IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. ‘THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex rel, MARIA PEREZ, CRAIG O’HARE, ELLEN ACKERMAN, SAGE BIRD, and ANNE NOSS, Petitioners, vs. Docket Number: CITY COUNCIL OF SANTA. FE, NEW MEXICO, and MAYOR JAVIER GONZALES, as the governing body of the City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, Respondents. EMERGENCY VERIFIED PETITION FOR ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN MANDAMUS Rule 12-305(G)(4) Noti Petitioner requests oral argument pursuant to Rule 12-319(B)(1) NMRA Submitted by Counsel for the Petitioners: Teresa Isabel Leger Cynthia A. Kiersnowski Leger Law & Strategy, LLC 414 Old Taos Highway Santa Fe, NM 87501 Phone: (505) 982-3622 Fax: (505) 559-4779 teresa@legerlawandstrategy.com cindy@legerlawandstrategy.com‘TRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF PETITION On March 4, 2008, the voters of the City of Santa Fe, N.M. (“Santa Fe” or “City”) voted to amend the City Charter to, among other things, require that candidates for municipal office be elected in an instant runoff election through a ranked choice voting ("RCV") system (the "RCV Amendment"). The RCV Amendment directed that RCV was to be used in the 2010 elections or as soon as: 1) the equipment and software to tabulate votes is available, and 2) the price is reasonable. Nine years after passing the charter amendment, the voters of Santa Fe are still waiting to cast their votes using Ranked Choice Voting. Although it's arguable whether the prerequisites to give effect to the RCV Amendment were met in the past, they are in place now. The software used in all of New Mexico’s voting machines in the 2018 elections will have an RCV module that is consistent with the City Charter. New Mexico’s Secretary of State is making it available to the City at no cost. Unfortunately, the City Council voted on June 28, 2017 and July 26, 2017 to NOT adopt RCV for the March 2018 elections, Only the Mayor and City Councilors Villareal and Maestas voted in favor of implementing RCV. Since the prerequisites for implementing RCV—equipment and tabulation software available at a reasonable price—have been met, Petitioners are forced to seek an Emergency Alternative Writ of Mandamus to “give effect to the expressedwill of the electorate.” Gonzales v. MRGCG, 1987-NMCA-125, 6, 106 N.M. 426. Petitioners’ request is limited to a Court order that the City follow the City Charter and implement RCV for the March, 2018 municipal election. We are not asking this Court to make any decisions on education or training on RCV since these important policy choices are within the discretionary authority of the City and can be made by the City over the next 6 months. PARTIES Petitioners 1. To have standing in a case of this nature, the petition must be brought by "any citizen whose rights are affected in common with those of the public. Such person is beneficially interested’ in the enforcement of the laws." State ex rel. Burg v. City of Albuquerque, 1926-NMSC-031, 20, 31 N.M. 576. 2. Petitioners Maria Perez, Ellen Ackerman, Craig O'Hare, Sage Bird, and Anne Noss each reside in the City of Santa Fe. Each Petitioner is registered and qualified to vote in Santa Fe elections. Santa Fe, N.M. Mun. Charter, art. IV, § 4.02 (1997 amended through 2014) (“Charter”); Perez Aff. 1, attached as Exhibit 1 to and made a part of this Petition by reference; Bird Aff. {| 1, attached as Exhibit 2 to and made a part of this Petition by reference; Ackerman Aff. 1, attached as Exhibit 3 to and made a part of this Petition by reference; O’Hare Aff. 1, attached as Exhibit4 to and made a part of this Petition by reference; Noss Aff. { 1, attached as Exhibit 5 toand made a part of this Petition by reference. 3. Petitioners have a beneficial interest, along with the public interest, in compelling the City to comply with the will of the electorate to implement RCV voting as required by the City Charter and, therefore, have standing. Their views on why this is an important voting right are set out more fully in their affidavits. 4. Voting for your elected leaders is the foundation of a democratic society. The Santa Fe electorate voted to elect their City Officials in instant run-off elections so that the winning candidates would have to gain the support of a majority of Santa Fean voters, 2008 Regular Municipal Election Results, City of Santa Fe, https://www.santafenm.gov/media/files/eity_clerk/March_4 2008 ELECTION R ESULTS pdf (“2008 Election Results”). There can be no greater public interest than voting: “a fundamental transaction which sustains our representative democracy.” State ex rel, League of Woman Voters v. Herrera, 2009-NMSC-003, 9, 145 N.M. 563 (granting the emergency writ eleven days before the election). Respondents 5. Respondent, Santa Fe City Council, along with Respondent, Mayor Javier Gonzales, are the Governing Body for the City. Charter, § 6.01 6. The Governing Body has the authority to pass election resolutions and authorize budgets. The City Clerk, Yolanda Vigil, is responsible for conducting City 4elections, but must do so con istent with the Governing Body's authority. NMSA. 1978, § 3-12-3(A)(7); Charter, §§ 4.04, 5.01D; SFCC 1987, § 2-17. 