The right of any citizen of the state to vote, hold office or sit upon juries, shall never be restricted, abridged or impaired on account of religion, race, language or color, or inability to speak, read or write the English or Spanish languages except as may be otherwise provided in this constitution; and the provisions of this section and of Section One of this article shall never be amended except upon a vote of the people of this state in an election at which at least three-fourths of the electors voting in the whole state, and at least two-thirds of those voting in each county of the state, shall vote for such amendment.

ANNOTATIONS

Cross references. — For freedom of elections, see N.M. Const., art. II, § 8.

For equal protection guarantee, see N.M. Const., art. II, § 18.

For qualifications to vote for public officers, see N.M. Const., art. VII, § 1.

For restrictions on amendment of this section and N.M. Const., art. VII, § 1, see N.M. Const., art. XIX, § 1.

When the need for an interpreter has been raised. — When the need for an interpreter for a juror has been raised, the trial court may only seat that juror without an interpreter after the court conducts an adequate inquiry into the juror's ability to understand and then provides a reasoned explanation on the record that is legally sufficient to justify its decision—an explanation that supports the determination that the juror can fully participate in the proceedings without the assistance of an interpreter. State v. Multine, 2025-NMCA-013, cert. denied.

No legally adequate justification was given for denying the juror's request for an interpreter. — Where defendant was charged with driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, and where, after voir dire and the selection of a jury panel, one of the juror's informed the court that she was having a hard time sitting for long periods of time and had difficulty with "hard words" and could not understand "all the English," and where the juror stated that a Navajo language interpreter might help her understand the proceedings, and where defendant contended that the court was required to provide the juror with an interpreter, and where, following argument from defense counsel and the state, the trial court concluded that it would not provide an interpreter nor would it discharge the juror from jury duty, the district court erred in denying defendant's request for a Navajo language interpreter, because when a question about the need for an interpreter arises, and a trial court requires a person to serve on a jury but refuses to provide an interpreter, the court must give a reasoned explanation on the record that is legally adequate to justify the refusal, and the record does not establish that any such findings were made by the trial court in this case. State v. Multine, 2025-NMCA-013, cert. denied.

Where interpreter was present while jury deliberated defendant's guilt or innocence without the benefit of an oath or instruction to ensure that the interpreter neither participate in or interfere with the jury's deliberations, there is a presumption of prejudice. State v. Pacheco, 2006-NMCA-002, 138 N.M. 737, 126 P.3d 553, rev'd, 2007-NMSC-009, 141 N.M. 340, 155 P.3d 745.

Interpreter's presence while jury deliberates is unauthorized in the absence of any appropriate protections. State v. Pacheco, 2006-NMCA-002, 138 N.M. 737, 126 P.3d 553, rev'd, 2007-NMSC-009, 141 N.M. 340, 155 P.3d 745.

Interpreter may accompany non-English speaking juror into jury room during deliberations provided that the trial court first requires the interpreter to take an oath that he or she will not participate in or interfere with the jury's deliberations. State v. Pacheco, 2006-NMCA-002, 138 N.M. 737, 126 P.3d 553, rev'd, 2007-NMSC-009, 141 N.M. 340, 155 P.3d 745.

Interpreter's oath insufficient. — Where the trial court only required an interpreter to take an oath to faithfully and impartially translate the witness's testimony, this oath was insufficient to safeguard against interference, or the appearance of interference, with the jury's deliberations. State v. Pacheco, 2006-NMCA-002, 138 N.M. 737, 126 P.3d 553, rev'd, 2007-NMSC-009, 141 N.M. 340, 155 P.3d 745.

Duty to protect non-English-speaking juror’s right to participate in jury service. — Judges and attorneys have responsibilities in protecting a non-English-speaking juror’s constitutional right to participate in jury service. The appellate record must demonstrate that a trial judge has made every reasonable effort to provide interpreters for non-English-speaking jurors; defense attorneys must raise the unconstitutionality of proposed dismissals of jurors for lack of fluency in English; and prosecutors representing the state must protect the rights of all non-English-speaking New Mexicans to serve on juries, both because it is their duty to do so and because an otherwise unnecessary reversal and retrial may well be the consequence of denying those rights. State v. Samora, 2013-NMSC-038.

