Local governments respond to attorney general's writ

The city of Clovis has joined with other city and county governments in responding to New Mexico’s attorney general over a writ of mandamus filed with the state Supreme Court concerning anti-abortion ordinances.

Jonathan Mitchell, the Austin, Texas, attorney who wrote the ordinance, is listed as counsel for the respondents, which include the city of Clovis. Also listed as counsel are Albuquerque attorney Michael Siebel and Hobbs attorney Efren Cortez.

Clovis City Attorney Jared Morris said, “Mitchell is our attorney; Siebel, a licensed New Mexico lawyer, is just on the case for purposes of getting Mitchell temporary admission to the New Mexico bar.”

In the response to the Attorney General Raul Torrez’s filing of Jan. 23, the attorneys state in their response, “Writs of mandamus exist to compel the performance of an act or to prohibit unconstitutional official action, not to render opinions on the constitutionality of local ordinances that the Attorney General dislikes.”

Mitchell, Siebel and Cortez mention the Roosevelt County ordinance in their response writing “the Roosevelt County ordinance will continue to exist even if this court issues the requested ‘stay’ or writ of mandamus, and any private citizen who sues under that ordinance is not a party to this proceeding and cannot be bound by any ‘stay’ or writ directed at the respondents.”

The response to Torres’ filing with the state Supreme Court ends with the conclusion, “The petition for the writ of mandamus and request for stay should be denied.”

Barry Massey, public information officer for the New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts, said there is no indication in court records “at this time” to indicate when the matter will be taken up in court.