1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___ ____ ___ 3 Fi lin g D at e: F eb ru ar

y 2, 201 5 4 N O. 33, 362 5 LEE EI NER, 6 Pe tit ion er -Appe llant, 7 v
. 8 MELANI E Y. RIVERA, 9 in h er of

fi ci al c ap ac it y as 10 C le rk of S an M igu el C ou nt y, 11 Respondent -Appellee.
12 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF SA N M IGUEL CO UN TY 13 A bi gai l A ra gon , D ist ri ctJu dg e
14 Bran ne n Law LLC 15 Daniel E. Brannen Jr. 16 San ta Fe, NM 17 fo r Appe llant 18 Jesus L. Lopez, San Miguel County Attorney 19 Las Veg as , NM 20 for Appellee1 OPIN ION

2 WECH SLER , Jud ge. 3 { 1} We c o n s i d e r

i n t h i s ap p e a l w h e t h e r S a n M i g u e l C o u n t y i s s ub j e c tt o t h e h o me 4 rule charte r process of the H om e Rule Am endm ent, Article X, Section 6 of the Ne w 5 Me xic o C onst itutio n, a nd the Munic ipa l C ha rt er A ct , N MS A 1978 , §§ 3 -1 5- 1 to - 16 6 (1965, as am ended through 1990 ). W e h old that it is not , c onclud ing th at San Miguel 7 Co unty is not a “ m

uni ci pa lity ” w ith in the Mun ic ipa l Ch ar te r A ct or the H om e Ru le 8 Am endm ent. W e further conclude that our holding does not v iolate the constitu tional 9 equal protection rights of Petitio ner Lee Einer. W e affirm the district court’ s denial 10 of ape tit ionf

or m an da m us. 11 BACKGRO UND 12 { 2} The attorney s for Petition er, a resident of San Miguel County , subm itted a form 13 petition to Respond ent Melanie Y . R ivera, t h e County Clerk, requesting that 14 Re spon de nt a

ppr ove the fo rm

of the pe tit ionf

or c ir cu la tio n to qua lif

ie d e le ct or s. T he 15 petition requested the San Miguel C ount y Com m issio n to a

ppoi n t a c h arter 16 co m m iss ionpr ovi din g f

or the “ hom e ru le ” gove rn m en t of the c ounty . N MS A 197 8, 17 Section 3-1-5 (2007) provid es the procedure f or approval of the form of a m unicipal 18 hom e rule petition that inclu des approval by a cou nty clerk if the form

m eets specified 19 statutory

requirem ents. Se ction 3-1-5(C).2

1 { 3} The S an M i g u el County attorney responded to th e re quest, advising that 2 Re spon de nt d ec lin ed

to ac t on the pe tit ionbe ca use the pe tit ionse ek ing inc or por at ion 3 of the county

and adoptio n of a charter wa s not auth orized by law . A fter an additio nal 4 ex ch an ge of

le tte rs be tw ee n co unse l, P et iti one r fi le d aw ri t of m an da m us, r eque sti ng 5 tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt i ssu e (1 ) a de cl arat or y judgm en t tha t S anMi gue l C ounty is a 6 “ m uni ci pa lity ” unde r the Munic ipa l C ha rt er A ct an d tha t the f orm of pe tit ionm et

the 7 re qui re m en ts o f Se ct ion3- 1- 5( C) ; an d (2 ) a pe re m pto ry or a lte rn at ive w ri t of 8 m an da m

us, c om pe lli ng R es pond en t t o a

ppr ove the pe tit ion

. 9 { 4} The par

ties filed stipul ated findings of fact and propos ed conclusio ns of law 1 0 an dcr o s s -mot i o n s fo r s u m m ar y ju d g men t . Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt d en i ed Pe t i t i o n er ’s 11 m otion , granted Respond ent’ s m otion , and denied the petition for a writ. It stated that 12 San Mi gue l Co unty w as “ not a m uni ci pa lity as co nte m

pla te d in the Munic ipa l C ode 13 an d M un ic ip al Ch art er Act .” 14 { 5} On appeal, Petitioner ar gues, as he did in the district court, that (1) San Miguel 15 Co unty

is a m uni ci pa lity

w ithauth or ity

to ad opt ahom e ru le c ha rt er

und er the 16 Mun ic ipa l C ha rt er

A ct ; ( 2) S anMi gue l C ounty is a m uni ci pa li ty withauth or ity to 17 adopt a hom e rule c harter und er the Hom e Rule Am endm ent; and (3) if San Miguel 18 Co unty

is not r ec ogni ze d as a m

uni ci pa lity

und er the Munic ipa l C ha rt er

A ct a nd the 19 H om e Ru le Am en dm en t, his r igh t t o lo ca l se lf -g ove rn m en t w oul d be inf ri nge d in3

1 violatio n of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourth A m endm ent o f t h e U n ited 2 St at es Co nst itu tio n and A rt ic le I I, S ec tio n 18 of the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n. 3 MUNICI PAL CHARTER ACT 4 { 6} The H om e Rule A m endm ent wa s ad o p t ed in 197 0. It per m its the qualified 5 el ec tor s of

am uni ci pa lity

to ad opt “ in the m an ne r pr ovi de d by law ” a ch ar

te r fo r the 6 exercise of legislative po we rs. N. M. C o n s t. art. X, § 6(C), (D ). The Le gislature 7 ad opt ed

the Munic ipa l C ha rt er

A ct the fo llo w ing y ear, pr ovi din g th e m an ne r by 8 whi ch th e Hom e Ru le Am en dm en t was to be carr ie d o ut . Se e, e . g. , § 3- 15- 2 ( “ T he 9 qua lif ie d e le ct or s of

am uni ci pa lity

w ho w ishto be gov er

ne d pur suant t o A rt ic le 10, 10 Section 6 of the constitu tion o f N ewMexico m ay adopt, am end or repeal a charter 11 pursuant to the Municipal Charter A ct.” ). 12 { 7} T he Munic ipa l C ha rt er A ct pe rm its the qua lif

ie d ele ct or s of a

m uni ci pa lity

to 13 pe ti ti on for

the a dopt ionof

ahom e ru le c ha rt er . S ec tio n 3- 15- 4. I t de fi ne s a 14 “ m unicipalit y ” to m ean “ any incorporated city , tow n, vi l l ag e o r county , whether 15 inc or por at ed und er ge ne ra l a ct , spe ci al a ct or c onst itu tio na l pr ovi sio n. ” Se ct ion 16 3-15-3. Pe tition er’ s argum ent that the Municipal Charter A ct p ro vides San Miguel 17 Co unty

w iththe autho rit y to ad opt ahom e ru le c ha rt er

hin ge s onthi s de fi nit ion

. 18 Specifica lly , in order for Petition er to be entitled to petition for a hom e rule c harter, 19 San M igu el Co unty m ust be an inc or

por at ed co unty , “ inc or

por at ed unde r ge ne ra l a ct ,4

1 special act or c onsti tutio nal provisi on.” Id

. As a m at te r of

st atut or y in te rp ret at io n, we 2 ad dr es s P et iti one r’ s arg um en t onappe al und er de nov o r ev ie w . St at e v. A lm anza r , 3 2014 -N MS C- 001, ¶

