N.M. Const. art. XIX, § 1
An amendment or amendments to this constitution may be proposed in either house of the legislature at a regular session; and if a majority of all members elected to each of the two houses voting separately votes in favor thereof, the proposed amendment or amendments shall be entered on their respective journals with the yeas and nays thereon.
An amendment or amendments may also be proposed by an independent commission established by law for that purpose, and the amendment or amendments shall be submitted to the legislature for its review in accordance with the provisions of this section.
The secretary of state shall cause any such amendment or amendments to be published in at least one newspaper in every county of the state, where a newspaper is published once each week, for four consecutive weeks, in English and Spanish when newspapers in both of said languages are published in such counties, the last publication to be not more than two weeks prior to the election at which time said amendment or amendments shall be submitted to the electors of the state for their approval or rejection; and shall further provide notice of the content and purpose of legislatively approved constitutional amendments in both English and Spanish to inform electors about the amendments in the time and manner provided by law. The secretary of state shall also make reasonable efforts to provide notice of the content and purpose of legislatively approved constitutional amendments in indigenous languages and to minority language groups to inform electors about the amendments. Amendments approved by the legislature shall be voted upon at the next regular election held after the adjournment of that legislature or at a special election to be held not less than six months after the adjournment of that legislature, at such time and in such manner as the legislature may by law provide. An amendment that is ratified by a majority of the electors voting on the amendment shall become part of this constitution.
If two or more amendments are initiated by the legislature, they shall be so submitted as to enable the electors to vote on each of them separately. Amendments initiated by an independent commission created by law for that purpose may be submitted to the legislature separately or as a single ballot question, and any such commission-initiated amendments that are not substantially altered by the legislature may be submitted to the electors in the separate or single ballot question form recommended by the commission. No amendment shall restrict the rights created by Sections One and Three of Article VII hereof, on elective franchise, and Sections Eight and Ten of Article XII hereof, on education, unless it be proposed by vote of three-fourths of the members elected to each house and be ratified by a vote of the people of this state in an election at which at least three-fourths of the electors voting on the amendment vote in favor of that amendment. (As amended November 7, 1911 and November 5, 1996.)
The 1996 amendment, which was proposed by H.J.R. No. 2 (Laws 1996) and adopted at the general election held November 5, 1996, by a vote of 294,328 for and 166,415 against, added the second paragraph and divided the former last paragraph and rewrote those provisions.
The 1911 amendment, which was proposed by congress as part of the required amendment of Article XIX, and was incorporated in the congressional resolution of August 21, 1911 (37 Stat. 39), which provided for admission of New Mexico as a state and stipulated that adoption of the amendment should be a prerequisite to admission, was adopted by the people at the first election of state officers on November 7, 1911, by a vote of 34,897 for and 22,831 against. The amendment added the requirement that notice of proposed amendments be published in both English and Spanish wherever possible, the provision for ratification at a special election and the three-fourths/two-thirds vote required for ratification of amendments to N.M. Const., art. VII, §§ 1 and 3, and art. XII, §§ 8 and 10. The amendment changed to a majority vote the former two-thirds vote of the legislature required to propose amendments for ratification and deleted a provision allowing a majority vote at limited times only. The amendment also deleted a requirement that amendments be ratified by vote of 40% of all votes cast at the election, statewide and in half of the counties, and a limitation on the number of amendments to be submitted per election (3).
Compiler's notes. — A proposal to amend this section, H.J.R. No. 16 (Laws 1965), was withdrawn by H.J.M. No. 15 (Laws 1966) due to defeat of proposed repeal of N.M. Const., art. XIX, § 5, at a special election held on September 28, 1965.
Cross references. — For provision authorizing constitutional conventions, see N.M. Const., art. XIX, § 2.
For statutory provisions relating to constitutional amendments, see 1-16-1 to 1-16-13 NMSA 1978.
Comparable provisions. — Idaho Const., art. XX, §§ 1, 2.
Iowa Const., art. X, §§ 1, 2; amendment 22.
Utah Const., art. XXIII, § 1.
