By Roger Rael
The Raton Range
In Northern New Mexico, water is never just water. A ditch can mean a field, a pasture, a family tradition, a neighbor’s livelihood or a fight that has been handed down longer than some of us have been alive. That is part of what makes the long-running dispute involving Thomas Duran and the Acequia Madre de Arroyo Seco y del Rio Lucero worth looking at now, as Judge Emilio Jacob Chavez appears on the 2026 retention ballot.
Chavez is the chief district judge of the Eighth Judicial District, which includes Colfax, Taos and Union counties. The New Mexico Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission has recommended that voters retain him. JPEC says judges are evaluated on legal ability, fairness, communication skills, preparation, attentiveness, temperament and control of proceedings. This year, the commission recommended retention for 41 of the 43 judges appearing on the state’s retention ballot.
But a retention election is also a chance for voters to look beyond a scorecard and examine the record. For this story, that record leads back to an acequia dispute in Taos County and a man who went through the courts without the luxury of simply walking away when the fight got complicated.
THE ACEQUIA CASE
The case was Acequia Madre de Arroyo Seco y del Rio Lucero, commonly known as AMRLAS, against Thomas Duran Jr. The dispute ultimately resulted in a permanent injunction against Duran in district court.
The New Mexico Court of Appeals reviewed that decision in 2025. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s ruling. The appellate decision was not published in the New Mexico Appellate Reports, meaning there are restrictions on how it may be cited as precedent.
That part of the story is straightforward. The rest is where things get more complicated.
Duran represented himself on appeal. According to the appellate opinion, his attorney withdrew on May 6, 2024, and the district court held the merits hearing on Nov. 7, 2024.
Duran argued that evidence he wanted considered had not been properly submitted. The Court of Appeals said the district court did admit evidence Duran presented during the merits hearing and concluded that he had not demonstrated reversible error.
Duran also challenged a video presented by the acequia, arguing that it was altered or manufactured. The appellate court did not accept that argument. It noted that Duran had raised his concerns about the video during the hearing, but said an appellate court does not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for the trial judge’s determination of disputed facts.
That distinction matters. The appellate court did not say every allegation Duran made was true. It did not say the video was fake. It did not reverse the injunction.
It affirmed.
But that does not mean the questions raised by the case disappear.
WHAT DOES A LITIGANT EXPERIENCE?
This is where the story becomes bigger than an acequia.
Duran’s experience raises a question that reaches beyond one ditch, one hearing or one defendant: What does the judicial system look like to a person who believes the process has failed him?
For lawyers, judges, and people who spend their days inside courthouses, procedure can become second nature. For an ordinary person, it can be something else entirely. There are filings, deadlines, hearings, evidence, attorneys, withdrawals, motions, orders, and appeals. And somewhere in the middle of all that paperwork is a human being trying to be heard.
In Duran’s case, the record shows a self-represented appellant asking the appellate court to revisit decisions made in the district court. The Court of Appeals ultimately declined to do so.
That is the legal outcome.
But a retention election asks a broader question about the judge’s record and the public’s confidence in the judiciary.
THE CHAVEZ QUESTION
Judge Chavez is not running against another judge. He is asking voters whether he should remain on the bench.
Under New Mexico’s retention system, he needs at least 57 percent of the vote to remain in office. JPEC has recommended that voters retain him. That recommendation should be part of the public record, and voters should know it.
But so should the cases.
The acequia dispute is one of those cases. It should not be used to pretend that an appellate court ruled against Chavez. It did not. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision.
Nor should the case be reduced to the claim that Duran simply lost and therefore has nothing left to say. Both facts can exist at the same time.
The court ruled one way. A litigant can still believe the process was unfair. And voters can examine both.
THE NORTEĂ‘O WAY OF LOOKING AT IT
Around here, we tend to understand things a little differently. You don’t need a law degree to understand when somebody feels like they didn’t get a fair shake.
We’ve all sat around the kitchen table with a cafecito, talked through some compa’s problem and said, “Wait a minute, what happened here?”
That’s not a legal conclusion. It’s a human reaction.
And that is exactly why judicial retention elections deserve more attention than they usually get.
Judges don’t have campaign signs on every corner. They aren’t usually knocking on doors asking for votes. Their names can be buried toward the end of the ballot. But their decisions can change somebody’s property, family, freedom, money or future.
That means voters have a responsibility to look. Not just at the recommendation. At the record.
THE RECORD, NOT THE RUMOR
There are plenty of opinions floating around about Judge Chavez and the Duran case. The Raton Range isn’t interested in turning rumor into fact.
The court record says the district court entered a permanent injunction against Duran. The Court of Appeals reviewed the matter and affirmed. The appellate court specifically addressed Duran’s complaints about evidence, the video, and mediation-related issues. The appellate court found that Duran had not demonstrated reversible error.
Those are the facts of the appellate record.
There are also additional complaints and concerns surrounding Judge Chavez that deserve examination, including material previously provided to The Raton Range. Those allegations need to be identified as allegations, not presented as findings of misconduct.
That distinction is important because this is a judge’s retention election.
If we’re going to ask voters to examine a judge’s record, we owe them the whole thing. That means the good, the bad, the rulings, the appeals, the complaints and the outcomes.
No sugarcoating. No courthouse gossip. No political hit job dressed up as journalism.
Just the record.
AND NOW, THE VOTERS
Early voting in New Mexico begins Oct. 6 and runs through Oct. 31, with expanded locations opening Oct. 17. Judge Chavez’s retention question will appear toward the end of the ballot.
So when you get there, don’t skip it. Read the information. Look at JPEC’s evaluation. Look at the court record. Look at the cases. Then make your own decision.
Because whether you are from Raton, Taos, Union County or somewhere in between, the person sitting on that bench is making decisions that affect people in this part of Northern New Mexico.
And that’s the bottom line.
The acequia dispute involving Thomas Duran does not provide every answer about Judge Chavez. It does, however, provide voters with a real case, a real litigant, a real court record, and a real appellate decision to examine.
In Northern New Mexico, that’s usually where we start. We ask what happened. Then we ask why. Then we decide what we think about it.
Grab the cafecito. Read the record. And when you get to that little retention question at the bottom of the ballot, don’t just blow past it, compa.
That’s your vote. That’s your call.
