Can a new political party in New Mexico collect its qualification-petition signatures electronically (DocuSign, online portals, tablets), or do they have to be on paper in pen?

Plain-English summary

Representative Kathleen Cates asked whether a new political party trying to qualify in New Mexico can collect its required signatures electronically, or whether the law forces it to gather wet-ink signatures on paper.

The answer is paper, in pen, by hand. Section 1-7-2(A) of the Election Code says the petition's required information must be "hand-printed." The AG concluded that the term excludes electronic methods, including stylus-on-tablet, because the writing is not put "on a surface" but stored as data on a device. Even if a particular electronic signature could be argued to qualify, the broader Uniform Electronic Transactions Act would conflict with Section 1-7-2's specific requirement, and under New Mexico's statutory-conflict rules, the more specific Election Code provision controls.

The opinion considers and rejects two ways out. First, Section 1-1-7.2(E), enacted in 2023, directs the Secretary of State to set up an online petition portal. The AG reads that section as covering only candidate petitions, not new-party qualification petitions. Second, the federal E-SIGN Act broadly validates electronic signatures, but Section 7004(a) of E-SIGN preserves state agency requirements for "specified standards or formats," which the AG reads to cover the Election Code's hand-printing rule.

The AG ends with a request to the Legislature: this is a close call, and a clarifying amendment would help.

What this means for you

If you are organizing a new political party in New Mexico

You need wet-ink, hand-printed signatures on paper for your qualifying petition. You cannot accept signatures collected via DocuSign, an online form, or a tablet, even if the system is otherwise legitimate. The petition needs name, signature, address of registration, and county of residence, all hand-printed. Total signatures must equal at least 0.5% of the votes cast for governor in the last general election.

Plan your signature-gathering operation accordingly. Print petition forms (the Secretary of State must make blanks available). Train circulators to verify the address and county at the point of signing. Build in time for review and validation before submission.

If a future legislative session amends Section 1-7-2 to allow electronic signatures, the answer changes immediately. Watch the 2026 and later sessions.

If you sit at the Secretary of State's office or are a county clerk

Section 1-7-2's hand-printed requirement applies to petitions for new-party qualification. The online portal under Section 1-1-7.2(E) covers candidate-petition signature collection, not party-qualification signatures. Reject electronically signed party-qualification petitions and document the basis (Section 1-7-2(A) and AGO 2025-15) when communicating the rejection.

Note also that the AG found no evidence the SOS has yet promulgated rules implementing Section 1-1-7.2(E)'s online portal. That is a separate compliance gap worth tracking.

If you advise candidates or parties on election-law strategy

The opinion sharpens the line between candidate petitions (online or paper, governed by Section 1-1-7.2) and party-qualification petitions (paper-only, governed by Section 1-7-2). The two used to be analyzed together; they are now plainly distinct under the AG's reading. Compliance plans should treat them as separate workflows.

If you litigate election-law disputes in New Mexico

The opinion provides a useful canon-by-canon walk through Section 12-2A-10(A) (specific over general; later in time qualified by specificity), the implied-repeal doctrine (Galvan v. City of Albuquerque), and the federal E-SIGN Act's savings clause (Section 7004(a)). The AG also relies on Reule Sun Corp. v. Valles for plain-meaning interpretation of "hand-printed" and analogizes to Ni v. Slocum from California for "personally affixed" signature requirements. If you are challenging or defending a hand-signature rule, the opinion is a roadmap to the relevant authorities.

Common questions

Q: Can I sign with a stylus on a tablet?
A: No. The AG reads "hand-printed" to mean printed on a surface by hand. Stylus-on-tablet writing alters liquid crystals and stores data digitally; the AG concludes that does not satisfy the hand-printed requirement.

Q: What about a digital signature pad like the ones at the DMV?
A: Same answer. The AG's analysis turns on the writing being applied to a surface and remaining there. Any electronic capture method (signature pad, tablet, online image) falls outside the requirement under the opinion's reading.

Q: Doesn't the federal E-SIGN Act override New Mexico law on this?
A: Generally federal E-SIGN does validate electronic signatures broadly. But 15 U.S.C. § 7004(a) preserves state agency requirements for filings made in "specified standards or formats." The AG concludes that the hand-printed requirement falls within that savings clause, so the federal preemption argument does not displace state law here.

