Amendments to the New Mexico Constitution

Since 1912, the New Mexico Constitution has been amended 182 times. Some amendments affected more than one section of the constitution. Each square below represents when a section was changed by an amendment.

Scroll through the timeline to view amendments to the constitution by year and historical context for significant amendments.
 

1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020

Each block on this histogram represents a change—e.g., a substantive change, repeal & replace, or renumbering—to an individual section rather than an amendment. Some amendments result in multiple changes, resulting in multiple blocks being attributed to one amendment. Likewise, a section may be amended more than once in an year, but these amendments will only appear as one block on the histogram. When a block or blocks are marked red in a specific year, that means that a new constitution went into effect that year.

The New Mexico Constitution & Its Amendments

Congress established New Mexico as a territory in 1850, but it did not become a state until 1912. The struggle for statehood spanned over six decades, required five constitutional conventions, and resulted in four different draft constitutions. “No other territory ever fought so continuously for so long a time, or suffered so many discouraging defeats in its attempts to gain admission.” The last of the four draft constitutions, the Constitution of 1910, was approved by Congress and President William Taft in 1912 and remains in effect today as the state’s governing charter. 

Although the Constitution of 1910 has served the state of New Mexico throughout its statehood, it does not stand unchanged. Instead, the state’s voters have adopted more than 170 amendments over the years in an effort to advance their values and interests. To amend the constitution, the legislature must first pass a proposed constitutional amendment by a simple majority in both houses. The proposed amendment is then sent to voters for ratification. Generally, only a simple majority vote is needed; however, because the framers of the constitution believed that the civil rights of Spanish-speaking New Mexican citizens were important enough to warrant special protection, they designated certain provisions, such as the one on voter qualifications, as requiring a three-fourths supermajority to be amended. 

The legislature may also put to voters the question of calling a constitutional convention into session. Calling a convention requires a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of the legislature and a simple majority of voters. Any amendments or revisions proposed by a convention must also be approved by voters. Only one constitutional convention has been called since statehood was achieved.

A third method for revising the New Mexico Constitution was added by voters in 1996. It authorizes the legislature to create an independent commission that may propose amendments separately or grouped as a single ballot question. 

New Mexico State Capitol. Ken Lund.
 

Early Childhood Education

In 2022, voters approved an amendment authorizing an increase in distribution from the Land Grant Permanent Fund. The increase would be directed toward public schools and public pre-kindergarten early childhood education programs. 

Proponents emphasized the benefits of early childhood educational programming on later educational outcomes. Opponents argued that other funding sources were available and raised concerns that increased distributions from the Land Grant Permanent Fund would eventually diminish the overall size of the fund and future distributions.

Ultimately, the amendment was approved by a 70% majority of voters. The amendment has been characterized as creating a right to early childhood education, although disbursements are contingent on the value of the Fund remaining above a certain level. Proponents of early childhood education have expressed optimism that the value of the Fund will continue to increase and see the amendment as possibly paving the way to universal free childcare and preschool.

New Mexico Pueblo Structures. Infrogmation.

2018

State Ethics Commission

After 40 years of advocacy by Governors, state legislators, advocacy organizations, and others, New Mexicans amended the constitution in 2018 to create an independent state ethics commission. The Commission was given the jurisdiction to investigate, adjudicate, and issue advisory opinions concerning civil violations of laws governing ethics, standards of conduct, and reporting requirements. The seven-member Commission is charged with overseeing not only state officers, candidates for office, and employees of the executive and legislative branches, but also lobbyists, government contractors, and those seeking government contracts. At the time the amendment was adopted, New Mexico was one of only six states without a state ethics commission. 

The state’s legislative leaders appoint four of the commissioners, who, in turn, appoint two additional commissioners who must be from different political parties. The Governor appoints the Commission’s Chair, who must be a retired judge. Under the Commission’s enabling legislation, no more than three members may be from the same political party. Additionally, the Commission cannot act without the concurrence of at least two Commissioners from the state’s largest political party and two from its second largest party.

