N.M. Const. art. IX, § 14
Neither the state nor any county, school district or municipality, except as otherwise provided in this constitution, shall directly or indirectly lend or pledge its credit or make any donation to or in aid of any person, association or public or private corporation or in aid of any private enterprise for the construction of any railroad except as provided in Subsections A through H of this section.
D. Nothing in this section prohibits the state or a county or municipality from creating new job opportunities by providing land, buildings or infrastructure for facilities to support new or expanding businesses if this assistance is granted pursuant to general implementing legislation that is approved by a majority vote of those elected to each house of the legislature. The implementing legislation shall include adequate safeguards to protect public money or other resources used for the purposes authorized in this subsection. The implementing legislation shall further provide that:
E. Nothing in this section prohibits the state, or the instrumentality of the state designated by the legislature as the state's housing authority, or a county or a municipality from:
F. The provisions of Subsection E of this section are not self-executing. Before the described assistance may be provided, enabling legislation shall be enacted by a majority vote of the members elected to each house of the legislature. This enabling legislation shall:
The 2022 amendment, proposed by H.J.R. No. 1 (Laws 2022) and adopted at the general election held on November 8, 2022, by a vote of 425,609 for and 227,846 against, allowed the expenditure of state funds or resources for the purpose of providing "essential services," primarily for residential purposes, including infrastructure that allows internet, energy, water, wastewater and other similar services, upon the enactment of general implementing legislation approved by a majority vote of the members of each house of the legislature; and added Subsection H.
The 2010 amendment, which was proposed by H.J.R. No. 11 (Laws 2009) and adopted at the general election held on November 2, 2010, with a vote of 409,180 for and 119,195 against, in the first paragraph, changed "Subsections A through F" to "Subsections A through G"; and added Subsection G.
The 2006 amendment, which was proposed by H.J.R. 8 (Laws 2006) was adopted at the general election held November 7, 2006, by a vote of 266,861 for and 213,468 against, amended Subsection E to provide for the state housing authority, to provide for governmental entities to pay a portion of the costs of construction of affordable housing and to add Paragraph (6) to provide for approval of affordable housing grants.
The second 2002 amendment, which was proposed by H.J.R. No. 18 (Laws 2001) and adopted at the general election held on November 5, 2002, by a vote of 303,444 for and 127,955 against, inserted "or who has lived in New Mexico for ten years or more" near the middle of the second sentence in Subsection B.
The first 2002 amendment, which was proposed by H.J.R. No. 10 (Laws 2001) and adopted at the general election held on November 5, 2002, by a vote of 239, 437 for and 190,328 against, substituted "except as provided in Subsections A through F of this section" for "provided" at the end of the introductory paragraph and added Subsections E and F.
The 1994 amendment, proposed by H.J.R. No. 12 (Laws 1993) and adopted at the general election held on November 8, 1994, by a vote of 209,019 for and 186,505 against, divided the section into subsections and added Subsection D relating to job and economic development opportunities.
The 1974 amendment, which was proposed by House Floor Substitute for H.J.R. No. 7 (Laws 1974) and adopted at the general election held on November 5, 1974 with a vote of 77,761 for and 49,294 against, added the last sentence.
The 1971 amendment, which was proposed to H.J.R. No. 15 (Laws 1971) and adopted at the special election held on November 2, 1971, with a vote of 38,002 for and 37,008 against, added the provision regarding a veterans' scholarship program at the end of the first sentence and added the second sentence.
Compiler's notes. — An amendment to this section proposed by S.J.R. No. 11 (Laws 1967), which would have permitted creating new job opportunities, decreasing unemployment or improving the state's economy with loans to encourage economic development, was submitted to the people at the special election held on November 7, 1967. It was defeated by a vote of 22,353 for and 31,019 against.
An amendment to this section proposed by H.J.R. No. 23 (Laws 1970), which would have permitted student loan programs for post-secondary students at educational institutions under the exclusive control of the state, was submitted to the people at the general election held on November 3, 1970. It was defeated by a vote of 57,864 for and 78,061 against.
Eight amendments to the constitution were proposed by the 1970 session of the legislature although the attorney general has stated that constitutional amendments may not be considered in even-numbered years. See 1965 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 65-212 and 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-151.
There is no anti-donation clause violation where a governmental entity contracts to receive something of value in exchange for the transfer of money or property. — The anti-donation clause prohibits the use of state or local government funds to benefit private organizations, which generally include transfers of property or money by a government entity to a private person for which the government entity receives nothing of value in return or transactions in which a government entity has pledged its credit for the benefit of private enterprise, but where a governmental entity contracts to receive something of value in exchange for the transfer of money or property, there is no constitutional violation, and therefore whether the forestry division of the New Mexico energy, minerals and natural resources department may grant state funds to the Taos chapter of the native plant society of New Mexico, a 501(c)(3) organization, for a project to address noxious weeds on forest-adjacent land located in Taos county and owned by southern Methodist university, a private corporation, depends on whether the state receives valuable consideration in exchange for the granted funds. 2022 Op. Ethics Comm'n No. 2022-04.
Special election. — Laws 1971, ch. 308, §§ 1 and 2, provided that all constitutional amendments proposed by the thirtieth legislature be voted upon at a special election on the first Tuesday of November, 1971, unless otherwise specified, and appropriated $171,000 for election expenses.
Cross references. — For section prohibiting extra compensation for public officers, see N.M. Const., art. IV, § 27.
For prohibition of aid to charities, see N.M. Const., art. IV, § 31.
For misuse of public moneys, see N.M. Const., art. VIII, § 4.
For section prohibiting support of sectarian or private schools, see N.M. Const., art. XII, § 3.
For the Local Economic Development Act, see 5-10-1 NMSA 1978 et seq.
For Medical Student Loan for Service Act, see 21-22-1 NMSA 1978 et seq.
Comparable provisions. — Idaho Const., art. VIII, § 4.
Iowa Const., art. VII, § 1.
Utah Const., art. VI, § 29.
Wyoming Const., art. XVI, § 6.
Enterprise's public purpose does not justify aid. — That a private enterprise serves a highly commendable public purpose alone does not warrant the state's or any county's or city's making a donation or pledging its credit in aid of it. State ex rel. Mechem v. Hannah, 1957-NMSC-065, 63 N.M. 110, 314 P.2d 714; State Hwy. Comm'n v. Southern Union Gas Co., 1958-NMSC-124, 65 N.M. 84, 332 P.2d 1007, 75 A.L.R.2d 408, overruled in part by State ex rel. City of Albuquerque v. Lavender, 1961-NMSC-096, 69 N.M. 220, 365 P.2d 652.
No language in section expressly proscribes "the giving of aid to private enterprise". Village of Deming v. Hosdreg Co., 1956-NMSC-111, 62 N.M. 18, 303 P.2d 920.
Enabling Act provisions continue valid. — Enabling Act (June 20, 1910, 36 Stat. 557, ch. 310) under which New Mexico became a state, became as much a part of New Mexico fundamental law as if it had been directly incorporated into the New Mexico constitution, and provisions of the constitution forbidding donations or pledges of credit by New Mexico except as otherwise permitted allowed use of trust funds as required under the Enabling Act. State ex rel. Interstate Stream Comm'n v. Reynolds, 1963-NMSC-023, 71 N.M. 389, 378 P.2d 622.