7. The Mayor and City Council are sued in their official capacities, JURISDICTION 8. This Court has original jurisdiction over this cause and the parties because the case "presents a purely legal issue that is a fundamental constitutional question of great public importance." State ex rel. League of Women Voters v. Advisory Comm. to the New Mexico Compilation Comm’n, No. S-1-SC-35524, slip op. at 10 (August 3, 2017) (citation omitted). 9. The New Mexico Constitution was amended in 2004 to allow home rule municipalities to hold runoff elections if the municipality adopts a charter pursuant to Article 10, Section 6 of the Constitution of New Mexico. NM. Const. art. VII § 53). 10, In 2008, Santa Fe, a home rule municipality, submitted to the voters a Charter ‘Amendment for instant runoffs through RCV, which read in its entirety: CHARTER AMENDMENT 5 RANKED CHOICE VOTING Proposing to amend the Santa Fe Municipal Charter, Article IV, to create a new Section 4.06 to require that candidates for municipal office be elected by a majority of voters through a ranked choice voting system that combines the initial vote with an "instant" runoff in a single 5election. The instant runoff is achieved by allowing voters to rank, in order of their preference, each candidate for mayor, city councilor and municipal judge. If, after counting all voters’ first choices listed on their ballots for an office, no candidate has received a majority of votes cast, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. Each ballot listing the eliminated candidate as first choice is then recounted using that ballot's second choice. If still no candidate for the office has received a majority, the process is repeated until a candidate receives a majority of votes for that office. Ranked choice voting would go into effect commencing with the regular municipal election in March 2010 or as soon thereafter when equipment and software for tabulating the votes and allowing correction of incorrectly marked, in-person ballots are available at a reasonable price. City of Santa Fe Resolution No. 2007-103 (November 14, 2007). 11. The RCV Amendment passed by an overwhelming majority, with 65% voting in favor of the amendment and only 35% voting against it. It had landslide support across each of the City’s four districts. 2008 Election Results at 2. 12. By adopting the RCV Amendment in 2008, the voters of Santa Fe exercised their State Constitutional right to elect City officials by majority vote through runoff elections.' Ifelections matter, compelling timely compliance with the 2008 election results is a matter of great public and constitutional importance. ' Additionally, ranked choice voting is constitutional even in the absence of that constitutional amendment, because under ranked choice voting, the candidate "who receives the highest numbers of votes" is elected to office, after the complete round- by-round tabulation. See Dudum v. Arntz, 640 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2011) (The winner could under RCV be defined as the candidate who receives a plurality of the total votes cast.). However, the people of Santa Fe legitimately used the New Mexico Constitution's runoff provisions as the vehicle for adopting RCV as was their perogative.13, Rule 12-504 B(1)(b) NMRA requires that we set out the circumstances making it necessary and proper to seek the writ in the Supreme Court even though the petition might lawfully have been brought in State District Court in the first instance. In addition to positing a question of great public importance, petitioners are also faced with a time constraint. The City Council voted in June and July NOT to implement RCV. The next city election is on March 6, 2018. Charter, § 4.01. If elections matter, the will of the voters must be exercised in the 2018 election. Every election matters and if we file the petition in district court, a drawn-out appeal process could nullify voters’ ability to have a court mandate the implementation of. Charter Section 4.06 for the March 6, 2018 election. GROUNDS ‘The Prerequisites to Make the RCV Amendment Effective Have Been Met and Ranked Choice Voting is Required by Law 14, Section 4.06 of the Charter requires that RCV voting commence as early as “March 2010, or as soon thereafter” as the tabulating equipment and software “is available at a reasonable price.” Once these conditions are met, the Governing Body and City Clerk must take the ministerial steps necessary to implement the RCV Amendment.15, Under the Charter, the Governing Body cannot delay the implementation of RCV for reasons unrelated to the availability of the necessary equipment and software at a reasonable price The Software Became Available When the Secretary of State Acquired It for the 2018 Elections 16. Other jurisdictions have been electing candidates using RCV on available voting software, or through hand or spreadsheet tabulation methods, for many years. See Bartlett Aff. 3, attached as Exhibit 6 to and made a part of this Petition by reference. 