State ex rel. Robinson v. King, 9960
| Decision Date | 05 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 9960,9960 |
| Citation | 1974 NMSC 28,86 N.M. 231,522 P.2d 83 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico on the relation of Ira S. ROBINSON, Petitioner, v. Honorable Bruce KING, Governor of the State of New Mexico, Respondent. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
This is an original proceeding in mandamus wherein the relator (a registered elector in Bernalillo County who desires to declare as a candidate for the county commission in the 1974 primary election to be held on June 4, 1974) seeks to have a writ issued to the Honorable Bruce King, Governor of New Mexico (respondent), specifying that the five county commissioners in Bernalillo County should be elected according to the terms prescribed in chapter 21, New Mexico Laws 1974.
The facts pertinent to this action are as follows. In November, 1973, art. X, N.M.Const., was amended by adoption of a new section (§ 7). The amendment provides: that the elected board of county commissioners shall consist of five members, that the commissioners are to be elected for staggered terms in the first general election following adoption of the amendment, and that the county shall be divided into five county commission districts.
On January 14, 1974, the Board of County Commissioners of Bernalillo County adopted an ordinance in which both the boundaries of the county commissioner districts and the election terms were described. The 1974 session of the state legislature passed, and respondent on February 20, 1974, approved ch. 21, Laws 1974. By the terms of this statutory provision, both the boundaries of the county commission districts and the election terms differed materially from those described in the county ordinance.
On March 4, 1974, respondent issued and filed a public proclamation calling for the primary election to be held on June 4, 1974. By its terms, the proclamation called for the election of county commissioners as provided by the new constitutional amendment, art. X, § 7, N.M.Const., supra, without specifying the districts or referring to any laws describing them. Because of this lack of specification, petitioner is unable to determine (1) the boundaries of the district of which he is a resident, and (2) the terms of office for which he desires to become a candidate.
Relator has raised three points. The first is that respondent has failed to set forth by proclamation the offices of the five county commission districts of Bernalillo County.
Section 3--8--11, N.M.S.A. (1953), provides that the 'governor shall issue a public proclamation calling a primary election to be held in each county and precinct of the state on the date prescribed by the Primary Election Law. * * *' Section 3--8--12, subd. B, N.M.S.A. (1953), then provides that the proclamation shall contain '(t)he offices for which each political party shall nominate candidates; * * *.'
In responding to relator's first point, it is necessary to ascertain what is a proper definition of 'office' for the purpose of § 3--8--12, subd. B, supra. In this regard, we must first determine what constitutes a 'district' since the office of county commissioner is divided into five districts in Bernalillo County.
In Hammond v. Young, 67 Abs. 170, 175, 117 N.E.2d 227, 231 (1953), the court stated:
"District' derives its meaning and significance from the latin, meaning jurisdiction. The word describes a special geographical area over which specific authority, executive, legislative or judicial is exercised by properly constituted officers. * * *' (Emphasis supplied.)
We therefore hold that when the proclamation required under § 3--8--11, supra, lists the 'office' of county commissioner, it must also specifically describe the boundaries of the districts which make up this office. In addition, the proclamation should also set forth the terms of office pertinent to the office of county commissioner. This means that the proclamation must specify the term which applies to each district.
As a result, we hereby direct the respondent to amend his proclamation to include the district boundaries and the term of office which applies to each district. Respondent contends that this court cannot direct respondent to amend his proclamation since § 3--8--15, N.M.S.A. (1915), provides that: 'The governor may amend the proclamation between the time of its issuance and the time set for filing declarations of candidacy to include an office becoming vacant by removal, resignation or death, or to provide for any corrections or omissions.' (Emphasis added.)
Whether words of statutes are mandatory or discretionary is a matter of legislative intent to be determined by consideration of the purpose sought to be accomplished. Ross v. State Racing Commission, 64 N.M. 478, 330 P.2d 701 (1958). The general rule is that the words 'shall' and 'may' shall not be used interchangeably. Application of Sedillo, 66 N.M. 267, 347 P.2d 162 (1960). However, where a public officer is clothed with power in permissive form to perform an act in which the interests of the public are concerned, the permissive language will be construed as mandatory. Catron v. Marron, 19 N.M. 200, 142 P. 380 (1914).
In the case before us, respondent omitted certain descriptions which would have a profound effect on voter notice and knowledgeability. This notice is certainly something with which both the legislature and the public are greatly concerned. Therefore, at least for the purposes of this case, the permissive language of § 3--8--15, supra, will be construed as being mandatory. As a result, mandamus is a proper action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosewell, Application of
... ... Richard M. Daley, State's Atty. of Cook County, Chicago, for Cook County Collector, ... (People v. Robinson (1982), 89 Ill.2d 469, 475, 60 Ill.Dec. 632, 433 N.E.2d ... of sale, a duty held to be mandatory in People ex rel. Larson v. Rosewell (1980), 88 Ill.App.3d 272, 43 Ill.Dec ... Robinson v. King (1974), 86 N.M. 231, 522 P.2d 83; see generally 2A ... ...
-
Gallegos v. Trujillo
... ... Department, State Corporation Commission, Martin Vigil, ... former New Mexico ... of this contention, Plaintiffs rely upon State ex rel. Robinson v. King, 86 N.M. 231, 522 P.2d 83 (1974), and ... ...
-
Alfred v. Anderson
... ... No provision was made by the State of New Mexico to furnish counsel for Respondent, and, ... State ex rel. Burg v. City of Albuquerque, 31 N.M. 576, 249 P. 242 ... ...
-
Blue Canyon Well Ass'n v. Jevne
... ... 'n: Anna & Joe Durr, Frank & Billie Martinez, Lesley King, President[.]" After a trial on the merits, the magistrate ... (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see State ex rel. Helman v. Gallegos , 1994-NMSC-023, 23, 117 N.M ... Robinson v. King , 1974-NMSC-028, 10, 86 N.M. 231, 522 P.2d 83. We ... ...