15, 316 P
. 3d 1 83. W e int erpret th e Mun ic ipa l C ha rt er A ct in 4 or de r to ful fil l i ts leg is la ti ve in te nt . Grieg o v. Oliver , 201 4- N MS C- 003, ¶ 20, 316 5 P.3 d 8 65 . In d oi ng so , we firs t l oo k to th e la ng ua ge of th e rel ev an t s ta tu te s. Id

. ¶ 21. 6 { 8} Pe tit ion er

a sse rt s tha t San M igu el Co unty is aninc or

por at ed c ounty by vir tue 7 of both a special act, Chapter 142, S ection 1 of New Me xico Law s of 1923 , c odified 8 at N MS A 197 8, S ec tio n 4- 25- 1 ( 1923 ), a nd a ge ne ra l a ct , Ch ap te r 1, Sect io n 3 of 9 N ewMe xic o Law s of 1876, co dif ie d at N MS A 197 8, S ec tio n 4- 38- 1 ( 1876 ). S ec tio n 10 4- 25- 1 c re at ed

the c ounty

pr es en tly na m ed S anMi gue l C ounty

a nd es ta bli she d it s 11 ge og rap hi c b o u n d a r ie s. See N MS A 197 8, § 4- 25- 7 ( 1923 ) (c ha ngi ng the na m e of 12 Je ffer son Co unty

to San M igu el Co unty

in 1923 ). A c ount

y is a subd ivi sio n of

the 13 st at e. El Dorado at San ta Fe, Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. C omm ’rs of San ta Fe C

nty. , 197 6- 14 NMS C-029, ¶ 6, 89 N. M. 313 , 551 P. 2d 1360 . I t “ poss esses onlysuch powers as ar e 15 ex pr es sly

gr an te d to it

by the L eg isl at

ur e, tog ethe r w iththo se ne ce ssari ly im pli ed to 16 im plem ent those express po we rs.” Id

. Nothing in Se ct i on 4-25-1 in corporated San 1 7 M i g u e l C o u n t y. 18 { 9} Se ct ion4- 38- 1 st at es : “ T he pow er s of ac ounty a s abody pol iti c an d c or

por at e 19 sha ll be e xe rc ise d by

aboard of c ounty c om m iss ion er s. ” Pe tit ion er re ad s th is s ta tut e5

1 a s e s t ab l i s h i n g t h a t a c o u n ty i n N e w M e x i c o i s n e c e s s a r i l y a n i n c o r p o r a t e d c o u n t y. 2 But, a body“ corporate” and an “ incorporated” bodyare not the sam e for the purposes 3 of de fi nin g am

uni ci pa lity

und er the Munic ipa l C ha rt er

A ct . 4 { 10} The M unicipal Charter Act sp ecifica lly defines a “ m unicipalit y ” to include an 5 “ inc or por at ed

. . . co unty ” as w el l as inc or por at ed ci tie s, tow ns, or

vil la ge s. S ec tio n 6 3- 15- 3. I t sp ec if

ie s th at am uni ci pa lity

m ay be i nc orpo rat ed

und er a“ ge ne ra l a ct , 7 special act or c onsti tut i on a l provisi on.” Id

. Significantly , when the Legislature passed 8 the Munic ipa l C ha rt er A ct , the Munic ipa l C ode c ont ai ne d pr ovisi on s f or the 9 inc or por at ionof

m uni ci pa lit ie s bo th g en er al ly a nd u nde r specia l a ct . N MS A 197 8, 10 §§ 3 -2 -1 to -9 ( 1965 , a s a m en de d th ro ugh 2013 ); N MS A 1978 , §§ 3- 3- 1 to - 4 ( 1965 , 11 as a m en de d th ro ugh 1985 ). Bo th s uc h pr oc ed ur es re qui re d pe tit ion s and e le ct ion s. 12 Section 3-2-1, - 5(E) ; Section 3-3-2, - 3. In a dditi on, at the tim e the Municipal Charter 1 3 A ct w a s e n a c t e d , t h e N e wM e x i c o C o n s t i tu t i o n p r o v i d e df o r t h e i n c o r p o r a t i o n of 1 4 co u n t i es t h at ar e “le s s t h an o n e h u n d re d fo rt y-fo u r s qu ar e m i l es i n ar ea an dh a[ v e] a 15 popu la tio n of te n thousand or m or e. ” N
. M. Co nst . , ar t. X , § 5 (a dopt ed

in 1964 ). T he 16 pr oc edur e fo r th e in co rp or at io n o f a co un ty requ ire s an ele ct io n o n a dra ft c ha rte r. Id

. 17 Article X , S ec t i on 5 of the NewMexico Constitu tion g rants a county incorporated 18 unde r its pr ovi sio ns the sa m e pow er s c onst itutio na lly a nd s ta tut or ily

gr an te d to 19 m un ic ip al it ie s. Id

.6

1 { 11} O the r than A rticl e X , S ec tio n 5, the re is no N ewMe xic o c onst itu tio na l or 2 sta tut or

y pr ovi sio n th at

“ inc or por at es ” a c ount y . T he H om e Ru le A m en dm en t pe rm its 3 a “ m unicipalit y ” to adopt a charter and to exercise ce rtain legislative powers. N. M. 4 Const. art. X, § 6(D)

. The Municipal Char ter Ac t treats an “ incorporated” countyas 5 a m uni ci pa lity . Bu t, the c onst itu tio na l and s ta tut or y ba ck dr op a t the ti m e the 6 L eg isl at

ur e en ac te d the Mun ic ipa l Ch ar te r A ct ind ic at es tha t the le gis la tiv e int en t i n 7 de fi nin g “ m

uni ci pa lity ” to inc lud e an“ inc or por at ed ” co unty

w as to em

br ac e w ith in 8 th e H om e Ru le A m en dm en t a c ounty that i nc or

por at ed und er A rt ic le X , S ec tio n 5 9 an d, the re by , a cquir ed the sa m e pow er s c onst itu tio na ll y and st at uto ri ly gr an te d to 10 m uni ci pa lit ie s. 11 { 12} Se ct ion4- 38- 1 st at es that a board of c ounty c om m iss ion er s ha s th e au tho ri ty 12 to ex er ci se the pow er s of the co unty “ as a body pol iti c an d c or