17. Voting using RCV for the first time will be new to the City and candidates, including incumbent Councilors, who will be running for office. It is understandable that City Councilors and the Mayor may have questions or concems. However, a fear of change, new political circumstances, or even a rehashing of why this wasn’t implemented years ago is not relevant to the petition before this Court. The only pertinent question is whether the equipment and software to tabulate the votes and allow for correction of marked ballots is available at a reasonable price for use in the 2018 elections. Itis. 18. Dominion Voting Systems, Inc. ("Dominion") is the state-wide voting system vendor of equipment and election programming software under contract with the Secretary of State’s office. Toulouse Oliver Aff. 4 4, attached as Exhibit 7 to andmade a part of this Petition by reference. In October of 2016, Dominion demonstrated to the City and staff the RCV software it uses and even took a voting, machine to the meeting. Santa Fe City Council Minutes Excerpts at 33 (June 28, 2017), attached as Exhibit 8 to and made a part of this Petition by reference; Santa Fe City Council Minutes Excerpts (July 26, 2017) at 38, 55, attached as Exhibit 9; Perez Aff. 9; Timeline Regarding Ranked Choice Voting (City Clerk, Yolonda Vigil, incorporated as Ex. 7 to the June 28, 2017 Minutes). 19. The City did not enter into a licensing agreement with Dominion. Instead, on or about May 4, 2017, the Secretary of State and Dominion agreed to include the RCV module in the update to the most current software the state would use in 2018. ‘Toulouse Oliver Aff. 12. The Secretary of State requested the functionality for RCV because the City of Santa Fe’s Charter calls for RCV. /d. 48. Accordingly, as of May 4, 2017, RCV became available to the City for use in the 2018 elections. RCV will be on the software in the machines the City will use on March 6, 2018. 20. ‘The City Clerk and City Councilors expressed concerns that they could not pass an ordinance to implement RCV because the election software that includes RCV had not been certified. Ex. 8 at 20; Ex. 9 at 56. Section 4.06 of the Charter does not require an implementing ordinance. In contrast, the voters did require that ordinances be debated with public input for other election Charter amendments. See Charter, §§ 4.05, 4.07-4.08, As a matter of statutory construction, the Court andCouncil should not impute to Section 4.06 the requirement of an implementing ordinance when the voters specifically did not include it. Rusello v. United States, 464 US. 16, 23 (1983). 21, Regarding certification, New Mexico law requires that the software used in voting machines be tested by a federal lab, the Voting Systems Test Lab ("VSTL") and recertified by the Secretary of State after every Presidential election. NMSA 1978 § 1-9-14; 52 U.S.C. § 20971. Dominion upgraded its voting software after the 2016 election. (Democracy Suite 5.4) It now includes numerous technical and functionality improvements such as enhancing the voter assist functions for impaired voters, as well as the RCV module. Toulouse Oliver Aff. { 7. 22, Dominion completed the statutory requirement of obtaining a VSTL Report and applied to the New Mexico Secretary of State for certification in New Mexico ‘on August 24, 2018. Toulouse Oliver Aff. 17. 23. The Secretary of State informed the City Council that she anticipated completing the certification process with plenty of time for on-site testing and preparation before the March, 2018 municipal election.” Letter of July 26, 2017 to City Council, attached as Exhibit 10 to and made a part of this Petition by reference; Toulouse Oliver Aff. 417. The timeline is “on track for certification by or before September 29, 2017.” Id.24. “The certification of Democracy 5.4 is not because of the inclusion of RCV as a component of the software upgrade. ‘The certification is necessary because the entire software suite to be used in [New Mexico's] voting machines has been upgraded and improved.” Toulouse Oliver Aff. 19. 25, If there are problems with Democracy Suite 5.4, it will be the Secretary of State’s job to “ensure that Dominion addresses those problems so that we have the certified software available to run our state and local elections in 2018.” Toulouse Oliver Aff. $23. 26. While the City Council voted against using RCV for the 2018 elections, in part because they voiced concern about the certification timing, the City Clerk is making plans for the 2018 election even though the software to run that election is not yet certified. If itis true that election software is not available to the City until it is certified, then they should not be making any plans to conduct elections. 