There is created the "district court judges nominating committee" for each judicial district. Each and every provision of Section 35 of Article 6 of this constitution shall apply to the "district judges nominating committee" except that: the chief judge of the district court of that judicial district or the chief judge's designee from that district court shall sit on the committee; there shall be only one appointment from the court of appeals; and the citizen members and state bar members shall be persons who reside in that judicial district. (As added November 8, 1988.)

ANNOTATIONS

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 6, proposed by S.J.R. No. 2 (Laws 1981), which would have added a new Section 36 relating to the determination 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.

A district court nominating commission has a duty to actively solicit qualified applicants so as to make a good faith effort to provide the governor with a list of more that one recommended nominee. State ex rel. Richardson v. Fifth Judicial Dist. Nominating Comm'n, 2007-NMSC-023, 141 N.M. 657, 160 P.3d 566.

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.

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.