Proposed Amendments to the New Mexico Constitution
Summaries plus Arguments Pro and Con
Each of these proposed amendments came from a joint resolution of the New Mexico Legislature. The following summaries are intended to help voters decide whether to vote for or against each amendment. Amendment 1 requires three-fourths of votes cast in its favor in order for it to be adopted. Amendments 2, 3, 4, and 5 each require a simple majority of votes cast to approve it. For background information and more complete analyses, please see www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/legislative_publications.aspx.
Amendment 1 Amendment 2 Amendment 3 Amendment 4 Amendment 5
Constitutional Amendment 1
Scheduling School Elections
PROPOSING TO AMEND ARTICLE 7, SECTION 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF NEW MEXICO TO PROVIDE THAT SCHOOL ELECTIONS SHALL BE HELD AT DIFFERENT TIMES FROM PARTISAN ELECTIONS.
Would replace the prohibition against holding school elections with any other election. If this amendment is adopted, school elections could be held at the same time as nonpartisan elections, including municipal elections, bond elections, and other special district elections.
Arguments For
- Separate school elections no longer necessary.
Prior to 1920, women were able to vote only in school elections. They have had the right to vote in all public elections in New Mexico since 1920, so there is no need to hold separate school elections in conjunction with other elections no longer exists.
- May increase voter participation.
Reducing the number of elections by allowing school and other nonpartisan elections to be combined might increase overall voter participation. Voter turnout for school elections is very low.
- May lower costs for school districts.
School districts could lower their costs by holding their elections with other nonpartisan elections.
Arguments Against
- Too limited.
Combined election dates would be limited to municipal and special district elections, so school districts would not benefit from cost savings and increased voter participation in November general elections, which are partisan.
- Diluted focus and impact.
Combining school elections with other elections might reduce the influence of knowledgeable voters.
- Ballots too long and confusing.
Allowing combined nonpartisan elections will make those ballots longer and potentially confusing to voters.
Constitutional Amendment 2
Add NNMC to list of state colleges with student on board
AMEND ARTICLE 12, SECTION 13 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF NEW MEXICO TO CHANGE THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF NORTHERN NEW MEXICO STATE SCHOOL BY FILLING ONE REGENT POSITION WITH A STUDENT.
WWould add Northern New Mexico State School, also known as Northern New Mexico College (NNMC), to the state educational institutions required to have a member of the student body on the board of regents.
Arguments For
- Consistency among institutional boards.
NNMC now offers numerous bachelor's degrees, so its board of regents should be similar to the other six institutions that grant bachelor’s degrees. NNMC embraces the concept.
- Equal representation.
NNMC students should have a student representative who can vote on issues that affect the student body.
Arguments Against
- Duplicative and possibly conflicting representation.
NNMC’s student body already has two advisory student regents, elected by students and accountable to them. If this amendment passes, the governor would appoint the student regent, who might not be able to provide independent and nonpartisan representation.
- Unfairness.
May leave other groups unrepresented, such as staff and faculty.
- Unnecessary and unwarranted change.
The state constitution should not be changed unless there are compelling reasons. Requiring one member of a five-member board of regents to be a student will not greatly impact the decision-making of the board because the NNMC board already has two student regents who serve as advisors.
Constitutional Amendment 3
Let Legislature determine filing dates for judicial retention
AMEND ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF NEW MEXICO TO ALLOW THE LEGISLATURE TO SET THE DATE FOR FILING DECLARATIONS OF CANDIDACY FOR JUDICIAL RETENTION ELECTIONS.
Would remove the requirement that justices and judges seeking to remain in office declare candidacy at the same time as candidates for the primary election, even though they are not part of the primary election process. If adopted, the legislature will determine the filing date for judicial candidates as it does for all other candidates for state offices.
Arguments For
- Removes filing dates from Constitution.
Filing dates for elections are generally set by state statute. By removing judicial retention filing dates from theConstitution, the legislature can bring these dates in line with other general election filing dates.