Since its operations began in 2020, the Commission has undertaken several high-profile actions, including finding that a former State Treasurer misreported various campaign contributions in violation of the Campaign Reporting Act, and more recently, the filing of a lawsuit against a “dark money” political group and its founder, a former Democratic gubernatorial candidate. 

New Mexico State Ethics Commission building. NMSEC.

2008

Reconfirmation of Executive Officials 

In 2008, voters approved an amendment that requires the heads of all cabinet-level departments or agencies whose appointment is subject to confirmation by the senate to be reconfirmed at the beginning of each term of a governor. Proponents argued that reconfirmation hearings give the senate a chance to reevaluate an appointee’s abilities, and that since the governor is required to run for re-election, so too should cabinet-officials be subject to reconfirmation. Opponents countered that it should be up to the governor to determine whether an appointee will continue in office, and that in cases of malfeasance or misfeasance, other remedies are available. They also worried that additional confirmation hearings could bog down the business of the legislature. The amendment ultimately passed with over 70% of the vote.

New Mexico Senate Chambers. Alexf.

1996

Amending Voter Qualifications

In 1996, voters amended Section 1 of Article XIX, which outlines the general procedures for how amendments to the constitution may be proposed and approved. This amendment did not directly change the text of Section 3 of Article VII, which still stated that amendments involving voter qualifications must be passed by a three-fourths majority vote.

In 2015, the League of Women Voters of New Mexico brought a lawsuit arguing that the newly amended version of Section 1 of Article XIX operated to lower the threshold for approving certain voting-related amendments to a majority vote. The lawsuit sought a declaration that three such amendments proposed between 2008 and 2014 that received more than a majority of the vote but less than three-fourths had taken effect.

The court ultimately ruled in the League’s favor. It described the amended version of Section 1 of Article XIX as the “latest expression of sovereign will of the people” and thus controlling on the question of whether the proposed voting-related amendments were properly ratified. Because the new version of Section 1 stated that a super-majority was only required for amendments that restrict the elective franchise, the court concluded that only a simple majority was required to approve non-restrictive voting-related amendments.

• Accordingly, the court deemed effective the proposed amendments that were non-restrictive and had received majority support. These amendments:
• Made the voter qualifications provision gender neutral;
• Aligned the timing of school board elections with other non-partisan elections;
• Modernized language concerning exclusions from the franchise; and 
• Authorized the legislature and executive to define and expand the right to vote via statute.

Commission-Referred Amendments

The 1996 amendment to Article XIX also instituted a new method for amending New Mexico’s constitution, whereby the legislature is authorized to establish an independent commission tasked with formulating amendment proposals. Any commission-proposed amendments that are not substantially altered by the legislature may be submitted to the voters separately or grouped as a single ballot question. “Presumably,” this allows the commission “to propose the revision of one or more entire articles as a single ballot issue, thereby effecting constitutional change much as a constitutional convention might do.”

The legislature first attempted to form a commission in early 2021, but the legislation stalled in the House. More recently, during the 2023 legislative session, the New Mexico Senate passed SB 308 to form an independent commission. Action on this bill has since been postponed indefinitely. 

1988

Judicial Reform Amendment

Voters approved a sweeping judicial reform amendment on November 6, 1988, which promptly became the subject of litigation in the New Mexico Supreme Court after protests that it was proposed unconstitutionally. The challengers argued that the amendment contained several independent proposals, violating the requirement that independent proposals must be presented as separate questions to voters. The court rejected the challengers’ argument, holding that the legislature could reasonably determine that the amendment “embrace[d] but one object.” As all the changes proposed were germane to the theme of judicial reform, there was sufficient commonality between the changes that they could be presented as a single amendment.

Among the changes implemented by the amendment were:
• Nonpartisan retention elections for judges and justices;
• An increase in the minimum age and years of legal practice required to be a justice or judge;
• Selection of the chief justice of the supreme court as provided by statute and of the presiding judges in each judicial district by their peers;
• An increase in the number of court of appeals judges from three to seven; and
• A grant of legislative authority to redraw annually (rather than every ten years) the boundaries of judicial districts, to increase the number of judicial districts, and to provide for additional judges in those districts

In 1988 the Constitution was Changed 20 Times

Article II. Bill of Rights
Section 13.

