Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

New Mexico Constitutional Amendment 2, Elections and Terms of Non-Statewide Officeholders Amendment (2020)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Mexico Constitutional Amendment 2
Flag of New Mexico.png
Election date
November 3, 2020
Topic
Elections and campaigns
Status
Approveda Approved
Type
Constitutional amendment
Origin
State legislature


New Mexico Constitutional Amendment 2, the Elections and Terms of Non-Statewide Officeholders Amendment was on the ballot in New Mexico as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 3, 2020.[1] It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported amending the New Mexico Constitution to allow the state legislature to pass laws adjusting the election dates of state or county officeholders and adjust office terms according to those date changes.

A "no" vote opposed amending the New Mexico Constitution to allow the state legislature to pass laws adjusting the election dates of state or county officeholders and adjust office terms according according to those date changes, thereby not allowing the state legislature to alter established election dates and terms of non-statewide officeholders.


Election results

New Mexico Constitutional Amendment 2

Result Votes Percentage

Approved Yes

503,308 64.44%
No 277,744 35.56%
Results are officially certified.
Source


Overview

What changes to election dates and terms did Constitutional Amendment 2 allow?

See also: Text of measure

Constitutional Amendment 2 amended section 3 of Article XX of the state constitution to allow the legislature to pass laws that adjust non-statewide officeholder elections and terms in order to balance the number of offices appearing on the presidential and gubernatorial general election ballots. For the purposes of enforcing term limits on certain offices, terms lengthened by such laws would be considered one term, and terms shortened would not be considered a term. Laws proposing adjustments to election dates of non-statewide officeholders must be supported by a legislative finding that such a change would promote consistency or that it would evenly distribute the number of offices appearing on the ballot.[2]

How did Constitutional Amendment 2 relate to New Mexico House Bill 407?

See also: New Mexico House Bill 407 (2019)

The amendment was a response to State ex rel. Sugg v. Oliver (2019) in which the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that certain provisions of New Mexico House Bill 407 (2019) (HB 407) were unconstitutional. HB 407 divided non-statewide office elections between ballots with a presidential election and ballots with a gubernatorial election in order to balance the number of offices appearing on the two ballots. District attorneys whose terms would have been lengthened by two years due to the changes filed a suit against the state. New Mexico Supreme Court Justice Barbara J. Vigil ruled in favor of the petitioners and required New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver not to implement the provisions of HB 407 that changed the year certain offices appeared on the ballot. In the court opinion, Vigil wrote, "Assuming, as appears to be the case, that the Legislature wishes to pursue the election-related policy goals sought to be effectuated through the portions of HB 407 that we strike down today, it is its prerogative to propose, and the voters to adopt, a constitutional amendment to that end." The New Mexico Elections and Terms of Non-Statewide Officeholders Amendment is the legislature's attempt to have the constitutional authority to enact HB 407.[3]

Which non-statewide offices were affected by HB 407?

See also: New Mexico House Bill 407 (2019)

In addition to lengthening the terms of district attorneys, HB 407 extended the terms of district court judges, metropolitan judges, the public regulation commission, public education commission, magistrate judges and county officers. The proposed amendment allows the state legislature to pass laws that adjust office terms by no more than two years.

Text of measure

Ballot question

The ballot question was as follows:[2]

PROPOSING TO AMEND ARTICLE 20, SECTION 3 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF NEW MEXICO TO

PERMIT THE ADJUSTMENT BY LAW OF TERMS OF NONSTATEWIDE ELECTED OFFICERS AND TO STANDARDIZE THE DATE AN OFFICER BEGINS TO SERVE.

[ ] FOR [ ]AGAINST[4]

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:[2]

Constitutional Amendment 2 proposes to amend Article 20, Section 3 of the Constitution of New Mexico to allow the legislature to adjust the term of a state, county or district officer to align or stagger the election of officers for a particular state, county or district office throughout the state. No statewide elective office would be subject to adjustment. The proposed amendment also clarifies that officers elected to fill a vacancy in office shall take office on the first day of January following their election.[4]

Constitutional changes

See also: Article XX, New Mexico Constitution

The introduced text with adopted amendments is below.

