home rule in New Mexico

2014While it is true that the state cannot constitutionally deprive a home rule municipality from legislating on purely local affairs, see Apodaca v. Wilson, 1974-NMSC-071 , ¶ 16, 86 N.M. 516 , 525 P.2d 876 , the specific issue of concern here is not the compensation of all City employees, but the overtime compensation of employees of the City’s police department.

2014While it is true that the state cannot constitutionally deprive a home rule municipality from legislating on purely local affairs, see Apodaca v. Wilson, 1974-NMSC-071 , ¶ 16, 86 N.M. 516 , 525 P.2d 876 , the specific issue of concern here is not the compensation of all City employees, but the overtime compensation of employees of the City’s police department.

2025Comm’n, 2003-NMSC-028, ¶ 3 , 134 N.M. 9 472, 79 P.3d 297 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Temple Baptist 10 Church, Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, 1982-NMSC-055 , ¶ 10, 98 N.M. 138 , 646 P.2d 11 565 (“It is well settled that municipalities have no inherent right to exercise police 12 power; their right must derive from authority granted by the [s]tate.”). 13 {29} Home rule municipalities are distinct in one significant regard in that they 14 enjoy “a limited form of autonomy from state interference in matters of local 15 concern.” New Mexicans for Free Enter., 2006-NMCA-007, ¶ 14

2025Comm’n, 2003-NMSC-028, ¶ 3 , 134 N.M. 472 , 79 P.3d 297 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Temple Baptist Church, Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, 1982-NMSC-055 , ¶ 10, 98 N.M. 138 , 646 P.2d 565 (“It is well settled that municipalities have no inherent right to exercise police power; their right must derive from authority granted by the [s]tate.”). {29} Home rule municipalities are distinct in one significant regard in that they enjoy “a limited form of autonomy from state interference in matters of local concern.” New Mexicans for Free Enter., 2006-NMCA-007, ¶ 14 ; see also N.M.

2006Furthermore, we rejected the plaintiffs’ similar argument in Smith and held that “the plain meaning of the permit language of approval, read together with Condition H, is clear and unambiguous — the applicant may drill a well if he or she is not limited by a more restrictive municipal ordinance.” Smith, 2006-NMCA-048, ¶ 16 , 139 N.M. 410 , 133 P.3d 866 . {13} Plaintiff cites to Blue Circle Cement, Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 27 F.3d 1499, 1508 (10th Cir.1994), to support her contention that a local authority cannot impose a total ban of an activity that is “otherwise encouraged” by the stat

2006Furthermore, we rejected the plaintiffs' similar argument in Smith and held that "the plain meaning of the permit language of approval, read together with Condition H, is clear and unambiguous—the applicant may drill a well if he or she is not limited by a more restrictive municipal ordinance." Smith, 2006-NMCA-048, ¶ 16 , 139 N.M. 410 , 133 P.3d 866 . {13} Plaintiff cites to Blue Circle Cement, Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 27 F.3d 1499, 1508 (10th Cir.1994), to support her contention that a local authority cannot impose a total ban of an activity that is "otherwise encouraged" by the statut

2006See New Mexicans for Free Enter., 2006-NMCA-007, ¶ 16 , 138 N.M. 785 , 126 P.3d 1149 (recognizing that home rule status confers “remarkably broad powers” on home rule municipalities and is intended to “provide chartered municipalities with the utmost ability to take policymaking initiative”); Apodaca v. Wilson, 86 N.M. 516, 521 , 525 P.2d 876, 881 (1974) (observing that, “before the adoption of the home rule amendment,” municipalities had to identify the authority to act but, after adoption of the amendment, municipalities need only look to the Constitution and general laws to ascertain whethe

2006See New Mexicans for Free Enter., 2006-NMCA-007, ¶ 16 , 138 N.M. 785 , 126 P.3d 1149 (recognizing that home rule status confers “remarkably broad powers” on home rule municipalities and is intended to “provide chartered municipalities with the utmost ability to take policymaking initiative”); Apodaca v. Wilson, 86 N.M. 516, 521 , 525 P.2d 876, 881 (1974) (observing that, “before the adoption of the home rule amendment,” municipalities had to identify the authority to act but, after adoption of the amendment, municipalities need only look to the Constitution and general laws to ascertain whethe

1998See City of Albuquerque v. Chavez, 91 N.M. 559, 559 , 577 P.2d 457, 457 (Ct.App.1978). {20} The Albuquerque City Council legislated a civil service with a personnel board to hear certain employee grievances.

1998See City of Albuquerque v. Chavez, 91 N.M. 559, 559 , 577 P.2d 457, 457 (Ct.App.1978). {20} The Albuquerque City Council legislated a civil service with a personnel board to hear certain employee grievances.

2015See Normand ex rel. 10 Normand v. Ray, 1990-NMSC-006 , ¶ 35, 109 N.M. 403 , 785 P.2d 743 (“Findings of 11 fact are to be liberally construed so as to uphold the judgment of the trial court[.] . . 12 .

