New Mexico legislators notify court they won't appear at redistricting depositions set by GOP
Aug. 18—SANTA FE — Democratic state lawmakers are asserting legislative privilege to shield them from responding to questions in a deposition as the legal battle intensifies over New Mexico's new congressional map.
A handful of legislative leaders informed the court this week they won't appear at depositions scheduled by the Republican Party of New Mexico and other plaintiffs opposed to the redistricting.
They also filed motions to quash subpoenas and protect them from what they describe as the GOP's overly broad, unconstitutional requests for information.
Their argument centers on a clause in the state Constitution that says legislators "shall not be questioned in any other place for any speech or debate or for any votes cast" in either legislative chamber.
The plaintiffs, by contrast, say they are simply making standard requests in any gerrymandering litigation. They've also offered to narrow the requests.
The deposition clash comes as District Judge Fred Van Soelen faces an Oct. 1 deadline to resolve the case under an order by the Supreme Court. A trial is scheduled Sept. 27-29 in Lovington.
The Republican Party of New Mexico and others have accused Democratic lawmakers and Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham of illegally diluting Republicans' voting strength in the new congressional districts drawn after the 2020 census.
Democratic officials say the boundaries are legal and designed to give each of the state's three members of Congress a mix of urban and rural areas and to establish competitive districts.
All three seats in the plan are Democratic-leaning, and Republican Congresswoman Yvette Herrell lost her reelection bid after the new boundaries went into effect.
In an 80-page legal filing, attorneys defending the maps say the GOP and other plaintiffs are making deposition and record requests that will "transform this case into an unconstitutional circus that cannot be completed by" the Oct. 1 deadline.
They say the legislative privilege outlined in the Constitution's speech-and-debate clause is absolute and a bedrock principle in the separation of powers, protecting the legislative branch from intrusion by the judiciary or executive.
Republican Party attorneys, in turn, say legislative privilege can be balanced with other constitutional rights. Courts sometimes set aside privilege claims in partisan gerrymandering cases, the GOP argues, because redistricting can deprive citizens of their right to participate equally in the political process.
As part of the litigation, the state Republican Party and other plaintiffs have outlined an extensive list of Democratic lawmakers and political insiders as potential witnesses who could be made to answer questions under oath in a deposition or at trial.
But Sen. Joseph Cervantes, a Las Cruces Democrat who co-sponsored the redistricting legislation, and other legislative leaders notified the court they will not appear at the scheduled depositions, citing legislative privilege and other legal arguments.
The chance to question Democratic lawmakers under oath could be an important element of the case. Republican opponents of the map are trying to show Democratic lawmakers adopted the redistricting plan with the goal of entrenching their own political party in power.
The judge may also weigh whether there's a nonpartisan justification for the map.