Bail; excessive fines; cruel and unusual punishment

Article V. Executive Department
Section 5.

Governor's appointive and removal power; interim appointees

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 4.

Supreme court; selection of chief justice

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 8.

Supreme court; qualifications of justices

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 12.

Judicial districts; district judges

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 14.

District court; qualifications and residence requirement of judges

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 16.

District court; additional judges; redistricting

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 19.

Ineligibility of justices or judges for nonjudicial offices

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 26.

Magistrate court

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 28.

Court of appeals; number, qualifications, compensation; quorum; majority concurring in judgment; power of chief justice to select acting justices

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 33.

Retention or rejection at general election

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 34.

Vacancies in office; date for filing declaration of candidacy

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 35.

Appellate judges nominating commission

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 36.

District court judges nominating committee

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 37.

Metropolitan court judges nominating committee

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 38.

Chief judge of district and metropolitan court districts

Article VIII. Taxation and Revenue
Section 11.

Head of family and veteran exemptions

Article IX. State, County and Municipal Indebtedness
Section 10.

County indebtedness; restrictions

Article X. County and Municipal Corporations
Section 7.

Five-member boards of county commissioners

Article XX. Miscellaneous
Section 4.

Vacancies in offices of district attorney or county commissioner

1978

Judicial Standards Commission

In 1968, the Judicial Standards Commission was established by constitutional amendment. The Commission was first proposed by Governor Jack M. Campbell in 1964 and again by Governor David Cargo in 1967. Before this time, there was no “appropriate judicial disciplinary machinery,” resulting in impeachment being the sole method by which members of the bench could be disciplined. The Commission was given the authority to investigate allegations of judicial misconduct and make recommendations to the New Mexico Supreme Court, which retains the authority to determine the outcome of each investigation.

In 1978, Section 32 of Article VI was amended to specify the grounds for discipline and removal: “[A]ny justice, judge or magistrate of any court may be disciplined or removed for willful misconduct in office, persistent failure or inability to perform a judge’s duties, or habitual intemperance.” The amendment also specified that a justice, judge or magistrate “may be retired for a disability that seriously interferes with the performance of . . . duties and that is, or is likely to become, of a permanent character.

The section was amended again in 1998 and 2012 to provide for additional members on the Commission.

New Mexico Supreme Court building, Santa Fe, New Mexico. The Tichnor Brothers Collection.

In 1972 the Constitution was Changed 1 Time

1969

Failed Constitutional Revision

The push for sweeping constitutional reform in New Mexico can be traced back to 1949, when Governor Thomas Mabry critiqued the patchwork nature of constitutional amendments and suggested calling a constitutional convention. However, it would take nearly two decades for this to come to fruition. In 1951, the State Reorganization Committee (also known as the New Mexico “Little Hoover Commission”) recommended several changes to the structure of state government, including centralizing power in the executive. Although the legislature was able to implement some of the Committee’s recommendations through statutory enactments, others could only be achieved through constitutional amendment or revision. It took another 11 years for any major movement to shape up around constitutional reform. In 1963, the legislature established the Constitutional Revision Commission, which, over the course of three years, reviewed the New Mexico Constitution and formulated proposals for changing the state’s fundamental law. The Commission’s final report recommended the calling of a constitutional convention. The legislature did so in 1967, and voters approved the convention call in 1968. 

Sources indicate that the convention was scantly provided for, with limited staff and resources, and only $20 per diem given to delegates, few of whom were political or economic leaders. The convention was limited to one 60-day session, during which delegates attempted to create a short document that laid out the broad principles and organization of government. The resulting document contrasted sharply with the original 1910 Constitution, which had 24 articles and totaled more than 24,000 words. The new proposed constitution was comprised of only 14 articles and just 15,000 words. Among other things, the new constitution proposed longer legislative sessions, reapportionment after each federal census, municipal home rule, and a vote of the people every 14 years on whether to hold a new constitutional convention. 

