Langdon v. Jaramillo

• Decision Date: 12 May 1969
• Docket Number: No. 8768,8768
• Citation: 1969 NMSC 60,80 N.M. 255,454 P.2d 269
• Parties: Commander Frank H. LANGDON, Lucylle C. Langdon, Lawrence W. Walsh and Colonel William P. Carter, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Lucy JARAMILLO, Bernalillo County Clerk, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Page 269

454 P.2d 269

80 N.M. 255

Commander Frank H. LANGDON, Lucylle C. Langdon, Lawrence W Walsh and Colonel William P. Carter Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Lucy JARAMILLO, Bernalillo County Clerk Defendant-Appellant.

No. 8768.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

May 12, 1969.

Alexander Sceresse, Dist. Atty., Robert N. Singer, William J. Bingham, Albuquerque, for appellant.

Modrall, Seymour, Sperling, Roehl & Harris, Frank H. Allen, Jr., Sutin, Thayer & Browne, Robert J. Werner, Albuquerque, for appellees.

James A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., Gary O. O'Dowd, Deputy Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, amicus curiae.

OPINION

TACKETT, Justice.

This case comes before us as a result of an appeal by defendant-appellant Bernalillo County Clerk in which plaintiffs-appellees filed an action to compel the county clerk to accept their affidavits of voter registration. Appellant refused to register appellees on the grounds that they resided within areas under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States and that the laws of New Mexico, § 3--1--1, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., would not permit voter registration under the circumstances. The trial court ordered the registration of appellees, from which this appeal ensued.

Under points I, II and III, appellant alleges that the district court erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that (I) both the United States and the State of New Mexico have jurisdiction over the land whereon appellees reside; (II) that appellees have met all the qualifications to vote as required by the State of New Mexico, including that of residency; and (III) that appellant wrongfully refused to allow appellees to register to vote and in ordering appellant to so register appellees.

Appellees admit in paragraph 9 of the complaint that each resides on the area of Sandia Base, New Mexico, which was purchased by the United States government pursuant to Art. I, § 8, Clause 17, United States Constitution, which reads as follows:

'To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And'

In paragraph 10 of the petition, appellees allege that they were denied the right to register to vote because they reside upon land that is within exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The trial court entered judgment finding that:

'* * * (T)he parties stipulated in open Court that the allegations set forth in said petition were true and correct except that respondent did not stipulate as to the allegation of paragraph 4 (which states 'Registration was wrongfully refused as to all of the Petitioners by the County Clerk of Bernalillo County at direction of the registration officers.') and (also) did not stipulate as to the allegation that the petitioners were presently domiciled in the state of New Mexico; (as alleged in paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the petition.)'

The trial court's pertinent conclusions are: (2) Appellees were residents of New Mexico; (3) met all qualifications to vote; and (4) both New Mexico and the United States had jurisdiction over the land where appellees resided.

Conclusion No. 4 is contrary to the stipulation of the parties in open court and paragraph 10 of the petition, as to the exclusive federal jurisdiction over the involved area. The record before us does not reveal sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings and conclusions. It is fundamental that a judgment cannot be sustained on appeal, unless the conclusion on which it rests finds support in one or more findings of fact. Thompson v. H. B. Zachry Co., 75 N.M. 715, 410 P.2d 740 (1966).

This case is controlled by Arledge v. Mabry, 52 N.M. 303, 197 P.2d 884 (1948), and cases cited therein, with respect to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States over the land in question, which was ceded by New Mexico and accepted by the United States and not receded. Royer v. Board of Election Supervisors, Cecil County, 231 Md. 561, 191 A.2d 446 (1963); Annot. 34 A.L.R.2d 1193. Compare, Montoya v. Bolack, 70 N.M. 196, 372 P.2d 387 (1962).

