A. In any election contest a prima facie showing that the precinct board [election board] of any precinct has failed to substantially comply with the provisions of the Election Code [Chapter 1 NMSA 1978] that protect the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot and prescribe duties of the precinct board [election board] during the conduct of election, shall cast upon the candidates of the political party having majority representation on the precinct board [election board] the burden of proving that no fraud, intimidation, coercion or undue influence was exerted by such members of the precinct board [election board], and that the secrecy and purity of the ballot was safeguarded and no intentional evasion of the substantial requirements of the law was made. B. Upon failure to make such a showing upon which the court shall so find, the votes of that entire precinct shall be rejected; provided, that no such rejection shall be made where it appears to the court that the members of the precinct board [election board] ignored the requirements of the Election Code with the probable interest of procuring the rejection of the entire vote in the precinct. e court that the members of the precinct board [election board] ignored the requirements of the Election Code with the probable interest of procuring the rejection of the entire vote in the precinct. History: 1953 Comp., § 3-14-17, enacted by Laws 1969, ch. 240, § 342. ANNOTATIONSBracketed material. — The bracketed material was inserted by the compiler and is not part of the law. Laws 2019, ch. 212, § 283, effective April 3, 2019, provided that references in the Election Code to 'precinct board', shall be deemed to be references to 'election board', as that term is defined in Section 1-1-13 NMSA 1978.Cross references. — For constitutional provision as to securing the secrecy of the ballot and purity of election, see N.M. Const., art. VII, § 1. Ballot errors by county clerks. — Although the statute applied to precinct boards, where the county clerk omitted a candidate's name from the ballot, and there was no fraud, the court drew an analogy from this section to order the entire vote of the affected precinct rejected. Gunaji v. Macias, 2001-NMSC-028, 130 N.M. 734, 31 P.3d 1008. Constitutional amendment election. the court drew an analogy from this section to order the entire vote of the affected precinct rejected. Gunaji v. Macias, 2001-NMSC-028, 130 N.M. 734, 31 P.3d 1008. Constitutional amendment election. — There are no lawful grounds for a recount in New Mexico of a constitutional amendment election. 2004 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 04-01. Law reviews. — For note, 'Why Gunaji v. Macias Matters to Candidates and Voters: Its Impact on New Mexico Election Law', see 33 N.M.L. Rev. 431 (2003). Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 26 Am. Jur. 2d Elections §§ 328, 417. 29 C.J.S. Elections §§ 201(2), 249.
New Mexico Legal Code