2015See Normand ex rel. 10 Normand v. Ray, 1990-NMSC-006 , ¶ 35, 109 N.M. 403 , 785 P.2d 743 (“Findings of 11 fact are to be liberally construed so as to uphold the judgment of the trial court[.] . . 12 .

2006Reynolds v. Mears, 86 N.M. 510, 515 , 525 P.2d 870, 875 (1974), to assert that the grant of authority to the state engineer expressly denies the City's home rule power to prohibit the drilling of a domestic well.

2006Reynolds v. Mears, 86 N.M. 510, 515 , 525 P.2d 870, 875 (1974), to assert that the grant of authority to the state engineer expressly denies the City's home rule power to prohibit the drilling of a domestic well.

2005See Biswell, 81 N.M. at 782 , 473 P.2d at 921 (noting that the question of municipal authority to act is a separate inquiry from the determination of conflict with state law); § 3-17-1 (stating that “[t]he governing body of a municipality may adopt ordinances or resolutions not inconsistent with the laws of New Mexico”).

2005See Biswell, 81 N.M. at 782 , 473 P.2d at 921 (noting that the question of municipal authority to act is a separate inquiry from the determination of conflict with state law); § 3-17-1 (stating that “[t]he governing body of a municipality may adopt ordinances or resolutions not inconsistent with the laws of New Mexico”).

2005Rui One Corp. v. City of Berkeley, 371 F.3d 1137, 1150 (9th Cir.2004) (stating that “[t]he power to regulate wages and employment conditions lies clearly within a state’s or a municipality’s police power”); New Orleans Campaign for a Living Wage, 02-0991, at p. 13, 825 So.2d at 1098 (affirming that the power to set a minimum wage is an exercise of the police power); City of Baltimore, 255 A.2d at 378 (holding that a municipality has authority to establish a minimum wage under its police powers).

2005Rui One Corp. v. City of Berkeley, 371 F.3d 1137, 1150 (9th Cir.2004) (stating that “[t]he power to regulate wages and employment conditions lies clearly within a state’s or a municipality’s police power”); New Orleans Campaign for a Living Wage, 02-0991, at p. 13, 825 So.2d at 1098 (affirming that the power to set a minimum wage is an exercise of the police power); City of Baltimore, 255 A.2d at 378 (holding that a municipality has authority to establish a minimum wage under its police powers).

2005Rui One Corp. v. City of Berkeley, 371 F.3d 1137, 1150 (9th Cir.2004) (stating that “[t]he power to regulate wages and employment conditions lies clearly within a state’s or a municipality’s police power”); New Orleans Campaign for a Living Wage, 02-0991, at p. 13, 825 So.2d at 1098 (affirming that the power to set a minimum wage is an exercise of the police power); City of Baltimore, 255 A.2d at 378 (holding that a municipality has authority to establish a minimum wage under its police powers).

2003Auth. v. Woodring, 498 Pa. 180 , 445 A.2d 724, 727-28 (1982) (affirming a finding of a de facto taking for an undergrounding ordinance motivated by aesthetics). {7} Moreover, a home rule municipality’s power to legislate is subject to limitation by the Legislature.

2003Auth. v. Woodring, 498 Pa. 180 , 445 A.2d 724, 727-28 (1982) (affirming a finding of a de facto taking for an undergrounding ordinance motivated by aesthetics). {7} Moreover, a home rule municipality’s power to legislate is subject to limitation by the Legislature.

1995Casuse v. City of Gallup, 106 N.M. 571, 573 , 746 P.2d 1103, 1105 (1987).

1995Casuse v. City of Gallup, 106 N.M. 571, 573 , 746 P.2d 1103, 1105 (1987).

1992The purpose of municipal home rule is to “enable municipalities to conduct their own business and control their own affairs, to the fullest possible extent, in their own way.” Apodaca, 86 N.M. at 520 , 525 P.2d at 880 (quoting Fragley v. Phelan, 126 Cal. 383 , 58 P. 923, 925 (1899)).

1992The purpose of municipal home rule is to “enable municipalities to conduct their own business and control their own affairs, to the fullest possible extent, in their own way.” Apodaca, 86 N.M. at 520 , 525 P.2d at 880 (quoting Fragley v. Phelan, 126 Cal. 383 , 58 P. 923, 925 (1899)).

1992See Apodaca, 86 N.M. at 522 , 525 P.2d at 882 (“A law general in form cannot, under the Constitution, deprive cities of the right to legislate on purely local affairs germane to the purposes for which the city was incorporated.”) (quoting City of Portland v. Welch, 154 Or. 286 , 59 P.2d 228, 232 (1936)).

1992Our opinion in Apodaca made clear that in order for a general law to supersede a home rule municipality’s charter or ordinance, “ ‘the subject matter of the general legislative enactment must pertain to those things of general concern to the people of the state.’ ” Apodaca, 86 N.M. at 522 , 525 P.2d at 882 (quoting City of Portland, 59 P.2d at 232 ).