Q: What about the 2023 online petition portal law?
A: Section 1-1-7.2(E) requires the Secretary of State to implement a secure internet petition application. The AG reads the language ("for a particular candidate") as limiting the portal to candidate petitions. New-party qualification petitions are not within its scope.

Q: How many signatures does a new party need?
A: 0.5% of the votes cast for governor in the last general election. The exact number changes after each gubernatorial election. Verify the current number with the Secretary of State.

Q: What happens if a new party submits an electronically signed petition?
A: The opinion concludes those signatures are not valid for qualifying a new party under current law. The Secretary of State would have a basis to reject them. If a party wants to challenge, the opinion identifies the legal arguments going both ways and notes the AG considered this a close call.

Q: Can the Legislature change this?
A: Yes, and the AG asked it to. Removing the "hand-printed" word from Section 1-7-2(A) would let the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act control and validate electronic signatures.

Background and statutory framework

To qualify as a political party in New Mexico, an organization must adopt rules and file them with the Secretary of State along with a petition signed by registered voters totaling at least 0.5% of the votes cast for governor in the last general election. Section 1-7-2 governs the procedure and requires that the petition's required information, including signatures, be "hand-printed."

Three other statutes interact with that requirement:

The New Mexico Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (NMSA 1978, §§ 14-16-1 to -21) generally validates electronic signatures: a signature may not be denied legal effect "solely because it is in electronic form" (Section 14-16-7(a)), and "if a law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies the law" (Section 14-16-7(d)). The Act covers governmental affairs, so on its face it would apply to a party-qualification petition.

Section 1-1-7.2(E), added in 2023, directs the Secretary of State to "implement a secure internet application, in addition to the paper circulation process, to gather electronic signatures." The AG reads that mandate as limited to petitions for individual candidates, not party-qualification petitions, partly because the section refers to candidate-specific petitions and partly because the implementing rules apparently have not been promulgated yet.

The federal E-SIGN Act, 15 U.S.C. § 7001(a)(1), provides that no signature in interstate commerce may be denied legal effect because it is electronic. But Section 7004(a) preserves state agency requirements for "specified standards or formats" of filings.

The opinion applies New Mexico's standard statutory-conflict rules: under Section 12-2A-10(A), a more specific provision generally prevails over a more general one, even if the general one is later in time, unless the legislature has clearly indicated an implied repeal (State ex rel. Franchini v. Oliver, 2022-NMSC-016; Galvan v. City of Albuquerque, 1975-NMSC-005). Implied repeals are disfavored.

The 2011 amendment to Section 1-7-2(A) added language about blank petition forms being available from the Secretary of State while leaving the hand-printed requirement intact. The AG treats that as evidence the Legislature meant to retain hand-printing even after the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act was enacted.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- NMSA 1978, § 1-7-2(A) (Hand-printed petition requirement)
- NMSA 1978, § 1-1-7.2 (Electronic petition portal for candidates)
- NMSA 1978, §§ 14-16-1 to -21 (Uniform Electronic Transactions Act)
- NMSA 1978, § 12-2A-10(A) (Statutory conflict resolution)
- 15 U.S.C. §§ 7001, 7004 (Federal E-SIGN Act)

Cases:
- Reule Sun Corp. v. Valles, 2010-NMSC-004
- Ni v. Slocum, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1636 (2011)
- Anderson v. Bell, 234 P.3d 1147 (Utah 2010)
- State ex rel. Franchini v. Oliver, 2022-NMSC-016
- Galvan v. City of Albuquerque, 1975-NMSC-005

Source

• Landing page: https://nmdoj.gov/publication/opinion/2025-15-opinion-validity-of-electronic-signatures-in-new-political-party-applications/
• Original PDF: https://nmdoj.gov/wp-content/uploads/AG-Opinion-2025-15-Validity-of-Electronic-Signatures-in-New-Political-Party-Applications.pdf

Original opinion text

December 23, 2025
OPINION
OF
RAÚL TORREZ
Attorney General

Opinion No. 2025-15

To:

N.M. Representative Kathleen Cates, District No. 44

Re:

Attorney General Opinion – Validity of Electronic Signatures in New Political Party
Applications
Question