Right to sit upon juries. — Where, at the beginning of jury selection, the trial court asked a Spanish-speaking prospective juror, who had difficulty understanding the English language, if the juror understood English well enough to proceed with jury selection without the aid of an interpreter; the juror stated that the juror had been able to follow the discussions to that point; the trial court did not make an effort to find an interpreter for the juror; at the conclusion of voir dire, the juror admitted that the juror had not been able to understand a large part of the voir dire; the trial court dismissed the juror; defendant objected on the ground that the juror had understood English well enough to serve without an interpreter during voir dire, and there was no evidence that the jury was unfair or impartial and the evidence of defendant’s guilt was substantial, the dismissal of the juror violated Article VII, Section 3 of the constitution of New Mexico Constitution, but the error was not fundamental error requiring reversal of defendant’s convictions. State v. Samora, 2013-NMSC-038.

Where a potential juror's inability to perform his or her duty is based upon religious objection and belief, his or her removal does not violate the religious protections of this section, because exclusion from the jury is not based upon religious affiliation. State v. Clark, 1999-NMSC-035, 128 N.M. 119, 990 P.2d 793.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding prospective jurors who indicated that they would automatically vote against the death penalty. The basis for excluding these individuals was their inability to apply the law, rather than their religious views. State v. Allen, 2000-NMSC-002, 128 N.M. 482, 994 P.2d 728, cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1218, 120 S. Ct. 2225, 147 L. Ed. 2d 256; State v. Jacobs, 2000-NMSC-026, 129 N.M. 448, 10 P.3d 127, overruled on other grounds by State v. Martinez, 2021-NMSC-002.

A defendant has standing to protect the rights of an excluded juror under this section. State v. Rico, 2002-NMSC-022, 132 N.M. 570, 52 P.3d 942.

This section requires that a trial court make every reasonable effort to accommodate a potential juror for whom language difficulties present a barrier to participation in court proceedings. State v. Rico, 2002-NMSC-022, 132 N.M. 570, 52 P.3d 942.

What constitutes sufficiently reasonable efforts to accommodate a potential juror with language difficulties will depend on the circumstances in which the problem arises. Whether a reviewing court will find a trial court's efforts in this regard reasonable will depend on several factors, including, but not limited to, the steps actually taken to protect the juror's rights, the rarity of the juror's native language and the difficulty that rarity has created in finding an interpreter, the stage of the jury selection process at which it was discovered that an interpreter will be required, and the burden a continuance would have imposed on the court, the remainder of the jury panel, and the parties. State v. Rico, 2002-NMSC-022, 132 N.M. 570, 52 P.3d 942.

The absence of a written translation of jury instructions did not impair juror’s ability to sit on a jury. — In defendant’s trial for trafficking controlled substances, the district court’s refusal to provide written translations of the jury instructions into Spanish did not violate the New Mexico Constitution, where any potential impairment of the juror’s constitutional right to fully participate in the deliberative process was mitigated when two certified and sworn court interpreters accompanied the non-English speaking juror into the jury room to assist with the deliberative process. State v. Ortiz-Castillo, 2016-NMCA-045.

Two-thirds vote per county requirement violates federal constitution. — A requirement of a two-thirds favorable vote in every county, when there is a wide disparity in population among counties, must result in greatly disproportionate values to votes in the different counties, and violates the "one person, one vote" concept announced by the United States supreme court. State ex rel. Witt v. State Canvassing Bd., 1968-NMSC-017, 78 N.M. 682, 437 P.2d 143.

Construction of three-fourths vote provision. — Three-fourths vote requirement should be construed to mean three-fourths of those voting on the proposition in question, not three-fourths of those voting in the election. State ex rel. Witt v. State Canvassing Bd., 1968-NMSC-017, 78 N.M. 682, 437 P.2d 143.