27. As the Seoretary of State notes in her affidavit, “[e]ven though Democracy Suite 5.4 has not yet been certified for use in New Mexico, election officials are moving forward with their duties to implement the 2018 elections. This is because the certification of the software is a technical component of the elections. It proceeds. concurrently with the candidate notification, filing deadlines and election notice requirements.” The certification process is a routine occurrence that in the Secretary iof State’s words “has never prevented my ability as an election official to accordingly plan for or conduct elections.” Toulouse Oliver Aff. $f] 26-27. 28. The Election Code does not condition the early part of the election calendar on having the software and equipment certified. Indeed, the City Clerk will not complete her mandated certification of the machines and software until seven days before the election, NMSA 1978, § 3-8-14(). 29. The Court should “confer a heightened degree of deference to the agency on legal questions that determine fundamental policies within the scope of the agency's statutory function.” Atty. Gen. v. Public Regulation Com'n, 2013-NMSC-042, {| 12, 309 P.3d 89 (citations omitted). We suggest that the Supreme Court defer to the Secretary of State on the certification issue since it is her responsibility to ensure that the election machines and software are ready for use by election day. The Equipment and Software is Available at a Reasonable Price 30. According to the City Clerk, on October 2, 2015 Dominion reduced the price to license the software from $350,000 to $39,500, This was a deep discount from the amount that other jurisdictions pay because Santa Fe is such a small municipality compared to Oakland, Berkeley, and the City and County of San Francisco. Ex. 8 at 33; Perez Aff. 5 31. But the City did not have to pay any licensing fee because the Secretary of State's Office is providing it at “no charge to the city.” Toulouse Oliver Aff. 13. 1232. Accordingly, the equipment and software is available for free - which must be considered a reasonable price ~satisfying the second prong of the RCV amendment. The City Mlegally Refused to Implement RCY for the 2018 Election 33. At the City Council meeting held on June 28, 2017, the City Council voted on a motion "to not employ ranked choice voting at this time ...." Ex. 8 at 41. The Motion passed by a vote of 4 to 3. "Mayor Javier Gonzalez, Councilors Maestas and Villareal voted against the Motion. Councilors Rivera, Trujillo, Lindell, and Harris voted to not employ RCV. Jd. 34, On July 26, 2017, at the request of Councilor Maestas, the Council voted to rescind the decision taken on June 28, 2017. Ex. 9 at 40, 35. After significant discussion, Councilor Maestas, seconded by Councilor Villareal moved to "to direct staff to move forward with Ranked Choice Voting for the March 2018 Municipal Election, subject to the condition of certification of the Dominion software upgrade by September 25, 2017 ...." ‘The motion failed to pass by a vote of 3 for and 6 against. The Council next voted on Councilor Rivera’s motion "to not implement Ranked Choice Voting for the 2018 City Election.” /d. at 59-60. Rivera’s motion passed by a vote of 6 to 3 with the same councilors aligned on the question as in the previous motions. Id. 36. During the July 26, 2017 Council meeting's public comment period, Frank Katz, who was the City Attorney in 2008, stated that once the Secretary of State 13certifies the new voting system as expected, the Governing Body will be mandated to implement RCV, and that he was concerned that failure to do so could result in them “getting sued.” /d.at 34. In response, Kelly Brennan, the current City Attorney stated “whatever this body decides, assuming it is based on good reasons is defensible, ... if you believe it would be irresponsible to go forward for any number of reasons.” Id. at 50. 37. Ms. Brennan and those City Councilors who voted against using RCV because they had good reasons around the need for voter education, to not rush things or because of concerns that it would burden the City Clerk, miss the point. Using RCV is not discretionary. ‘The City Council cannot delay its implementation once the software is available at a reasonable cost. Under Lovato v. City of Albuquerque, 1987-NMSC-086, 6, 106 N.M. 287, "[{Jhe act to be compelled must be ministerial, that is, an act or thing which the public official is required to perform by direction of law upon a given state of facts being shown to exist, regardless of his own opinion as to the propriety or impropriety of doing the act in the particular case." (citations omitted). The given “state of facts” is that RCV software will be available on the City voting machines in 2018 for free. The City Council must implement the law. The Councilors’ good faith opinions on the “propriety or impropriety” of acting according to the Charter cannot overturn the will of the voters. 