By April 2011—almost two years after the 2009 Amendments came into force—the director still had not set prevailing-wage rates according to the CBAs. The New Mexico Building and Construction Trades Council ("NMBCTC"), "an alliance of craft unions" that represent New Mexico public workers, N.M. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Dean , 353 P.3d 1212, 1214 (N.M. 2015), filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the New Mexico Supreme Court requesting that the court compel the director to set prevailing wage and prevailing benefit rates in accordance with relevant CBAs. The New Mexico Supreme Court denied the writ, but did so on the basis of a representation by the DWS secretary's ("the secretary") counsel that the secretary would set new rates within four or five months.
While "any interested person" still has the right to submit information to which the Director must "give due regard," § 13-4-11(B)(2)-(3), the rates and benefits must be set according to CBAs. See N.M. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Dean, 2015-NMSC-023, ¶ 21, 353 P.3d 1212 (issuing "writ of mandamus ordering the Director to comply with the Act and set rates in accordance with CBAs"). Before the July 1, 2009 effective date of the amendments, a group of nonunion contractors challenged the Act as unconstitutional, alleging violations of due process and equal protection because the Act required prevailing wages to be determined according to union CBAs.
Such separation of powers claims present matters of great public concern conferring standing on Petitioners. See State ex rel. Clark v. Johnson , 1995-NMSC-048, ¶ 15, 120 N.M. 562, 904 P.2d 11 (concluding the claim "that the Governor has exercised the state legislature's authority" is a matter of "great public interest and importance" conferring standing (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); N.M. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Dean , 2015-NMSC-023, ¶ 7, 353 P.3d 1212 ("The balance and maintenance of governmental power is of great public concern." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). B. Mandamus
Repeals by implication are rare and should be found only if necessary to make the later-enacted law work, and even then only to the minimum extent necessary." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also N.M. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Dean , 2015-NMSC-023, ¶ 15, 353 P.3d 1212 (observing that this Court "operate[s] from a working assumption that the Legislature ... is well informed about the law"(omission in original)). {27} The parties agree that Section 42-6-12 is the only relevant waiver of immunity.
This duty is ministerial. See N.M. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Dean, 2015-NMSC-023, ¶ 5, 353 P.3d 1212 ("A ministerial act is an act which an officer performs under a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to a mandate of legal authority, without regard to the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety of the act being done." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted))
A court's "primary goal in interpreting a statute is to give effect to the Legislature's intent[,]" which "is to be determined primarily by the language of the act, and words used in a statute are to be given their ordinary and usual meaning unless a different intent is clearly indicated." N.M. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Dean, 2015-NMSC-023, ¶ 11, 353 P.3d 1212 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). "The text of a statute . . . is the primary, essential source of its meaning."
{9} A court's "primary goal when interpreting a statute is to give effect to the Legislature's intent[,]" which "is to be determined primarily by the language of the act, and words used in a statute are to be given their ordinary and usual meaning unless a different intent is clearly indicated." N.M. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Dean , 2015-NMSC-023, ¶ 11, 353 P.3d 1212 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see State ex rel. Helman v. Gallegos , 1994-NMSC-023, ¶ 23, 117 N.M. 346, 871 P.2d 1352. "Whether words of statutes are mandatory or discretionary is a matter of legislative intent to be determined by consideration of the purpose sought to be accomplished." State ex rel. Robinson v. King , 1974-NMSC-028, ¶ 10, 86 N.M. 231, 522 P.2d 83.