#3 State Constitutional Law Lecture: Affirmative Rights and Interpretive Approaches

This set of vocabulary flashcards covers concepts regarding affirmative rights in New Mexico, specifically the Yazzie-Martinez and Atencio cases, as well as the three major interpretive approaches (Lockstep, Primacy, and Interstitial) used to evaluate state versus federal constitutional rights.

Affirmative Rights

Rights that require the state government to take sufficient action or provide a certain level of service, such as the right to education in Yazzie-Martinez.

Yazzie-Martinez

A landmark case in New Mexico that successfully articulated and established a judicially enforceable affirmative right against the state.

Atencio

A New Mexico case involving a pollution control provision where plaintiffs unsuccessfully sought to establish a broad affirmative right for state-led environmental protection.

Analogous Negative Rights

Rights present in the federal constitution, such as free speech or protection against unreasonable searches, that have substantially similar textual counterparts in state constitutions.

State v. Gomez

A Supreme Court case used to explain the different ways state courts analyze the relationship between analogous federal and state constitutional rights.

Lockstep Approach

An interpretive method where state courts apply a state constitutional right in the exact same way and scope as the corresponding federal right.

Primacy

An interpretive doctrine described by Judge Sutton where the state court begins its analysis with the state right; if the claimant wins under the state right, the federal right is never reached.

Interstitial Approach

The interpretive method used in New Mexico where the court starts with the federal right and only turns to the state right if the federal right does not provide protection.

Linda Vanzi and Mark Baker

New Mexico attorneys who authored a law review article discussing the relationship between analogous federal and state constitutional rights.