por at e. ” It

w as a dopt ed , 13 al ong w iththe e sta

bli shm en t of or ga niz ed co unt ie s as bodie s cor por at e and

pol iti c in 14 1876 . 1876 N. M. L aw s, ch. 1, §§ 1, 3. T hese statutes wer e enacte d because, at that 15 tim e, there w as “ no general lawfor the incorporation o f ci t i es or towns, in which 16 powers of loca l adm inistration are usuallyvested[,] ” and the Te rritorial L egislature 1 7 d i d n o twa n tco m

m u n i t i es t o “ b e w i t h o u tm

u n i ci p al g o v er n m en to f s o m e k i n d [. ]” 18 A gua P ura Co

. v. M

ay or of La s V egas , 1900 -N MS C- 002, ¶ 13, 10 N. M. 6, 60 P
. 208
. 19 T he se statut es r ec og ni ze th e co unt ie s a s su bdi vis ion s of

the te rr ito ry , a nd l at er

the7

1 sta te , and, w ith tha t sta tus as dis tin ct en tit ie s, the y m ay ex er ci se pow er s nec es sary f or 2 t h ei r o p er at i o n . I n Se ct i o n 4 -3 8 -1 , t h e T er ri t o ri al Le g i s l a t u re d es cr i b ed a c o u n t y’ s 3 po wers as “ co rp or at e,” an d, in de ed , t he se po wers res em bl e th os e o f a co rp or at io n. See 4 3 Th e O

xf ord E ngl ish D ic tio nary955 ( 2d e d. 199 1 r ep ri nt) ( de fi nin g “ co rp or at e 5 co unty ” as “ a ci ty or tow n w ithit s li be rt ie s, w hic h ha s be enc onst itu te d ac ounty of 6 its el f, ind epen de nt of the j ur isd ic tio n of the his tor ic al c ounty

or shi re in w hic h it

is 7 sit ua te d” ); Th e A m er ic an H er itage D ic tio nary

of the E ngl ish L angu age 41 (5 th e d. 8 2011 ) (d ef

ini ng “ co rpor ate ” in r el ev an t part a s “ [o ] f or

r el at ing to a co rp or at ive 9 gove rn m en t or

pol iti ca l sy ste m ”)

. Bu t ne ith er S ectio n 4- 38- 1 no r Se ct ion4- 25- 1 is 10 aninc or

por at ionpr ovi sio n or i nd ic at es a n in te nt o f the L eg isl at ur e to i nc or

por at e 11 co unt ie s. T he y

do n ot pro vide any

pr oc ed ur e fo r a co unty

to inc or por at e or e ve n to 12 acquire any powers. W e consider incorporation to be a specific pr ocess that requires 13 s pe ci fic leg is la ti ve au th or it y . See § § 3

- 2

- 1 t o - 9 ; § § 3

- 3

- 1 t o - 4 ( s p e c i f y i n g the 14 pr oc es s f

or am uni ci pa lity

to inc or por at e) ; se e als o NMS A 1978, §§ 53 -1 2 -1 to -4 15 (1 967, a s a m en de d th ro ugh 2003 ) (s pe ci fy ing the pr oc es s to f orm abus ine ss 16 co rp or at ion ); N MS A 197 8, §§ 5 3- 8-30 to - 33 ( 1975 , a s a m en de d th ro ugh 2003 ) 17 (specify ing th e process to fo rm a nonprofit corporation). Sec tion 4 -38-1 is not an 18 ind ir ec t i nc or

por at ionpr oc es s.8

1 { 13} A lth oughw e ha ve appe llate c as es that have dis cu sse d S ec tio n 4- 38- 1 or it s 2 pr ed ec es sor sta tut e, the y do n ot a ff

ec t our an al y sis of

the Munic ipa l C ha rt er

A ct . F or 3 ex am ple , in Board of Commissioners of Rio Arriba C

ount y v. Greace n , 2000-NMS C4 016, ¶ 5, 129 N
. M. 177 , 3 P
. 3d 6 72, in co nsi de ri ng w he the r a co unty ha d th e au tho ri ty 5 to e na ct

loc al tr af

fi c or din an ce s and re ta in c oll ec te d pe na lty a sse ssm en ts, our 6 Suprem e Court noted Se ction 4-38-1 and rec ogni zed that the county wa s organized 7 an d e xe rcise d powe rs “ as abody pol iti c an d c or

por at e. ” N oth ing in Greace n 8 ad dr es se s t he in co rp o r a t i o n o f th e co un ty. Si m il arl y , Sta te e x re l. D owv . G raha m , 9 1928 -N MS C- 022, ¶ 6, 33 N
. M. 504 , 270 P
. 897 , inv olv ing ac ha lle nge to a le gis la tiv e 10 ef fo rt to ab oli sh C atro n C ounty , m er el y r ec ite s th at

Catr on Co unty

is a “ body

pol iti c 11 an d c or

por at e” ; i t do es not

c onsi de r an y

iss ue r eg ar din g in co rp or at ion

. 12 { 14} Our Supr em e Co ur t has al so refe rred to co un ti es as “ m un ic ip al co rp or at io ns .” 1 3 In Agu a Pura , the iss ue s inv olv ed a statut e tha t lim ite d ac tio ns que sti oni ng a 14 fr an ch ise gr an te d by

am uni ci pa l c or

por at ionto six y ears from the gr an t of

the 15 franchise and deem ed such franchises valid after the six-y ear period. 1900-NMSC

16 002, ¶

14. T he pla int if

f ha d e nte re d ac on tra ct wit h th e board of c ounty 17 co m m iss ion ers in 18 80 tha t i nc lud ed sup ply ing w at er

w ith in the c ounty

a nd t o th e 18 “ town and city

of L as Ve gas.” Id

. ¶ ¶ 10, 15. T he L as V eg as c ity c ounc il soug ht t o 19 regulate th e p l a i nt i f

f ’ s r a t e s un de r

a n 18 97 l a wt hatg r a nt e d ac i t y o r t own su ch9

1 au th or it y

pro vi de d t ha t ex is ti ng co n t r a c t s w ere n ot affe ct ed

. Id

. ¶ 9. The plaintiff 2 so ug ht an in

jun ct io n a ga in stth e ci ty. Id

. ¶ 4. T he Co urt’ s ho ldi ngs inc lud ed that the 3 contract w as not subje ct to question and “ valid in all re spects” because the plaintiff 4 did not br ing sui t w ith in the r equir ed ti m e pe rio d. Id

. ¶ 15. T he Co urt tre at ed

the 5 countyas a “ m

unicipal corporation .” Id

. ¶ 13. 6 { 15} Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Town of Belen , 1952-NMS C7 053, 56 N
. M. 415 , 244 P
. 2d 1 112, inv olv ed asim ilar iss ue . T he c ounty 8 co m m iss ion er s of

V al en ci a Co unty

ha d gr an te d a f

ranc his e to the de fe ndant t o 9 pr ovi de te le phon e se rv ic e w ith in the c ounty in 190 5. Id

