2023 New Mexico Statutes › Chapter 4 - Counties › Article 33 - Creation or Change of Counties › Section 4-33-1 - [Annexation of a portion of a county to another county; reasons.]

Whenever, because of the location and conditions of roads, or the existence or nonexistence of transportation facilities, it will be more convenient for the residents of any portion of a county to travel to the county seat of some other contiguous county, and because of such location and condition of roads or the existence or nonexistence of transportation facilities, it will be more convenient and economical for such other county to render governmental services to such portion of such other county, the portion of the county so affected may be annexed to such other county in the following manner.
History:
1941 Comp., § 15-3305, enacted by Laws 1947, ch. 196, § 1; 1953 Comp., § 15-33-1.
ANNOTATIONS
Cross references.
— For combined city and county corporations,
see
N.M. Const., art. X, § 4, and 3-16-1 NMSA 1978 et seq.
Constitutionality of article.
— This article setting forth procedure for detachment and annexation proceedings is not void for vagueness and uncertainty.
Crosthwait v. White
, 1951-NMSC-003, 55 N.M. 71, 226 P.2d 477.
Section not vague.
— This article is not void for uncertainty and ambiguity.
Youree v. Ellis
, 1954-NMSC-002, 58 N.M. 30, 265 P.2d 354.
Annexation section not special legislation.
— Annexation statute is not unconstitutional as special legislation.
Crosthwait v. White
, 1951-NMSC-003, 55 N.M. 71, 226 P.2d 477.
Constitutional violation.
— This article does not violate N.M. Const., art. IV, § 24, as being special legislation.
Youree v. Ellis
, 1954-NMSC-002, 58 N.M. 30, 265 P.2d 354.
Failure to mention all provisions in title of act.
— Provisions for suit and court trial are an incident of an annexation proceeding and failure to mention them in title of the act providing for such proceedings does not invalidate this article.
Crosthwait v. White
, 1951-NMSC-003, 55 N.M. 71, 226 P.2d 477.
Savings clause.
— Even in event something has been improperly omitted from the title, the saving clause in the constitutional provisions that only so much of the act as is not mentioned in the title shall be void will save this article providing for annexation of portions of counties.
Crosthwait v. White
, 1951-NMSC-003, 55 N.M. 71, 226 P.2d 477.
Factors in determining convenience of travel to another county seat.
— Neither mileage alone nor the existence of unused public transportation was a factor in determining whether it would be more convenient under this section for residents to travel to some other county seat.
Stone v. Crenshaw
, 1952-NMSC-093, 56 N.M. 707, 248 P.2d 822.
Factors in determining convenience and economy of provision of governmental services by another county.
— Testimony of county officials and others with knowledge of administrative and geographic conditions should be considered in determining whether it would be more convenient and economical under this section for the other county to render governmental services.
Stone v. Crenshaw
, 1952-NMSC-093, 56 N.M. 707, 248 P.2d 822.
The board of county commissioners had no duty to publish notice of an invalid annexation petition.
— Where petitioners filed a petition to annex the Santa Fe county portion of Espa ola, which lies within the boundaries of both Santa Fe county and Rio Arriba county, to Rio Arriba county because petitioners wanted to access the county services available at the Rio Arriba county offices in Espa ola, the district court erred in finding that the petition complied with this section and in issuing a writ of mandamus ordering the board of county commissioners of Santa Fe county to publish notice pursuant to 4-33-3 NMSA 1978. A plain language reading of this section requires that an annexation petition state facts showing that it will be more convenient for the residents of Espa ola currently residing in Santa Fe county to travel to Tierra Amarilla, the county seat, and neither the petition nor its attachments made any reference to Tierra Amarilla and thus failed to comply with the statutory requirement that a petition set forth facts to establish the county seat condition.
Bd. of
Comm'rs of Rio Arriba Cnty. v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Santa Fe Cnty.,
2020-NMCA-017.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references.
— 56 Am. Jur. 2d Municipal Corporations, Counties, and Other Political Subdivisions §§ 39 to 77.
Right of county to challenge acts or proceedings by which its boundaries or limits are affected, 86 A.L.R. 1373.
Right of one governmental subdivision to challenge annexation proceedings by another such subdivision, 17 A.L.R.5th 195.
20 C.J.S. Counties § 30.