The measure amended section 3 of Article XX of the state constitution. The following underlined text was added, and struck-through text was deleted:[2]

Section 3: Date Terms of Office Begin

A.The term of office of every state, county or district officer, except those elected at the first election held under this constitution, and those elected to fill vacancies, shall commence on the first day of January next after his the officer's election.

B. A state, county or district officer elected to fill a vacancy in office shall take office on the first day of January next after the officer's election to serve the remainder of the unexpired term for that office.

C. The term of a state, county or district officer may be adjusted by law to align or stagger officers for a particular state, county or throughout the state. Any such adjustment shall require a legislative finding that the adjustment is to provide for consistency in the timing of elections for that office or to balance the number of offices appearing on the ballot. The term of any officer affected by such adjustment shall not be shortened or extended by more than two years. An extended term shall be counted as one term for the purposes of any limitation on the number of terms an officer may serve. A shortened term shall not be counted as a term and shall be disregarded for the purposes of any limitation on the number of terms an officer may serve. No statewide elective office may be adjusted pursuant to this subsection.[4]

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The secretary of state wrote the ballot language for this measure.


The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 9, and the FRE is 48. The word count for the ballot title is 35, and the estimated reading time is 9 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 14, and the FRE is 30. The word count for the ballot summary is 82, and the estimated reading time is 21 seconds.


Support

Supporters

Officials


Official arguments

  • New Mexico Legislative Council Service: "This proposed constitutional amendment, however, would allow the legislature to adjust the number of offices on the presidential or gubernatorial general election ballot without needing to propose a constitutional amendment for each relevant office, thus allowing the legislature to expediently address these election concerns when they arise and preventing the constitution from being filled with temporary provisions. ... The proposed amendment protects against legislative overreach in arbitrarily changing the terms of certain elected officers by requiring the legislature to adopt specific legislative findings supporting an adjustment. In order for the legislature to make an adjustment, the legislature must find that the adjustment is necessary for consistency in the timing of elections for that office or to balance the number of offices appearing on the ballot."


Opposition

If you are aware of any opponents or opposing arguments that should be included here, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Official arguments

  • New Mexico Legislative Council Service: "The proposed amendment expands the legislature's constitutional power over election policy issues and could be legally challenged. It requires a legislative finding that an adjustment is necessary 'to provide for consistency in the timing of elections for that office or to balance the number of offices appearing on the ballot'. ... As a result of this amendment, some incumbent officeholders will gain an extra two years in office, while others will serve terms that expire two years early for reasons unrelated to their performance. Incumbents seeking reelection after a shortened term could be disadvantaged by the adjustment because they will have had only two years in office to accomplish their goals, gain constituent support and prepare for a reelection campaign. Additionally, during the period when election cycles are being synchronized, term limits will not apply to the affected offices."


Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for New Mexico ballot measures

There were no ballot measure committees registered in support of the measure or in opposition to Constitutional Amendment 2.[5]

Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
Support $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Oppose $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Media editorials

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the ballot measure. If you are aware of a media editorial board position that is not listed below, please email the editorial link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support

  • Albuquerque Journal Editorial Board: "Approval recommended: This proposed constitutional amendment would permit state lawmakers to adjust and stagger the terms of state, county or district officers to ensure uniformity of elections and balance the number of offices in any particular year. The amendment is part of sweeping election law reform that was passed in 2019 to consolidate local elections. It would likely reduce the number of down-ballot judicial candidates every two years, allowing voters more time to focus on those and other races."

Opposition

Ballotpedia had not identified media editorial boards in opposition to the ballot measure.