Loan or pledge of credit proscribed. — Laws 1939, ch. 149, authorizing counties to construct public auditoriums to cooperate with New Mexico Fourth Centennial Coronado Corporation in conducting exposition violated constitutional provision prohibiting any county from pledging its credit in aid of a public or private corporation. Hutcheson v. Atherton, 1940-NMSC-001, 44 N.M. 144, 99 P.2d 462.
Tariff permitting utility to recover costs of relocation required by a local ordinance did not violate the antidonation clause of the New Mexico constitution. City of Albuquerque v. New Mexico Pub. Regulation Comm'n, 2003-NMSC-028, 134 N.M. 472, 79 P.3d 297.
Law regarding relocation of utilities in certain condemnation situations. — The 1959 act (55-7-21 and 55-7-22, 1953 Comp.; 67-8-15 to 67-8-21 NMSA 1978), by which (1) the legislature has authorized the commission itself to expend public funds for the relocation of utility facilities; (2) the utility, as to relocations, is under the absolute control of the commission and is merely acting as a contractor for the state; and (3) the legislature has expressly prohibited reimbursement for relocation in cases where there is a specific obligation on the part of the utility to relocate is not unconstitutional. State ex rel. City of Albuquerque v. Lavender, 1961-NMSC-096, 69 N.M. 220, 365 P.2d 652.
Payment of relocation costs to utility invalid. — Laws 1957, ch. 237, §§ 1(B) and (D) (repealed) are repugnant to this section, insofar as they provide for payment of relocation costs to utilities affected by highway projects. State Hwy. Comm'n v. Ruidoso Tel. Co., 1958-NMSC-127, 65 N.M. 101, 332 P.2d 1019; State Hwy. Comm'n v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 1958-NMSC-126, 65 N.M. 99, 332 P.2d 1018; State Hwy. Comm'n v. Southern Union Gas Co., 1958-NMSC-124, 65 N.M. 84, 332 P.2d 1007, 75 A.L.R. 2d 408, overruled by State ex rel. City of Albuquerque v. Lavender, 1961-NMSC-096, 69 N.M. 220, 365 P.2d 652.
Special improvement bonds valid. — Special improvement bonds provided for under Laws 1947, ch. 122 (repealed) were not invalid on theory that they involved a lending of credit to private individuals. Stone v. City of Hobbs, 1950-NMSC-032, 54 N.M. 237, 220 P.2d 704.
State Bar Act (Laws 1925, ch. 100) does not violate this section. — The power of the state over the board of commissioners of the state bar appears to be absolute. In re Gibson, 1931-NMSC-042, 35 N.M. 550, 4 P.2d 643, abrogated, In re Bristol, 2006-NMSC-041, 140 N.M. 317, 142 P.3d 905.
Public employee benefits statute. — Section 10-11-4 NMSA 1978, increasing benefits to public employees, and permitting those employees who had annuitant status under Laws 1947, ch. 167 (repealed), to participate therein provided they elected so to do by paying an additional lump sum of money to the association does not violate N.M. Const., art. IV, §§ 27 and 31 and this section, as the effect thereof is not to appropriate public money for private use nor to allow extra compensation to public officers for services already performed, nor does it constitute a donation or gratuity. State ex rel. Hudgins v. Public Employees Retirement Bd., 1954-NMSC-084, 58 N.M. 543, 273 P.2d 743.
Flood protection appropriations. — Appropriations under Laws 1961, chs. 181, 182 and 183 (relating to flood protection) are not in violation of this section. State ex rel. Interstate Stream Comm'n v. Reynolds, 1963-NMSC-023, 71 N.M. 389, 378 P.2d 622.
Money disbursed illegally must be paid back. — Public moneys are trust funds belonging to the people, and must be reimbursed by the recipient if they are paid out illegally by a public official, even though in good faith; and this is particularly true in a case involving a donation or gratuity. State ex rel. Callaway v. Axtell, 1964-NMSC-046, 74 N.M. 339, 393 P.2d 451.
Section was never intended as a shield against responsibility for wrongful acts. Thus, where a sewage treatment facility is operated by a city in a manner which results in contamination of underground water to such a degree that it is offensive or dangerous for human consumption or use and is injurious to public health, safety and welfare and interferes with the exercise and enjoyment of public rights, including the right to use public property, the city has created a public nuisance within the meaning of 30-8-1 NMSA 1978 and relief in the nature of a mandatory injunction requiring abatement of the nuisance by ordering the city to extend its waterlines to residencies in and outside its limits free of hookup charges is no "donation" in violation of this section. State ex rel. N.M. Water Quality Control Comm'n v. City of Hobbs, 1974-NMSC-064, 86 N.M. 444, 525 P.2d 371.
Judgment for damages for breach of contract is not a donation as defined in this section. Sanchez v. Board of Educ., 1969-NMSC-063, 80 N.M. 286, 454 P.2d 768.
Contracts beneficial to whole community. — Contracts between municipalities and private enterprises that are beneficial to the community as a whole are not violative of this section, when they do not involve municipal investment in the project through the lending of municipal funds. Hotels of Distinction W., Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, 1988-NMSC-047, 107 N.M. 257, 755 P.2d 595.
Santa Fe community college is not subject to the anti-donation clause. — Where plaintiff, the Santa Fe community college, leased its excess broadband capacity to defendant, a broadband services provider, and where plaintiff filed an action for declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration from the court that the leases are unenforceable because the renewal provisions violated the anti-donation clause, the renewal provisions of the leases were not unenforceable on constitutional grounds because plaintiff is not designated as a state educational institution in N.M. Const., Art. 12, § 11 and is therefore not subject to the anti-donation clause. Santa Fe Community College v. Ztark Broadband, LLC, ___ F. Supp.3d ___ (D. N.M. 2022).
Community colleges fall outside the scope of the anti-donation clause. — The Anti-donation clause provides that "the state or any county, school district or municipality" is prohibited from making donations or pledging its credit in support of private enterprise, and therefore the clause applies to the state (or an agency or instrumentality thereof), a county or municipality, or a school district, but does not apply to community colleges defined by the Community College Act, 21-13-1 to 21-13-27 NMSA 1978, and which are subject to the control of an elected college board whose members represent particular districts. The Central New Mexico Community college is therefore not prohibited from expending federal funds it receives for the purchase of laptops and textbooks for student use, because CNM is a community college defined by the Community College Act and is subject to the control of an elected college board. 2023 Op. Ethics Comm’n No. 2023-08.
The Solar Energy Improvement Special Assessment Act does not violate the anti-donation clause. — An anti-donation clause violation occurs when there has been an outright gift of money or property to a private entity with no exchange of adequate consideration. Under the program established by the Solar Energy Improvement Special Assessment Act (SEISA Act), 4-55C-1 to 4-55C -9 NMSA 1978, neither a county nor a county treasurer would be lending or pledging the county's credit or making a donation to a property owner or a financing institution; the SEISA Act contemplates that a property owner seeking to make solar energy improvements, would enter into a financing agreement with a certified financing institution and the property owner would be paying the costs of solar energy improvements, including the payment of principal and interest, through the collection of a solar energy improvement special assessment. Although the county treasurer collects the solar energy improvement special assessment and disburses the proceeds to the financing institution providing the financing for the solar energy improvements, the county is not liable in any way for the debt of the property owner, is not a third party obligor, and is not pledging or lending its credit to the property owner or the financing institution. A county treasurer levying and collecting solar energy improvement special assessments and disbursing such funds to a certified financing institution pursuant to the SEISA Act would therefore not violate the anti-donation clause. Administration of Residential Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing loans (10/21/19), Att'y Gen. Adv. Ltr. 2019-04.
