State ex rel. Cisneros v. Martinez, 34,646.
| Decision Date | 04 December 2014 |
| Docket Number | 34,646. |
| Citation | 2015 NMSC 001,340 P.3d 597 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, ex rel., Hon. Carlos R. CISNEROS, and Hon. George K. Munoz, As members of the New Mexico Legislature and Citizens of New Mexico, Hon. Alan M. Malott, Hon. J.C. Robinson, Hon. Jeff Foster McElroy, and Hon. Louis P. McDonald, as New Mexico State District Court Judges and Citizens of New Mexico, The District Judges Association of New Mexico, Inc., a/k/a The District and Metropolitan Judges Association of New Mexico, Hon. Duane K. Castleberry, Hon. David Joel Garnett, Hon. Karen P. Mitchell, and Hon. Warren Walton, as New Mexico Magistrate Court Judges and Citizens of the State of New Mexico, and The New Mexico Magistrate Judges Association, Petitioners, v. Hon. Susana MARTINEZ, Governor of the State of New Mexico, and Hon. Dianna J. Duran, Secretary of State of New Mexico, Respondents. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Ray M. Vargas, II, The Vargas Law Firm, L.L.C., Albuquerque, NM, for Petitioners.
Jessica Hernandez, Matthew J. Stackpole, Jeremiah L. Ritchie, Santa Fe, NM, for Respondent Hon. Susana Martinez.
Gary K. King, Attorney General, Scott Fuqua, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Respondent Dianna J. Duran.
{¶ 1} In the waning hours of the 2014 legislative session, the Legislature passed the General Appropriations Act of 2014, 2014 N.M. Laws, ch. 63, §§ 1–14 (Appropriations Act), which included a pair of salary increases for judges and justices of the New Mexico state judiciary (collectively, judges). The first increase, funded in Section 4(B) of the Appropriations Act, was a 5% raise, the appropriation for which was lumped in with various other appropriations to the judicial branch to pay the salaries of all judicial employees, including judges. See 2014 N.M. Laws, ch. 63, § 4(B) (). The 5% raise was not separately identified in the language of Section 4(B).
{¶ 2} The second increase, separately funded in Section 8(A) of the Appropriations Act, was the same 3% raise authorized for all eligible state employees, including judges. See id. § 8(A). Section 8(A)(2) in particular allocated $579,937 to fund the 3% raise for judges and increased the salary of a Supreme Court Justice to $134,922, a sum that included both the 5% and the 3% raises.
{¶ 3} Calling out what she referred to as a “dramatic 8% raise,” Governor Martinez used her partial veto authority to strike the following language from Section 8(A) before signing the Appropriations Act into law:
(2) five hundred seventy-nine thousand nine hundred thirty-seven dollars ($579,937) to provide the justices of the supreme court a salary increase to one hundred thirty-four thousand nine hundred twenty-two dollars ($134,922) and to provide the chief justice of the supreme court, the chief judge of the court of appeals, and judges of the court of appeals, district courts, metropolitan courts and magistrate courts a salary increase pursuant to the provisions of Section 34–1–9 NMSA 1978;
Id. § 8(A)(2). Significantly, the Governor did not veto any of the appropriation language or dollar amounts set forth in Section 4(B) which included the funds for a 5% raise.
{¶ 4} Thereafter, a group of judges, judicial associations, and legislators (collectively, Petitioners) petitioned this Court under Article VI, Section 3 of the New Mexico Constitution to issue a writ of mandamus to the Governor and Secretary of State Duran to declare the Governor's veto of Section 8(A)(2) unconstitutional. See N.M. Const. art. VI, § 3 (). Petitioners also asked this Court to order the Governor and the Secretary of State to reinstate Section 8(A)(2) and to implement the full 8% raise passed by the Legislature, or alternatively to implement the 5% raise separately funded in Section 4(B).
