Calkins v. Stearley

3 Citing cases

  1. Am. Ass'n of People with Disabilities v. Herrera

    580 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (D.N.M. 2008)   Cited 16 times
    Finding that plaintiffs' two-week delay from filing lawsuit to seeking preliminary injunction "considerably undercut[] their allegation of irreparable harm"

    See Kiene v. Atwood, 93 N.M. 657, 662, 604 P.2d 123, 128 (1979) ("The purity of the election demands that illegal votes be purged."), Calkins v. Stearley, 140 N.M. 802, 808, 149 P.3d 118, 124 (N.M.App. 2006) ("It is probably better that individual voters and candidates should suffer in a given instance than that the doors to fraud and imposition may open and the secrecy and purity and security of elections be destroyed.") (internal quotation marks omitted). In light of the language and the case law interpreting article VII, § 1, the proper view of the provision is that it speaks to the Legislature's powers and responsibilities regarding elections.

  2. State ex Rel. League v. Herrera

    145 N.M. 563 (N.M. 2009)   Cited 9 times
    Determining mandamus was appropriate because the issue was of great public importance and involved the enforcement of a state officer's statutory duty

    {8} We begin by reiterating the longstanding and fundamental principle that the right to vote is of paramount importance. See Calkins v. Stearley, 2006-NMCA-153, ¶ 30, 140 N.M. 802, 149 P.3d 118; State ex rel. Read v. Christ, 25 N.M. 175, 199, 179 P. 629, 637 (1919). The courts of New Mexico have long held that in service of this important right, courts should guard against voter disenfranchisement whenever possible and interpret statutes broadly to favor the right to vote.

  3. Rivera v. Rivera

    2010 NMCA 106 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 9 times
    Holding premarital agreement, wherein parties waived right to claim support after divorce, violates section 40-3A-4(B)

    We review the district court's findings regarding these circumstances for substantial evidence. Calkins v. Stearley, 2006-NMCA-153, ¶ 2, 140 N.M. 802, 149 P.3d 118. {22} The Uniform Premarital Agreement Act provides in part that