The petitioner shall complete the following portions of the face sheet:

A. name of the named official;

B. name of the local jurisdiction in which the named official has been elected;

C. name of the individual, group or organization initiating the petition; and

D. the specific charges to support recall of the named official, which shall constitute malfeasance in office, misfeasance in office or violation of oath of office.

History: 1953 Comp., § 77-4A-8, enacted by Laws 1977, ch. 308, § 8; 1985, ch. 169, § 4; 1978 Comp., § 22-7-8, recompiled and amended as § 1-25-5 by Laws 2019, ch. 212, §163.

Recompilations. — Laws 2019, ch. 212, § 163 recompiled and amended former 22-7-8 NMSA 1978 as 1-25-5 NMSA 1978, effective April 3, 2019.

The 2019 amendment, effective April 3, 2019, revised the responsibilities of the petitioner in a recall proceeding; in the section heading, added "RECALL"; deleted former Subsection A and subsection designation "B." and redesignated former Paragraph B(1) as Subsection A; added new Subsection B and redesignated former Paragraph B(2) as Subsection C and deleted former Subsection C and added new subsection designation "D."; and deleted former Subsections D through F.

Premature signing of affidavit. — Canvassers signed affidavits prior to obtaining signatures, in the mistaken belief that this was necessary before the circulation of the petitions could begin. These premature signatures of the affidavits did not invalidate the petitions or the results of the recall election. Montoya v. Lopez, 1983-NMSC-024, 99 N.M. 448, 659 P.2d 900.

Improper motive as component of misfeasance. — When a public officer has a right to perform an act which is discretionary, the manner in which the discretion is exercised does not rise to the level of misfeasance unless the discretion is exercised with an improper or corrupt motive; therefore where the school board engaged in a site selection process spanning approximately two years, including consideration of 15 sites and a myriad of relevant factors, and nothing in the record indicated that any of the challenged board members acted out of an improper or corrupt motive, there was no misfeasance. CAPS v. Board Members, 1992-NMSC-035, 113 N.M. 729, 832 P.2d 790.