{¶ 5} Citing a possible appearance of impropriety or bias about ruling on the issues raised in the petition, the Chief Justice, the Senior Justice, and two Associate Justices of this Court recused themselves from this proceeding.See Order, State ex rel. Cisneros v. Martinez, No. 34,646 (N.M.Sup.Ct. Apr. 16, 2014) (); see also Pierce v. State, 1996–NMSC–001, ¶ 5, 121 N.M. 212, 910 P.2d 288 (). In their place, a quartet of retired jurists, consisting of a former Chief Justice, two former Chief Judges of the Court of Appeals, and a former Chief Judge of the First Judicial District Court, agreed to serve as justices pro tempore for this proceeding. Accord State ex rel. Chavez v. Vigil–Giron, 1988–NMSC–103, ¶ 3, 108 N.M. 45, 766 P.2d 305 ().
{¶ 6} After ordering full briefing and hearing the arguments of the parties, the Court denied the petition in part, ruling from the bench that the Governor's veto was effective with respect to the 3% raise set forth in Section 8(A)(2). The Court also granted the petition in part, ruling that the 5% raise separately funded in Section 4(B) of the Appropriations Act was never vetoed and therefore survived intact. We issued a writ of mandamus consistent with our ruling and ordered the Secretary of the Department of Finance and Administration (DFA) to implement the 5% raise.1 We now issue this opinion to set forth our reasoning in more detail.
{¶ 7} As we will explain more fully in this opinion, Petitioners maintain that the Governor's veto of Section 8(A)(2), which we upheld, had no effect on the 5% raise included in Section 4(B). In response, the Governor challenges the legality of the Legislature's method of appropriating funds for the 5% pay raise in Section 4(B), separate from Section 8(A)(2) and without any language that specifically identified the 5% raise. We therefore inquire whether any source of law prohibits the Legislature from using an appropriation like that set forth in Section 4(B)—which included funds for a pay raise but without an explicit mention of a raise—to establish a judicial salary that includes a salary increase. This is a matter of first impression, and we thus begin with a brief overview of the various methods the Legislature has used in the past to establish judicial salaries and pay raises.
{¶ 8} Until 1953, judicial salaries were set forth in the New Mexico Constitution. SeeN.M. Const. art. VI, § 11 (as amended through 1952) (providing that the annual salary of a Supreme Court Justice shall be $6,000); id. art. VI, § 17 (as amended through 1952) (providing that the annual salary of a district court judge shall be $4,500). As a result, salaries could be changed only by amending the Constitution; that is, through a formal proposal and vote in the Legislature followed by a popular election. See N.M. Const. art. XIX, § 1.
{¶ 9} In 1953, a pair of constitutional amendments removed the specific judicial salary figures from the Constitution and permitted the Legislature to “fix” or “provide” judicial salaries “by law.” See N.M. Const. art. VI, § 11 (); id. art. VI, § 17 (). Two years later, the Governor signed two statutes into law that set forth the annual salaries of justices and district court judges. See NMSA 1953, § 16–2–1.1 (1955) (); id. § 16–3–33.1 (1955) (); see also id. § 16–7–3 (1966) (). For roughly the next 40 years, judicial salaries could be changed only by formally amending the relevant statutes; that is, by passing a bill through both chambers of the Legislature and presenting it to the Governor for signature. See N.M. Const. art. IV, § 22.
{¶ 10} In 1993, the Legislature repealed the statutes that had been used to “fix” or “provide” judicial salaries “by law” and replaced them with NMSA 1978, Section 341–9 (1993, amended 2007), which the Governor signed and which remains in effect to this day. See 1993 N.M. Laws, ch. 278, § 1 (repealing NMSA 1978, Sections 34–22, 34–5–3, and 34–6–3 (1990)). Section 34–1–9 simply provides that Supreme Court Justices shall receive an annual salary that “shall be established by the legislature in an appropriations act.” Section 34–1–9 also sets forth a formula for calculating the salaries of the Chief Justice and all other judges and magistrates, using a Justice's salary as the baseline. For example, the Chief Justice's annual salary “is two thousand dollars ($2,000) more than the annual salary of a justice of the supreme court,” § 341–9(A); the annual salary of a judge of the court of appeals “is ninety-five percent of 4 the annual salary of a justice of the supreme court,” § 34–1–9(D)(1) ; a district judge's...
To continue reading
Request your trial