A. A commissioner or hearing examiner shall recuse himself in any adjudicatory proceeding in which he is unable to make a fair and impartial decision or in which there is reasonable doubt about whether he can make a fair and impartial decision, including:
(1) when he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or its representative or has prejudged a disputed evidentiary fact involved in a proceeding prior to hearing. For the purposes of this paragraph, "personal bias or prejudice" means a predisposition toward a person based on a previous or ongoing relationship, including a professional, personal, familial or other intimate relationship, that renders the commissioner or hearing examiner unable to exercise his functions impartially;
(2) when he has a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the proceeding other than as a customer of a party;
(3) when in previous employment he served as an attorney, adviser, consultant or witness in the matter in controversy; or
(4) when, as a candidate for office, he announced how he would rule on the adjudicatory proceeding or a factual issue in the adjudicatory proceeding.
B. If a commissioner or hearing examiner fails to recuse himself when it appears that grounds exist, a party shall promptly notify the commissioner or hearing examiner of the apparent grounds for recusal. If the commissioner or hearing examiner declines to recuse himself upon request of a party, he shall provide a full explanation in support of his refusal to recuse himself.
History: Laws 1998, ch. 108, § 18.
ANNOTATIONSCompiler's notes. — Laws 2020, ch. 9, § 22 recompiled and amended former 8-8-18 NMSA 1978 as part of Chapter 62, Article 19 NMSA 1978, effective January 1, 2023, contingent upon certification by the secretary of state that the constitution of New Mexico has been amended as proposed by a joint resolution of the first session of the fifty-fourth legislature (Laws 2019, SJC/SRC/SJR Nos. 1 and 4, CA #1) at the general election to be held on November 3, 2020. See 62-19-7 NMSA 1978.
Recusal not warranted. — Commissioners properly declined to recuse themselves since the timing of their remarks indicated that they were based on the evidence adduced in the rate case, as well the direct testimony filed by the public service company of New Mexico (PNM) in the present case. Albuquerque Bernalillo Cnty. Water Util. Auth. v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n, 2010-NMSC-013, 148 N.M. 21, 229 P.3d 494.