The Renewable Energy Financing District Act does not violate the anti-donation clause. — An anti-donation clause violation occurs when there has been an outright gift of money or property to a private entity with no exchange of adequate consideration. Under the program established by the Renewable Energy Financing District Act (REFD Act), 5-18-1 to 5-18-13 NMSA 1978, neither a county nor a municipality would be lending or pledging the county's credit or making a donation to a property owner or a financing institution; special assessment bonds issued pursuant to the REFD Act are not a debt or general obligation of the county or the municipality in which the district is located, nor is the payment of special assessment bonds enforceable out of any money other than the revenue pledged to the payment of the bonds. The REFD Act therefore does not violate the anti-donation clause. Administration of Residential Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing loans (10/21/19), Att'y Gen. Adv. Ltr. 2019-04.
City council-directed sponsorship to planned parenthood of New Mexico does not necessarily violate the anti-donation clause. — The anti-donation clause prohibits a governmental entity from pledging its credit to benefit a private enterprise and prohibits donations of property or money by a governmental entity to a private person for which the governmental entity receives nothing of value in return, and therefore, where the Albuquerque city council passed a floor amendment to the city's operating budget bill, which added $250,000 for a council-directed sponsorship to planned parenthood of New Mexico, a private corporation, the council-directed sponsorship does not necessarily violate the anti-donation clause under the facts presented. An exception to the anti-donation clause allow municipalities to make provision for the care and maintenance of sick and indigent persons, and therefore if, through grant conditions effectuating the sponsorship, the city of Albuquerque provided city funds to planned parenthood of New Mexico for the care and maintenance of sick persons or indigent persons, then the sponsorship would not violate the constitutional provision. Additionally, if the city of Albuquerque receives something of value in exchange for its provision of public funds, then there is no donation, and thus the anti-donation clause is not implicated. 2022 Op. Ethics Comm'n No. 2022-07.
Textbook loan program. — The Instructional Material Law (IML), §§ 22-15-1 to -14 NMSA 1978, in which the New Mexico Public education department (department) purchases textbooks that are loaned free of charge to public and private school students enrolled in first through twelfth grade and in early childhood education programs, does not violate Article IX, Section 14 of the New Mexico constitution, because a textbook loan is not a donation. The textbook loan program does not involve any donation or gift to students or private schools; the department merely loans textbooks to students for use while attending school. Moses v. Ruszkowski, 2019-NMSC-003.
The appropriation of educational funds to private schools is unconstitutional. — N.M. Const., Art. XII, § 3 expressly prohibits the appropriation of public funds to sectarian, denominational or private schools. A public school under the control of the state can directly receive funds, while a private school not under the exclusive control of the state cannot receive either direct or indirect support. Moses v. Skandera, 2015-NMSC-036, 367 P.3d 838, rev’g 2015-NMCA-036, 346 P.3d 396, vacated sub nom. N.M. Ass’n of Non-public Sch. v. Moses, 137 S.Ct. 2325 (2017) (mem.).
Where petitioners filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against the secretary of the New Mexico public education department seeking a declaration that the state issuing instructional materials to students attending private schools is unconstitutional, the New Mexico supreme court held that the Instructional Material Law, §§ 22-15-1 through 22-15-14 NMSA 1978, in which the New Mexico public education department purchases and distributes instructional material to school districts, state institutions, and private schools as agents for the benefit of eligible students, violates N.M. Const., Art. XII, § 3, because the constitutional provision expressly restricts the use of public funds to other than sectarian schools and expressly prohibits the appropriation of educational funds to private schools. Moses v. Skandera, 2015-NMSC-036, 367 P.3d 838, rev’g 2015-NMCA-036, 346 P.3d 396, vacated sub nom. N.M. Ass’n of Non-public Sch. v. Moses, 137 S.Ct. 2325 (2017) (mem.).
Purpose of this section. — The purpose of this provision is to prevent public bodies from loaning their credit or from obtaining a financial interest in private enterprise. Moses v. Skandera, 2015-NMSC-036, 367 P.3d 838, rev’g 2015-NMCA-036, 346 P.3d 396, vacated sub nom. N.M. Ass’n of Non-public Sch. v. Moses, 137 S.Ct. 2325 (2017) (mem.).
Furnishing of instructional material to students attending private schools is not an unconstitutional donation. — The Instructional Material Law (IML), 22-15-1 through 22-15-14 NMSA 1978, in which the New Mexico public education department purchases and distributes instructional material to school districts, state institutions and private schools as agents for the benefit of eligible students, does not violate this section because under the IML, there is no donation to a private school because there is neither a gift nor an allocation or appropriation of something of value without consideration; although private schools receive possession of the instructional material, as agents for the students, they never have an ownership interest in the instructional material. Moses v. Skandera, 2015-NMSC-036, 367 P.3d 838, rev’g 2015-NMCA-036, 346 P.3d 396, vacated sub nom. N.M. Ass’n of Non-public Sch. v. Moses, 137 S.Ct. 2325 (2017) (mem.).
"Donation" construed. — The term "donation" as found in this proviso has been applied in its ordinary sense and meaning, as a "gift," an allocation or appropriation of something of value, without consideration, to a "person, association or public or private corporation". Village of Deming v. Hosdreg Co., 1956-NMSC-111, 62 N.M. 18, 303 P.2d 920.
Phrase "giving of aid to private enterprise" should not be read into proviso prohibiting a donation to a private corporation as a matter of construction except where the "aid or benefit" disclosed, by reason of its nature and the circumstances surrounding it, takes on character as a donation in substance and effect. Accordingly, statute (Laws 1955, ch. 234, now repealed) authorizing issuance of bonds by municipalities to finance projects for the purpose of promoting industry and trade did not violate this section, proscribing the making of "any donation to or in aid of . . . a private corporation", by giving aid to private enterprise. Village of Deming v. Hosdreg Co., 1956-NMSC-111, 62 N.M. 18, 303 P.2d 920.
Roughage drought feed appropriations unconstitutional. — Laws 1957, ch. 22, making appropriation to state board of finance for federal-state cooperative agreement for roughage drought feed program, violated provision of this section providing that state shall not directly or indirectly make any donation to or in aid of any person. State ex rel. Mechem v. Hannah, 1957-NMSC-065, 63 N.M. 110, 314 P.2d 714.
Provision of Liquor Control Act that reduced payments of gross receipts taxes constituted an unconstitutional subsidy. — Laws 1981, ch. 39, § 114, the provision of the Liquor Control Act (act) which allowed holders of liquor licenses to claim a credit against their liability to the state for gross receipts tax, is unconstitutional, because the gross receipts tax on the sale of alcoholic beverages is an obligation that is owed to the state which cannot be excused by the legislature, and the reduction in payments of the gross receipts tax in this case constitutes an unconstitutional subsidy to the liquor industry in violation of this section. Chronis v. State ex rel. Rodriguez, 1983-NMSC-081, 100 N.M. 342, 670 P.2d 953.
Ratification bonus payable to members of public-sector bargaining unit. — Where a proposed provision of a public-sector collective bargaining agreement provided that upon ratification of the agreement all bargaining unit members would receive a ratification bonus of $500 to be paid by the first pay period after ratification to compensate bargaining unit members for the delay in implementing wage increases under the new agreement; and the bargaining unit members were public employees, the bonus was a retroactive wage and payment of the bonus would violate Article IX, Section 14. Nat'l Union of Hosp. & Healthcare Employees v. Board of Regents, 2010-NMCA-102, 149 N.M. 107, 245 P.3d 51, cert. denied, 2010-NMCERT-010, 149 N.M. 64, 243 P.3d 1146.