- Removes a premature deadline for retirement announcements by sitting judges.
The current constitutional requirement forces justices and judges to announce whether they will retire long before it is necessary to do so. Nonpartisan retention elections for justices and judges are not held until November.
Arguments Against
- Weakens connection between electorate and judicial office.
The present filing date reminds justices or judges that their retention elections are directly tied to the voters and their expectations of the judiciary.
- Increases potential for politics to intrude on judicial elections.
Leaving the filing date for retention elections in the constitution prohibits the legislature from manipulating retention election filing dates for political or partisan advantage.
Constitutional Amendment 4
Change criteria for “Urban Counties”
AMEND ARTICLE 10, SECTION 10 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF NEW MEXICO TO ALLOW CERTAIN COUNTIES TO BECOME URBAN COUNTIES AND TO CLARIFY THE MAJORITY VOTE NEEDED TO ADOPT A COUNTY CHARTER.
Would allow Valencia and Curry counties to become urban counties if their populations ever reach 300,000. These counties meet the geographic size requirement but do not have the authority to become urban counties. An urban county charter must be approved by a majority of the voters voting on the charter.
Arguments For
- Expands the number of counties eligible to acquire urban county status.
Any county less than 1,500 square miles in area and with a population of at least 300,000 would become eligible for urban county status. Bernalillo County is the only county that currently satisfies the size and population requirements necessary to become an urban county.
- Promotes greater self-government and reduces dependency on the state legislature.
Urban county status gives the same "home rule" powers that many municipalities have and permits them to make laws and policies without the need to invest time and resources to sway the legislature.
Arguments Against
- Increases expenditure of public resources.
If voters approve the urban county, the county would be required to expend resources to modify the county government to carry out the provisions of the urban county charter.
- May result in duplication of services and offices and confusion.
Duplication of services could raise costs in both the county and the city. Confusion about which entity is responsible for certain services could also result. Los Alamos County is the only county with home rule power, but it has that power because it is also a municipality.
Constitutional Amendment 5
Change rules for management of the Land Grant Permanent Fund
AMEND ARTICLE 12, SECTION 7 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF NEW MEXICO TO PRESERVE THE LAND GRANT PERMANENT FUNDS BY INCREASING THE DUTY OF CARE, REMOVING THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE TYPE OF INVESTMENT THAT MAY BE MADE AND INCREASING THE THRESHOLD AMOUNT FOR ADDITIONAL DISTRIBUTIONS.
Would allow more than 15 percent of the Land Grant Permanent Fund to be invested in international securities; change the investment standard to the Uniform Prudent Investor Act (UPIA), which is used by the State Investment Council for managing other funds; and raise the reserve in the fund from $5.8 billion to $10 billion to continue the yearly distributions of 5.5 percent through fiscal year 2016.
Arguments For
- 1. Allows for greater diversification with higher return potential
The State Investment Council would gain the flexibility it needs to seek appropriate levels of diversified growth investments around the globe, with the potential to make longer-term investments projected to give a higher rate of return. This type of investment could help counterbalance inflation pressures on the Land Grant Permanent Fund. As with any investments there can be short-term fluctuations.
- Removes an antiquated investment restriction.
The 15% limitation was originally put in place prior to the emergence and importance of the global economy. The vast majority of similar institutional investment funds around the country, including NM Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) and NM Educational Retirement Board (ERB), do not have restrictions on international investment.
- Foreign investment reflects the current business market.
Many large corporations operate internationally and many thus have a foreign investment component reflected in U.S. markets.
Arguments Against
- Might be viewed as encouraging risky investments.
Over shorter time periods, eliminating the 15 percent cap on foreign investments could potentially cause greater variability of the value of the trust funds.
- Foreign markets less stable than U.S. market.
Many U.S. investors are cautious about making significant investments in foreign markets due to concerns about volatile political situations, insecure financial structures or a lack of business diversification in many countries.
(To read the PDF files, you can download a free copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader:)