. ¶ 5. I n 19 49, the town of 10 Be le n, w hic h w as inc or por at ed in 1918 , soug ht to re qui re the de fe ndant t o a cc ep t a 11 fr an ch ise to ope rate w ith in i ts c or por at e lim its

. Id

. ¶¶ 1, 5. O ur Suprem e Court 12 dis cu sse d it s A gua P ura opi nio n a t l en gth , in pa rt ic ul ar, it s c onc lus ion s th at the 13 co unty

c om m iss ion er s in A gua P ura ha d th e pow er to gr an t a

f ranc his e to a

pub lic 14 uti lity as a “ m

uni ci pa l co rp or at ion ” an d tha t the six -y ear lim itatio n p eri od f or 15 challenging ac t i o n s by a “ m unicipal corporation ” w ith respect to its grant of a 16 fran ch is e ap pl ie d. Mountain States , 195 2- N MS C- 053, ¶ ¶ 8- 10. 17 { 16} In Mountain States , o ur S u pr em e Co urt de sc ri be d c ount ie s a s “bodi es c or por at e 18 and polit ic” and stated their powers to be both “ corporate” and “ adm inistrative.” Id

. 19 ¶ 6 (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). The Court, however, noted that10

1 the A gua Pura Court did no t exam ine, but m erely assum ed, that the T erritorial 2 L eg isl at

ur e int en de d ac ounty to be inc lud ed as a “ m uni ci pa l c or

por at ion ” al low ed

in 3 th e 1 89 3 s ta tu te to gra nt a ut il it y fran ch is e. Mountain States , 195 2- N MS C- 053, ¶ 8. 4 A nd, it que sti one d the co rr ec tne ss of its pr ior c onc lus ionin A gua P ura tha t a c ounty 5 w as suc h am

uni ci pa l c or

por at ion , statin g: 6 Whil e the te rm “ m uni ci pa l c or

por at ion ” is s om et im es use d, in its 7 br oa de r m eanin g, to inc lud e suc h publi c bodi es as the state a nd e ac h of 8 the gov er

nm en ta l su

bdi vis ion s of the sta te , —su cha s c ount ie s, pari she s, 9 tow nshi ps, hun dr ed s, e tc . , —i t or din ar ily ap pli es onl y to ci tie s, vil la ge s, 10 an d to w ns w hic h are or ga niz ed a s f ull -f le dge d publi c co rp or at ion s. 11 A c ounty in a se nse is a m

uni ci pa l c or

por at iona nd som et im es is 1 2 c l a s s e da s s u c h ; b u t s t r i c t l y s p e a k i n g a c o u n t y i s d i s t i n g u i s h ab l e f r o m, 13 an d is not , am

uni ci pa l c or

por at ion

. 14 Mountain States , 195 2- N MS C- 053, ¶ 8 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c itatio ns 1 5 o m i t t e d )

. T h e C o u rt f u rt h e r n o t e d t h atif

the A gua P ura Co urt ha d e xa m ine d th e 16 m eaning of the use of “ m unicipal corporation ” in the statute, “ it m ight have re ached 17 a differ ent conclusio n.” Mou n t ain St ates , 195 2- N MS C- 053, ¶ 9. I t ne ve rthe le ss 18 fo llo w ed A gua P ura because it had been “ stare decisis in this [s] tate fo r m o re than 19 half a c entury .” Mountain States , 195 2- N MS C- 053, ¶ 10. 20 { 17} As w e have discuss ed , t h e issue before us in this case is not whether San 21 Mi gue l i s abody

c or por at e or am uni ci pa l corp or at ionund er S ec tio n 4- 38- 1, but 22 rathe r w he the r it is an inc or por at ed c ounty und er the Munic ipa l C ha rt er

A ct .11

1 A lth oughthe T er

ri tor ia l L eg isl at

ur e de sig ne d c ount ie s to ha ve c or por at e pow er s, a nd 2 such powers have been used t o b ro adly consider counties as “ m unicipal 3 corporations,” the Municipal Char ter Ac t is spec ific in its use of the t erm 4 “ inc or por at ed c ounty . ” Se ct ion3- 15- 3. W iththi s sp ec if ic ity , the L eg isl at

ur e did not 5 int en d to use the br oa de r se nse of c or por at e pow er

dis cu sse d in Mountain States ; i t 6 int en de d to inc lud e as “ inc or por at ed ” counti es onl y

c ount ie s “ or ga niz ed

a s f ull

7 fledged corporations.” Mountain States , 195 2- N MS C- 053, ¶ 8 ( int er na l quot ation 8 m arks and citation om itted). 9 { 18} Any other interpretation of t he Municipal Charter Ac t would not m ake sense. 10 Se e B ak

er v . H ed str om , 2012-NMC A- 073, ¶ 12, 284 P. 3d 400 (“ It is fundam ental that 11 sta tut es w ill be c onstr ue d so tha t the ir appl ic at ionw ill be ne ith er absur d no r 1 2 unr ea s o n ab l e . ” ( i n t e rn a l qu o t a t i o n m a rk s a n dc i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) )

. A rt i c l e X , S e ct ion 1 3 5 o f t h e N ew Me x i co Co n s t i tu t i o n p ro v i d es t h e p ro ce du re fo r a co u n t y t o b ec o me 14 inc or por at ed , a s w el l a s th e au tho ri ty of a n in co rp or at ed

c ounty , a nd r es tr ic ts i t to a 15 co unty

w ith le ss th an one hun dr ed f orty -f our squ ar e m ile s ina re a an d am ini m um 16 popu lation of ten tho usand. Why would the Le gislature pas s s u ch a constitutio nal 17 am en dm en t for

vot er appr ova l t o pe rm it inc or por at ionof

suc h ali m ite d c la ss o f 18 co unt ie s of

the state if

it int en de d all co unt ie s of the sta te to b e inc or por at ed by the ir 19 sta tut or

y c re at ion ?12

1 { 19} It is app ar en t tha t the L eg isl at ur e took no s uc h a ct ion

. I ts i nte nt i n pa ssi ng the 2 co nst itu tio na l am en dm en t t o th e vot er s w as to lim it inc or por at ed co un tie s to L os 3 A la m os C ounty . Pet iti one r doe s no t di sput e tha t L os A la m os C ounty is the onl y 4 co unty in the state that f

al ls w ith in the r es tr ic tio ns s et f orth i n A rt ic le X , S ec tio n 5. 5 T his pr ovi sio n, ad opt ed in 1964 , w as not the fi rs t to sin gle out L os A la m os C ounty 6 fr om oth er co unt ie s. In195 5, the L eg isl at ur e es ta bli she d th e cl as sif

ic at ionof H c la ss 7 counties, defined as “ [a] ny county which covers an area

of not m ore that 200 squ are 8 m ile s. ” N MS A 1978 , § 4-44 -3 (1 985)

. (T he re co rd ind ic at es that L os A la m os C ounty 9 ha s atot al a re a of

