New Mexico Democrats have lost their effort to place replacement candidates on the November ballot in two state House districts after the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the party missed a clear statutory deadline.
The divided decision, with Justice Michael Vigil dissenting, leaves Republican candidates unopposed in House Districts 4 and 23 after the original Democratic nominees withdrew too late for the party to legally replace them, according to the Albuquerque Journal.
Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver had asked the state’s highest court to resolve competing interpretations of New Mexico’s ballot-vacancy law after litigation erupted in both districts.
Republicans celebrated the ruling.
“If they won’t follow basic rules, how can New Mexico voters have any confidence in them to turn our state around on serious, complex issues?” New Mexico Republican Party interim Chairman Mike Nelson said.
At the center of the dispute was Section 1-8-8 of state law, which governs vacancies occurring after a primary election.
The statute allows political parties to fill a general-election ballot vacancy when that vacancy occurs “ninety or more days before the general election.”
Another provision in the same section says an appointment to fill such a vacancy must be submitted at least 70 days before Election Day.
Democrats argued the 70-day language allowed them to submit replacement candidates even though the original nominees had not withdrawn before the 90-day threshold.
The Supreme Court rejected that interpretation Thursday, ruling the provisions must be read together rather than treating the 70-day filing deadline as an independent opportunity to create a replacement vacancy.
Hernandez withdrawal came after hotel scandal
In House District 4, Democrat Rep. Joseph Hernandez of Shiprock had been seeking reelection to a second term before abruptly ending his campaign last week.
His withdrawal followed reports tying him to a late-night disturbance at a Chicago hotel. Police reports and witness accounts alleged Hernandez had been “running around naked” and banging on hotel-room doors.
After Hernandez exited the race, San Juan County Democrats selected former state Rep. Anthony Allison as their replacement nominee.
But San Juan County Clerk Alyssa Kuhn determined Hernandez had withdrawn after the statutory deadline and declined to accept Allison as a valid replacement.
Democrats sued.
Thursday’s Supreme Court decision sided with the interpretation that Hernandez’s withdrawal came too late to trigger the party’s replacement authority.
Republican Heather Ellison of Kirtland will consequently have no Democratic opponent in the District 4 general election.
Same problem for Democrats in House District 23
A nearly identical battle unfolded in House District 23.
Democrat Elise Falanga Taylor withdrew from the race against incumbent Republican House Whip Alan Martinez of Rio Rancho after the 90-day deadline had passed.
Sandoval County Democrats then selected Matthew Herman to replace her.
Sandoval County Clerk Anne Brady-Romero initially refused to put Herman on the ballot, concluding state law did not permit the replacement because Taylor had withdrawn too late.
A district court temporarily ordered Herman onto the ballot while the legal issue was considered. But the judge subsequently ruled that Brady-Romero’s original reading of the law had been correct.
The Supreme Court affirmed that conclusion Thursday.
The high court also directed a district judge handling the parallel San Juan County case to enter a ruling consistent with its interpretation.
90 days means 90 days
Both Democratic withdrawals occurred after the 90-day cutoff but before the separate 70-day filing deadline, creating the legal fight over which provision controlled.
The Supreme Court’s answer was that both matter.
In other words, the 70-day deadline establishes when a properly selected replacement must be filed; it does not erase the requirement that the underlying vacancy itself occur at least 90 days before the election.
The outcome leaves Democrats without candidates in two House races they had initially planned to contest.
It is not expected to dramatically alter control of the New Mexico House, where Democrats currently hold a 42-26 advantage, with two seats vacant following early departures by incumbents.
But it gives Republicans two uncontested races as the party attempts to cut into Democrats’ large majority.
All 70 House seats are on the ballot this year, although fewer than half feature contested general-election races.
For Democrats, the ruling also closes the door on weeks of litigation seeking to salvage the two candidacies.
The candidates withdrew after the statutory window had closed. Democrats attempted to fill the resulting vacancies anyway.
And on Thursday, the New Mexico Supreme Court said the law did not allow it.