Retroactive benefits. — The provisions of Laws 1959, ch. 289 (55-7-21 and 55-7-22, 1953 Comp.), which attempt to provide for reimbursement of relocation costs retrospectively to March 29, 1957, are in direct conflict with this section. State ex rel. City of Albuquerque v. Lavender, 1961-NMSC-096, 69 N.M. 220, 365 P.2d 652.
This section will not permit payment of pension to person who left service of state before passage of Pension Act. State ex rel. Sena v. Trujillo, 1942-NMSC-044, 46 N.M. 361, 129 P.2d 329, 142 A.L.R. 932.
County may not support county fair conducted by private corporation. — Laws 1913, ch. 51, appropriating money or directing a county to appropriate money to a private corporation engaged in conducting a county fair, for purpose of paying premiums on agricultural, horticultural and other exhibits, which was a duty assumed by such a corporation, conflicted with this section. Harrington v. Atteberry, 1915-NMSC-058, 21 N.M. 50, 153 P. 1041.
Legislative pension benefits cannot be gifts because this section prohibits the state from directly or indirectly lending its credit or from making any donation to or in aid of any person. State ex rel. Udall v. Public Employees Retirement Bd., 1994-NMCA-094, 118 N.M. 507, 882 P.2d 548, rev'd, 1995-NMSC-078, 120 N.M. 786, 907 P.2d 190.
Federal funds used for hotel development project. — City's channeling of federal funds to a hotel development project did not violate the antidonation clause. Hotels of Distinction W., Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, 1988-NMSC-047, 107 N.M. 257, 755 P.2d 595.
Government forest or watershed restoration project is not an unconstitutional donation. — The anti-donation clause prohibits public entities from donating public funds to private entities without receiving value in return, and therefore where a state or local government agency plans, organizes, participates in, or otherwise conducts a forest or watershed restoration project, which is designed to benefit the public but has the unintended consequence of benefitting non-state land and private individuals, the project does not violate the anti-donation clause, because where projects benefit the public and only incidentally benefit private individuals, they would not constitute "donations" for the purposes of the anti-donation clause. Government Forest or Watershed Restoration Projects and Article IX, Section 14 of the New Mexico Constitution (12/1/2022), Att'y Gen. Adv. Ltr. 2022-12.
Legislative allocation to private crisis center likely violated the anti-donation clause. — N.M. Const., Art. IX, § 14 is implicated only in cases where government funding or aid takes on the character of a donation in substance and effect. The government may not confer something of value to a private entity or individual without receiving something of value in return, and therefore a legislative allocation of $214,000 to the solace crisis treatment center (formerly the Santa Fe rape crisis center) for capital improvements to the center's building likely violated the anti-donation clause if the state received no consideration in return for its expenditure. Allocation of Capital Outlay Funds to Solace Crisis Treatment Center (12/1/2022), Att'y Gen. Adv. Ltr. 2022-14.
RV park's use of village property without compensation likely violates the anti-donation clause. — Where a village trustee owns an RV park, adjacent to which is a piece of property owned by the village, and where, for many years, the RV park has used the parcel of village property as an extension of the RV park without compensation to the village, and where the trustee has expressed an interest in purchasing the parcel, it is likely that the RV park's uncompensated use of the village's parcel, occurring both before and during the trustee's ownership of the RV park, violates the anti-donation clause; violations of the anti-donation clause are ordinarily remedied by court actions seeking injunctive relief to stop the government from making an unconstitutional donation and restitution to recoup the unconstitutional transfer of the public's property. The village could also enter into a sale or lease agreement with the RV park, or the trustee, under which the village receives from the RV park not only the purchase price based on the appraised value or a right to lease payments, but also adequate consideration for the park's past use of the village property. 2023 Op. Ethics Comm'n No. 2023-05.
Paid leave for a teacher also serving as a legislator is not a donation, and is therefore not prohibited. — N.M. Const., Art. IX, § 14 prohibits a school district from directly or indirectly making any donation to or in aid of any person, association or public or private corporation unless otherwise authorized by the state constitution. New Mexico courts have consistently held that compensation provided to public employees in exchange for their services is not a donation proscribed by the anti-donation clause, and therefore paid leave provided to a teacher or other school employee serving as a member of the legislature is not an unconstitutional donation if it is compensation for the employee's services as a teacher or other school employee. Provision of Paid Leave to Teacher Serving as Legislator (5/31/17), Att'y Gen. Adv. Ltr. 2017-05.
Purchase of water rights. — Section 72-1-2.4 NMSA 1978, which appropriates funds to purchase land with appurtenant water rights or rights to the delivery of water as a substitution for enforcement of priorities, does not violate the anti-donation clause because the state receives present value for its purchase even though subsequent priority calls may diminish the value. State ex rel. State Eng'r v. Lewis, 2007-NMCA-008, 141 N.M. 1, 150 P.3d 375.
Where value received, bond issue appropriate. — A proposed bond issue to erect high school in conjunction with state school is not unconstitutional as a pledge of credit or donation by district in aid of state. District will get value received for every dollar put into the enterprise. White v. Board of Educ., 1938-NMSC-009, 42 N.M. 94, 75 P.2d 712.
The film production tax credit does not amount to an unconstitutional gift in violation of the Anti-Donation Clause. — The Film Production Tax Credit Act (act), §§ 7-2F-1 to 7-2F-15 NMSA 1978, creates a film production tax credit that allows an eligible film production company to claim a credit for a percentage of its qualified production and postproduction expenditures made in New Mexico. Under the act, film production companies can only receive the tax credit by complying with specific statutory directives, and, by complying with statutory obligations, film production companies promote economic and workforce development within the state. Thus, in exchange for the tax credit, film production companies assist the state in meeting the express purpose and goals of the act. The plain language of the act, therefore, requires consideration, thus satisfying the strictures of the Anti-Donation Clause. 2026 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 26-06.
Government agencies may accept services as consideration for the lease of government property. — The anti-donation clause does not preclude the use of services as adequate consideration in exchange for the lease of government property, and the legislature has expressly recognized the use of services as consideration in otherwise lawful property transactions with government entities, as long as the total consideration is reasonably equivalent to the value of the lease. Valuation of In-Kind Services (4/29/16), Att'y Gen. Adv. Ltr. 2016-03.
Adequately defined consideration for the lease of government cell phone towers is permissible. — It is firmly established that a general public benefit is insufficient for a state allocation to conform to the requirement of the anti-donation clause, but courts have considered the permissibility of government expenditures when there is adequately defined consideration, and service contracts may serve as adequate consideration in exchange for the government allowance. Therefore, allowing private cell phone providers space on cell phone towers may be permissible if the government agency enters into a service contract with providers and receives adequate consideration for the government allowance. Department of Information Technology Provision of Rent-Free Space on Radio Towers in Exchange for Cell Phone Providers Serving Remote Areas of New Mexico and Article IX, Section 14 of the New Mexico Constitution (12/2/2022), Att'y Gen. Adv. Ltr. 2022-18.
City may sell property on part cash, part credit terms. — Sale of city light and power system to privately owned public utility company, partly for cash and partly on terms, did not constitute a lending or pledging of credit and was not a donation under this section. City of Clovis v. Southwestern Pub. Serv. Co., 1945-NMSC-030, 49 N.M. 270, 161 P.2d 878, 161 A.L.R. 504.
