## Facts

- The City of Clovis, a New Mexico home rule municipality, operated under a commission–manager form of government set by its home rule charter.
- The charter provided for a city commission larger than five members and used a mix of district-based and at-large representation.
- During separate federal Voting Rights Act litigation concerning Clovis elections, local residents proposed restructuring the commission to five members elected from five single-member districts.
- The proposal relied on N.M. Stat. Ann. § 3-10-1(B) (commission “must have five members”) and § 3-14-6(A) (election from five single-member districts).
- The Clovis City Commission declined to adopt the proposed five-member single-district structure and maintained a different commission structure consistent with its charter.
- Residents and taxpayers filed a state district court mandamus action seeking to compel the City to conform to the statutory five-member model.
- After the district court rejected mandamus, petitioners sought extraordinary relief in the New Mexico Supreme Court, naming the district judge as respondent and seeking to prevent dismissal of the mandamus action.

## Issues

1. Whether a home rule municipality is bound by N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 3-10-1(B) and 3-14-6(A) to maintain a five-member commission elected from five single-member districts, or may set a different structure by charter.
2. Whether §§ 3-10-1(B) and 3-14-6(A) are “general laws” that “expressly deny” home rule municipalities the power to determine the composition and selection method of their governing bodies.
3. Whether extraordinary relief should issue to prevent dismissal of the mandamus petition when the claimed duty depends on the statutes’ applicability to a home rule charter city.

## Decision

- The New Mexico Supreme Court denied extraordinary relief and left the district court’s rejection of mandamus undisturbed.
- The Court held that the composition of a municipal governing body is a matter of local concern within home rule authority.
- The Court held that §§ 3-10-1(B) and 3-14-6(A) did not expressly deny home rule municipalities the power to adopt a different number of commissioners or different election methods than those statutes describe.
- Because the statutes did not impose a clear, enforceable duty on Clovis to adopt the five-member single-district model, mandamus was unavailable, and prohibition was unwarranted.

## Legal Principles

- Under N.M. Const. art. X, § 6, a home rule municipality may exercise all legislative powers not expressly denied by general law or the constitution.
- “Express denial” requires clear legislative language taking away local authority; general statutory prescriptions do not bind home rule municipalities absent explicit preemptive wording.
- The structure and composition of a city’s governing body, including the number of commissioners and method of selection, is presumptively a matter of local concern for home rule purposes.
- Mandamus lies only to compel performance of a clear legal duty; if a statute does not apply or does not create a definite duty, mandamus does not issue.

## Conclusion

The court held that Clovis’s home rule charter could lawfully provide a commission structure different from the Municipal Code’s five-member commission provisions because the cited statutes did not expressly deny home rule authority, defeating the residents’ request for mandamus and related extraordinary relief.


State ex rel. Haynes v. Bonem, 845 P.2d 150 (N.M. 1992)