Background

New Mexico House Bill 407 (2019)

New Mexico House Bill 407 (HB 407) was introduced on January 29, 2019. It was sponsored by Linda Trujillo (D), Daniel Ivey-Soto (D), Roberto Gonzales (D), and Phelps Anderson (R). HB 407 passed in the New Mexico House of Representatives on March 7, 2019, with a 57-8 vote. On March 12, 2019, the New Mexico State Senate passed the bill with a 35-2 vote. Sponsors titled the bill, "Election Laws 50-Year Tune Up." It encompassed a variety of changes to election procedures, candidate and question order on ballots, and administration of special elections.[6][7]

HB 407 also repealed a number of election laws, including a provision governing when certain elections were held. It replaced this provision with a two-tiered system. In a year with a presidential election, the law required that the following offices be placed on primary and general election ballots:[8]

  • president;
  • vice president;
  • United States senator;
  • United States representative;
  • state senator;
  • state representative;
  • supreme court;
  • court of appeals;
  • public regulation commission districts with odd-numbered designations;

  • public education commission districts with odd-numbered designations;
  • district court;
  • metropolitan court;
  • county clerk;
  • county treasurer; and
  • county commission districts and positions with odd-numbered designations.

In a year with a gubernatorial election, the law required that the following offices be placed on primary and general election ballots:[8]

  • United States senator;
  • United States representative;
  • governor;
  • lieutenant governor;
  • secretary of state;
  • attorney general;
  • state auditor;
  • state treasurer;
  • commissioner of public lands;
  • state representative;
  • supreme court;
  • court of appeals;

  • public regulation commission districts with even-numbered designations;
  • public education commission districts with even-numbered designations;
  • district court;
  • district attorney;
  • metropolitan court;
  • magistrate court;
  • county sheriff;
  • county assessor;
  • county commission districts and positions with even-numbered designations; and
  • probate judge.

State ex rel. Sugg v. Oliver (2019)

On June 8, 2019, eight New Mexico district attorneys filed a suit in the New Mexico Supreme Court asking the court to rule HB 407 unconstitutional. Petitioners argued the two-tier election system it established required those district attorneys with a term expiration date of December 31, 2020, to serve two additional years to align their office terms with the new statute. At the time HB 407 was enacted, the New Mexico Constitution required district attorney elections to appear on the 2020 presidential ballot. Under HB 407, elections for district attorneys are moved to the 2022 ballot.

In December 2019, New Mexico Supreme Court Justice Barbara J. Vigil ruled in favor of the petitioners and required New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver not to implement the provisions of HB 407 that changed the year certain offices appeared on the ballot. In the court opinion, Vigil wrote, "We hold that the challenged provisions of HB 407 impermissibly alter the constitutionally prescribed terms of office of the three petitioning groups. In reaching this conclusion, we are of course mindful that the Legislature is vested with broad authority to regulate the timing, process, and conduct of elections. ... That authority, despite its breadth, must be exercised within constitutional limits, a requirement clearly not met here."[3]

Election policy on the ballot in 2020

In 2020, voters in 14 states voted on 18 ballot measures addressing election-related policies. One of the measures addressed campaign finance, one were related to election dates, five addressed election systems, three addressed redistricting, five addressed suffrage, and three addressed term limits.

Click Show to read details about the election-related measures on statewide ballots in 2020.

Referred amendments on the ballot

From 1996 through 2018, the state legislature referred 55 constitutional amendments to the ballot. Voters approved 47 and rejected eight of the referred amendments. Most of the amendments (53 of 55) were referred to the ballot for general elections during even-numbered election years. The average number of amendments appearing on an even-year ballot was four. The approval rate at the ballot box was 85.5 percent during the 22-year period from 1996 through 2018. The rejection rate was 14.5 percent. Two referred amendments were on the ballot in 2018.

Legislatively-referred constitutional amendments, 1996-2018
Years Total number Approved Percent approved Defeated Percent defeated Annual average Annual median Annual minimum Annual maximum
Even years 53 45 84.91% 8 15.09% 4.42 5.00 1 9
Odd years 2 2 100.00% 0 0.00% 0.18 0.00 0 2
All
years
55 47 85.45% 8 14.55% 2.29 1.50 0 9

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the New Mexico Constitution

To put a legislatively referred constitutional amendment before voters, a simple majority is required in both the New Mexico State Senate and the New Mexico House of Representatives.