14The City Council’s Concerns About Sufficient Time for Voter Education and Other Matters Cannot Overrule the Charter’s Clear Direction to Implement RCV When the Software Is Available at a Reasonable Cost 38. _ Where the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, as the Effective Date of the RCV Amendment is, the Governing Body cannot impose additional requirements before RCV is implemented. Rainbo Baking Co. of El Paso, TX v. Commissioner of Revenue, 1972-NMCA-139, 84 N.M. 303. If the Governing Body wishes to impose additional requirements to the RCV Amendment, it may do so by farther amendment, but such amendment must first be approved by Santa Fe voters. Charter, § 10.02. 39. In addition, the City Councilors’ concerns about sufficient time to implement RCV education plans could have been mitigated if they would have taken action after they first saw the demonstration of RCV on the Dominion machines in 2016. Or they could have acted on June 28, 2017 or July 26, 2017. The delays are of the City Council’s making. They’ve created a self-fulfilling cycle of not acting and thereafter claiming there is no time to act, and therefore they shouldn’t act. 40. While Section 4.06 is clear on when RCV should be implemented, we acknowledge it is important that the City use the time available to it to provide notice to the candidates and conduct voter education. 41. As of the date of filing this petition, we are six months away from the municipal election. The City can, within those six months, make decisions it deems 15best about voter education and notification to candidates. See Kleppner Aff. § 14, attached as Exhibit 11 to and made a part of this Petition by reference (regarding best practices for running RCV elections and resources available to the City), Asan example, North Carolina conducted a state-wide election using RCV in just 86 days. Bartlett Aff. 44. 42. If the City believes that it should announce the use of RCV in the Election Resolution only after certification, the Election Resolution can be adopted as late as November 7, 2017 which is 37 days after the anticipated certification of Democracy Suite 5.4. ‘The candidate filing date-isn’t until December 5, 2017. Ex. 8 (Timeline Regarding Ranked Choice Voting). 43, The City has the ability to hold special Council meetings and has a fairly short notice period for its agenda items. SFCC 1987, § 2-1.12. This flexibility in noticing and holding City Council meetings gives the City the ability to timely make the choices it believes are important to run a successful 2018 election with RCV. 44, In addition to the City’s educational outreach, community based and voter advocacy groups have offered, and intend, to conduct voter education on RCV. Perez Aff. 4 8. 45. Other cities with comparable numbers of registered voters to Santa Fe have conducted effective voter education about RCV in as little as four months. Kleppner Aff. Jf 5-6,11.46. ‘The Secretary of State also believes that a vigorous voter education campaign on RCV is needed before the March, 2018 Municipal elections. In her experience as the County Clerk for the State’s largest County, and as the head election officer in the State, she believes that “a good education campaign can be done on RCV before the March 6, 2018 municipal election.” Toulouse Oliver Aff. 4 16. 47. ‘There was significant discussion in the City Council meetings regarding the nuances around programming the software for Rank Choice Voting and the time it might take to make those decisions. Ex. 9 at 47. Democracy 5.4 contains an RCV module that is already programmed to perform the tasks as set out in the City Charter Section 4.06: it can tabulate ranked votes for up to 10 candidates and it allows for correction of incorrectly marked ballots. Toulouse Oliver Aff. 10. The most candidates to run for office in Santa Fe is five. There are very few “nuances” that must be decided by the Governing Body since the software itself is already programmed consistent with Santa Fe’s charter. /d. 11. The City Councilors and City Clerk can also look to the City of Oakland’s rules which are consistent with Santa Fe’s Charter to assist them in making timely decisions, Bartlett Aff. 4 8. 48, The Governing Body's duty to implement RCV for the 2018 election is not discretionary since the preconditions for implementation have been met. The Governing Body has no choice but to implement it and thereafter make whatever discretionary decisions they want within the time that remains before the election. 