When a new political party applies for qualification in New Mexico, can the required signatures
be in electronic form?
Answer
No, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 1-7-2(A) (2011), the required signatures must be hand
printed. This section supersedes the New Mexico Uniform Electronic Transactions Act for that
purpose, and it is not preempted by the federal statute establishing the general validity of electronic
signatures.
Background
Pursuant to the New Mexico Election Code, NMSA 1978 Chapter 1, a political party that seeks to
be qualified in New Mexico as such is required to complete several tasks. First, it must "adopt
rules providing for the organization and government of that party and shall file the rules with the
secretary of state." Section 1-7-2. Second, at the same time that it files the rules, it must also file a
petition with the secretary of state containing the names, signatures, addresses of registration and
counties of residence of enough voters to equal at least 0.5% of all total votes cast for the office of
governor in the last general election.
Everything on list (name, signature, address, county) must be hand-printed. However, there are
other statutes that might supersede Section 1-7-2. We address the following law herein.

New Mexico Department of Justice
408 Galisteo Street | Santa Fe, NM 87501 | (505) 490-4060 | NMDOJ.GOV

First, the New Mexico Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 14-16-1 to -21 (2001, as amended through 2013), governs the acceptance of electronic transactions as
substitutes for their paper equivalents. Under this Act, "a record or signature may not be denied
legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form." Section 14-16-7(a). Moreover,
"if a law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies the law." Section 14-16-7(d).
Further, NMSA 1978, Section 1-1-7.2(E) (2023), requires the creation of electronic portals for
certain election-related petitions. There thus may be a conflict between New Mexico statutes.
Second, federal law provides, with respect to any transaction in or affecting interstate or foreign
commerce, a signature, contract, or other record relating to such transaction may not be denied
legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form. 15 U.S.C.
§ 7001(a)(1). This language may preempt the state law described above.
However, as set forth below, it is the Opinion of this Office that Section 1-7-2 ultimately governs
the question, and electronic signatures are not currently valid for qualifying a new political party.
Analysis
A.

Conflicts in State Law

We begin with the New Mexico Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. In determining whether
there is a conflict between the Election Code and the Act, it is necessary to determine the scope of
the latter. The Act has a very broad scope, covering with a few exceptions inapplicable to this
issue, all "electronic records and electronic signatures relating to a transaction." Section 14-16-3(A). The term "transaction" is also very broad, encompassing any "action or set of actions
occurring between two or more persons relating to the conduct of business, commercial affairs or
governmental affairs." Section 14-16-2(16) (emphasis added).
In this statute, a state agency such as the secretary of state's office is considered to be a "person,"
as the term is defined as an "individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership,
limited liability company, association, joint venture, governmental agency, public corporation or
any other legal or commercial entity." Section 14-16-2(12). Relatedly, a state or federal agency is
considered to be a "governmental agency." Section 14-16-2(9). Thus, the qualification of a new
political party can reasonably be considered to be a "transaction" under Section 14-16-3(A), as it
is an action occurring between (1) an association or legal entity or its members, and (2) the
secretary of state's office, relating to the conduct of governmental affairs. Therefore, the Uniform
Electronic Transactions Act would appear to apply to petitions for new political parties in New
Mexico.
However, there would not be a conflict between the Act and Section 1-7-2 if the "hand-printed"
requirement of Section 1-7-2 does not foreclose the possibility of an electronic signature. Of
particular interest are tablet computers, in which a person can "write" on the tablet using a stylus.
In order to determine whether the "hand-printed" requirement encompasses such a device, it is
necessary to define the term, first by determining the plain meaning of "hand-printed." Reule Sun
Corp. v. Valles, 2010-NMSC-004, ¶ 15, 147 N.M. 512 ("Our statutory construction analysis begins
by examining the words chosen by the Legislature and the plain meaning of those words.").