109 squ are m ile s and S anMi gue l C ounty atot al a re a of

473 6 10 square m ile s. ) In196 5, w iththe a dopt ionof the Mun ic ipa l Co de , L os A la m os C ounty 11 was tre at edas a m

un ic ip al it y . See N MS A 197 8, § 3- 1- 2( G ) (1 993) ( inc lu di ng 12 “ inc or por at ed c oun tie s” a nd “ H c la ss c ount ie s” w ith in the de fi nit ionof 13 “ m uni ci pa lity ”)

. T he Munic ipa l C ode p erm itte d m uni ci pa lit ie s to inc or

por at e as a 14 m uni ci pa lity . S ec tio ns 3 -2 -1 to -9
. L os Al am os County did so in 1968. T hus, in 1971 , 15 w he n a dopt ing the Municip al Ch ar te r A ct a nd d ef ini ng a “ m uni ci pa lity ” to i nc lud e 16 “ inc or por at ed c ount ie s, ” the L eg is la tur e w as m er el y c ont inu ing it s pr ec ed en t 17 dis tin gui shi ng L os A la m os C ounty f ro m oth er c ount ie s. 18 { 20} S a n M i g u e l C o u n t y h a s n o s u c h h i s t o ry. I ti s n o ta n “ i n c o r p o r a t e dc o u n t y” 19 unde r the Munic ipa l C ha rt er A ct . Abse nt tha t st at

us, it doe s no t f

al l w ith in the13

1 de fi nit io n of “ m

un icipa lity ” an d is not

e nti tle d to ahom e ru le c ha rt er und er the 2 Mun ic ipa l C ha rt er

A ct . 3 HOME RULE AMENDMENT 4 { 21} Pe tit ion er

m ak es the a lte rn at ive a rg um en t tha t “ San M igu el County is a 5 m uni ci pa lity

w ithauth or ity

to ad opt ahom e ru le c ha rt er

und er th e H om e Ru le 6 Am endm ent.” He contends th at the Hom e Rule Am endm ent is self-executing in that 7 it provid es that “ [i] n the absence of la w, th e governing b ody of a m unicipalit y

m ay 8 appoin t a charter com m issio n upon its ow n initiativ e or shall a ppoi nt a ch arter 9 co m m iss ionupo n th e fi lin g of a peti tio n” of re gis te re d qu al if ie d e le ct or s. N
. M. Co nst . 10 art. X, § 6(C). 11 { 22} A cc or din g to P et iti one r, if the Mun ic ipa l Ch ar

te r A ct doe s no t a

ppl y , the re is 12 an “ ab se nc e of

law ” tha t tri gge rs the se lf -e xe cu tin g a spe ct

of the H om e Ru le 1 3 A m e n d m e n t . P e t i t i o n e r t h u s p r o p o s e s t h a tt h e me a n i n g o f “m u n i c i p a l i t y ” i n t h e H o me 14 Ru le A m en dm en t, w hic h is not spe ci fi ca lly

de fi ne d, c anbe de fi ne d in de pe nde ntl y of 15 the Munic ipa l C ha rt er A ct to inc lud e San M igu el Co unty ba se d onthe pla in m eanin g 16 of “ m uni ci pa lity . ” W e do n ot a gr ee w ithP et iti one r’ s arg um en ts. 17 { 23} Fi r s t , w e d o n o tb e l i e v e t h a ti ti s ap p r o p r i a t e t o r e a dt h e H o m e R u le 18 A m en dm en t i nde pe nde ntl y of the Munic ipa l C hart er A ct . T he H om e Ru le 19 A m en dm en t sp ec if

ic al ly state s th at

“ re gis te re d qu al if

ie d e le ct or s of

am uni ci pa lity14

1 m ay adopt . .

. a charter in the m anner provided bylaw .” N. M. C onst. art. X, § 6(C). 2 T he Munic ipa l C ha rt er A ct is the lawe na ct ed

to im ple m en t the H om e Ru le 3 A m en dm en t. I n th is m an ne r, the int er pr et at ionof

the H om e Ru le A m en dm en t is 4 dependent on , not independent o f, the Municipal Char ter A ct. Ther e is no “ absence 5 of law.” 6 { 24} Se co nd, e ve n if

the “ m uni ci pa lity ” in the H om e Ru le A m en dm en t c oul d be 7 given a differe nt interpr etation f rom “ m unicipalit y ” as defined in the Mu n i cipal 8 C h a rt e r Ac t , t h e p l a i n mea n i n g o f “ mun i c i p a l i t y” wo u l dn o ti n c l u d e ac o u n t y. 9 Pe tit ion er

poi nts to the de fi nit ionof “ m uni ci pa li ty” i n B lac k’

s L awD ic tio naryas 10 em br ac ing the pla in m eanin g of the term . B lac k’

s L awD ic tio narydefines 11 “ m uni ci pa lity ” an d “ m

uni ci pa l c or

por at ion ” as : 12 A c ity , town, or oth er local pol iti ca l e nti ty

f orm ed by c ha rt er f ro m the 13 state and having the autonom ous auth ority to adm inister the state’ s local 14 af

fa ir s; e sp. , apub lic co rp orat ionc re at ed f or pol iti ca l purp ose s and 15 en dow ed

w ithpol iti ca l po w er s to be ex er ci se d fo r the publ ic goo d inthe 16 adm ini str at ionof loc al c ivi l go ve rn m en t. 17 Black’

s Law D ictiona ry 1113 ( 9the d. 200 9)

. A lth oughc er ta in a sp ect s of

thi s 18 de fi nit ionm ay

appl y to a N ewMe xic o c ounty , the onl y c ounty in the st at e that is 1 9 e i t h e r f o rmed b y c h a rt e r

o r i s ac o r p o r a t i o n i s Lo s Al a mo s C o u n t y. 20 { 25} Petitioner addition ally argues that the plain m eaning of “ m unicipalit y ” as used 21 in the H om e Ru le A m en dm en t inc lud es co unt ie s be ca use of the sta te d pur

pose of the15

1 am en dm en t “ to p ro vid e fo r m ax im um loc al se lf

-g ove rn m en t[ , ] ” A rt icle X , S ec tio n 2 6( E ) of the N ew Me xic o Co nst itu tio n, an d be ca use it w oul d be ir

ratio na l t o e xc lud e 3 co unt ie s othe r than L os Al am os. H ow ev er , the pur pose of the H om e Ru le 4 Am en dm en t i s t o p ro vi de m ax im um lo cal sel f-g ov ern m en t fo r “ m un ic ip al it ie s.” As 5 w e ha ve dis cu sse d, ex cept f or L os A la m os, the c ount ie s of the state a re not 6 m unicipalit ies. W

hile it m ay

be an app ropriate goal to have “ m axim umlocal self7 g o v e rn me n t ” a t t h e c o u n t y l e v e l , s u c h i n t e n t w a s n o t e n c o mp a s s e d w i t h i n t h e H o me 8 Ru le A m en dm en t. 9 { 26} Moreover, the di ff er ence betw een counties and m unicipalit ies is m ore than 10 m er e ge ogr ap hy, a s P et iti one r sugg es ts. “ H ist or ic al ly , [ a] c ounty w as sol el y

the 11 su bd iv is io n o f th e st a t e , c o n st it ut edto ad m in is te r st at e p owe r an d a ut ho rit y .” 12 1 Eu ge ne McQu il li n, Th e La w o f M uni ci pal Co rporati ons § 1:27 , at 32 ( 3d ed. 2010). 13 “ [C] ount ies have been deliberately laid out, .

