Justice Vargas touts variety of experience; GOP challenger says he would put law before politics

Oct. 25—Supreme Court Justice Julie Vargas — an appointee with a combined six years' experience on the state's appellate courts — faces challenger Thomas Montoya in her bid to keep her spot on the state's highest court in November's general election.

Vargas, 54, says voters should choose her — affirming her appointment by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham in 2020 — over her opponent because she has more varied professional experience.

Montoya, whose campaign ads feature the slogan "Law Before Politics," says people should elect him because he's a Republican and his election would help balance the distribution of political affiliations on the Democrat-dominated court.

Prior to being appointed — and later elected — to the Court of Appeals in 2016, Vargas spent several decades in private practice where she handled primarily commercial and real estate cases.

Montoya, 70, has devoted the majority of his 41 year legal career to practicing family law.

"One of the biggest things that sets me apart is the broad nature of my experience," Vargas said in a recent interview. "I've done every kind of case imaginable while on the Court of Appeals. And now on the Supreme Court, not only have I written 150 opinions, I've probably sat on another 300 to 400 panels deciding cases. So the vast experience that I have in every area of New Mexico law is really what sets me apart.

"My opponent is a divorce lawyer; he's got one area of expertise, and that's what his entire career has been limited to," she said. "I've done just about everything at this point. And I'd love to continue my work on the court; I think we have a lot more to do that will help the help and improve the lives of my fellow New Mexicans, who I love and care about."

Montoya points to the fact that the state Judicial Nominating Commission — which vets candidates and makes recommendations for judicial appointments to the governor — is made up of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans as an indicator "that the people's intent is that there be a balance" of political affiliations on the state's appellate courts.

"There needs to be a perception from the point of view of the public that politics are not guiding judicial decisions," he said in a recent interview.

As it stands now, all five New Mexico Supreme Court justices and nine of the 10 Court of Appeals judges are Democrats.

Out more than 40 judicial appointments Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham has made, Montoya said, only three have been Republicans.

In many cases, he said, the governor hasn't had a choice between candidates with different political affiliations, but when she does, "candidly, qualified Republicans need not apply."

Four nominating commissions have considered Montoya for appointments to District Court judgeships, he said, and three recommended him for the posts. "But I was not close enough to the governor to get the appointment," he said.

And he says family law encompasses a lot more than just divorce.

"The impression for those who do not know is that family law practice is narrow," he said. "It is not. It is a very extensive and very broad practice because it includes every activity or business issue that may be involved in a relationship. So any type of business activity, real estate, anything that people make home ... and it includes children, which are the most important thing. ... I have a very extensive background, dealing with problems that children have in our state."

While would-be justices are routinely hard to pin down on any issues that could come before them, Vargas' and Montoya's answers to a question about what they'd change in the Supreme Court shed some light on what their individual approaches.

Montoya — who said voters will be getting a "law and order judge" if they elect him — used the question as an opportunity to raise the controversial issue of the state's bond system and whether reforms implemented in recent years essentially doing away with money bonds have made it too easy for criminals to be released from jail.

"I know we had a constitutional amendment in 2016 ... with respect to the bail system and the pretrial detention," he said. "It's been termed by many people a 'catch and release' ... that can be looked at again to see whether effectively it is working or not working. I can absolutely tell you, what I hear repeatedly, is it's not working. So it needs to be reexamined. That's one thing that can be done."

In response to the same question, Vargas said she'd like to continue the court system's ongoing efforts to make things work "more smoothly and efficiently" for law enforcement.

"Because we have such a police shortage right now, we want to keep police doing their jobs rather than sitting in the courtroom waiting to testify or do a traffic case," she said. "So we've been doing everything we can think of to minimize the time they have to spend in court."

Vargas listed waiving police appearances at certain hearings, allowing officers to attend court virtually and mandatory settlement conferences as some of the changes the Supreme Court has put in place to keep criminal cases flowing through the system despite a backlog created by COVID-19 shutdowns.

The state Supreme Court is the state's highest court and "court of last resort" and has the authority to decide disputed rulings from all the state's lower courts and the Public Regulation Commission. The five members of the court — who are each paid about $180,000 per year — also have jurisdiction over all criminal matters involving sentences of life in prison and matters related to removal of public officials.

State Supreme Court justices can be elected or appointed, but if appointed — as Vargas was in 2020 — a justice must win election in a partisan race to remain on the bench.