Republican Party v. Oliver ( 2023 )

This decision of the Supreme Court of New Mexico was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer- generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Supreme Court. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: November 27, 2023 NO. S-1-SC-40146 REPUBLICAN PARTY OF NEW MEXICO, DAVID GALLEGOS, TIMOTHY JENNINGS, DINAH VARGAS, MANUEL GONZALES, JR., BOBBY KIMBRO, DEANN KIMBRO, and PEARL GARCIA, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MAGGIE TOULOUSE OLIVER, in her official capacity as New Mexico Secretary of State, MIMI STEWART, in her official capacity as President Pro Tempore of the New Mexico Senate, and JAVIER MARTINEZ, in his official capacity as Speaker of the New Mexico House of Representatives, Defendants-Appellees. CERTIFICATION FROM THE NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS Fred Van Soelen, District Judge Hamilton Sanders LLP Misah Tseytlin Molly S. DiRago Kevin M. LeRoy Troutman Pepper Chicago, IL Harrison & Hart, LLC Carter B. Harrison, IV Albuquerque, NM for Appellants Hinkle Shanor LLP Richard E. Olson Lucas M. Williams Ann C. Tripp Roswell, NM UNM School of Law Michael B. Browde Albuquerque, NM Peifer, Hanson, Mullins & Baker, P.A. Sara N. Sanchez Albuquerque, NM Stelzner, LLC. Luis G. Stelzner, Albuquerque, NM for Appellees DISPOSITIONAL ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE BACON, Chief Justice. {1} WHEREAS, this matter comes before this Court for consideration on appeal pursuant to this Court’s August 25, 2023, order in Lujan Grisham v. Van Soelen, S-1- SC-39481, that the Court of Appeals upon the filing of a notice of appeal under Rule 12- 201 NMRA certify the matter to this Court under Rule 12-606 NMRA; {2} WHEREAS, this Court having considered the briefs and November 20, 2023, oral arguments and being otherwise fully informed of the issues and applicable law; {3} WHEREAS, this Court concludes that the district court’s Findings of Fact are supported by substantial evidence; {4} WHEREAS, this Court concludes that the district court’s Conclusions of Law are supported by its Findings of Fact; {5} WHEREAS, this Court concludes that the district court committed no legal error; {6} WHEREAS, this Court hereby exercises its discretion under Rule 12-405(B)(1) and (2) NMRA to dispose of this case by nonprecedential order rather than by formal opinion; {7} NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the ruling of the district court is affirmed. {8} IT IS SO ORDERED. C SHANNON BACON, Chief Justice WE CONCUR: MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Justice DAVID K. THOMSON, Justice JULIE J. VARGAS, Justice BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Justice