Hon. Fred T. Van Soelen
Uploaded by
Albuquerque JournalHon. Fred T. Van Soelen
Uploaded by
Albuquerque JournalCHAMBERS OF CURRY COUNTY COURTHOUSE
700 NORTH MAIN, SUITE 3
HON. FRED T. VAN SOELEN
CLOVIS, NEW MEXICO S8101
DISTRICT JUDGE
Ph: (575) 742-7510
Division III Fax: (575) 762-7815
FILED
5th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Lea County
4/19/2022 4:14 PM
NELDA CUELLAR
CLERK OF THE COURT
Cory Hagedoorn
April 19, 2022
Eric R. Burris Richard E. Olsen
Harold D. Stratton, Jr. P.O. Box 10
201 Third Street NW, Suite 1800 Roswell, New Mexico 88202-0010
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102-4386
Christopher O. Murray Holly Agajanian
1263 Washington Street 490 Old Santa Fe Trail, Suite 400
Denver, Colorado 80203 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
Dylan K. Lange
325 Don Gaspar, Suite 300
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
Counsel:
The Court has considered both the Legislative and Executive Defendants’ motions to dismiss
under Rule 1-012(B)(1) and (6) NMRA, which allege that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the
subject matter, and that Plaintiffs complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The question o f whether Plaintiffs’ claim is justiciable giving the Court jurisdiction to hear the case
is intertwined with the second part o f the motion as to whether there is a claim for which relief can
be granted, so the Court will address both questions at the same time.
P laintiffs complaint alleges a violation o f Article II, Section 18 o f the New Mexico
Constitution, the equal protection clause. This clause mirrors the Fourteenth Amendment equal
protection clause. See U.S. Const, amend XIV, § 1. Under the interstitial approach to constitutional
interpretation, New M exico’s Constitution will only provide broader protections than the United
States Constitution if the federal approach is unpersuasive because it is flawed or undeveloped.
The Plaintiffs allege that Senate Bill 1, the law that was passed creating the new
Congressional districts, creates a partisan gerrymander that violates their right to equal protection
Page 1 o f 3
under the law. Both sides cite Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S.Ct. 2484 (2019), which decided that
political gerrymandering claims are non-justiciable at the federal level, as there was no consensus
as to a standard to apply to political gerrymandering and “how much is too much”. But Rucho also
said that this did not foreclose possible court action at the state level, where constitutional or
statutory grounds may be available to address the issue.
Plaintiffs allege unconstitutional political gerrymandering. They raise equal protection
grounds as the basis for the complaint. Plaintiff s complaint makes a strong, well-developed case that
Senate Bill 1 is a partisan gerrymander created in an attempt to dilute Republican votes in
Congressional races in New Mexico. They make a strong, well-developed case that Senate Bill 1
does not follow traditional districting principles, including a lack o f compactness, lack o f
preservation o f communities of interest, and failure to take into consideration political and
geographic boundaries. In considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 1-012, the Court is to accept
as true all well pleaded facts.
If the Plaintiffs facts are true, the question is whether this adequately raises an equal
protection claim. It is the role o f the courts to decide constitutional claims, and this Court has
jurisdiction to do so in this case. As the Supreme Court stated, “(i)t is emphatically the province and
duty o f the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch at 177, even
if to later say that “this is not law”. Rucho, at 2508.
As to the basis o f Plaintiffs’ claims, they cite to the traditional districting principles cited in
Maestas v. Hall, 2012-NMSC-006, ^ 34, and to the statutory guidelines o f the Redistricting Act, §
1-3 A-7(A), (2021), alleging the violation o f these strictures give rise to their equal protections claim.
Defendants claim these two sources do not apply to districting maps created by the Legislature and
signed by the Governor, because the Maestas case applies to court-drawn maps only, and the
Redistricting Act requirements are not binding on the Legislature, and serve only as
recommendations. They further argue that New Mexico’s equal protection protections are the same
as federal protections, citing to a Court o f Appeals case, Vasquez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 1998-
NMCA-030, which deals with worker compensation claims. While the New Mexico Court o f
Appeals did say both the federal and state equal protection clauses offered the same level of
protection in that area, in this undeveloped area o f political gerrymandering as an equal protection
claim, this Court can not say that Vasquez definitively answers the question in this case. Further,
Plaintiffs cite to a North Carolina case, Harper v. Hall, 2022-NCSC-17, decided post-Rucho, that
found equal protection violations (among other violations) in a partisan redistricting map.
Without deciding the full merits o f the Plaintiffs’ case, in deciding whether this Court has
jurisdiction to hear the case, and whether, taking P laintiffs facts alleged as true, the complaint states
a claim upon which this Court could grant relief, the Court finds both to be true, and denies the
Defendants’ motions to dismiss.
Counsel for Plaintiffs shall prepare an order to this effect, and circulate for signatures, and
present the order to the Court within five (5) days o f receipt o f this letter.
Page 2 o f 3
Sincerely,
Hon. !j -cJ v'iin Soelert
D istrict Judge
Page. 3: of 3
