If SJR3 is adopted, it will have a substantive impact on the state's laws regarding the appointment of judges. The proposed bill requires the establishment of an 'appellate judges nominating commission' to recommend qualified candidates to the governor, who will then appoint judges to fill vacancies. This shift represents a change aimed at creating a more structured and potentially less politicized process for judicial appointments, as it involves multiple stakeholders including members of the judiciary and the state bar. However, this could also lead to discussions about the balance of power between the executive branch and the judiciary in appointing judges.
Summary
SJR3 proposes an amendment to Article 6, Section 35 of the New Mexico Constitution, aimed at modifying the appointment process for appellate judges. This resolution mandates that an appointed appellate judge must serve for a minimum of one year before a general election can occur for that judicial position. The intention behind this amendment is to ensure that candidates hold their positions long enough to be evaluated by the public and to provide greater stability within the state's judicial system. As such, it reflects a consideration to enhance the quality of judicial appointments and secure trust in the judiciary's functions.
Contention
Notable points of contention around SJR3 include concerns regarding the potential for political influence in the appointment process. Critics may argue that giving the governor significant sway over judicial appointments could undermine judicial independence. Advocates for SJR3 may counter that the amendment promotes accountability and encourages the selection of qualified candidates. Overall, the bill presents a dual narrative of pursuing judicial reform while maintaining checks on political influence within the state's judicial appointments.
Relating to the filling of a vacancy in an appellate judicial office by appointment and a nonpartisan election for the retention or rejection of the person appointed.