Wyoming Const., art. XX, §§ 1, 2.
Amendment required to change purpose of Enabling Act land grants. — Enforcement of change in purpose of grants of land made by Enabling Act (June 20, 1910, 36 Stat. 557, ch. 310; see Pamphlet 3) is prohibited without a constitutional amendment. State v. State Bd. of Fin., 1929-NMSC-088, 34 N.M. 394, 281 P. 456; Bryant v. Board of Loan Comm'rs, 1922-NMSC-069, 28 N.M. 319, 211 P. 597.
Office created by constitution may be abolished by adoption of amendment to constitution wherein provision creating office is repealed or the office otherwise eliminated. In re Thaxton, 1968-NMSC-014, 78 N.M. 668, 437 P.2d 129.
Office holder has no vested right in the office, nor does he hold by contract. In re Thaxton, 1968-NMSC-014, 78 N.M. 668, 437 P.2d 129.
Amendment validating unconstitutional statute. — Where constitutional amendment expressly or impliedly ratifies or confirms unconstitutional statute, it validates statute provided validation does not impair contract obligations or vested rights. Fellows v. Shultz, 1970-NMSC-071, 81 N.M. 496, 469 P.2d 141.
New Mexico Const., art. XIX, §§ 1 and 2 construed. — This section and N.M. Const., art. XIX, § 2, are of equal dignity. This section is not to be read as if Section 2 did not exist; neither is there reason to read into Section 2 the limitation of this section (relating to publication) not included within language of Section 2. Interpretation which gives complete effect to both sections is required. State ex rel. Constitutional Convention v. Evans, 1969-NMSC-139, 80 N.M. 720, 460 P.2d 250.
This section applies where one or more amendments to present constitution are being considered, but does not apply where entirely new constitution is being weighed. State ex rel. Constitutional Convention v. Evans, 1969-NMSC-139, 80 N.M. 720, 460 P.2d 250.
This section clearly applies to amendments proposed in legislature, and N.M. Const., art. XIX, § 2, applies to revisions or amendments made by a convention called for that purpose. State ex rel. Constitutional Convention v. Evans, 1969-NMSC-139, 80 N.M. 720, 460 P.2d 250.
Amendments to be submitted separately. — Amendment entitled "Proposing to Amend Articles 6 and 20 of the Constitution of New Mexico to Provide for Judicial Reform", approved by the voters on November 8, 1988, was not adopted unconstitutionally on the ground that it contained a number of independent proposals which should have been presented to the voters as separate amendments under this section. State ex rel. Chavez v. Vigil-Giron, 1988-NMSC-103, 108 N.M. 45, 766 P.2d 305.
Although both prongs of the proposed amendment related to an overarching theme of gambling, more was required to demonstrate a single object; the requirement of a rational linchpin joining the various elements of an amendment serves to prevent the linking of independent propositions simply by the selection of a sufficiently broad overarching theme. State ex rel. Clark v. State Canvassing Bd., 1995-NMSC-001, 119 N.M. 12, 888 P.2d 458.
The title of the proposed gambling amendment, while technically proper, exacerbated the problems inherent in the vice of logrolling, since the expression "and certain games of chance" did not alert the voter as to the nature or scope of the second prong of the amendment regarding video gaming; thus, the ballot language, while not defective in and of itself, reinforced the conclusion that the amendment logrolled together two independent objects by piggy-backing the passage of one on the popularity of the other. State ex rel. Clark v. State Canvassing Bd., 1995-NMSC-001, 119 N.M. 12, 888 P.2d 458.
Constitutional amendment did not violate the single-measure rule and the title was not misleading. — Where, during the 2019 legislative session, the legislature passed a senate joint resolution proposing to make several changes to sections of the New Mexico constitution that create and govern the public regulation commission (PRC), and where petitioners filed a petition for writ of mandamus, asking the court to declare the ratification of the constitutional amendment a nullity and to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent to remove the amendment from the constitution (Amendment 1), arguing that Amendment 1 logrolled multiple independent measures into a single-ballot question, violating the single-measure rule, and that the title identifying Amendment 1 was misleading, the petition for writ of mandamus was denied because the several changes made by Amendment 1 were all germane to the legislature’s object or purpose of reforming the PRC, and the title of Amendment 1, which informed voters of the two main changes made by the amendment, sufficiently communicated the purpose of the amendment and was not misleading. Indigenous Lifeways v. NMCCAC, 2023-NMSC-010.
