lawyer Paul Kennedy argued that the governor did not exceed her power as governor when she vetoed the entire budgets for the Legislature and higher education. Kennedy, who has a high dollar contract with Martinez’s office, challenged the Legislature’s notion that the governor cannot legally veto two entire budgets. Related story: Gov’s office cites complex questions from reporters, busy schedule as defense in lawsuit
“The question presented is whether, during the bill-review period following a regular session of the Legislature, the Governor can veto items pertaining to the Legislature and state educational institutions in a general appropriations bill for the subsequent fiscal year without violating the principle of separation of powers,” Kennedy wrote.