New Mexico\u2019s state constitution has handed us a real zinger. In 2014 a majority of us voted for an amendment to that constitution, but it didn\u2019t get done. It turns out, the majority vote was not enough.<\/p>\n
The amendment in question was to end isolated school board elections \u2013 isolated because the constitution says school elections must be held at different times from all other elections. The voters approved a change to allow school elections to be held together with other nonpartisan elections such as city elections.<\/p>\n
This provision dates back to the days when women couldn\u2019t vote in general elections \u2013 but they could vote in school elections, so the purpose of the provision was to allow women to vote. It\u2019s been obsolete for decades, but we\u2019ve been stuck with it.<\/p>\n
At minimum, this restriction has caused a huge waste of money, as school districts, municipalities and various special districts (conservation districts, etc.) have had to go through all the rigmarole and expense of holding legally valid separate elections. At worst, it has reduced civic participation dramatically. Embarrassingly small numbers of voters have selected school board members, city council members and other local officials. There\u2019s an argument to suggest the quality of candidates has been reduced by the poor voter participation.<\/p>\n
We finally almost fixed it, thanks to the 2014 amendment, which had been sponsored by Sen. Daniel Ivey-Soto (D.\u2013Albuquerque). But there\u2019s another provision in the constitution that says a majority vote is not enough. That\u2019s the zinger.<\/p>\n
Part of Article XIX, Section 1, says the proposed amendment must: \u201cbe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
So we might have to put it on the ballot again in 2016, which means it would have to be passed by the legislature again and then would have to be approved by three-quarters of those voting.<\/p>\n
Ivey-Soto told me he\u2019s willing to do it. But he\u2019s trying an end run around this task.<\/p>\n
He has gone to the New Mexico Supreme Court, asking it to overrule the supermajority requirement for this provision, and to find that the majority vote suffices to change the state constitution. The named plaintiff is the New Mexico League of Women Voters, with Ivey-Soto acting as the group\u2019s attorney.<\/p>\n
If the Supreme Court agrees with Ivey-Soto\u2019s argument, and does so before the upcoming 30-day legislative session, we won\u2019t need to make another pass through the tedious process of trying to get a supermajority.<\/p>\n
The petition to the Supreme Court contains a few curious bits of history.<\/p>\n
The supermajority provision in Article XIX applies to four specific sections of the state constitution, which, according to the petition, have become known as the \u201cunamendable sections.\u201d \u00a0Several attempts have been made to amend these sections, but even though the proposed amendments received solid majorities, that wasn\u2019t enough.<\/p>\n
The petition argues that the original stated purpose of the \u201cunamendable\u201d requirement was to prevent restricting the rights of voters, and the proposed school election amendment doesn\u2019t do that, so the three-quarters majority should not be required.<\/p>\n
The school election provision has been an albatross around New Mexico\u2019s neck for decades, so let\u2019s hope the court agrees with Ivey-Soto and rules that we can get rid of it. If not, and if Ivey-Soto can get the proposed amendment through the legislature again, we\u2019ll have a big job in the 2016 election getting a supermajority to vote for the darn thing.<\/p>\n
\u00a9 2015 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
New Mexico\u2019s state constitution has handed us a real zinger. In 2014 a majority of us voted for an amendment to that constitution, but it didn\u2019t get done. It turns out, the majority vote was not enough. The amendment in … Continue reading