There is created the "appellate judges nominating commission", consisting of: the chief justice of the supreme court or the chief justice's designee from the supreme court; two judges of the court of appeals appointed by the chief judge of the court of appeals; the governor, the speaker of the house of representatives and the president pro tempore of the senate shall each appoint two persons, one of whom shall be an attorney licensed to practice law in this state and the other who shall be a citizen who is not licensed to practice law in any state; the dean of the university of New Mexico school of law or the dean's designee, who shall be an associate dean, a faculty member, a retired faculty member or a former dean of the university of New Mexico school of law; the dean or the dean's designee shall serve as chair of the commission and shall vote only in the event of a tie vote; and four members of the state bar of New Mexico, representing civil and criminal prosecution and defense, appointed by the president of the state bar and the judges on the commission.

The appointments shall be made in such manner that each of the two largest major political parties, as defined by the Election Code, shall be equally represented on the commission. If necessary, the president of the state bar and the judges on the commission shall make the minimum number of additional appointments of members of the state bar as is necessary to make each of the two largest major political parties be equally represented on the commission. These additional members of the state bar shall be appointed such that the diverse interests of the state bar are represented. The dean of the university of New Mexico school of law shall be the final arbiter of whether such diverse interests are represented. Members of the commission shall be appointed for terms as may be provided by law. If a position on the commission becomes vacant for any reason, the successor shall be selected by the original appointing authority in the same manner as the original appointment was made and shall serve for the remainder of the term vacated.

The commission shall actively solicit, accept and evaluate applications from qualified lawyers for the position of justice of the supreme court or judge of the court of appeals and may require an applicant to submit any information it deems relevant to the consideration of the application.

Upon the occurrence of an actual vacancy in the office of justice of the supreme court or judge of the court of appeals, the commission shall meet within thirty days and within that period submit to the governor the names of persons qualified for the judicial office and recommended for appointment to that office by a majority of the commission.

Immediately after receiving the commission nominations, the governor may make one request of the commission for submission of additional names, and the commission shall promptly submit such additional names if a majority of the commission finds that additional persons would be qualified and recommends those persons for appointment to the judicial office. The governor shall fill a vacancy or appoint a successor to fill an impending vacancy in the office of justice of the supreme court or judge of the court of appeals within thirty days after receiving final nominations from the commission by appointing one of the persons nominated by the commission for appointment to that office. If the governor fails to make the appointment within that period or from those nominations, the appointment shall be made from those nominations by the chief justice or the acting chief justice of the supreme court. The person appointed shall serve until the first general election following one year after appointment. The appointee's successor shall be chosen at such election and shall hold the office until the expiration of the term in effect at the time of election. (As added November 8, 1988; as amended November 8, 2022, and November 5, 2024.)

ANNOTATIONS

The 2024 amendment, proposed by SRC/S.J.R. No. 1 (Laws 2024), and adopted at the general election held on November 5, 2024, by a vote of 412,465 for and 389,871 against, allowed the dean of the University of New Mexico School of Law to appoint a designee to the judicial nominating commission; and in first paragraph, after "the dean of the university of New Mexico school of law" added "or the dean's designee, who shall be an associate dean, a faculty member, a retired faculty member or a former dean of the university of New Mexico school of law; the dean or the dean's designee".

The 2022 amendment, proposed by S.J.R. No. 2 (Laws 2022) and adopted at the general election held on November 8, 2022, by a vote of 440,945 for and 200,018 against, provided that an appointed judge shall serve until the first general election following one year after the judge’s appointment, and provided that the appointee’s successor shall hold the office until the expiration of the term in effect at the time of the election; in the fourth undesignated paragraph, after "acting chief justice of the supreme court.", deleted "Any" and added "The", after "shall serve until the", deleted "next" and added "first", after "general election", deleted "That person’s" and added "following one year after appointment. The appointee’s", after "expiration of the", deleted "original", and after "term", added "in effect at the time of election".

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 35 relating to the filling of judicial vacancies, 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.

Cross references. — For the rules of the judicial nominating commission, oath, open meetings resolution, and applicant questionnaire, see the addenda to this article.

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.

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 1-26-6 to stagger retention elections for district and metropolitan court judges. State ex rel. Franchini v. Toulouse Oliver, 2022-NMSC-016.

The judicial succession process is separate and apart from the retention election process. — 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.

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 § 237 et seq.

48A C.J.S. Judges §§ 32 to 34.