"Hand-printed" is defined, as an adjective, as "(of numbers, letters, or designs) printed, or put on
a surface, by hand rather than by machine." Hand-printed, COLLINS ENGLISH DICTIONARY:
COMPLETE & UNABRIDGED (12th Ed. 2014). While writing on a tablet computer using a stylus is
arguably done "by hand," the words are not put on a surface. Rather, liquid crystals underneath
the surface, between two electrically conductive layers, are altered by the pressure of the stylus.
See, e.g., Cholesteric Liquid Crystal Writing Tablet with Spacer Controlled Sensitivity, U.S. Patent
No. 8,947,604, at [57] (filed Oct. 26, 2011). If the writing is saved, it is not saved on the surface.
Rather it is saved as a series of zeros and ones on a hard drive in the interior of the device. It may
be concluded that writing on a tablet computer is not "hand-printed." See Ni v. Slocum, 196 Cal.
App. 4th 1636, 1648–56 (2011) (electronic signatures do not comply with California statute
requiring such signatures to be "personally affixed").
Further, even if this particular type of electronic signature were to be considered compliant with
this section of the Election Code, the Uniform Electronic Signatures Act provides for many other
acceptable types of electronic signatures. The Act refers to any "electronic sound, symbol or
process attached to or logically associated with a record and executed or adopted by a person with
the intent to sign the record." Section 14-16-2(8). Thus, there is a conflict between the Act and the
"hand-printed" requirement of the Election Code. It should be noted that, if the term "hand-printed" were removed from this section of the Code, the Electronic Transactions Act would be
controlling, and electronic signatures would certainly be permitted for this purpose. See, e.g.,
Anderson v. Bell, 234 P.3d 1147 (Utah 2010) (holding that, where there was only a requirement
that nominating petitions be signed, without further constraints, the Uniform Electronic
Transactions Act governed, and electronic signatures were considered appropriate).
B.

Statutory Construction

The canons of statutory interpretation are useful in resolving this conflict. "If statutes appear to
conflict, they must be construed, if possible, to give effect to each. If the conflict is irreconcilable,
the later-enacted statute governs. However, an earlier-enacted specific, special or local statute
prevails over a later-enacted general statute unless the context of the later-enacted statute indicates
otherwise." NMSA 1978, § 12-2A-10(A).
First, courts "construe statutes together when possible to promote the operation and purpose of
each." TexasFile L.L.C. v. Bd. Of Cnty. Comm'rs of Lea, 2019-NMCA-038, ¶ 16 (citing Pub. Serv.
Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 1999-NMSC-040, ¶ 23, 128 N.M. 309). In order to accomplish this, it
is generally appropriate to read "a more specific statute as an exception to the provisions of a more
general statute and by giving the more specific statute the prevailing effect." Id. (citing Prod. Credt
Ass'n of S.N.M. v. Williamson, 1988-NMSC-041, ¶ 5, 107 N.M. 212). As noted above, the Uniform
Electronic Transaction Act is a very broad, general statute covering a very wide range of
transactions, both public and private. However, the provision of the Election Code at issue covers
only the very specific case of a new political party seeking qualification in the state. Accordingly,
the Election code should have prevailing effect, and handwritten signatures are required.
On the other hand, there is also a canon of statutory interpretation that gives priority to the most
recently enacted statute. See, e.g., State v. Montiel, 1952-NMSC-028, ¶ 3, 56 N.M. 181. At first
glance, this would give effect to the Electronic Transactions Act. Section 1-7-2 was first enacted,
including its "hand-printed" requirement, in 1969. The Electronic Transactions Act wasn't enacted
until 2001.
However, "as a qualification to the . . . principle of recency, if one provision is identifiable as the
more specific of the two, 'the specific section governs over the general regardless of priority of
enactment." State ex rel. Franchini v. Oliver, 2022-NMSC-016, ¶ 16 (citing Denish v. Johnson,
1996-NMSC-005, ¶ 29, 121 N.M. 280). It follows that, in the absence of legislative intent, repeals
by implication are "disfavored." State ex rel Franchini, 2022-NMSC-016, ¶ 19 (citing Galvan v.
City of Albuquerque, 1975-NMSC-005, ¶ 11, 87 N.M. 235).
Moreover, the Electronic Transactions Act is not truly "last in time." When determining whether
a "statute was last in time, one should look to the date of any amendments to the statute, which left
the relevant portions intact." Robert D. Peltz, Adrift at Sea – The Duty of Passing Ships to Rescue
Stranded Seafarers, 38 TUL. MAR. L. J. 363, 377 (2014) (citing Egle v. Egle, 715 F.2d 999, 1013
(5th Cir. 1983). Section 1-7-2 was amended in 2011. Laws 2011, ch. 137, § 49. Significantly, this
amendment added the following language to Section 1-7-2(A): "Blank petition forms shall be
available at any time from the secretary of state." When the Legislature added this language,
facilitating the filing of paper petitions, it also retained the requirement that the petitions be "hand-printed," demonstrating a strong intent that the requirement for hand-printed paper filing be
maintained.
In light of the foregoing, then, electronic signatures do not appear to be permitted in the case of
petitions for the qualification of new political parties.
C.