Subject of constitutional amendments. — When the legislature acts to put a proposed constitutional amendment before the people, it does so pursuant to Article XIX, not Article IV. Therefore, its authority to consider the subject of constitutional amendments is not affected by the list of legislative topics in N.M. Const., art. IV, § 5B. State ex rel. Chavez v. Vigil-Giron, 1988-NMSC-103, 108 N.M. 45, 766 P.2d 305.
When legislature may introduce amendments. — The purpose and intent of the framers of the constitution was to limit introduction of amendments to regular as opposed to special sessions, rather than to limit amendments to odd-numbered rather than even-numbered years or to unrestricted rather than restricted regular sessions. State ex rel. Chavez v. Vigil-Giron, 1988-NMSC-103, 108 N.M. 45, 766 P.2d 305.
Enrolled and engrossed resolution prevails over conflicting journal. — Where there is conflict between enrolled and engrossed resolution proposing constitutional amendment and the legislative journal, if that journal tends to show that resolution failed to receive number of votes required, the enrolled and engrossed resolution, properly authenticated, is to prevail over journal. Smith v. Lucero, 1917-NMSC-069, 23 N.M. 411, 168 P. 709.
Amendment proposals not subject to referendum. — Authority reposed in legislature to initiate constitutional amendments is different than its power to legislate and is not subject to referendum. Hutcheson v. Gonzales, 1937-NMSC-047, 41 N.M. 474, 71 P.2d 140.
Publication requirements found only in this section. — When legislature stated in 1-16-4 NMSA 1978 that other questions to be ratified should have their full texts published "in accordance with the constitution of New Mexico," they referred necessarily to provision for publication in this section, as there is no other provision in constitution setting forth requirements for publication. State ex rel. Constitutional Convention v. Evans, 1969-NMSC-139, 80 N.M. 720, 460 P.2d 250.
Mandamus action in supreme court to compel publication. — Supreme court had original jurisdiction at instance of individual voter to mandate secretary of state to publish proposed amendments to constitution. Hutcheson v. Gonzales, 1937-NMSC-047, 41 N.M. 474, 71 P.2d 140.
Enactment ordering special election to ratify amendment not subject to referendum. — Enactment calling for special election to approve or reject proposed amendments to constitution was not subject to referendum. Hutcheson v. Gonzales, 1937-NMSC-047, 41 N.M. 474, 71 P.2d 140.
Amendments are to be submitted to electorate throughout the state. State v. Perrault, 1929-NMSC-099, 34 N.M. 438, 283 P. 902.
Purpose of requirement that amendments be voted on separately. — Purpose of requirement that two or more amendments shall be so submitted as to enable electors to vote on each separately is to avoid vice commonly referred to as "logrolling" or "jockeying"; the particular vice in "logrolling" (presentation of double propositions to voters) lies in fact that such is inducive of fraud and it becomes uncertain whether either proposition could have been carried by vote had it been submitted singly. City of Raton v. Sproule, 1967-NMSC-141, 78 N.M. 138, 429 P.2d 336.
Requirement should be liberally construed. — Such constitutional provisions should receive a liberal rather than narrow or technical construction, especially where legislature obviously considered problem carefully and the matter has been submitted to the people. City of Raton v. Sproule, 1967-NMSC-141, 78 N.M. 138, 429 P.2d 336.
General submission valid if all changes germane to one object. — Constitutional amendment which embraces several subjects or items of change will be upheld as valid and may be submitted to electorate as one general proposition if all subjects or items of change contained in amendment are germane to one general object or purpose. City of Raton v. Sproule, 1967-NMSC-141, 78 N.M. 138, 429 P.2d 336.
