N.M. Stat. § 4-33-1 (2026)

reasons.]
    Whenever, because of the location and conditions of roads, or the existence or
nonexistence of transportation facilities, it will be more convenient for the residents of
any portion of a county to travel to the county seat of some other contiguous county,
and because of such location and condition of roads or the existence or nonexistence of
transportation facilities, it will be more convenient and economical for such other county
to render governmental services to such portion of such other county, the portion of the
county so affected may be annexed to such other county in the following manner.

History: 1941 Comp., § 15-3305, enacted by Laws 1947, ch. 196, § 1; 1953 Comp., §
15-33-1.

                                    ANNOTATIONS

Cross references. — For combined city and county corporations, see N.M. Const., art.
X, § 4, and 3-16-1 NMSA 1978 et seq.

Constitutionality of article. — This article setting forth procedure for detachment and
annexation proceedings is not void for vagueness and uncertainty. Crosthwait v. White,
1951-NMSC-003, 55 N.M. 71, 226 P.2d 477.

Section not vague. — This article is not void for uncertainty and ambiguity. Youree v.
Ellis, 1954-NMSC-002, 58 N.M. 30, 265 P.2d 354.

Annexation section not special legislation. — Annexation statute is not
unconstitutional as special legislation. Crosthwait v. White, 1951-NMSC-003, 55 N.M.
71, 226 P.2d 477.

Constitutional violation. — This article does not violate N.M. Const., art. IV, § 24, as
being special legislation. Youree v. Ellis, 1954-NMSC-002, 58 N.M. 30, 265 P.2d 354.

Failure to mention all provisions in title of act. — Provisions for suit and court trial
are an incident of an annexation proceeding and failure to mention them in title of the
act providing for such proceedings does not invalidate this article. Crosthwait v. White,
1951-NMSC-003, 55 N.M. 71, 226 P.2d 477.

Savings clause. — Even in event something has been improperly omitted from the title,
the saving clause in the constitutional provisions that only so much of the act as is not
mentioned in the title shall be void will save this article providing for annexation of
portions of counties. Crosthwait v. White, 1951-NMSC-003, 55 N.M. 71, 226 P.2d 477.
Factors in determining convenience of travel to another county seat. — Neither
mileage alone nor the existence of unused public transportation was a factor in
determining whether it would be more convenient under this section for residents to
travel to some other county seat. Stone v. Crenshaw, 1952-NMSC-093, 56 N.M. 707,
248 P.2d 822.

Factors in determining convenience and economy of provision of governmental
services by another county. — Testimony of county officials and others with
knowledge of administrative and geographic conditions should be considered in
determining whether it would be more convenient and economical under this section for
the other county to render governmental services. Stone v. Crenshaw, 1952-NMSC-
093, 56 N.M. 707, 248 P.2d 822.

The board of county commissioners had no duty to publish notice of an invalid
annexation petition. — Where petitioners filed a petition to annex the Santa Fe county
portion of Española, which lies within the boundaries of both Santa Fe county and Rio
Arriba county, to Rio Arriba county because petitioners wanted to access the county
services available at the Rio Arriba county offices in Española, the district court erred in
finding that the petition complied with this section and in issuing a writ of mandamus
ordering the board of county commissioners of Santa Fe county to publish notice
pursuant to 4-33-3 NMSA 1978. A plain language reading of this section requires that
an annexation petition state facts showing that it will be more convenient for the
residents of Española currently residing in Santa Fe county to travel to Tierra Amarilla,
the county seat, and neither the petition nor its attachments made any reference to
Tierra Amarilla and thus failed to comply with the statutory requirement that a petition
set forth facts to establish the county seat condition. Bd. of Comm'rs of Rio Arriba Cnty.
v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Santa Fe Cnty., 2020-NMCA-017.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 56 Am. Jur. 2d Municipal Corporations,
Counties, and Other Political Subdivisions §§ 39 to 77.

Right of county to challenge acts or proceedings by which its boundaries or limits are
affected, 86 A.L.R. 1373.

Right of one governmental subdivision to challenge annexation proceedings by another
such subdivision, 17 A.L.R.5th 195.

20 C.J.S. Counties § 30.