. . [they ] are artificial divisions cre ated 14 to share in state governm ent.” Id

. § 1:25, at

26. Co unt ie s are f

orm ed by le gis la tiv e ac t, 15 see NMSA 1978, §§ 4 -1 to -3 2 ( 1876 , a s a m en de d th ro ugh 1981 ) (e sta bli shi ng the 16 boun daries of the counties in NewMex i co ), and are subdivisi ons of the state. 17 1 M cQ ui ll in § 1:2 7, a t 32 ; El D orado at Sa nta Fe, Inc. , 197 6- N MS C- 029, ¶ 9. 18 Municipal corporation s are “ designed to pro m o t e t h e com m on int erests of [ their] 19 inhabit ants . . . [are ] repre sentative of [their] citize n s an d t ax p ay ers . . . [ and are]16

1 es ta bli she d f or the a dvanta ge of

. . . the publ ic at larg e. ” 1 McQ uil lin § 1:59, at 100
. 2 Mu ni ci pa li ti es are s el f-g ov ern in g. See 1 M c Q u i l l i n § 1 : 3 6 , a t5 0 ( “Ge n e r a l l y, 3 m uni ci pa l c or

por at ion s are se lf

-g ove rn ing [. ] ”)

. U nli ke co unt ie s, the y a re f orm ed by 4 in co rp or at io n or ch art er. See § 3-1-2(G) (“ ‘ [M] unicipalit y ’ m eans any incorporated 5 city , tow n o r v i l l age, whether incorporated under general act, special act or special 6 ch art er[.]”). Mu ni ci pa li ti es are g ov ern edby the Mu ni ci pa l Co de , see N MS A 1978, 7 §§ 3-1-1 to -66 -11 (1965, as am ended throug h 201 4) (entitled, “ Municipa l ities”), 8 whi ch is ge ne ral ly not ap p li cab le to co un ti es . See N MS A 197 8, §§ 4 -1 -1 to -6 2- 10 9 (1 876, a s a m en de d th ro ugh 2013 ) (e nti tle d, “ Co unt ie s” ). A lth oughthe re m ay be 10 ce rt ai n ov er la

p or para lle l go vern ing pr inc ipl es w ithr es pe ct to m uni ci pa lit ie s and 11 co unt ie s, a nd o ur

c ourts h av e at

ti m es r ef er re d to m uni ci pa li ti es a nd c ount ie s ina 12 co m m on way , th e two are no t t he same. Se e, e . g. , City of Albuquerque v. Ne w M exico 13 Pub. Re

gula tion Comm’ n , 200 3- N MS C- 028, ¶ 3, 134 N
. M. 472 , 79 P
. 3d 297 (s ta tin g 1 4 t h a tam

u n i c i p a l i t y

“ i s a n au x i l i a ry

o f t h e s t a t e g o v e rn m e n t ” a n dac ount y “ is but a 15 polit ical subdiv ision ” of th e s t at e) (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted), 16 se e als o 1 McQ uillin § 2:54 , at 283, 286 (“ [Municipal Corp orations] and coun ties 17 ha ve be ende cl ar ed

to be se pa rate a nd d ist inc t l eg al e nti tie s . . . . [T ] he c ounty is not , 1 8 s t r i c t l y

s p e a k i n g , am

u n i c i p a l c o r

p o r a t i o n [
. ] ”) ; id. at 283 (“ Counties are often 19 di st in gu ish ed

f ro m m uni ci pa l c or

por at ion s inthat c ount ie s are c re at ed w ith out the17

1 co nsen t o f th e in ha bi ta nt s, wh erea s t he ex is te nc e o f m un ic ip al co rp or at io ns ord in ari ly 2 de pe nds on the c onse nt o f the inh ab itants . ”)

. W e co nc lud e tha t S anMi gue l C ounty 3 is n ot a m uni ci pa lity

f or the pur pose of the H om e Ru le A m en dm en t. 4 EQU AL PR OTEC TION 5 { 27} Petitioner argues that “ [f] ailure to include San Miguel Countyin the term 6 ‘ m unicipalit y ’ under the Hom e Rule Amen d m ent and the Municip al Charter Ac t 7 would infringe [Petitioner’ s] right to lo cal self- governm ent in a m anner that violates 8 the federa l and state Equal Protection Clauses.” U. S. Const. am end XIV , § 1; N .M. 9 Co ns t. art . II , § 18
. I n othe r w or ds, P et iti one r ar gue s th at a n in te rp re ta tio n of

the 10 Hom e Rule A m endm ent and the Municip al Charter Ac t that fails t o includ e all N ew 11 Mexico counties within th e definition of “ m unicip al i t y” v iolates federal and New 12 Me xic o e qua l pr ote ct ionguarante es be ca use the re sid en ts of al l c ount ie s e xc ep t L os 1 3 A l a mo s a r e d e n i e d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a v o t e o n w h e t h e r t o a d o p tc o u n t y- b a s e dh o me 14 rule. 15 { 28} T he rig ht to e qua l pr ote ct ionund er the law , both st at e an d f ed er al , a ff

or ds a 16 guarantee that t h e g overnm ent will treat sim ilarly -situated indi vidu als in an equal 17 m an ne r. Bree n v. Ca rls bad M un. Sc hs. , 200 5- N MS C- 028, ¶ 7, 138 N
. M. 331 , 120 18 P. 3d 4 13. U nde r equa l pr ote ct iona na ly sis , the th res hold in qui ry is w he the r the 19 challenged le g i s l at ion creates a class of sim ilarly -situated persons who are tre ated18

1 di ss im il arl y . Id

. ¶ 10. Pe tit ion er ar gue s that , w he n re ad in com bin at ion , S ec tio ns 3 -1

