NMSC News:
SANTA FE — The state Supreme Court Wednesday ordered the dismissal of a petition seeking the recall of a Rio Arriba County commissioner.
In a unanimous opinion, the Court concluded that a county resident who filed the petition had failed to establish probable cause that Commissioner Alex Naranjo committed malfeasance or misfeasance in office based on an alleged violation of the state’s Open Meetings Act (OMA).
A Rio Arriba County man alleged that Naranjo decided in 2023 to install a statue of Spanish conquistador Don Juan de Oñate at the Rio Arriba County government office complex in Española without the matter being voted on in a meeting open to the public. The planned installation of the statue generated protests and ultimately was cancelled.
The New Mexico Constitution requires a district court to review allegations serving as grounds for removal of an officeholder before a petition can be circulated to voters to hold a recall election. The justices reversed a district court decision last year to allow the recall petition to move forward. A recall election is conducted if a sufficient number of registered voters sign the petition.
In an opinion by Chief Justice David K. Thomson, the Court concluded that “the district court erred when, after a hearing, it found probable cause that Commissioner Naranjo committed malfeasance or misfeasance without also finding that the decision to install the statue was made by a quorum of the County Commission — a requirement to prove a violation of the OMA.”
Two county commissioners constitute a quorum of the governmental body. “Thus, for the OMA to apply, at least two members of the County Commission needed to make the decision to reinstall the statue at the Rio Arriba County Office Complex,” the Court explained.
The statue originally was located at a site north of Española but had been removed in 2020. Oñate led the Spanish colonization of New Mexico in the late 1500s, but he is a controversial figure in history because of his harsh treatment of indigenous Pueblo people.
The district court found that Naranjo was in favor of the statue’s reinstallation and opposed cancelling it. County Manager Jeremy Maestas testified at the district court hearing that he made the decision about the statue but that was contradicted by his emails, including one to the sheriff that the commission had made the decision to install the statue. The district court found Maestas’s testimony lacked credibility.
“The plain language of the district court’s findings is clear,” the Court wrote. “The district court did not decide that the County Commission made the decision or that Commissioner Naranjo along with a second commissioner (establishing a quorum) made the decision. Instead, the district court’s inquiry was limited to whether Commissioner Naranjo or County Manager Maestas made the decision. That legal conclusion was in error, as Commissioner Naranjo could not violate the OMA as a single member of the County Commission acting alone.”