City must consider all aspects in fixing price. — Fact that election and election notice did not mention interest on delayed payments upon purchase of utility from city did not constitute a donation to utility company so long as this item was considered in determining the ultimate purchase and sale figure. City of Clovis v. Southwestern Pub. Serv. Co., 1945-NMSC-030, 49 N.M. 270, 161 P.2d 878, 161 A.L.R. 504.
Recruitment and retention of health care professionals. — The state does not violate the anti-donation clause where the state receives consideration in return for the allocation or appropriation of something of value, and therefore where the miners' Colfax medical center (MCMC) would like to be able to pay for travel expenses, hotel expenses and meals for doctors' on site recruitment visits as well as for retention bonuses to keep the doctors for extended periods of time, the MCMC would not violate the anti-donation clause if it could demonstrate that it was receiving adequate consideration for travel reimbursements. If a state agency or a political subdivision of the state needs to fill a position for which there are no qualified applicants in Santa Fe, a prospective employee who agrees to travel to Santa Fe for an interview does so for the benefit and convenience of the state agency or political subdivision of the state and would therefore constitute adequate consideration. Additionally, if the MCMC contracts with a physician and a longevity bonus is included in the contract, this would likely be sufficient consideration and, consequently, would not violate the anti-donation clause. Recruitment and Retention of Health Care Professionals (6/22/15), Att'y Gen. Adv. Ltr. 2015-05.
"Public or private corporation" construed. — The language of this section wherein the words "public or private corporation" are used extends to the city's operation of water and sewage systems. State ex rel. City of Albuquerque v. Lavender, 1961-NMSC-096, 69 N.M. 220, 365 P.2d 652.
Proprietary function equivalent to private enterprise. — Operation of water and sewer systems is a proprietary function of a municipality, not a governmental function, and therefore must stand on the same footing as privately owned utility facilities. State ex rel. City of Albuquerque v. Lavender, 1961-NMSC-096, 69 N.M. 220, 365 P.2d 652.
Intragovernmental transfers outside prohibition. — This provision has no application where the lending of credit is under legislative sanction by one subordinate governmental agency to another. Wiggs v. City of Albuquerque, 1952-NMSC-013, 56 N.M. 214, 242 P.2d 865.
This section does not prevent the leasing of a state park to a city for $1.00 per year, even if such lease amounted to a donation, since this section is not applicable to a legislatively sanctioned donation by the state or one of its governmental agencies to another such agency. City of Gallup v. New Mexico State Park & Recreation Comm'n, 1974-NMSC-084, 86 N.M. 745, 527 P.2d 786.
Definition of "indigent patient" in 27-5-4C NMSA 1978 is not unconstitutional under this section. Humana of N.M., Inc. v. Board of Cnty. Comm'rs, 1978-NMSC-036, 92 N.M. 34, 582 P.2d 806.
Sick leave benefits for state employees are not compensation for services rendered but are payable under this section, which prohibits donations to private persons, as provisions "for the care and maintenance of sick and indigent persons". 1983 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 83-04.
Effect of proviso regarding care of sick and indigent. — City could enter into contract with county whereby former conveys hospital facilities for a nominal amount and the added consideration that the county agree to provide for the care and maintenance of the city's sick and indigent citizens. By so doing, the restrictive provisions of this section would not be applicable. 1958 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 58-78.
Not necessary that recipients of aid be both sick and indigent. — To hold that a person must be both sick and indigent, rather than sick or indigent, would disqualify the large amount of recipients now obtaining welfare aid and old age assistance who are in financial need but are not sick. Therefore, the department of public health may use its moneys to provide drugs to persons who are ill with tuberculosis but not indigent. 1958 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 58-135.
Not necessary that person be sick when aid given. — Department of public health may provide drugs for preventing the development or reestablishment of a disease in a person presumed well at the time the drug is administered because such treatment serves a public purpose and is, therefore, not a donation or gift even though the recipients may be incidentally benefited. 1958 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 58-135.
There is no anti-donation clause violation where a district court, through its drug treatment program, expends public funds for the care and maintenance of drug treatment participants. — The anti-donation clause prohibits the use of state or local government funds to benefit private organizations, which generally include transfers of property or money by a government entity to a private person for which the government entity receives nothing of value in return, but the anti-donation clause also exempts from this prohibition the expenditure of public funds for the care and maintenance of sick and indigent persons, and therefore, a district court’s expenditure of public funds, through its drug treatment court, for life skills training services, therapeutic services, exercise classes, fitness memberships, personal hygiene supplies, cleaning supplies, gardening supplies, and gift cards in small amounts for fuel and meals to be distributed to drug court participants in recognition of their accomplishments and compliance with treatment court goals, does not violate the anti-donation clause, because drug court expenditures are clearly targeted to aid persons who are suffering from alcohol and substance abuse disorders. The services and benefits effectively promote the "care and maintenance" of drug treatment court participants. 2023 Op. Ethics Comm’n No. 2023-03.
The anti-donation clause does not prohibit the Indian Affairs department from contracting with private, non-profit indigenous centers to provide basic needs and resources for housing, healthcare, and behavioral health services for indigent persons. — The anti-donation clause prohibits donations of property or money by a government entity to a private person for which the government entity receives nothing of value in return, but if the governmental entity receives something of value in exchange for government funds, the exchange would not be a "donation" violative of the anti-donation clause, and therefore a professional service contract between the Indian affairs department (IAD) and private, non-profit indigenous centers that provide certain resources to indigent individuals would not violate the anti-donation clause because by entering into a professional services contract, the IAD would necessarily receive consideration in the agreements in order for them to be valid contracts, and as such, the transfer of funds to the indigenous centers pursuant to such an agreement would not constitute a "donation" under the anti-donation clause. Moreover, an exception to the anti-donation clause allows governmental entities to provide for the care and maintenance of sick and indigent persons, so if the proposed agreements require the IAD to provide funds to the indigenous centers for the care and maintenance of sick or indigent persons, such provision would meet the first exception to the constitutional prohibition of the anti-donation clause. 2024 Op. Ethics Comm'n No. 2024-06.
Ambulance service proper. — It is legally possible to make an arrangement whereby county in the legitimate exercise of its health and welfare powers could provide ambulance service to sick and indigent residents of the county. 1961 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 61-84.
County road work for charitable institution. — It may be implied from construction of this section that a county would have the power to do road work for a charitable institution which was providing for the care of sick and indigent persons. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-103.
Public funding for private roads. — The anti-donation clause prohibits public entities from donating public funds to private entities without receiving value in return, and therefore maintenance or rehabilitation of private roads would be an unconstitutional appropriation of public funds for the benefit of private property owners, unless the public has unfettered access and the right to travel on the private roads. In such case, the public's free access to and use of the private road means that the project would primarily serve a public purpose, even if it did result in an incidental benefit to private entities. Public Funding for Private Roads (12/1/2022), Att'y Gen. Adv. Ltr. 2022-11.
Pensions for blind persons. — A statute providing a "pension" plan for the blind without regard to financial need would not be constitutional. 1957 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 57-26.
Assistance to those not in danger of becoming paupers. — Since assistance under emergency roughage program is not limited to paupers or even to those who although not paupers are in danger of becoming such and is thus unable to come within the most liberal interpretation of the "sick and indigent persons" exception of this section, this provision, as well as N.M. Const., art. IV, § 31, prohibits the state's contribution of $2.50 per ton toward the purchase of hay. 1957 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 57-62.