Recent Amendments to the Election Code

More recently, however, another section of the Election Code has been amended to require that
the secretary of state
implement a secure internet application, in addition to the paper circulation process,
to gather electronic signatures in accordance with rules developed by the secretary
of state. The secure internet application shall provide for the ability to verify that a
person signing the petition is a registered voter and is eligible to sign the petition
for a particular candidate.
Section 1-1-7.2(E).
The wording of this paragraph appears to indicate that it only applies to petitions for individual
candidates, rather than qualifying petitions for political parties. Moreover, Section 1-1-7.2, as a
whole, appears to focus on nominating petitions. However, Paragraph D of that section states that
"the procedures set forth in this section shall be used to validate signatures on any petition required
by the Election Code," with certain exceptions that are irrelevant to this issue. Section 1-1-7.2(D).

Upon review of the NMAC and the secretary of state's website, it does not appear that the rule
was promulgated as directed by the legislature.

As determined above, Section 1-1-7.2(E) is truly "last in time." Thus, it is necessary to determine
if the Legislature repealed by implication the "hand-printed" requirement for qualification of
political parties. However, "[i]f evidence indicate that the purpose of a later-adopted . . . provision,
whether general or specific, was to accomplish an implicit repeal of an earlier provision, we will
give effect to the later-adopted provision." Id.; see also Galvan, 1975-NMSC-1975, ¶ 11 (holding
that implicit repeals "will be declared where the last statute is so broad in its terms and so clear
and explicit in its words as to show it was intended to cover the whole subject, and therefore to
displace the prior statute.")
There is little evidence that, when it enacted Section 1-1-7.2(E), the Legislature intended to repeal
the "hand-printed" requirement for the qualification of new political parties. The only clear
requirements of the new paragraph are for the online portal to be usable for petitions "for a
particular candidate"—notable, not for applications qualifying new political parties. Moreover,
Section 1-1-7.2(D), which refers to "any petition required by the Election Code," refers only to the
validation of signatures, rather than the collection of them.
Further, if Section 1-1-7.2(E) refers only to use of an online portal for nominating petitions, it
allows for reconciliation with the "hand-printed" requirement of Section 1-7-2. As provisions
covering the same subject matter, they "should be harmonized and construed together when
possible." Att'y Gen. v. N.M. Pub. Reg. Comm'n, 2011-NMSC-034, ¶ 10, 150 N.M. 174 (citing
State ex rel Quintana v. Schnedar, 1993-NMSC-033, ¶ 4, 115 N.M. 573). This is admittedly a
close call, but the weight of authority indicates that the New Mexico Legislature did not intend to
repeal the requirement that signatures on petitions for the qualification of political parties be hand
printed.
D.

Federal Law Preemption

This raises the final question of whether the New Mexico "hand-printed" requirement is preempted
by federal law. The relevant federal statute provides:
Notwithstanding any statute, regulation, or other rule of law (other than this
subchapter and subchapter II), with respect to any transaction in or affecting
interstate or foreign commerce—a signature, contract, or other record relating to
such transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely
because it is in electronic form.
15 U.S.C. § 7001(a)(1).
The phrase "affecting interstate or foreign commerce" is incredibly broad, and would likely
encompass the filing of petitions for political parties, especially if the party in question is active in
other states. This would suggest that Congress intended to preempt state laws, including the New
Mexico state law requiring hand signatures on applications for new political parties. However,
another section in that subchapter explicitly states that, subject to an exception that is not germane
to this issue, "nothing in this subchapter [15 U.S.C. Sections 7001 to 7006] limits or supersedes
any requirement by a Federal regulatory agency, self-regulatory organization, or State regulatory
agency that records be filed with such agency or organization in accordance with specified
standards or formats." 15 U.S.C. § 7004(a). It is the opinion of this Office that this language
eliminates any claim that the federal statute supersedes the "specified standards or formats"
required by the Election Code—including the "hand-printed" requirement for applications for the
qualification of new political parties.
Conclusion
It is the position of this Office that the New Mexico Election Code's requirement of "hand-printed"
information on applications for the qualification of new political parties is controlling. However,
as the foregoing opinion reflects, this is a close call. We note that a clarifying amendment to the
Election Code would be useful to determine the true intent of the Legislature.

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/ Lawrence M. Marcus
Lawrence M. Marcus
Assistant Solicitor General