A recall petition against Rio Arriba County Commissioner Alex Naranjo, brought by the late activist Antonio “Ike” DeVargas, has been struck down by the New Mexico Supreme Court.
In a decision issued on July 9, the justices ruled that Albuquerque Judge Marie Ward was wrong to find that Naranjo committed a malfeasance or misfeasance in office by violating the Open Meetings Act in relation to the placement of the Don Juan de Oñate statue at the county complex in Española.
Chief Justice David Thomson, in the unanimous decision, wrote that Naranjo could not have violated the Open Meetings Act because Ward found that Naranjo made the decision to place the statue. To violate the Open Meetings Act, by making a decision outside of a public meeting, the judge needed to find that Naranjo and at least one other commissioner, constituting a quorum, made the statue placement decision.
“As we explain below, the district court erred when, after a hearing, it found probable cause that Commissioner Naranjo committed malfeasance or misfeasance without also finding that the decision to install the statue was made by a quorum of the County Commission — a requirement to prove a violation of the OMA,” Thomson wrote.
In her May 2024 decision to let the recall petition move forward, Ward found that decision to place the Juan de Oñate statue at the county complex on Industrial Park Road was made “outside of an open, public meeting” and that Naranjo was “acting in concert with others to do so.”
While the original recall petition was lodged by DeVargas, he died on July 2, 2024, at age 77. Luis Peña Jr., who testified during the initial hearing, became the new petitioner after being asked to do so by DeVargas’ attorney, Richard Rosenstock.
The case was appealed directly to the Supreme Court because that’s what the state constitution requires with recall petitions.
The justices ordered the case be sent back to Ward with instructions to dismiss the petition.
The decision to order the petition thrown out is contrary to what the justices discussed during oral arguments. During the Dec. 12, 2024 oral arguments, many of the questions from the justices revolved around Ward’s findings, including whether Naranjo acted alone, which Naranjo’s attorney Cody Rogers raised as an argument that made it impossible for him to violate the Open Meetings Act; or if a quorum, which only needs two of the three, acted.
During oral arguments, Justice Shannon Bacon said she wasn’t sure that Ward’s decision meant that Naranjo acted alone, but that she only referenced Naranjo because he is the only one being recalled, while Justice Julie Vargas said the justices were “struggling with the evidence” because the findings referred to Naranjo while the emails County Manager Jeremy Maestas sent referred to the commission.
“(Should) we remand to Judge Ward to ask her to explain what she meant?” Vargas said.
When Justice Briana Zamora told Rosenstock during oral arguments that failing to find that a quorum had decided anything could be fatal to his case, Rosenstock responded that the justices could send the case back to Ward and ask her to clarify her ruling.
A ‘witch hunt’
In a telephone interview, Naranjo said the recall petition was a “witch hunt” and there are three county commissioners, but he was the only one targeted.
“The thing is, when you violate the open meetings law, you had to have had a meeting. We never had a meeting, we never even met on this. Maybe in the final analysis, I had discussions with the county manager or whomever thinking it was a good idea,” Naranjo said.
The issue over the statue wasn’t the precipitating factor for the recall, but instead, it was issues with North Central Solid Waste that initially had DeVargas looking for a recall.
Naranjo said statues, and the people they represent, are a part of history.
“Anything that was done back in the good old days, that’s a part of history,” he said. “That’s the problem with people destroying statues, it’s all a part of history, let that history be gone, leave it at that.”
Naranjo doesn’t feel vindicated and said the petition was a “waste of time and a waste of money.”
“It surely cost us a pretty penny to defend me from something that had no merit in the courts,” he said. “What’s really frustrating is at the end of the day, this is why a lot of people don’t want to run for public office. They’re exposed to this no respect crap from individuals who don’t know what they’re taking about.”
Peña’s reaction
Peña said he is “pretty unhappy” with the decision, which he deemed to be on “procedural grounds.” The ruling doesn’t absolve anyone of the “incompetency” that led to the shooting by Ryan Martinez of Albuquerque, who pleaded guilty. The county is also facing two lawsuits over the shooting.
The dismissal of the recall petition doesn’t absolve anyone of the moral responsibility, he said.
“These guys continue to get lucky,” he said.
The Española Valley seems to be in the grips of an anti-progress backlash, as the Española Fiesta plans to bring back the Oñate figure, despite the fierce backlash against it, including the shooting conducted by Martinez, Peña said.
“I hope people let their voices be heard at the polls,” he said.
What happens next is unclear, but there may be a path toward another recall petition, he said.
The decision
Central to the case was the testimony of Maestas, whom Ward wrote was “lacking credibility” after he testified and was confronted with emails where he wrote that the county commissioners were the ones who put the statue back up.
After Ward’s decision, in an interview, Naranjo said what the justices found in their decision to strike down the petition is that he is just one commissioner and it takes two to make a decision.
“I understand micromanagement,” he said at the time. “I had no control over that.”
Evidence for the commission acting in concert included:
• An Aug. 25, 2023 email from Maestas to Martinez (who later pleaded guilty to shooting a man at a protest over the statue), saying that “the commission and I have decided that we definitely want to have the statue return and are currently looking at relocating it in front of the County annex building.”
• A Sept. 14, 2023 email to the late Sheriff Billy Merrifield asking for help for an “event” in front of the annex, in which “the commission has made the decision to relocate” the statue.