Opinion ID: 177129
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ruling on Motion for Entry of Final Judgment

Text: On December 23, 2009, two weeks after the district court's summary-judgment ruling, Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for entry of final judgment on Counts II-A, II-B, and IV (Emergency Motion). Plaintiffs asserted that the court's summary-judgment order entitled them to relief, but until [Plaintiffs] know the precise nature of their relief, they remain unable to effectively participate in the 2010 general election. R. at 994; see also id. at n. 2 (stating that form of relief granted by court would determine what actions Plaintiffs had to take). Plaintiffs asked that the court (1) direct the Secretary of State to include Mr. Fenton on the 2010 ballot as a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives; (2) [e]njoin the Secretary of State from enforcing NMSA § 1-7-2(A) as a condition for `qualifying' minor political parties for ballot access; and (3) direct the Secretary to recognize the Green Party as a qualified party. Id. at 994. The court entered final judgment on the three counts on April 5, 2010, but it declined to grant the relief that Plaintiffs requested. The court rejected Mr. Fenton's contention that he should be place[d] on the ballot without satisfying any of the statutory requirements imposed upon other candidates. Id. at 1380. It said: Fenton must determine whether he wants to run as a member of a party or as an independent, and then he must fulfill all of the statutory obligations of such candidates with the exception of the voter registration requirement. If the statute requires him to prove membership in a party, Fenton must do so, though the Secretary of State may not require that he make such proof solely through voter registration. However, the Court will not excuse Fenton from meeting the other ballot access requirements set forth in the Election Code. Id. at 1381. The court also rejected the Green Party's contention that the Secretary should be ordered to qualify it as a minor political party for the 2010 election, thereby relieving it of all petition requirements. It instead adopted the suggestion by the Secretary that the remedy should be to order her to accept signatures accompanied by either the address as registered or the residence address. The court said that any remedy would require some conflict with the Election Code but the Green Party's suggested remedy would do the most violence to it. Id. at 1382. The court concluded that its remedy would satisfy the Legislature's intent that in order to be qualified, parties must file signed petitions. Id. at 1383.