Oneness determination not readily overturned. — Courts should be reluctant to overturn legislative determination that proposed amendment will accomplish but one general object or purpose. City of Raton v. Sproule, 1967-NMSC-141, 78 N.M. 138, 429 P.2d 336.
Dual submissions upheld. — Where there is but one portion of a single section affected and the object or purpose of amendment is confined to manner in which municipal indebtedness is incurred, fact that two points of change are involved, that either might have been presented to electorate separately and that there may be reasons why an elector might have desired one change and not the other are not in themselves sufficient to hold adoption of amendment invalid. City of Raton v. Sproule, 1967-NMSC-141, 78 N.M. 138, 429 P.2d 336.
"Electors voting in the whole state" construed. — To construe "electors voting in the whole state" to mean all electors voting at the election, as distinguished from those voting on the particular amendment, would have effect of making the "unamendable section" even more unamendable than would otherwise be true. To so hold would in effect attribute to the convention, the United States congress and the ratifying electorate the intention of incorporating provisions which ostensibly provide for amendment while in fact making it impossible. State ex rel. Witt v. State Canvassing Bd., 1968-NMSC-017, 78 N.M. 682, 437 P.2d 143.
Requirement of two-thirds vote in every county violates "one person, one vote" rule. — Requirement of a two-thirds favorable vote in every county, when there is wide disparity in population among counties, must result in greatly disproportionate values to votes in different counties. Where, as here, a vote in one county outweighs 100 votes in another, the "one person, one vote" concept announced in Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 83 S. Ct. 801, 9 L. Ed. 2d 821 (1963), certainly is not met. State ex rel. Witt v. State Canvassing Bd., 1968-NMSC-017, 78 N.M. 682, 437 P.2d 143.
To extent that a citizen's right to vote is debased, he is that much less a citizen. Fact that an individual lives here or there is not a legitimate reason for overweighting or diluting efficacy of his vote. The basic principle of representative government remains, and must remain, unchanged - the weight of a citizen's vote cannot be made to depend on where he lives. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S. Ct. 1362, 12 L. Ed. 2d 506 (1964); State ex rel. Witt v. State Canvassing Bd., 1968-NMSC-017, 78 N.M. 682, 437 P.2d 143.
Two-thirds vote requirement is invalid under fourteenth amendment. — There cannot be political equality under U.S. Const., amend. XIV, to exercise right of elective franchise provided in N.M. Const., art. VII, so long as N.M. Const., art. VII, § 3, and this section contain the restriction on amendment. State ex rel. Witt v. State Canvassing Bd., 1968-NMSC-017, 78 N.M. 682, 437 P.2d 143.
Amendment ratified by three-fourths vote held adopted. — Requirement of two-thirds vote in each county being unconstitutional, and demand of ratification by "at least three-fourths of the electors voting in the whole state" having been met, adoption of constitutional amendment submitted as Amendment No. 7 at election held on November 7, 1967, was accomplished; 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.
Amendments that do not restrict the rights created in N.M. Const., art. VII, § 1 require only a simple majority of the popular vote for ratification. — The 1996 amendment to Article XIX, Section 1 effectuated a deliberate refinement of the three-fourths requirement for amending Sections 1 and 3 of Article VII of the New Mexico constitution, and although Section 1 of Article XIX continues to protect against amendments that would restrict the voting rights of any non-English speaking minority who is otherwise qualified to vote, under the controlling language of this constitutional provision, amendments to Sections 1 and 3 of Article VII that expand the right to vote or make other changes to general voter qualifications that do not restrict the elective franchise require only a simple majority of the vote to become part of the New Mexico constitution. State ex rel. League of Women Voters v. Advisory Comm., 2017-NMSC-025.