Aid to hospital operated by private lessee. — The evident purpose of Laws 1955, ch. 224 (4-48-11 and 4-48-14 NMSA 1978) was to provide a means by which the county operating the hospital itself could pay for such operation. To construe Laws 1955, ch. 224, as allowing the county commissioners to use the funds authorized in this section for the purpose of supporting and maintaining a hospital owned by the county but leased to a private organization, would be in direct violation of N.M. Const., art. IV, § 31 and this section. 1956 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 56-6426.
Courts should require reimbursement for copying costs incurred. — The supreme court and the court of appeals should require reasonable reimbursement for the costs incurred by them for copying opinions for the public or for retrieving their opinions for inspection. However, such a charge need not be made in those cases in which the courts receive some other form of consideration in return for supplying their opinions to private individuals or enterprises. 1979 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 79-14.
Intragovernmental transfers outside prohibition. — The prohibition against donations does not apply as between the state or one of its subordinate agencies and another such agency. 1979 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 79-02.
Donation between political subdivisions permitted. — A donation of property from one political subdivision of the state to another is not prohibited by this section. 1981 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 81-27.
Funding colonias infrastructure projects does not implicate the anti-donation clause. — The anti-donation clause is not implicated where the New Mexico finance authority and the colonias infrastructure board (board), created pursuant to the Colonias Infrastructure Act, 6-30-1 to 6-30-8 NMSA 1978, provide financial assistance to qualifying entities, as defined by the Colonias Infrastructure Act, for colonias infrastructure projects, even if the funds are subsequently provided to private entities, because the financial assistance is being transferred from the board, an agency of the state, to qualifying entities, also political subdivisions of the state. Housing Infrastructure and the Anti-Donation Clause (10/31/17), Att'y Gen. Adv. Ltr. 2017-06.
Intent of this section was to prevent the giving of outright "grants" or the use of the city's credit by and for those who would not be entitled to get or receive credit in the first instance and to act as a curb on speculative ventures prevalent at the time of its adoption. 1956 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 56-6550.
Enterprise's public purpose does not justify aid. — Even if a donation is to be used for a public purpose, it is not exempt from constitutional prohibitions. 1979 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 79-02.
Outright gifts to individuals are in violation of this section, and the fact that an appropriation may be serving a highly commendable public purpose does not exempt it from this constitutional prohibition. 1979 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 79-07.
Conformity with aid of charities provision. — The language of this section was obviously designed to conform to the aid of charities provision of N.M. Const., art. IV, § 31. 1975 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 75-07.
Loan or pledge of credit proscribed. — The expenditure of $3,000 to be used in preliminary and advance work in preparing for the 1965 western association of state highway officials' convention is absolutely proscribed by this section of the New Mexico constitution, even though the western association of state highway officials would reimburse the department from registration fees, since the proposed expenditure would amount at the very least to a pledging or lending of highway department credit to the association. 1964 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 64-81.
Limited contingent liability. — It is legal for school districts, irrigation districts and other public units to insure public property in authorized mutual insurance companies, if the contingent liability assumed by public body is limited in amount; but if such liability is not so limited, the constitutional provision would be violated. 1935 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 35-1214.
Student loan plan associated with federal law. — Plan whereby the state could loan money to resident students who are enrolled in an institution of higher learning in the state and who otherwise qualify under the federal guaranteed loan program under the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.) is not inconsistent with N.M. Const., art. VIII, § 4, or this section. 1970 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 70-23.
Grasshopper control program meets judicial tests. — The grasshopper control program meets the tests which have been established by the supreme court as meeting the requirements of this section; that is, (1) a public purpose is being served, and (2) complete control of the expenditure of the state's contribution rests in a state agency. Therefore, the appropriation made in Laws 1957, ch. 212, § 10, is constitutional. 1959 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 59-92.
Transportation of students to private schools. — If private schools or students were to reimburse the county pursuant to an enforceable contract for funds expended in contracting with a school district for the transportation of students to the private schools, there would be no violation of this provision. 1989 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 89-02.
Providing dormitory and meals to boy scouts. — The department of public safety cannot provide use of its dormitory and meals to a boy scouts of America troop at a substantially reduced cost. 1990 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 90-13.
Payment of mayor's annual dues in club. — This section prohibited the township of Mesilla from paying from public funds the mayor's annual dues for membership in the Las Cruces Forum, Inc. 1988 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 88-47.
"Trading" tax exemptions for health care. — Repeal of the state income tax exemptions for teacher pensions and public employee pensions does not remedy constitutional defects of the proposed retiree health care act under a theory that those exemptions would be "traded" for retiree health care. Those exemptions are not property rights, irrepealable contractual entitlements, or pension benefits. Hence, elimination of the favorable tax treatment for current retirees is not consideration for a multi-million dollar health care plan that the state proposes to provide them. 1990 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 90-03.
Municipalities without power to make gifts. — Municipal corporations are creatures of statute; they have only the powers with which they are invested by the statutes creating them. Powers of cities and towns are set out in 3-18-1 NMSA 1978. No power to make a gift of any kind is mentioned. 1960 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 60-160.
"Donation” construed. — A donation within the meaning of this section has been defined as a gift, an allocation or appropriation of something of value, without consideration. 1979 Op. Att'y Gen. Nos. 79-02 and 79-07.
Development agreements.— Under a development agreement, a home rule municipality may reimburse a developer out of gross receipts tax proceeds in exchange for the developer's services in building public infrastructure in connection with a contract to facilitate the construction of retail business establishments. 2002 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 02-02.
The purchase of water rights is not included among the permissible uses of public money under the Local Economic Development Act. — The anti-donation clause, N.M. Const., Art. IX, § 14, prohibits the state, a county, school district, or municipality from making any donation to or in aid of any person, association or public or private corporation, with certain exceptions; among the exceptions to the anti-donation clause's prohibition is N.M. Const., Art. IX, § 14(D), which allows a state, county, or municipality to create new job opportunities by providing "land, buildings or infrastructure" for facilities to support new or expanding businesses. The Local Economic Development Act, 5-10-1 to 5-10-17 NMSA 1978, was enacted to implement N.M. Const., art. IX, § 14(D), and authorizes a local government to provide public support for economic development projects permitted by N.M. Const., Art. IX, § 14(D). As commonly understood and used by the legislature, however, "land, buildings or infrastructure" do not include water rights or the acquisition of water rights, and therefore, an agreement between the New Mexico economic development department and the village of Los Lunas, under which the state will provide funding for the acquisition of consumptive use water rights and the equivalency in water credits for a Facebook data center project in Los Lunas, New Mexico, would be in violation of the anti-donation clause and the Local Economic Development Act. The acquisition of water rights is not included among the permissible uses of public money under the Local Economic Development Act or the New Mexico constitution. Purchase of Water Rights under the Local Economic Development Act (11/13/18), Att'y Gen. Adv. Ltr. 2018-07.
Tax exemptions and deductions not unconstitutional donations unless retroactive. — Gross receipts tax exemptions and deductions do not violate the antidonation clause of this section unless they are applied retroactively to taxes due and payable. 1991 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 91-14.
Constitutionality of 1990 workers' compensation legislation. — The latest pronouncements of the New Mexico supreme court indicate that a loan of state funds to the employers mutual company, as authorized by the workers' compensation law, violates the antidonation clause of this section. 1990 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 90-25.
