This post expresses the views and opinions of the author(s) and not necessarily that of 2nd Life Media Alamogordo Town News management or staff.

When “Shall” No Longer Means Shall 

For decades, Republicans across the country have proudly described themselves as the party of law and order.

That phrase has always meant more than supporting police officers or demanding accountability in government. At its core, it means believing that rules matter, written laws matter, and institutions only survive when those entrusted with authority follow the rules as written—not selectively, not politically, and not only when convenient.

Ronald Reagan once stated:

“The rule of law is the foundation of every free society. It is not enough that laws exist; they must be obeyed equally, fairly, and without favoritism. Our freedoms depend on the consistent and impartial application of these laws by those entrusted to enforce them.”

That statement captures the very heart of the current controversy inside the Republican Party of New Mexico.

Because the issue now confronting the party is not merely procedural or political. It is whether written rules actually remain binding when they become inconvenient to those in power.

At the center of the controversy is a simple sentence contained in the party’s Uniform State Rules:

“When a state party officer files for public office and another Republican has filed for the same office, the officer shall immediately vacate the party office.”

The language could hardly be clearer.

The triggering condition is straightforward:

• a state party officer files for office,
  and
• another Republican has filed for the same office.

Once those conditions exist, the rule states the officer:

“shall immediately vacate.”

Not “may.”
Not “should consider.”
Not “at some later time.”

Immediately.

Yet despite the clarity of the rule, an interpretation has emerged attempting to redefine one critical phrase:

“has filed.”

That interpretation appears designed to argue that a filing does not truly count until some later stage of the election process—perhaps certification, ballot qualification, or another procedural milestone.

But that interpretation is not supported by the rule itself, ordinary legal meaning, or longstanding principles of legal construction.

Under Black’s Law Dictionary, one of the most widely relied upon legal dictionaries in American jurisprudence, “filing” is generally defined as:

Delivering a document to the proper authority for official record keeping.

In plain English:
a person “has filed” once the filing documents are officially submitted.

Not later.
Not after political approval.
Not after leadership recognition.

The filing itself is the triggering act.

If the drafters intended the rule to apply only after certification or ballot qualification, they could have written that into the rule. They did not.

The rule does not say:

• “has qualified,”
• “has been certified,”
• or “has officially appeared on the ballot.”

It says:

“has filed.”

Courts consistently hold that when language is clear, it must be interpreted according to its ordinary meaning.

In State v. Ogden, the New Mexico Supreme Court emphasized that plain language is the primary indicator of intent. Likewise, in State v. Rowell, the Court held that words must be given their ordinary meaning unless doing so creates an absurd result.

There is nothing absurd about interpreting “has filed” to mean exactly what it says.

The absurdity comes from pretending an official filing somehow is not actually a filing until later procedural events occur.

The United States Supreme Court has similarly warned against interpretations that rewrite clear text. In McPherson v. Blacker, the Court explained that when language is plain and clear, interpreters cannot narrow or enlarge the text beyond its actual wording.

That matters here because the current interpretation effectively attempts to insert language into the rule that does not exist.

Equally important is the word:

“shall.”

Under longstanding legal construction, “shall” creates a mandatory duty.

The rule states the officer:

“shall immediately vacate.”

Not later.
Not conditionally.
Immediately.

Attempting to reinterpret mandatory language into discretionary language is not interpretation—it is revision.

And once rules become subject to revision by interpretation, they stop functioning as binding rules at all.

The purpose of the rule itself is also unmistakable.

USR 1-4-4 exists to:

• prevent conflicts of interest,
• preserve neutrality,
• and separate party authority from contested candidacies.

That purpose makes complete sense.

A party officer holds institutional authority:

• influence over communications,
• internal operations,
• party resources,
• and organizational visibility.

Once that officer becomes a candidate in a contested race, the neutrality issue arises immediately—not months later after certification or ballot printing.

That is why the rule is triggered by filing itself.

Because filing is the moment the candidacy officially begins.