Amendment accomplished. — The requirement of a two-thirds vote in each county being unconstitutional, in view of disparity of population among counties, and the demand of ratification by "at least three-fourths of the electors voting in the whole state" having been met by favorable vote of three-fourths of those voting on the proposition in question, the adoption of constitutional amendment to N.M. Const., art. VII, § 1 submitted as Amendment No. 7 at the election held on November 7, 1967 was accomplished, and it should be certified as having been ratified. State ex rel. Witt v. State Canvassing Bd., 1968-NMSC-017, 78 N.M. 682, 437 P.2d 143.

Amendment void. — The constitutional amendment permitting absentee voting, proposed by J.R. No. 12 (Laws 1919) to be added to this article, violated N.M. Const., art. VII, § 1, which at that time required voting in person, and was void because only a bare majority of the electors voted for its adoption. Baca v. Ortiz, 1936-NMSC-054, 40 N.M. 435, 61 P.2d 320.

School consolidation not invalid. — There is nothing in either N.M. Const., art. VII, § 1 or this section which suggests the right of an elector to cast his vote for candidate for office of state board of education from the judicial district in which the elector's child attends public school; his right is to vote for the candidate of his choice for this position, to be elected from the judicial district in which he has voting residence. School consolidation was not rendered invalid merely because certain parents would cast vote for member of state board of education in judicial district other than one where children attended school. State ex rel. Apodaca v. New Mexico State Bd. of Educ., 1971-NMSC-058, 82 N.M. 558, 484 P.2d 1268.

Voter qualifications in municipal bond elections. — The amendment to N.M. Const., art. IX, § 12,which allows additional electors to vote in municipal bond elections, did not apply to or affect the general voter qualifications set forth in N.M. Const., art. VII, § 1, which qualifications remain exactly the same; art. VII, § 1, makes no provision for or mention of municipal bond elections, or the qualifications of electors at such elections. City of Raton v. Sproule, 1967-NMSC-141, 78 N.M. 138, 429 P.2d 336.

Ratification of amendment. — Ratification of an amendment to N.M. Const., art. IX, § 12, required only a simple majority of the votes which are cast on the question, and this majority was attained. City of Raton v. Sproule, 1967-NMSC-141, 78 N.M. 138, 429 P.2d 336.

Extraordinary vote requirements inapplicable. — Provisions of N.M. Const., art. XIX, § 1 and this section, requiring an extraordinary majority of votes for certain constitutional amendments, did not apply to the November 3, 1964 amendment to N.M. Const., art. IX, § 12. 1964 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 64-142.

Law reviews. — For note, "Bilingual Education: Serna v. Portales Municipal Schools," see 5 N.M. L. Rev. 321 (1975).

For comment, "Education and the Spanish-Speaking - An Attorney General's Opinion on Article XII, Section 8 of the New Mexico Constitution," see 3 N.M. L. Rev. 364 (1973).

For comment, "An Equal Protection Challenge to First Degree Depraved Mind Murder Under the New Mexico Constitution," see 19 N.M. L. Rev. 511 (1989).

For student symposium, "Constitutional Revision - Constitutional Amendment Process," see 9 Nat. Resources J. 422 (1969).

For note, "Peremptory Exclusion of Spanish-Speaking Jurors: Could Hernandez v. New York Happen Here?," see 23 N.M. L. Rev. 467 (1993).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 16 Am. Jur. 2d Constitutional Law §§ 31, 44, 50; 25 Am. Jur. 2d Elections §§ 103 et seq., 112 et seq., 146 et seq., 157, 158, 160; 47 Am. Jur. 2d Jury § 159 et seq.; 63A Am. Jur. 2d Public Officers and Employees §§ 36, 44, 46, 48.

Proof as to exclusion of or discrimination against eligible class or race in respect to jury in criminal case, 1 A.L.R.2d 1291.

Actionability, under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, of claim arising out of maladministration of election, 66 A.L.R. Fed. 750.

16 C.J.S. Constitutional Law §§ 12, 14; 29 C.J.S. Elections §§ 15, 27, 31; 50 C.J.S. Juries §§ 134, 135, 140, 143; 67 C.J.S. Officers and Public Employees §§ 15 to 18, 21, 25.