There is created the "metropolitan court judges nominating committee" for each metropolitan court. Each and every provision of Section 35 of Article 6 of this constitution shall apply to the metropolitan court judicial nominating committee except that: no judge of the court of appeals shall sit on the committee; the chief judge of the district court of the judicial district in which the metropolitan court is located or the chief judge's designee from that district court shall sit on the committee; the chief judge of that metropolitan court or the chief judge's designee from that metropolitan court shall sit on the committee only in the case of a vacancy in a metropolitan court; and the citizen members and state bar members shall be persons who reside in the judicial district in which that metropolitan court is located. (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.

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

Constitutional amendment implicitly repealed the requirement that all district and metropolitan court judges stand for retention at the same time.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 XX, § 3, as amended by the voters in 2020, implicitly repealed the requirement in Art.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.

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.