Attorney General Candidate Michael Hendricks was the co-author and attorney for amici on the amicus brief that the Supreme Court relied upon in part to find NM Secretary of State did not have the legal authority to promulgate a requirement for straight ticket voting

ALBUQUERQUE: Friday, Michael Hendricks candidate for attorney general, was elated to hear the oral arguments, questions by the justices, and the decision at the New Mexico Supreme Court on Wednesday. It was the brief that he co-authored and was the attorney representing the amici, friends of the court, which included 23 state officials and a libertarian Secretary of State candidate, that was relied upon in part by the justices to come to their 5-0 decision.

“As I sat there listening to the oral arguments, I noticed the Justices were mostly asking questions and raising concerns that I and my co-author had raised in our amicus brief. The petitioners’ attorneys did a very good job; but, they were trying to get a decision on rule making violations which would have left open the future possibility for straight ticket voting by this or any future Secretary of State without legislative authorization. The argument that we made in our brief was that the Secretary of State did not violate the rule making process because she did not have any authority to make the promulgation to require straight ticket voting to begin with. When the justices began to ask questions about form versus substance, my co-author and I knew what was about to happen – the informed voter would be victorious and separation of powers would be upheld in our state. It was a glorious moment when a predominantly left-leaning Supreme Court voted unanimously to strike down this ultra vires action by a partisan Secretary of State and her Attorney General that gave her the advice to move forward.”

The court considered many topics; but, of greatest concern seemed to be when the Respondent’s attorney argued that the Secretary of State had this authority because the legislature had not provided specific instructions. One of the justices basically asked counsel if she was saying that where the legislature is silent, they are "acquiesc[ing]" to their power being used by the secretary of state? The counsel for Respondent argued that that is exactly what the legislature had done by having not passed a law on straight ticket voting in the 9 attempts in the previous 17 years.

“The response by the Respondent’s counsel shocked me because that is in direct conflict with constitutional law and the core theories of our democracy. We only have governments with enumerated powers and clear separation of powers; if we allow an agency to just assume legislative, or any other government branch roles, then we would devolve into a fully oligarchical state where the few in agency roles rule all areas and arenas of government; that would be absurd.”