17‘The Petition Does Not Seek an Order on Any Discretionary Choices 49. There are of course many discretionary acts involved in conducting the municipal election including the voter education component discussed above. Petitioners are not asking the Court to mandate any discretionary policy choices Petitioners are merely trying to compel the Governing Body to comply with the law and conduct the 2018 election using the RCV software that will be in the voting machines deployed on March 6, 2018. Mandamus is Appropriate and Petitioners Have No Other Plain, Speedy and Adequate Remedy 50. "Mandamus is the proper remedy where the public official refuses or delays to act, and it will compel action if the law requires the official to act one way or another." Lovato, 1987-NMSC-086, 6; E! Dorado at Santa Fe, Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 1976-NMSC- 029, { 5, 9 N.M. 3131; see also State ex rel. League of Woman Voters, 2009-NMSC-003 (mandamus was the appropriate remedy to compel the Secretary of State to enforce statute regarding vote counting). 51. The term "remedy in the ordinary course of law" has been defined as: “(a) a remedy in damages; (b) a remedy by appeal to a higher court; and (c) an administrative remedy.” Charles T. Dumars & Michael B. Browde, Mandamus in New Mexico, 4N.M. L. Rev. 155, 173 (1974). Clearly there are no damages that can remedy voters for improper administration of the city election. In addition, the 18delays inherent in seeking an appeal from a district court ruling could make the case moot and, therefore, inadequate. Lastly, there is no administrative remedy available to compel the Governing Body and City Clerk to conduct instant runoff elections using RCV. The City Council twice voted against using RCV, making this Petition ripe and appropriate for Court action. 52. The Governing Body in its June and July decisions refused to implement Section 4.06 of the Charter. If this Court does not compel them to do so, the voters of Santa Fe will be denied their right under the New Mexico Constitution to elect their next mayor, councilors, and judge in an instant run-off election as mandated in the Charter. 53. Each election matters. The upcoming 2018 election is even more significant because of the revised mayoral position with increased responsibilities. The voters deserve the right to elect the next mayor with a strong mandate that RCV could provide. 54. Petitioners seek an Alternative Writ of Mandamus because we recognize the Court will want to hear from the City. However, we respectfully request that the Court set an expedited response and oral argument schedule so that the Court can render its decision by September 30, 2017. RELIEF WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectively request this Honorable Court to: 19A. accept this matter and schedule the response and oral argument on an expedited basis; B. issue an Altemative Writ of Mandamus to compel Respondents to comply with their non-discretionary duty to authorize and implement RCV for the March 6, 2018 municipal election in Santa Fe; and C. pay Petitioners’ costs related to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Santa Fe, NM 87501 Phone: (50S) 982-3622 Fax: (505) 559-4779 teresa@legerlawandstrategy.com cindy@legerlawandstrategy.com 20VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW MEXICO _) COUNTY OF SANTA FE } = Maria Perez, being first duly sworn, upon oath states: My name is Maria Perez. I am a petitioner in this matter. I have read over, know and understand the contents of the foregoing petition. The statements therein are true based on my knowledge, except those statements that are based on the affidavits of the other affiants, which upon information and belief, I believe to be true. Maria Perez SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 24 day of August, 2017. my oY Notary Public OFFICIAL SEAL} b jehbie V. Martinez ( NoraRY puaLic st Sat uBSaco My Commision Expron h/a/ 202, My Commission expires: gif 21STATEMENT OF RULE 12-504(H) NMRA COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Rule 12-504(H) NMRA, this Emergency Verified Petition for Writ of ‘Mandamus complies with the type-volume limitation in Rule 12-504(G)(3) NMRA: the body of the Petition is prepared using a proportionally-spaced type style or typeface (Times New Roman, 14 point) and contains exactly 4,532 words, obtained using the word count feature in Microsoft Word 365. Teresa Babel Leger 22Certificate of Service Ihereby certify that prior to filing, pursuant to Rule 12-504(E) NMRA, a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served by hand-delivery on the Santa Fe City Attomey for Respondents and the Attomey General. A conformed copy will be delivered upon filing, Kelly Brennan, Attorney for Respondents Mayor Javier Gonzales and City Council City of Santa Fe, New Mexico 200 Lincoln Avenue Santa Fe, NM 87501-1904 Attorney General Honorable Hector Balderas, Attorney General ‘New Mexico Attorney General's Office 408 Galisteo Street P.O. Box 1508 Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508 23Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 LIST OF EXHIBITS Affidavit of Maria Perez Affidavit of Sage Bird Affidavit of Ellen Ackerman. Affidavit of Craig O'Hare Affidavit of Anne Noss Affidavit of Gary Bartlett Affidavit of Maggie Toulouse Oliver Santa Fe City Council Minutes Excerpts (June 28, 2017) Santa Fe City Council Minutes Excerpts (July 26, 2017) Letter of July 26, 2017 to Santa Fe City Council Affidavit of Caleb Kleppner 24