- 2 2( G ), 3- 15- 3, 3- 15- 4, a nd Artic le X, § 5 of the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n, a llo w 3 ci tiz en s r es idi ng i n in co rp or at ed c iti es , tow ns, vil la ge s, an d L os A la m os Co unty the 4 pot en tia l f

or hom e ru le but

de ny that po te nti al t o al l ot he rs. F or the pur pose of thi s 5 an al y sis , w e as sum e w ith out de ci din g th at

the c om bin ed e ff ec t of the statute s is to 6 c r e a t e ac l a s s o f

s i mi l a r l y- s i tu a t e dp e r s o n s wh o a r e t r e a t e dd i f f e r e n t l y. 7 { 29} T he ne xt s tep i n an e qua l pr ote ct iona na ly sis is to d et er m ine the le ve l of 8 sc ru ti ny tha t ap pl ie s t o t h e ch al le ng edleg is la ti on . Bree n , 200 5- N MS C- 028, ¶ 11. 9 Stri ct sc ru tin y , the standard

of r ev ie wle as t de fe re nti al to the L eg isl at ur e, r equir es a 10 pa rty de fe ndi ng a

statut e to “pr ove that the le gis la tio n f urthe rs ac om

pe lli ng s ta te 11 interest.” G rie

go , 201 4-NMS C-003, ¶ 39. Strict scrutiny applies when statutes treat 12 a sus pe ct

c la ss d if

fe re ntl y , or , ge ne ra lly , w he n st at ute s burd enthe e xe rc ise of 1 3 f u n d a men t a l r i g h t s . Id

. F un d am e n t a l r i g h t s i n c l u d e vot ing a nd i nte rs ta te tr av el , a m ong 14 ot he rs , a nd su sp ect cl as se s in cl ud e race an d an ces try, am on g o th ers . Mar ru jo v. N.M. 15 State Highway Transp . D ep’t , 1994 -N MS C- 116, ¶ 10, 118 N
. M. 753 , 887 P
. 2d 7 47. 1 6 Ra tio na l b a s i s r e v i e wi s m o s td e f e r e n t i a l t o t h e l e g i s l a t i o n . U n d e r r a t i o n a l b a s is 17 review , the burden is o n the party challenging the legislation in questio n to prove that 18 th e le gi sl at io n i s n ot rat io na ll y rel at edto a le gi ti m at e g ov er n men ta l p ur po se . Id

. 19 Rat io na l b as is rev ie w app li es to ge ne ral so ci al or e co no m ic leg is la ti on . Bree n , 200 5-19

1 N MS C- 028, ¶

11. I n be tw ee n l ie s in te rm ed ia te sc ru tin y . I nte rm ed ia te sc ru tin y 2 ge n e r a l l y ap p l i e s t o s t a tu t e s t h a t a f f e c t a s e n s i t i v e c l a s s o f i n d i v i du a l s , s u c h a s th e 3 m en ta ll y

di sa bl ed

. G rie

go , 2 01 4- N M S C

- 00 3, ¶

39. Interm ediate scrutiny requires that 4 the party

de fe ndi ng the le gis la tio n pr ove asub stantia l r el at ion shi p be tw ee n th e 5 le gi sl at io n a nd an im

po rta nt go ve rn m en t i nt eres t. Id

. 6 { 30} Petitioner contends th at w e sho u l d apply strict scrutiny

to the challenged 7 le gis la tio n be ca

use the bur de ne d ri ght is f undam en ta l. P et iti one r ar gue s th at the re is 8 a fundam en ta l r igh t t o lo ca l se lf -g ove rn an ce a nd, f

urthe r, tha t the fundam en ta l r igh t 9 is t o th e “ utm ost ” loc al se lf -g ove rn an ce . P et iti one r ar gue s that thi s f undam en ta l r igh t 10 is b ur de ne d by

the ina bil ity to vot e fo r hom e ru le , statin g th at onl y hom e ru le 11 m uni ci pa lit ie s “ ha ve aut on om y fr om state int er fe re nc e in m atte rs of loc al c onc er

n, 12 pow er to co ntr ol the ir

ow n a ff ai rs , a nd the utm ost

abil ity to ta ke pol ic ym ak ing 13 initiativ e. ” Pe tition er a sserts that it is an equal protection violatio n for N ewMexico 1 4 to “ g i v e t h e p e o p l e o f c i t i e s , t o w n s , v i l l a g e s , a n d t h e c o u n t y o f L o s A la m os t he 15 utm ost

loc al au tonom

y , c ontro l, a nd p oli cy

m ak ing ini tiativ e w hil e de pr ivi ng the 16 pe op le of t he ot he r co un ti es of t he same loc al po wer.” 17 { 31} In s u p port of his argum ent, P etitioner cites the De clara tion o f Independence 18 pa ra . 2 ( U
. S. 177 6) ( “ G ove rn m en ts . . . de ri v[ e] the ir j ust pow er s f ro m the c onse nt o f 19 the gov er

ne d. ”) ; the N inth and T en th A m en dm en ts of the U nit ed St at es Co nst itu tio n20

1 (“ T he e num er at ionin the Co nst itu tio n of c er ta in r igh ts s ha ll not

be c onstru ed to d en y 2 or dis pa ra ge oth ers ret ai ne d by the pe opl e” a nd “ [t ] he pow er s no t de le ga te d to the 3 U nit ed S ta te s by the Co nst itu tio n, no r pr ohi bit ed by it to the S ta te s, a re r es er

ve d to 4 the States re spectively , or to the peopl e, ” re s p ec t i vely ); the E nabling Ac t for N ew 5 Me xi co of

191 0 ( sta tin g th at

the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n “ sha ll not be r ep ugnant 6 to . . . the pr inc ipl es of the de cl ar at ion of ind ep en de nc e” ); A rt ic le II , Se ct ion2 of the 7 N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n ( “ A ll po li ti cal pow er is ve ste d ina nd d er ive d f ro m the 8 pe opl e: a ll gove rn m en t of r igh t or igi na te s w ith the pe opl e, is fo unde d upon the ir w ill 9 and is ins tituted so lely for their good .” ); and Article II, Section 3 of the Ne w Me xico 10 C on st i tut i on( “ T he p e op l e o f t he s t a t e h a ve t he s ol e a nd e xc l us i ve r i gh tt o govern 11 the m se lve s a s af

re e, sov er ei gn and i nde pe nde nt s ta te .”). The se auth or iti es se em to 12 es ta bli sh a br oa d r igh t t o po lit ic al pow er a nd s el f-g ov ernm en t, but , e ve n a ssu m ing 13 that there is a lo cal dim ension to that right, w e do not recognize in these autho rities 14 a fundam en ta l right