We are not unmindful of the case of Arapajolu v. McMenamin, 113 Cal.App.2d 824, 249 P.2d 318, 34 A.L.R.2d 1185 (1952), but it is adequately disposed of and distinguished in the Royer case, supra, in which the court said:

'* * * The Arapajolu case was decided by an intermediate court, and the case was denied review by the Supreme Court of California, three judges dissenting. The decision turned on the court's construction of the local statute. * * *'

Neither are we unmindful of the case of Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 775, 13 L.Ed.2d 675 (1965), nor Rothfels v. Southworth, 11 Utah 2d 169, 356 P.2d 612 (1960). The Carrington case, supra, did not involve a federal enclave, but was a problem involving the constitutionality of a Texas constitutional provision which prohibited some members of the armed forces from voting. It is to be noted that the Rothfels case, supra, was a three-to-two decision. Attention is specifically invited to the dissent in that case. In Arledge v. Mabry, supra, this court said:

'* * * The question is a legislative one and, however, strong our wish that residents of this community might enjoy the elective franchise, we may not properly further that desire by an act of judicial legislation.'

The legislative action necessary to confer state jurisdiction over the area of the federal enclave pointed out in Arledge, supra, is by an act of the Congress. We do not find a federal statute receding jurisdiction to New Mexico of the area involved herein.

This court has not considered the Attorney General's amicus curiae brief supporting the position of appellees.

The case is reversed and remanded with instructions to the learned trial judge to proceed in a manner not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

NOBLE, C.J., and COMPTON, J., concur.

MOISE, Justice (dissenting).

I find that I cannot agree with the opinion in this case, and accordingly set forth my reasons. The majority has not accorded any weight to the presentation in the briefs and on oral argument, but is content with adherence to the decision of this court in Arledge v. Mabry, 52 N.M. 303, 197 P.2d 884 (1948). In my humble opinion the holding in that case should not be considered as controlling here, and we should unequivocally overrule it insofar as its application would deny the right of the petitioners herein to register and vote.

Since the majority have not done so, I will briefly state the facts. The four petitioners brought this action seeking to require the respondent, county clerk, to register them to vote. They are all over the age of 21 years and for more than twelve months have resided on Sandia Base which is an area in Bernalillo County, New Mexico, acquired by the United States government pursuant to Art. I, Sec. 8, Subsec. 17, of the Constitution of the United States, as authorized by §§ 8--202 and 8--203, N.M.S.A., 1941, since repealed.

Petitioner, Commander Langdon, is a commander in the United States Navy, stationed at Sandia Base, where he has resided since June 1965. He claims New Mexico as his domicile. It is his home as shown on the military records. He has not voted or attempted to vote in any other state since 1965. He has paid state income taxes in New Mexico since 1965. His automobile has been licensed in New Mexico since 1966. He carries a New Mexico driver's license, files his federal income tax return in New Mexico, and intends to make New Mexico has permanent home.

Petitioner, Lucylle C. Langdon, is the wife of Commander Langdon, living with him on Sandia Base since June 1965. The facts stated concerning Commander Langdon, insofar as pertinent, apply equally to her.

Petitioner, Colonel William P. Carter, is a Colonel in the United States Air Force, stationed at Sandia Base since 1965. All the indicia of residence related concerning Commander Langdon also apply to him. In addition, he resided in Albuquerque from 1951 to 1955 while on active duty with the Air Force, during which time he was registered to vote and voted in Albuquerque.

Petitioner, Lawrence W. Walsh, is a native-born New Mexican and a civilian, residing on Sandia Base. He has never resided outside New Mexico except while in the military service during World War II.

Each of the petitioners has been denied registration because of residence on Sandia Base and for no other reason. No claim is made that they do not have all other constitutional and statutory qualifications.

While fully accepting the statement in Montoya v. Bolack, 70 N.M. 196, 372 P.2d 387 (1962) that 'reservation lands are not in the same category as land obtained by the United States by purchase,' and in no sense suggesting the Montoya v. Bolack, supra, is controlling, nevertheless note should be taken of the following pertinent language quoted therein from Rothfels v. Southworth, 11 Utah 2d 169, 356 P.2d 612 (1960), a case closely analogous to this, involving the right of a resident on a military reservation to vote:

'* * * The right to vote and to actively participate in its processes is among the most precious of the privileges for which our democratic form of government was established. The history of the struggle of freedom-living men to obtain and to maintain such rights is so well known that it is not necessary to dwell thereon. But we re-affirm the desirability and the importance, not only of permitting citizens to vote but of encouraging them to do so.

'* * * Accordingly, even if the statutes are not as clear in this regards as may be desired, doubts should be resolved in favor of the right to vote to the end that citizens may enjoy the full...