Voters narrowly rejected the new constitution by a margin of fewer than 4,000 votes. Since this episode, New Mexico voters and the legislature have been content to resume the practice of piecemeal reform that has come to characterize the state’s constitutional history. In fact, many of the provisions proposed in the failed 1967 revision were individually adopted in ensuing elections, including authorization of home rule for municipalities, increased terms for elected state executive officers, and an expansion of the right to keep and bear arms. Although a second constitutional revision Commission was formed in 1994, its report contained only piecemeal amendment proposals and recommendations for future study.

Revision vs. Amendment

The legal distinction between an amendment to the New Mexico constitution, governed by Article XIX, § 1, and a revision under Article XIX, § 2, is not entirely clear. On one hand, when the constitutional convention assembled in 1968 resulted in a new draft constitution being proposed to voters, the Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed that § 1 (governing individual amendments) “clearly applies where one or more amendments to the present constitution are being considered, but does not apply where an entirely new constitution is being weighed.” On the other hand, § 1 also contains what is known as a “single-subject” rule, which limits the legislature’s ability to bundle multiple unrelated changes into a single proposal. Therefore, it can be said that “the decision as to which method to use, convention or separate amendment procedure, may depend upon the extent of the changes deemed necessary.”

1968

Amendment of Voter Qualifications

Section 1 of Article VII, which outlines voter qualifications, has sometimes been described as the New Mexico Constitution’s “unamendable section.” This is because Section 3 of the same article creates an exception to the simple majority vote requirement that applies to other constitutional amendments. Instead of a simple majority, any amendment to Section 1 is subject to a three-fourths majority vote requirement.

Between 1912 and 2017, despite the legislature sending nearly 20 proposed amendments to voters, only one amendment to the voter qualifications provision passed with a three-fourths majority. Proposed amendments consistently failed to garner the requisite three-fourths vote, even when they merely brought the state constitution in line with the U.S. Constitution. For example, until 2017, the New Mexico Constitution continued to restrict the right to vote to those over age of twenty-one despite three attempts to update the constitutional language. The single amendment that passed, a 1967 measure to remove the words “male” before “citizen” and “Indians not taxed” before “shall be qualified to vote,” required nine attempts.

In 1968, the New Mexico Supreme Court narrowed Section 3 in two ways: First, the court held that the language requiring a two-thirds majority in every county violated the U.S. Constitution’s “one person, one vote” principle. Second, the court held that the three-fourths statewide majority required only a three-fourths majority of those voters who voted on the ballot measure, rather than a three-fourths majority of all voters who voted in that election.

For more information about the application of Article VII, Section 3, see 1996.

Santa Fe New Mexican Front Page Announcing 19th Amendment’s Ratification. NewseumED.

In 1968 the Constitution was Changed 1 Time

1912

Inclusion of Referendum in Original Constitution

With the 1910 convention taking place during the height of the Progressive Era, delegates found themselves embroiled in a wider debate on the direct democracy, encompassing citizen-initiated and legislatively-referred laws and constitutional amendments. The Republican convention delegates, who enjoyed a supermajority (71 out of the 100 delegates were Republican), mostly “desired the constitution to be a conservative one” and were content not to take any action at all on these measures. However, “because of the demands of the minority and the evident public interest,” a compromise was reached to include a diluted referendum power. The provision carved out a number of substantial exemptions for items such as general appropriation laws; laws providing for the preservation of the public peace, health or safety; the maintenance of public schools and state institutions; and local or special laws. These carveouts, and subsequent limitations on referendum availability recognized by New Mexico Supreme Court decisions in 1937 (holding that voters cannot prevent referred constitutional amendments from appearing on the ballot via referendum), 1943 (exempting a statute imposing a tax of cigars and cigarettes from referendum under the public health exemption), and 1956 (exempting a statute regulating the size and weight of vehicles on state highways from referendum under the public safety exemption), result in a referendum right “much narrower…than is allowed in any other state in which the right is reserved.”

New Mexico State Constitutional Convention, 1910. New Mexico History State Records Center & Archives.