Can a New Mexico town annex part of a designated 'traditional historic community' if a single landowner asks, or does the state require the wider community to vote?
Plain-English summary
Senator Roberto Gonzales and two state representatives asked whether the Town of Taos could annex a piece of property inside Las Comunidades Del Valle De Los Ranchos Traditional Historic Community (the Los Ranchos THC) when only one landowner petitioned for the annexation. The AG concluded no.
NMSA § 3-7-1.1 is the controlling statute and it offers only two paths to annex any portion of a THC: (1) a direct petition signed by a majority of qualified electors within the THC, or (2) the arbitration method, which itself requires a majority-elector petition to start. There is no individual-landowner exception, no "any contiguous parcel" exception, and no other annexation mechanism. The AG said the statute's plain language is "clear and unambiguous" and applied the rule from State v. Rivera (2004) that courts give effect to clear statutes without further interpretation.
Background detail: the Los Ranchos THC was established in December 2022 by Taos County Commission Ordinance 2022-5 under the THC framework added to the municipal annexation code by the 2019 amendments. Earlier in 2024 a single landowner in the THC petitioned the Town of Taos to annex their parcel, and Town Council denied the petition after a public hearing where the landowner and Town staff supported it but THC residents opposed. The legislators wanted clarity about whether the Town's denial was discretionary or required.
The AG's answer makes it required. The annexation could not have proceeded even if the Town Council had wanted to approve it, because the statute does not permit annexation of THC land via the standard "owners of contiguous territory" route in § 3-7-17. THC designation overrides that route.
What this means for you
If you live in or near a designated THC
Designation under NMSA § 3-7-1.1 gives your community real protection: a neighbor cannot petition to be annexed into the adjacent municipality without a majority of THC-resident voters first signing on. If you are worried about creeping annexation, organize and document the THC's electorate. If a landowner does try to annex, point the city or town to this opinion and to the statute's two-path limit.
If you serve on a city or town council with land near a THC
Your annexation toolkit is narrower than usual. The standard contiguous-territory annexation under NMSA § 3-7-17 does not work for THC land. You can annex THC land only with a majority-elector petition from the THC. The Town of Taos correctly denied the single-landowner petition; this opinion confirms that denial was legally required.
If you serve on a county commission
The opinion implicitly validates the county-ordinance route to THC designation. Section 3-7-1.1(A) requires three things to designate a THC: identifiable distinctive character, more than 100 years' existence, and county-commission ordinance. If your county has communities that fit, you can use ordinance designation to give them annexation protection. The opinion notes that at least five THCs have been designated to date, three in Santa Fe County and two in Taos County.
If you're a property owner inside a THC
Your individual petition for annexation will fail. If you want city services or city zoning, you would need to either persuade a majority of qualified electors in the THC to join your petition, or work with the THC and the relevant municipality on a different solution (joint planning, service contracts, etc.).
If you're a state legislator
The 2019 amendments creating the THC annexation framework are doing what they were designed to do: protect rural, traditional, century-plus communities from forced or single-landowner-driven annexation. If you want to expand or modify the protection (e.g., to other types of communities, or with different vote thresholds), the path is statutory amendment.
Common questions
What is a traditional historic community?
Under NMSA § 3-7-1.1(A), a THC is an identifiable community with distinctive character or traditional quality that (1) can be distinguished from surrounding areas or new developments, (2) has existed for more than 100 years in an unincorporated area of a county, and (3) has been declared a THC by county-commission ordinance.
How many THCs exist in New Mexico?
The opinion notes "at least five" as of 2024: three in Santa Fe County and two in Taos County (the Los Ranchos THC being one of the Taos County designations).
Can a single landowner inside a THC ever be annexed?
Not without a majority-elector petition from the THC. The "owners of contiguous territory" route in NMSA § 3-7-17, which is the standard mechanism for individual-parcel annexations, is foreclosed for THC land by § 3-7-1.1(B).
What is the "arbitration method" of annexation?
It's an alternative annexation path described in the broader municipal annexation code. For THC land, the AG's opinion is clear that the arbitration method, like direct petition, requires a majority-of-qualified-electors petition from the THC to begin. Individual landowners cannot trigger arbitration for THC parcels.