to the utm ost

loc al c ontro l and a

uto nom y a s a sse rt ed

by 15 Petitioner. 16 { 32} 

### Pe ti ti one r a ls o c it e s a num be r o f c a se s in suppo rt of hi s c ont e nt io n that the 17 

### ri gh t b ur den ed is fu nd am ent al andso demands st ri ct scr u t i n y un derequ al 18 

### pr ot ectio n analys is . Th ese cases are un per su asiv e in t hi s co nt ext . Peti tio nercites 19 

### Griffin v . C

ounty School B oard o

f Prince Edw ard County , no tin g t hatth e Uni ted21

1 

### St ates S up reme Cou rtdi d n ot allo w a coun ty in Vir gi ni a t o d e- f u n d an d k eep 2 

### clo sedits pu bl ic sch oo ls f o rth e ult imate purpo se o f maintai ni ng seg reg ated 3 

### edu catio n. 3 77 U.S. 2 18 , 22 2- 23 , 22 5 ( 19 64 ). Griffin was g ro un dedin fed eral 4 

### equa l protec tion ana ly sis, holding that: 5 

### A [s ]tate, of co ur se, has wid e di scret io n in d ecidi ng whet her 6 

### laws sh al l operate sta te wide or shall ope rat e only in c ert ai n 7 

### c ount ie s, th e l egi sl a tu re havi ng i n m in d the ne e ds a nd d e si re s of 8 

### e a c h.

. . . [B ut w ] hate ve r nonra c ia l g rounds m ig htsup port a [s ] tate ’s 9 

### allo win g a cou nt y to ab and on pu bl ic sch oo ls , . . . gr ou nd s o f r ace 10 

### and opposition to dese gregation do no t qualify a s c onstitutional. 11 

### Id. a t 2 31 ( in te rna l quot a ti on m arks and c it a ti on o m itte d). T hi s l angua ge 12 

### su gg ests an equ al pr ot ectio n an alysis no t b ased o n a fu nd am en t al r ig ht , as 13 

### Pet iti on er con ten ds , bu t, in st ead, on race as a sus pect clas s. Because P etit io ner 14 

### do es no t a

rg ue that ther e is an iss ue in thi s case th at relates to race or an y oth er 15 

### su sp ect class, an d b eca us e Griffin do es no t a dd ress fu nd am ent al ri gh ts , Griffin 16 

### is no t p ersu asiv e.13 Pet it io ne r ci te s to , fo r ex am pl e, Kram er v. U

nio n Fr ee Sc hool

D istric t N

o. 15 , 1 14 395 U
. S. 621 , 622 , 628 ( 1969 ) (e va lua tin g astatut e tha t l im ite d th e rig ht to v ote in 15 ce rt ai n N ewY ork sc hool dis tr ic ts unde r “ ex ac tin g j udi ci al sc ru tin y ”) a nd Brown v. 16 En t er t a inment Me rchants Ass’n , 131 S
. Ct
. 272 9, 273 8 ( 2011 ) (e va lua tin g astatut e 17 that restricted the content of protected speech under strict scr utiny ). 18 Fo r ex am

pl e, Board of Education of the Village of Ci ma r r o n v. Maloney , 2 19 1970 -N MS C- 146, ¶¶ 5, 8, 82 N
. M. 167, 477 P
. 2d 6 05 ( inv al ida tin g apr ovi sio n of the 20 N ewMe xic o C on st itutio n r equir ing ow ne rs hip of r ea l pr ope rty

a s apr er equis ite to 21 vot ing on the c re at ion of bond de bt but w ith out re fe re nc e to a sta ndard of sc ru tin y or 22 fundam en ta l ri ght s) a nd Ni xo n v . Co ndon , 286 U
. S. 73, 81, 89 ( 1932 ) (i nva lid at ing 23 as avio la tio n of

the e qua l pr ote ct ionc lause a lawpr ev en tin g no n- w hit es fr om vot ing 24 in prim ary

elections in Texas). 22 1 { 33} T he oth er ca se s cit ed by Pe tit ion er ar e sim ilarl y of f- poi nt. Me re r ef

er en ce to 1 2 cases in which a c o u rt app lied strict scrutiny to an infringem ent of a fundam ental 3 ri ght , suc h a s th e ri ght to vote , tha t is unre la te d to the ri ght Pe tit ion er w oul d have us 4 re co gni ze , fa ils to per sua de us tha t we shou ld app ly str ic t scr uti ny in this ca se . N or 5 are we persuaded by

cases cited by

Petitioner that invalidate statutes or cons titutio nal 6 provisi ons as violatio ns of equal protection w ithou t refe rence to a standard of review 7 or r ef er en ce to w he the r the r igh t i n qu es tio n w as f undam en ta l. 2 8 { 34} W e co nc lud e tha t ra tio na l basi s re vie w is a ppr opr ia te in thi s c as e. T he re is no 9 fu nd am en ta l ri gh t t ha t i s v io la te d b y a st atut or y an d c on st it ut io na l s ch em e th atall ows 10 the r es ide nts of

L os A la m os C ounty

to en ga ge in co unty -b as ed ho m e ru le w hil e 11 re sid en ts o f oth er

c ountie s c an not . A s th e U nit ed S ta te s S upr em e Co urt no te d in 12 G rif fin , 377 U.S . at 231, “ there ar e re asons why one countyough t not to be trea ted23

1 like another,” and the nature o f th e legislative function is to draw lines that “ leave[] 2 som e out that m ight well have been included.” Tr uji llo v . Ci tyof A lbu que rque , 199 8- 3 N MS C- 031, ¶ 28, 125 N
. M. 721, 965 P. 2d 305 (quot ing V ill

. of B el le T erre v . B oraa s , 4 416 U
. S. 1, 8 (1 974) ). U nde r ratio na l ba sis sc ru tin y , the bur de n fa lls on P et iti one r “ to 5 prove that the legislatio n is not rationally relate d to a legitim ate governm ental 6 purpos e. ” Se e G rie

go , 201 4- N MSC -003, ¶

39 ( sta tin g th at

und er r at ion al ba sis 7 sc ru tin y

the bur de n is on the pa rty ch al le ngi ng the le gis la tio n to pr ove tha t st at ute is 8 not r at ion al ly

r el at ed to a le git im at e gove rn m en ta l purp ose ). P et iti one r ha s no t 9 constructed such an argum ent, instead rely ing so lely on the argum ent that strict 10 scrutiny

is appropriate. W e note that San Miguel County is m ore than forty tim es as 11 larg e as L os A la m os C ounty . It is a ra tio na l polic y ch oic e fo r the L eg isl at ur e an d th e 12 people of NewMexico to treat L os Alam os Coun ty differ entl y fr o m other counties 13 on the ba sis of

it s siz e an d its uni que his tor y a nd c ha ra ct er ist ic s. U nde r ratio na l ba sis 14 review , the le gislativ e schem e challeng ed b y Petitioner does not v iolate equal 15 pr ote ct ionguarante es und er the U nit ed

S ta te s or N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio ns. 16 { 35} CON CLU SION 17 { 36} Fo r the f

or eg oin g r ea sons , w e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t co urt’ s de nia l of a pe tit ionf or 18 m an da m

us.24

1 { 37} IT IS S O ORDERE D.
2

____ ___ __ ________ ____ ____ ____ ___ 3 JA M ES J. WE C HS LE R , Ju dg e
4 WE CO NCUR:
5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 6 M IC HA EL D . BU ST A M A N TE , Ju dg e
7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 8 R OD ERIC K T . KE N N ED Y , Ju dg e