A. Each justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of appeals, district judge or metropolitan court judge shall have been elected to that position in a partisan election prior to being eligible for a nonpartisan retention election. Thereafter, each such justice or judge shall be subject to retention or rejection on a nonpartisan ballot. Retention of the judicial office shall require at least fifty-seven percent of the vote cast on the question of retention or rejection.

B. Each justice of the supreme court or judge of the court of appeals shall be subject to retention or rejection in like manner at the general election every eighth year.

C. Each district judge shall be subject to retention or rejection in like manner at the general election every sixth year.

D. Each metropolitan court judge shall be subject to retention or rejection in like manner at the general election every fourth year.

E. Every justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of appeals, district judge or metropolitan court judge holding office on January 1 next following the date of the election at which this amendment is adopted shall be deemed to have fulfilled the requirements of Subsection A of this section and the justice or judge shall be eligible for retention or rejection by the electorate at the general election next preceding the end of the term of which the justice or judge was last elected prior to the adoption of this amendment. (As added November 8, 1988; and as amended November 8, 1994.)

ANNOTATIONS

The 1994 amendment, proposed by S.J.R. No. 1 (Laws 1994) and adopted at the general election held on November 8, 1994 by a vote of 222,910 for and 166,639 against, added the last sentence of Subsection A requiring 57 percent of the vote cast for judicial retention.

The 1988 amendment to Article VI, which was proposed by S.J.R. No. 1, § 1 (Laws 1988) and adopted at the general election held on November 8, 1988, by a vote of 203,509 for and 159,957 against, added this section.

Compiler's notes. — An amendment to Article VI, proposed by S.J.R. No. 2 (Laws 1981), which would have added a new Section 33 relating to elections for the retention or rejection of supreme court justices, judges of the court of appeals and district judges, was submitted to the people at the general election held on November 2, 1982. It was defeated by a vote of 117,601 for and 139,643 against.

When successor judge must stand for retention. — A district judge elected in a partisan election is subject to retention in the sixth year of the predecessor judge’s term. State ex rel. King v. Raphaelson, 2015-NMSC-028.

Where the state of New Mexico, through the office of the attorney general, filed a petition for writ of quo warranto seeking to have the New Mexico supreme court remove a district court judge from the bench who, after her unsuccessful retention election, claimed to not be subject to a retention election until six years after her partisan election, the supreme court granted the state’s petition for writ of quo warranto holding that New Mexico’s judicial selection system was designed so that all district judges statewide are up for retention at the same time every six years. The district court judge was properly up for retention at the end of her predecessor’s six-year term, rather than six years after her partisan election. State ex rel. King v. Raphaelson, 2015-NMSC-028.

N.M. Const., Art. VI, Section 33 does not govern the process of judicial succession. — This provision does not prohibit a judicial nominating commission from considering, and the governor from appointing, an otherwise qualified judicial applicant to fill a vacant judicial office based on the judicial applicant’s nonretention in the immediately preceding election. Clark v. Mitchell, 2016-NMSC-005.

Where a tenth judicial district court judge failed to garner at least fifty-seven percent of the votes cast on the question of his retention as required by N.M. Const., Art. VI, § 33 of the New Mexico constitution, where the judge applied for the resulting judicial vacancy, and where the judicial nominating committee submitted for consideration the judge’s name to the governor, who then appointed the judge to the vacant judicial position, petition for writ of quo warranto was denied because the New Mexico constitution does not prohibit a judicial nominating commission from considering, and the governor from appointing, an otherwise qualified judicial applicant to fill a vacant judicial office based on the judicial applicant’s nonretention in the immediately preceding election. Clark v. Mitchell, 2016-NMSC-005.

Unconstitutional alteration to the terms of office. — Where petitioners, a class of public officers affected by the election deferral provisions of HB 407, passed by the 2019 legislature, filed petitions for writs of mandamus challenging the constitutionality of HB 407 to the extent it postponed the times of election and extended the constitutionally mandated terms of certain public offices, the New Mexico supreme court issued writs of mandamus prohibiting the implementation of the affected provisions because they impermissibly alter the constitutionally prescribed terms of office of the petitioning groups. State ex rel. Sugg v. Toulouse Oliver, 2020-NMSC-002.

Constitutional amendment implicitly repealed the requirement that all district and metropolitan court judges stand for retention at the same time. — Where petitioners, sitting district and metropolitan court judges and their association, filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the constitutionality of §§ 1-26-5 and 1-26-6 NMSA 1978, which provide for staggered retention elections of district court and metropolitan court judges, respectively, claiming that N.M. Const., Art. VI, § 33, specifically requires that retention elections of all district judges statewide occur at the same time and that N.M. Const., Art. XX, § 3, generally authorizes the legislature to stagger the dates of elections of district officers, and that because the two constitutional provisions conflict, the general provision must yield to the more specific provision, and as a result, §§ 1-26-5 and 1-26-6 are unconstitutional, the petition was denied because, although Art. XX, § 3 irreconcilably conflicts with N.M. Const., Art. VI, §§ 33, 35, 36, and 37 and Art. VI, § 33 is the more specific of the two provisions, Art. XX, § 3, as amended by the voters in 2020, implicitly repealed the requirement in Art. VI § 33 that all district and metropolitan court judges stand for retention election at the same time. Article XX, § 3 therefore, authorized the legislature to amend §§ 1-26-5 and -6 to stagger retention elections for district and metropolitan court judges. State ex rel. Franchini v. Toulouse Oliver, 2022-NMSC-016.

Judicial officers holding office on January 1, 1995, but appointed to office after adoption of the 1994 amendment to this section, are deemed to have been elected to office in a partisan election, and are eligible for retention or rejection by the voters at the end of the term for which elected. 1995 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 95-03.

Simultaneous declarations of candidacy. — A district judge may not file a declaration of candidacy for retention of office and, at the same time, file a declaration of candidacy in a primary election for a statewide judicial office. 1990 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 90-04.

Law reviews. — For article, "Judicial Selection in New Mexico: A Hybrid of Commission Nomination and Partisan Election," see 30 N.M. L. Rev. 177 (2000).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 46 Am. Jur. 2d Judges § 8 et seq.

48A C.J.S. Judges §§ 12 to 14, 21 to 24.