Opinion ID: 891654
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether the PRC's Failure to Defer to the Vote of the Dissenting Commissioners Violated the Equal Protection Clause

Text: {46} ABCWUA claims that the PRC improperly failed to defer to the votes of the two dissenting Commissioners, who represent a significantly greater number of PNM customers than the remaining three Commissioners, thereby depriving the customers in those districts [of] adequate representation and equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. {47} The PRC is composed of five Commissioners, each of whom is elected from a different district. See NMSA 1978, § 8-7-2 (1997). The boundaries of the five different districts are established pursuant to the Precinct Boundary Adjustment Act [1-3-10 to 1-3-14 NMSA 1978] and revised and approved by the secretary of state as of August 31, 2001. NMSA 1978, § 8-7-5(A) (2001); see NMSA 1978, §§ 8-7-6 to -10 (2001) (codifying the boundaries of the five PRC districts). The purpose of the Precinct Boundary Adjustment Act [1-3-10 to 1-3-14 NMSA 1978] is to comply with the criteria established pursuant to the provisions of Subsection (c) of Section 141 of Title 13 of the United States Code in order to obtain an enumeration of the populations of election precincts by the bureau of the census in the federal decennial census and in order to provide such enumeration data to the New Mexico legislature for purposes of legislative reapportionment. NMSA 1978, § 1-3-11 (1995). Pursuant to Section 8-8-4(D), only a majority vote of the commission is needed for a final decision of the commission. {48} Essentially, ABCWUA claims that Sections 8-7-6 through 8-7-10 violate the one person, one vote principle of the equal protection clause because the PRC districts are not equally apportioned on the basis of population. Cf. Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407, 416, 97 S.Ct. 1828, 52 L.Ed.2d 465 (1977) (The Equal Protection Clause requires that legislative districts be of nearly equal population, so that each person's vote may be given equal weight in the election of representatives.). In calculating the deviation among districts, the relevant inquiry is whether the vote of any citizen is approximately equal in weight to that of any other citizen, the aim being to provide fair and effective representation for all citizens. Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688, 701, 109 S.Ct. 1433, 103 L.Ed.2d 717 (1989) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); id. at 703, 109 S.Ct. 1433 (holding that a population deviation of 78% violated the one-person, one-vote ideal). {49} The record is devoid of any evidence regarding the relative population density of each of the five PRC districts or the maximum deviation among the districts. The burden is on ABCWUA to provide this Court with an adequate record to review the merits of its claims on appeal. See § 62-11-4 (The burden shall be on the party appealing to show that the order appealed from is unreasonable, or unlawful.); see also Brown v. Trujillo, 2004-NMCA-040, ¶ 34, 135 N.M. 365, 88 P.3d 881 (noting parenthetically that the party seeking review has the burden of providing an adequate record to review the issues on appeal). Because ABCWUA has failed to fulfill its burden, we will not review its equal protection claim.