Scholarships out of public money. — Grants of scholarships by state educational institutions out of public money, but not out of endowments for that purpose, would probably violate this section. 1937 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 37-1646.
Based on its authority to provide and charge tuition for educational services, a technical-vocational institute may, consistently with the antidonation clause, use public money for scholarships in the form of tuition waivers or reductions if the criteria used to award them are education-related and applied in a reasonable and even-handed manner. Past opinions suggesting that scholarship awards violate the antidonation clause are overruled to the extent they limit scholarships to those paid from private or federal sources. 1997 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 97-02.
No contributions to American legion memorial allowed. — County commissioners may not contribute $500 to an American legion war memorial which is erected upon the county courthouse grounds. 1943 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 43-4422.
Contributions to community chest. — It is not legal for the state fair to donate the proceeds, in excess of costs, from horse races to the community chest. 1955 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 55-6279.
Contributions to chamber of commerce. — A city cannot make donations to the chamber of commerce and include such contributions in the city budget. 1943 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 43-4368.
Arts commission may not pay expenses of students' art efforts. — Because it would be considered a donation, the New Mexico arts commission could not help defray the expenses of high school students painting and shipping a fence as a donation to the Kennedy center in Washington D.C., which was receiving such artistic donations from every state. 1967 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 67-30.
It is unconstitutional for school district to pay for students' insurance (of any type) with school district funds other than funds raised through the student activity account. 1964 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 64-83.
Use of school resources by school official running for office prohibited. — This section prohibits the use of school resources and personnel by school officials running for the state board of education or other elected office. 1992 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 92-04.
Reimbursement now permitted. — The public benefit exception to this section embraces reimbursement of travel expenses to prospective highway department employees as the benefit and convenience to the department constitutes consideration. 1981 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 81-05.
Users of public facilities must reimburse state for expenses. — It is incumbent upon any public agency or commission to obtain reimbursement for any actual expenses occasioned by reason of permitted private use of public facilities. 1964 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 64-92.
Conditions under which religious or private group may use school. — A local board of education may permit a particular religious denomination or private group to use public school buildings or facilities after school hours where such use, in the opinion of the school board, will not interfere with normal school activities; however, the school board may not in any respect sanction or give endorsement to such religious denominational programs. 1963 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 63-106 (rendered under former law).
Include equal treatment of all groups. — A local school board must, in exercising its discretion as to whether a particular religious denomination may use public school facilities after school hours, either make the use of school facilities available to all religious groups on an equal basis and without preference as to any particular group or not permit such use at all. 1963 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 63-106 (rendered under former law).
Reimbursement of school's expenses. — Since a school district may not in any manner lend its financial or other support to any private religious denomination, it is incumbent upon school authorities to obtain reimbursement for any actual expenses occasioned by a religious group's private use of public school facilities. 1963 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 63-106 (rendered under former law).
Gratis transfer of portable classrooms not violative of section. — A gratis transfer by the public school capital outlay council of portable classrooms to local school boards does not violate this section since the prohibition does not apply as between the state and one of its subordinate agencies. 1980 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 80-05.
Providing school district employees with membership in private health club. — A school district may spend public funds to provide its full-time employees with membership in a private health club if the membership is provided in return for services rendered to the district. 1989 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 89-20.
Relocation costs of physicians. — Luna county could not use taxpayer funds to pay relocation costs of physicians opening a practice in the county. 1989 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 89-22.
Contributions to scouts or salvation army. — Municipality may not contribute or spend any money of fund to or for the girl scouts, boy scouts or the salvation army if the contribution is to those organizations in their private capacities. 1955 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 55-6253.
Even though their efforts come within spirit of statute. — Such groups as the 4-H, boy scouts and girl scouts conduct juvenile recreation programs that come within the spirit of 7-12-15 NMSA 1978. But the framers of the constitution have clearly provided that public funds shall not be donated to private persons or associations, and it is the court's opinion that the juvenile recreation fund cannot be expended by, or on behalf of, a 4-H club. 1961 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 61-02.
Disbursement to nonpublic schools unconstitutional. — New Mexico Const., art. IV, § 31, this section and art. XII, § 3, would be violated if public money was disbursed to nonpublic schools in order to purchase secular education service. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-06.
Vouchers for private school education. — Tuition assistance in the form of vouchers for private education constitutes an unconstitutional state donation to a private entity. 1999 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 99-01.
Transfer for nominal consideration within prohibition. — The county commissioners of Dona Ana county cannot convey through donation or nominal consideration county land to the county humane society, a nonprofit, charitable, private organization. 1967 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 67-149.
Retroactive benefits. — If retired district judges and retired supreme court justices were in state service at the time of the initial enactment of the judges retirement law (10-12-1 NMSA 1978), such law would not be repugnant to this section. 1957 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 57-221.
Retroactive sick leave benefits would constitute an illegal donation as they would not be paid in consideration for services rendered. 1977 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 77-18.
School district would not be authorized to present a bonus to any teacher inasmuch as that would be giving extra compensation to a public servant after the services were rendered and a contract made. 1944 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 44-4440.
Counties may appropriate money for constructing building in which to show exhibits installed by counties at the state fair. 1915 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 15-1676.
Counties may pay to install displays which will benefit counties. — Counties may make appropriations with which to install displays at the state fair which, presumably, will be of benefit to the counties. 1915 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 15-1578.
Entertainment, travel, and meal expenditures. — Officials and employees of a technical-vocational institute may, within limitations, spend public money for certain entertainment, meals, travel, and membership expenses without violating the antidonation clause if the expenditures are demonstrably related to the institute's constitutionally or statutorily authorized functions and do not amount to a subsidy of private individuals or businesses. 1997 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 97-02.
Taxpayer political contribution designation option would violate section. — Legislation granting New Mexico taxpayers the option of designating $1.00 of their state income taxes for distribution as a contribution to a political party would be in violation of this section. 1979 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 79-02.
State retirement benefits for private employees. — Individuals employed by a private nongovernmental association are not eligible for retirement benefits from state funds. 1963 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 63-05.
Free public education for nonresidents. — To permit nonresident students to attend New Mexico public schools without payment of any kind would constitute a gift to them and would violate this section. 1978 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 78-14.
To the extent that a local school district would undertake the total burden of educating nonresident students without benefit of state allotment as dispensed on the basis of average daily membership, the school district would still be making a donation in aid of those students in violation of this section. 1978 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 78-14.
Grants to defray private tuition costs would be outright gifts. — Under the terms of a house bill providing that a sum of money be appropriated to the board of educational finance for allocation as grants to students for the purpose of defraying tuition costs at private colleges and universities, a grant to a student would appear to be an outright gift as there is no consideration or benefit accruing to the state in exchange for the grant, nor any provision that it be repaid. 1979 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 79-07.
Judges' retirement benefits constitutional. — State may constitutionally pay its share to retired district judges and retired members of the supreme court for their retirement benefits. 1957 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 57-221.
Educational leave for state employees. — Provision for educational leave granted in accordance with state personnel board rules does not violate constitutional anti-donation provision when a state employee is granted educational leave with pay to attend a state university program for advanced study. 1972 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 72-67.
Payment of teachers' dues to education associations. — Within the bounds of state board regulations and the requirements of the Public School Finance Act (Chapter 22 Article 8 NMSA 1978), a local board of education could, without violating this article, make membership dues payments on behalf of individual employees who voluntarily elect to be members of the national education association of New Mexico, American federation of teachers, classroom teachers association or any other teacher/education association that is deemed appropriate by those who desire to join. 1976 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 76-27.
