Constitutional Amendment 3 - Appointed Judge Election Amendment

Summary

A "yes" vote supports amending the constitution of New Mexico to provide that an appointed judge serve at least one year before a general election is held for the office to which the judge was appointed.

A "no" vote opposes amending the constitution of New Mexico to provide that an appointed judge serve at least one year before a general election is held for the office to which the judge was appointed.

Arguments

"Across New Mexico, the public has expressed a desire for increasing transparency in government. Constitutional Amendment 3 provides a different transparency — that of the ability to evaluate a candidate for a judicial position prior to electing a candidate. Voters can face difficulties being informed about candidates and relevant information. If the proposed amendment is adopted, candidates appointed to fill a judicial seat will have at least one year to serve on the bench before they face a general election. Appointed candidates who do not otherwise have judicial experience will not only have time to hone their judicial skills, but the public will be better able to observe their conduct as a judge. Armed with the record of performance, voters will be able to make a more educated decision on whether to vote for or against the appointee at the general election. Ideally, this will result in a public that has more knowledge of candidates who were appointed by the time those candidates face election." - New Mexico Legislative Council Service, Summary of and Arguments For & Against the Constitutional Amendments Proposed by the Legislature in 2021 and 2022, in support of Constitutional Amendment 3 (Learn more)

"Judicial candidates are authorized to access public financing for elections pursuant to the Voter Action Act. When a judicial appointee must run for the office in a partisan election shortly after being appointed, the time lines for complying with the Voter Action Act are compressed, and, depending on the time between the appointment and the election, the appointee may not be able to meet the deadlines to qualify for the public financing. A purpose of including judicial candidates in the Voter Action Act is to take the influence of big money out of judicial elections, ensuring an independent judiciary. However, this purpose is nullified when appointed judges are unable to qualify for the public financing because deadlines cannot be met due to the timing of the appointment and election. Requiring the election to be held at least one year after appointment provides ample time for an appointed judge to meet the deadlines of the Voter Action Act and qualify for the available public financing." - New Mexico Legislative Council Service, Summary of and Arguments For & Against the Constitutional Amendments Proposed by the Legislature in 2021 and 2022, in support of Constitutional Amendment 3 (Learn more)

"Allowing an appointed judge to serve in the position for at least one year before having to run for the position in a partisan election will help with the recruitment of qualified, diverse applicants to the judgeship. Under the current language of Article 6, Section 35, the position will be subject to election at the next general election, which may only be a couple of months after appointment. Many people are unwilling to accept an appointment to a judgeship if they have to, for example, close down a private practice and wind up relationships with clients without some assurance of being in the position for the long term. Approval of this proposed amendment would guarantee the appointee at least one year in the position before having to run for the office. This may be particularly beneficial to attorneys who work in private practice who otherwise may not choose to seek judicial positions, as these attorneys may be solo practitioners and might find it difficult to justify seeking appointment if they may serve for a short time." - New Mexico Legislative Council Service, Summary of and Arguments For & Against the Constitutional Amendments Proposed by the Legislature in 2021 and 2022, in support of Constitutional Amendment 3 (Learn more)

"There could be unintended consequences if an election to fill the vacancy does not take place until the first general election following one year after appointment. For example, depending on when a vacancy is created and when the appointment to fill the vacancy is made, the appointee could serve up to three years in the position before the general election is held. Alternatively, because the person who wins the election serves out the remainder of the term that is in effect at the time of the election, if that term were to expire in December of the same year in which the election takes place, a scenario could be created in which the person who wins the election only serves a few weeks before the term ends at the end of the year, creating a new vacancy in the office that then would need to be filled by the governor. Additionally, a person running against an appointed judge in the general election may be disadvantaged by the appointee having more experience in the position before the election. The appointed judge may have greater name recognition, a record of performance known to the electorate and the benefit of being the incumbent by virtue of having been appointed to fill the vacancy in the position, which ordinarily would not be present in a partisan judicial race." - New Mexico Legislative Council Service, Summary of and Arguments For & Against the Constitutional Amendments Proposed by the Legislature in 2021 and 2022, in opposition to Constitutional Amendment 3 (Learn more)

"Article 6, Section 35 of the Constitution of New Mexico creates the Appellate Judges Nominating Commission, while Article 6, Section 36 and Article 6, Section 37 create the District Court Judges Nominating Committee and the Metropolitan Court Judges Nominating Committee, respectively. Both Section 36 and Section 37 state that 'each and every provision of Section 35 of Article 6 of this constitution shall apply' to the respective nominating committee; however, it is not clear that the proposed amendatory language to Section 35, providing that a judge serve at least one year before a general election is held for the office to which the judge was appointed, equally applies to district court judges and metropolitan court judges. This is because the proposed amendatory language to Section 35 is not directly related to the duties of the respective nominating committees, but rather to when an election takes place after an appointment to fill a vacancy is made. This ambiguity could lead to litigation over the application of the amendatory language to district court and metropolitan court judges." - New Mexico Legislative Council Service, Summary of and Arguments For & Against the Constitutional Amendments Proposed by the Legislature in 2021 and 2022, in opposition to Constitutional Amendment 3 (Learn more)

"A potential issue in this proposed amendment is its policy goal of reducing the partisan nature of an inherently partisan, political process, while potentially increasing partisan division. Article 6, Section 35 of the Constitution of New Mexico requires diversity of 'majority political parties' and the interests of the state with regard to those members of the Appellate Judges Nominating Commission who recommend appointments. Additionally, Article 6, Section 35 provides that the Appellate Judges Nominating Commission recommends candidates for appointment to the governor, but the governor ultimately appoints a successor in the event of a vacancy. Judicial candidates appointed by the governor face reelection at the next election. Thus, implied in Section 35 is a process that is political in nature, one that is reliant on partisanship, the decision of a governor, usually representing a major political party, and ultimately, the voice of the electorate. However, this amendment would require the public to refrain from participating in the political process for a year, at a minimum, prior to that appointed candidate facing the elective process. It is foreseeable that the public may ultimately associate its view of the appointed judge less on the judge's merits as shown in the year or more of service on the bench, and instead turn toward the partisan positions of the governor who appointed the judge. This may further politicize what was meant to be an appointment to address a vacancy. Justified by policy ostensibly aimed at increasing candidates from private interests and outcomes that are seemingly speculative, if not entirely aspirational, it is questionable whether this outweighs the interest of the public to provide a quick vote on what was meant to address a mere vacancy." - New Mexico Legislative Council Service, Summary of and Arguments For & Against the Constitutional Amendments Proposed by the Legislature in 2021 and 2022, in opposition to Constitutional Amendment 3 (Learn more)

Measure Details