Who counts as a "qualified elector" for the petition?
Under NMSA §§ 1-1-4(B) and 1-1-5, a qualified elector is a "voter," meaning a registered voter under the Election Code who lives within the THC boundaries.
Can the Town overrule the statute by ordinance or charter?
No. The annexation statute is a state law that cities and towns must follow. A municipal charter or ordinance cannot expand annexation authority beyond what state law allows. The AG opinion is direct: "Annexation absent the requisite petition would violate the plain language of Section 3-7-1.1 and would therefore be unlawful."
What if the THC residents change their minds and want annexation?
Then a majority of qualified electors can sign a petition for either direct annexation or the arbitration method, and the process moves forward under standard annexation procedures. The protection is community-controlled, not absolute.
Background and statutory framework
The 2019 amendments to NMSA § 3-7-1.1 added the traditional-historic-community framework to New Mexico's municipal annexation code. The framework operates in three steps:
First, designation. A county commission, by ordinance, declares a THC after finding the community satisfies the three statutory criteria (distinctive character, 100+ years' existence in an unincorporated area, county-ordinance designation). Section 3-7-1.1(A).
Second, protection. Once designated, the THC cannot be annexed by any municipality except through one of two THC-specific mechanisms. Section 3-7-1.1(B). Both mechanisms require a majority-elector petition from within the THC.
Third, application. The standard annexation routes that apply to other unincorporated land, like the contiguous-territory petition route in NMSA § 3-7-17, are not available for THC land. The 2024 opinion confirms this expressly.
The Los Ranchos THC was designated by Taos County Commission Ordinance 2022-5 in December 2022. The single-landowner annexation petition that triggered this opinion was filed earlier in 2024 with the Town of Taos. The Town Council held a public hearing where Town staff and the landowner supported annexation and THC residents opposed. The Council denied the petition. The opinion request asked whether the denial was discretionary, and the AG answered that it was required by statute.
The interpretive framework is straightforward. State v. Rivera (2004) provides the standard rule that "when a statute contains language which is clear and unambiguous, we must give effect to that language and refrain from further statutory interpretation." Section 3-7-1.1(B) is, in the AG's view, clear and unambiguous: only the two listed methods, both requiring majority-elector petitions, are permissible.
Citations
The controlling statute is NMSA § 3-7-1.1, with subsection (A) defining the THC criteria and subsection (B) restricting annexation methods. The contiguous-territory annexation route foreclosed for THCs is at NMSA § 3-7-17 (1998). "Qualified elector" is defined through NMSA §§ 1-1-4(B) (2019) and 1-1-5. The interpretive rule comes from State v. Rivera, 2004-NMSC-001, 134 N.M. 768.
Source
- Landing page: https://nmdoj.gov/publication/opinion/2024-10-opinion-traditional-historic-community-annexation/
- Original PDF: https://nmdoj.gov/wp-content/uploads/Attorney-General-Opinion-No.-2024-10.pdf
Original opinion text
August 14, 2024
OPINION
OF
RAÚL TORREZ
Attorney General
Opinion No. 2024-10
To:
The Honorable Roberto "Bobby" J. Gonzales, State Senator, District 6;
The Honorable Kristina Ortez, State Representative, District 42;
The Honorable Susan K. Herrera, State Representative, District 41
Re:
Attorney General Opinion – Traditional Historic Community Annexation
Question
Under what conditions may a municipality annex territory within the boundaries of a traditional historic community ("THC")? Specifically, is the Town of Taos ("the Town") barred from annexing any land within the Las Comunidades Del Valle De Los Ranchos Traditional Historic Community ("Los Ranchos THC") without a petition by a majority of the qualified electors within the THC?
Answer
A traditional historic community shall not be annexed by a municipality unless annexation is considered by the petition of a majority of the qualified electors within the THC. NMSA 1978, § 3-7-1.1 (2019). The plain language of the statute does not allow for any alternative method of annexation. The Town would therefore be barred from annexing any land within the Los Ranchos THC in the absence of a petition meeting the requirements of Section 3-7-1.1.
