A. Precinct designations and boundaries used in the 2002 Senate Redistricting Act are those precinct designations and boundaries established pursuant to the Precinct Boundary Adjustment Act [1-3-10 to 1-3-14 NMSA 1978] and revised and approved pursuant to that act by the secretary of state as of August 31, 2001.
B. A board of county commissioners shall not create any precinct that lies in more than one senate district and shall not divide any precinct so that the divided parts of the precinct are situated in two or more senate districts. Votes cast in a statewide election from precincts created or divided in violation of this subsection are invalid and shall not be counted or canvassed.
History: Laws 2002, ch. 98, § 5.
Effective dates. — Laws 2002, ch. 98 contained no effective date provision, but, pursuant to N.M. Const., art. IV, § 23, was effective May 15, 2002, 90 days after adjournment of the legislature.
Compiler's notes. — In Egolf v. Duran, D-101-CV-2011-02942 (1st Jud. Dist. January 25, 2012), the court determined that the congressional districts and public regulation commission districts established in Jepsen v. Vigil-Giron, D-0101-CV-2001-02177 (1st Jud. Dist. January 8, 2002) and set forth in Sections 1-15-15.1 and 8-7-6 through 8-7-10 NMSA 1978, respectively, were to be held to be malapportioned and therefore unconstitutional and established the congressional districts set forth in Section 1-15-15.2 NMSA 1978 and the public regulation commission districts set forth in Section 8-7-12 NMSA 1978. With regard to the precinct designations and boundaries used by the court, the court's order provided that "Precinct designations and boundaries used in this order are those precinct designations and boundaries established in accordance with law and approved by the Secretary of State as of August 31, 2011 for use in the 2011 redistricting process".
Legislature must construct voting districts based on actual population. — The state legislature must employ a good-faith effort to construct legislative voting districts on the basis of actual population. Sanchez v. King, 550 F. Supp. 13 (D.N.M. 1982), aff'd sub nom. King v. Sanchez, 459 U.S. 801, 103 S. Ct. 32, 74 L. Ed. 2d 46 (1982).
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.