Any interpretation delaying the rule’s application recreates the exact conflict the rule was designed to prevent.

And that creates serious legal and constitutional concerns.

The Equal Protection Clause requires that similarly situated individuals be treated equally under governing rules. If one candidate’s filing counts immediately while another candidate’s filing supposedly does not count yet, then the rules are no longer being applied uniformly.

Likewise, the Due Process Clause requires clear and predictable standards. If leadership can redefine when a filing “really counts,” then enforcement becomes arbitrary and subjective.

Courts have repeatedly rejected systems where rules mean different things depending on who is affected.

In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for uniform standards in election-related systems. In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court condemned facially neutral rules that are administered unequally depending on the individual involved.

Those principles apply here whether some wish to acknowledge it or not.

But the problems inside the Republican Party of New Mexico extend beyond a single rule. Increasingly, the controversy reveals a broader and more troubling issue: a growing disregard for basic parliamentary law itself.

One of the most alarming examples has been the apparent invention or reliance upon something referred to as the “Rule of the Gavel.”

There is one major problem with that:
there is no recognized parliamentary authority known as the “Rule of the Gavel” in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised.

None.

Not as a legitimate governing doctrine.
Not as a procedural override.
Not as a mechanism allowing a chair to ignore motions, silence members, bypass rules, or unilaterally control proceedings.

Robert’s Rules exists for the exact opposite reason: to prevent governance by personal authority.

Parliamentary procedure was developed over centuries to ensure:

• fairness,
• orderly debate,
• minority rights,
• majority rule,
• and institutional accountability.

Under Robert’s Rules:

• the assembly is supreme,
• not the chair.

The chair presides over the body; the chair does not become the body.

That distinction is fundamental.

The idea that a presiding officer can effectively control outcomes by “the gavel” is precisely the type of arbitrary authority parliamentary law was designed to prevent.

Under Robert’s Rules:

• rulings of the chair may be appealed,
• members retain procedural rights,
• motions cannot simply be ignored,
• and the chair cannot unilaterally suspend governing rules.

There is no legitimate parliamentary doctrine allowing the chair to override adopted rules merely through control of the meeting.

In fact, Robert’s Rules repeatedly warns against exactly that type of conduct.

The gavel is symbolic of order—not personal power.

When organizations begin inventing parliamentary concepts that do not exist in recognized authority, it signals a deeper institutional problem: rules are no longer being treated as binding limitations on leadership.

Instead, procedure becomes whatever leadership says it is in the moment.

That is not parliamentary governance.
That is arbitrary governance.

And it directly contradicts the conservative principles Republicans traditionally claim to defend.

Ronald Reagan also stated:

“Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.”

Reagan understood something many modern political organizations seem to forget: legal order depends on leaders being willing to submit themselves to the same rules they expect everyone else to follow.

Similarly, political analyst Michael Baroneobserved that the Founders obeyed constitutional rules and that leaders who disregard those rules fail in their duty to faithfully execute the law.

That observation strikes at the core of the present controversy.

This issue is not ultimately about personalities. It is not about factions. It is not even about a single officeholder.

It is about whether written rules still govern the organization—or whether interpretation becomes a tool to avoid mandatory obligations when those obligations become inconvenient.

If “has filed” no longer actually means filed, if “shall” no longer means mandatory, and if parliamentary procedure becomes whatever the chair declares by “the gavel,” then no rule inside the organization has a stable meaning.

And once rules lose fixed meaning:

• fairness disappears,
• neutrality disappears,
• equal enforcement disappears,
• and public confidence disappears with them.

For a party that proudly calls itself the party of law and order, the principle should not be difficult.

Donald Trump stated:

“Without law and order, there can be no prosperity, there can be no peace, there can be no safety, and there can be no freedom. It is the foundation of a civilized society.”

That principle does not begin only at the courthouse, the legislature, or the streets of America. It begins inside institutions themselves.

If Republicans expect the law to be followed in government, they must also follow their own rules as written inside their own party.

Guest Commentary by Gary Person