This amendment was introduced as House Joint Resolution 8 on January 29, 2020. On February 15, 2020, the state House passed HJR 8 in a vote of 59-10, with one absent. Forty-four Democrats voted for it, one voted against it, and one was absent. Of the 24 Republicans in the House, 15 voted in favor of HJR 8, and nine voted against it. [1]

On February 20, 2020, the New Mexico Senate approved HJR 8, with 29 members supporting the amendment and 13 members opposing the amendment. All the Senate Democrats voted in favor of it, and all but three Republicans voted against it. With approval in both chambers of the legislature, the constitutional amendment was referred to the ballot for the election on November 3, 2020.

Vote in the New Mexico House of Representatives
February 15, 2020
Requirement: Simple majority of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 36  Approveda
YesNoNot voting
Total59101
Total percent84.29%14.29%1.42%
Democrat4411
Republican1590

Vote in the New Mexico Senate
February 20, 2020
Requirement: Simple majority of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 22  Approveda
YesNoNot voting
Total29130
Total percent69.05%30.95%0%
Democrat2600
Republican3130

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in New Mexico

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in New Mexico.

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. 1.0 1.1 New Mexico State Legislature, "HJR 8 Overview," accessed February 18, 2020
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 New Mexico Legislature, "Introduced Text with Amendments," accessed February 18, 2020
  3. 3.0 3.1 New Mexico Supreme Court, State ex rel. Sugg v. Oliver, December 19, 2019
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content
  5. New Mexico Secretary of State, "Campaign Finance Information System," accessed March 18, 2019
  6. New Mexico Legislature, "HB 407 Overview," accessed March 9, 2020
  7. New Mexico Legislature, "HB 407 Legislative Analysis," accessed March 9, 2020
  8. 8.0 8.1 New Mexico Legislature, "HB 407 Text," accessed March 9, 2020
  9. Alaska Division of Elections, "Alaska's Better Elections Initiative," accessed January 6, 2020
  10. Colorado General Assembly, "Senate Bill 42 (2019)," accessed September 5, 2019
  11. Florida Department of Elections, "Initiative 19-07," accessed March 14, 2019
  12. Massachusetts Attorney General, "Initiative 19-10: Initiative Petition for a Law to Implement Ranked-Choice Voting in Elections," accessed August 7, 2019
  13. Mississippi State Legislature, "House Concurrent Resolution 47," accessed June 30, 2020
  14. Missouri Legislature, "SJR 38 Full Text," accessed February 10, 2020
  15. New Jersey State Legislature, "Assembly Concurrent Resolution 188," accessed July 31, 2020
  16. U.S. Census Bureau, "2020 Census Operational Adjustments Due to COVID-19," accessed August 10, 2020
  17. Virginia General Assembly, "Senate Bill 236," accessed March 5, 2020
  18. Arkansas Legislature, "SJR 15 full text," accessed March 28, 2019
  19. Kentucky Legislature, "House Bill 405 Text," accessed March 11, 2020
  20. Missouri State Senate, "SJR 14," accessed April 17, 2019
  21. New Mexico Compilation Commission, "New Mexico Statutes - Chapter 1, Article 12.1," accessed June 24, 2025
  22. New Mexico Secretary of State, "Voter Bill of Rights," accessed June 24, 2025
  23. 23.0 23.1 New Mexico Secretary of State, “Voter Registration Information,” accessed June 24, 2025
  24. New Mexico Compilation Commission, "New Mexico Statutes - Chapter 1, Article 1-4-5.2", accessed June 24, 2025
  25. New Mexico Compilation Commission, "New Mexico Statutes - Chapter 1, Article 1-4-5.8", accessed June 24, 2025
  26. New Mexico Compilation Commission, "New Mexico Statutes - Chapter 1, Article 1-4-5.7", accessed June 24, 2025
  27. New Mexico Secretary of State, "Voter Registration Eligibility Requirements and FAQs," accessed June 24, 2025
  28. The State of New Mexico, "Voter Registration Form," accessed June 24, 2025
  29. Under federal law, the national mail voter registration application (a version of which is in use in all states with voter registration systems) requires applicants to indicate that they are U.S. citizens in order to complete an application to vote in state or federal elections, but does not require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the application "may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to prevent duplicate voter registrations and permit State officials both to determine the eligibility of the applicant to vote and to administer the voting process."
  30. New Mexico Secretary of State, "Voting," accessed June 24, 2025