Amendments did not restrict the voting rights created in N.M. Const., art. VII, § 1. — Where the 2008, 2010, and 2014 amendments to N.M. Const., art. VII, § 1 received 74.48 percent, 56.92 percent, and 57.68 percent of the votes, respectively, and where petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent to effectuate the compilation of the three constitutional amendments, the supreme court held that these amendments were duly ratified and therefore should have been compiled into the constitution, because under the controlling language of N.M. Const., art. XIX, § 1, such elections did not restrict the voting rights created in Section 1 of Article VII, and thus required only a simple majority, rather than a three-fourths super-majority, of the votes cast. State ex rel. League of Women Voters v. Advisory Comm., 2017-NMSC-025.
"Amendment" construed. — All proposals which would effect a change in constitution, add to or take away from it, are amendments thereof, and "amendment" includes repeal of part of constitution so that such a proposal must be adopted at a regular session of legislature. 1942 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 42-4111.
Meaning of "published". — In order to insure that material is "published" in the newspaper and not merely "distributed" therein, it should be published either as part of a regular section of newspaper or as a separate section containing running head of newspaper, date of publication and some designation to indicate that it is a section of that day's newspaper. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-125.
Insert not proper. — Publication of proposed constitution and proclamation in form of an insert would be subject to legal attacks. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-125.
Amendment of entire article. — This section does not forbid submission to people by constitutional convention of an entire article on amendments as a single amendment. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-118.
No power to withdraw ratification. — State can repeal or amend a constitutional amendment in manner specified in this article, but where state has once ratified an amendment it has no power thereafter to withdraw such ratification. 1975 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 75-16.
Proviso applied. — In order to carry, an absentee voter amendment to constitution must have at least three-fourths of electors in the whole state vote for it and at least two-thirds of those voting in each county must vote for it, so that a majority of votes cast is insufficient. 1937 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 37-1760.
Amendments to be proposed at regular sessions. — Constitutional amendments may be proposed only at regular sessions of legislature convened pursuant to requirements of N.M. Const., art. IV, § 5. 1951 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 51-5398.
Framers of constitution meant for amendments to be proposed in regular sessions as they had defined that term in N.M. Const., art. IV, § 5; namely, during the year next after each general election. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-151.
Proposals during even-numbered years. — This section provides that any amendment may be proposed at any regular legislative session. On the other hand, N.M. Const., art. IV, § 5, provides that every regular session convening during even-numbered years shall consider only the three subjects enumerated therein. Limitation contained in N.M. Const., art. IV, § 5, being the later amendment, must control. 1965 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 65-212.
Law reviews. — For note, "Procedural Problems in Amending New Mexico's Constitution," see 4 Nat. Resources J. 151 (1964).
For student symposium, "Constitutional Revision - Constitutional Amendment Process," see 9 Nat. Resources J. 422 (1969).
For comment, "The Last Bastion Crumbles: All Property Restrictions on Franchise Are Unconstitutional," see 1 N.M. L. Rev. 403 (1971).
For 1984-88 survey of New Mexico administrative law, 19 N.M. L. Rev. 575 (1990).
For article, "The Citizen's Initiative Petition to Amend State Constitutions: A Concept Whose Time Has Passed, or a Vigorous Component of Participatory Democracy at the State Level?", see 28 N.M. L. Rev. 227 (1998).
For note, “Indirect Funding of Sectarian Schools: A Discussion of the Constitutionality of State School Voucher Programs Under Federal and New Mexico Law After Zelman v. Simmons-Harris,” see 34 N.M. L. Rev. 194 (2004).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 16 Am. Jur. 2d Constitutional Law §§ 29 to 57.
Construction of requirement that proposed constitutional amendment be entered in journal, 6 A.L.R. 1227, 41 A.L.R. 640.
Implied repeal of existing law by constitutional amendment, 36 A.L.R. 1456.
Proposition submitted as covering more than one amendment, 94 A.L.R. 1510.
Basis for computing majority essential to the adoption of a constitutional or other special proposition submitted to voters, 131 A.L.R. 1382.
Injunctive relief against submission of constitutional amendment, statute, municipal charter or municipal ordinance, on ground that proposed action would be unconstitutional, 19 A.L.R.2d 519.
16 C.J.S. Constitutional Law §§ 6 to 14.