upholding the constitutionality of Chapter 184, Sections 1 through 3 of New Mexico Laws of 1933, a previous excusal statute, but recognizing “that it will be many times used for the mere purpose of delay . . . and that by repeated attacks upon the qualifications of the judges designated in a particular case it would be possible to exhaust the entire number of district judges in the state, thereby operating as a denial of justice.”
How later courts described this case
- upholding the constitutionality of Chapter 184, Sections 1 through 3 of New Mexico Laws of 1933, a previous excusal statute, but recognizing “that it will be many times used for the mere purpose of delay . . . and that by repeated attacks upon the qualifications of the judges designated in a particular case it would be possible to exhaust the entire number of district judges in the state, thereby operating as a denial of justice.”
- noting history of legislation permitting disqualification
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WATSON, Chief Justicei
(concurring).
Unpersuaded of the unconstitutionality of the act, I concur. I wish to add a word, however.
This statute is unusually liberal or lax. In my judgment, it threatens the speedy, efficient, and economical administration of justice, particularly in criminal cases. Experience may or may not justify my present anticipation of abuses to follow. If it should, the Legislature is fully competent to meet the situation; no doubt without my advice. Still it may not be out of place to couple with my approval of the beneficent purposes of the statute, as set forth in the opinion, the suggestion of the desirability of adding reasonable safeguards against abuse.