Background
A THC is defined by statute as an identifiable community with a distinctive character or traditional quality that: (1) can be distinguished from surrounding areas or new developments, (2) has existed for more than 100 years in an unincorporated area of a county, and (3) has been declared a THC by county ordinance by the board of county commissioners where the petitioning community is located. Section 3-7-1.1(A). At least five THCs have been established in New Mexico by county ordinance, three in Santa Fe County and two in Taos County. In December 2022, the Los Ranchos THC was established pursuant to Section 3-7-1.1 by Taos County Commission ordinance 2022-5.
Earlier this year a single landowner petitioned the Town for annexation of a parcel located within the Los Ranchos THC that touches Town boundaries. The Town's City Council denied the landowner's petition after a public hearing during which the landowner and Town staff supported annexation and residents of the THC opposed it. Various State Legislators now request an Attorney General Opinion on whether New Mexico law authorizes the annexation of land within the Los Ranchos THC absent the filing of a petition from a majority of all qualified electors in the THC.
Analysis
Under New Mexico law, the annexation of a THC is allowable "only by petition of a majority of the qualified electors of the territory within the traditional historic community proposed to be annexed by the municipality or by the arbitration method of annexation only upon petition of a majority of the qualified electors of the territory within the traditional historic community." Section 3-7-1.1(B) (emphasis added). The statute does not authorize any other method to annex land within the boundaries of a THC. Given the clear and unambiguous wording of the statute, to allow annexation of a THC, or even a portion of its land, by any alternative method would be contrary to the procedures established in Section 3-7-1.1. See State v. Rivera, 2004-NMSC-001, ¶ 10, 134 N.M. 768, 82 P.3d 939 (stating "when a statute contains language which is clear and unambiguous, we must give effect to that language and refrain from further statutory interpretation" (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)).
Notably, Section 3-7-1.1 requires a petition from the majority of the qualified electors of the THC, whether annexation is considered by direct petition or by petition seeking annexation by the arbitration method. "As used in all other statutes and rules of New Mexico, unless otherwise defined, 'qualified elector' means a 'voter' as that term is defined in [NMSA 1978,] Section 1-1-5 [(2019)]." NMSA 1978, § 1-1-4(B) (2019). A "voter" is "any qualified elector or federal qualified elector who is registered to vote under the provisions of the Election Code." Section 1-1-5. As such, the law requires that either of the petitions contemplated under Section 3-7-1.1 must come from the voters within the THC itself.
In this case, it does not appear that a "majority of the qualified electors" of the Los Ranchos THC has filed a petition for annexation in connection with either of the allowable statutory methods. Because the plain language of Section 3-7-1.1 specifically limits annexation to one of these two methods, it would be impermissible for the Town to annex any part of the Los Ranchos THC by any alternative method. Cf. NMSA 1978, § 3-7-17 (1998) (permitting annexation by petition of the owners of contiguous territory). Annexation absent the requisite petition would violate the plain language of Section 3-7-1.1 and would therefore be unlawful.
Conclusion
Section 3-7-1.1 clearly establishes the exclusive procedures to annex a THC, requiring a petition by the majority of the qualified electors of the THC either directly or through the arbitration process. In this case, the Town may not annex any land within the Los Ranchos THC without adhering to the process established in Section 3-7-1.1.
Please note that this opinion is a public document and is not protected by the attorney-client privilege. It will be published on our website and made available to the general public.
RAÚL TORREZ
ATTORNEY GENERAL
/s/ Seth C. McMillan
Seth C. McMillan
Deputy Solicitor General
Footnote 1: The reasoning behind developing a THC is to maintain its traditional cultures and unique character of a specific and identified community. To be able to annex part of the community, without support of the majority of the qualified electors of the THC, goes against the very rationale of designating THCs. THC status allows community members to maintain their longstanding local, rural, and traditional roots and combat unwanted changes that may potentially come with annexation. Will Hooper, Ranchos De Taos 'Historic Community' Designation Sought, TAOS NEWS, Apr. 1, 2021.