A public school of this state may lawfully expend public moneys in a reasonable amount for the purpose of the payment of membership dues to an association or organization having for its stated and actual purposes the providing of direct assistance and aid to effect the betterment of local education and the rendering of service and actual benefits to such schools in the advancement of public education, as long as such expenditures are in the best interest of the individual school concerned. 1963 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 63-05.
Gift of employee's share of retirement plan contribution prohibited. — An outright gift by the state of an employee's share of his retirement plan contribution is a donation in aid of a person and prohibited by this section. 1981 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 81-16.
Aid to Santa Fe film festival. — New Mexico film commission cannot provide the Santa Fe film festival the use of its offices and telephones without charge. 1987 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 87-33.
Providing space in capitol building to news media. — Providing free space in the state capitol building to the news media for use during legislative sessions is not an unconstitutional donation by the legislature. However, the allocation of private office space in the capitol to members of the press for their permanent use does constitute an unconstitutional donation under this section. 1992 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 92-03.
Free space for vending machines. — State and local governments may provide space for newspaper vending machines and similar devices free of charge without violating the antidonation clause unless the vending machines take up space otherwise required for public or official use, require buildings to remain open after hours or require state agencies and local governments to provide custodial, maintenance, utility or other services. 1992 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 92-03.
Use of tax proceeds to operate privately owned racetrack. — The City of Raton would violate the anti-donation clause if it spent lodgers' tax proceeds to operate the privately owned La Mesa Park racetrack or to defer its expenses. 1988 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 88-38.
Conveyance price sufficiently related to value of property. — Arms-length conveyance of property from the New Mexico Military Institute to the New Mexico Military Institute Foundation was proper, and did not violate this section, where the $250,000 contract price bore a sufficient relationship to the actual value of the property. 1988 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 88-79.
Section prohibits appropriations without consideration. — This section does not prohibit indirect aid or benefit to a private corporation; it only prohibits an allocation or appropriation of something of value without consideration to a person, association or public or private corporation. 1967 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 67-29.
Bargained-for employee benefits valid. — Constitution would not prohibit legislation authorizing local school boards to devise plan of compensation which would include the payment of benefits to retiring employees for accumulated, unused sick leave. The various prohibitions contained in N.M. Const., art. IV, § 27, N.M. Const., art. IV, § 31 and this section would not be violated so long as the benefit was, in fact, bargained for consideration in the form of compensation for services rendered as defined by contract between the employee and the local school board. 1977 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 77-18.
Provision by state of group or other forms of insurance for the benefit of eligible employees is a valid use of public funds and not a pledge of credit or donation in contravention of the state constitution, since such contribution is in fact an increment to a public employee's salary and is a benefit to the state or its subdivisions through its concomitant effect of attracting and maintaining capable public personnel in public positions. 1964 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 64-83; 1940 Op. Att'y Gen. 40-3493.
Prohibition of section is directed against payment of obligation belonging to a public or private corporation. — Payment by school district of a contribution or advance to a public utility for construction purposes is not the payment of the utility's obligation and therefore is not a contribution within the scope of the constitutional prohibition. Furthermore, money so expended by a school district or any other such agency is money expended for value received and therefore not prohibited. 1966 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 66-58.
City may dispose of property received subject to reversionary interest. — Surrender of property donated to city subject to a reversionary interest may be effected without consideration, or the city could quitclaim its interest to another agency for $1.00 and "other good and valuable consideration" upon proper resolution of the city council and the grantee agency could then purchase the reversionary interest of the original donor. 1951 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 51-5427.
City may give credits for business reasons. — Consistent with this section, a city as owner of a natural gas system, in order to promote the use of natural gas and compete with other utilities, could give credits of $12.50 to $50.00 to customers if they installed a new gas water heater, changed to a gas water heater from another type of water heater or replaced the existing gas water heater with a new gas water heater. 1964 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 64-53.
Sale prices must be reasonably related to value. — County property can only be sold for at least an amount having some reasonable relation to the value of the property. 1967 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 67-149.
Outright contributions could not be made by municipality to community action agency under office of economic opportunity. — If the city wished to pay out any money to the community action committee, it could not make an outright contribution, but could pay moneys under the terms of a personal service contract. 1966 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 66-117.
Reimbursement now permitted. — The public benefit exception to this section embraces reimbursement of travel expenses to prospective highway department employees as the benefit and convenience to the department constitutes consideration. 1981 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 81-05.
Intergovernmental transfers not prohibited. 1958 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 58-231.
Municipality may not fund specially created nonprofit corporation. — City or county may not appropriate public funds for economic development to be used by nonprofit corporation formed for this purpose. 1967 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 67-29.
Law reviews. — For note, "Forest Fire Protection on Public and Private Lands in New Mexico," see 4 Nat. Resources J. 374 (1964).
For student symposium, "Constitutional Revision - State Aid to Private Enterprise in New Mexico," see 9 Nat. Resources J. 457 (1969).
For article, "Ad Valorem Tax Status of a Private Lessee's Interest in Publicly Owned Property: Taxability of Possessory Interests in Industrial Projects under the New Mexico Industrial Revenue Bond Act," see 3 N.M. L. Rev. 136 (1973).
For article, "State Investment Attraction Subsidy Wars Resulting from a Prisoner's Dilemma: The Inadequacy of State Constitutional Solutions and the Appropriateness of a Federal Legislative Response", see 28 N.M. L. Rev. 303 (1998).
For article, "New Mexico Taxes: Taking Another Look," see 32 N.M. L. Rev. 351 (2002).
For note, “Indirect Funding of Sectarian Schools: A Discussion of the Constitutionality of State School Voucher Programs Under Federal and New Mexico Law After Zelman v. Simmons-Harris,” see 34 N.M. L. Rev. 194 (2004).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 56 Am. Jur. 2d Municipal Corporations, Counties, and Other Political Subdivisions §§ 588, 589; 63A Am. Jur. 2d Public Funds §§ 3, 4, 60, 64, 68, 70.
Constitutionality of statute or ordinance authorizing use of public funds, credit, or power of taxation for restoration or repair of privately owned utility, 13 A.L.R. 313.
Releasing public school pupils from attendance for purpose of attending religious education classes as use of public money for sectarian purpose, 2 A.L.R.2d 1371.
Validity of legislation providing for additional retirement or disability allowances for public employees previously retired or disabled, 27 A.L.R.2d 1442.
Urban redevelopment by private enterprise, validity of statutes providing for, 44 A.L.R.2d 1414.
Constitutionality of state legislation to reimburse public utilities for cost of relocating their facilities because of highway construction, conditioned upon federal reimbursement of state under terms of Federal-Aid Highway Act (23 U.S.C. § 123), 75 A.L.R.2d 419.
Use of public school premises for religious purposes during nonschool time, 79 A.L.R.2d 1148.
Public payment of tuition, scholarship or the like, to sectarian school, 81 A.L.R.2d 1309.
Permissible use of funds from parking meters, 83 A.L.R.2d 625.
Use of public money for furnishing free textbooks to sectarian school or student therein, 93 A.L.R.2d 986.
Use of school property for other than public school or religious purposes, 94 A.L.R.2d 1274.
20 C.J.S. Counties § 204; 64 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 1870; 79 C.J.S. Schools and School Districts § 330; 81A C.J.S. States §§ 204 to 208.