Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance
committees of the Legislature. LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports if they
are used for other purposes.
F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
SPONSOR Pinto
LAST UPDATED
ORIGINAL DATE 2/26/25
SHORT TITLE Open Primary Elections, CA
BILL
NUMBER
Senate Joint
Resolution 13
ANALYST Hilla
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT*
(dollars in thousands)
Agency/Program
FY25 FY26 FY27
3 Year
Total Cost
Recurring or
Nonrecurring
Fund
Affected
SOS
No fiscal
impact
No fiscal
impact
$35.0 to $50.0 $35.0 to $50.0 Nonrecurring
Other state
funds
Parentheses ( ) indicate expenditure decreases.
*Amounts reflect most recent analysis of this legislation.
Relates to Senate Bill 16
Sources of Information
LFC Files
Agency Analysis Received From
Secretary of State (SOS) Agency Analysis was Solicited but Not Received From
New Mexico County Clerks Affiliate New Mexico Counties
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Senate Joint Resolution 13
Senate Joint Resolution 13 (SJR13) amends Article VII of the constitution of New Mexico to
allow all registered qualified electors, regardless of party preference, affiliation, or lack thereof,
to vote in a primary election.
The joint resolution provides the amendment be put before the voters at the next general election
(November 2026) or a special election called for the purpose of considering the amendment. The
amendment would only be effective if approved by voters.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
Under Section 1-16-4 NMSA 1978 and the New Mexico Constitution, the Secretary of State
(SOS) is required to print samples of the text of each constitutional amendment in both Spanish
and English in an amount equal to 10 percent of the registered voters in the state. SOS is required
to publish the samples once a week for four weeks preceding the election in newspapers in every Senate Joint Resolution 13 – Page 2
county in the state. Further, the number of constitutional amendments on the ballot may impact
the ballot page size or cause the ballot to be more than one page, also increasing costs. The
estimated cost per constitutional amendment is $35 thousand to $50 thousand, depending on the
size and number of ballots and if additional ballot stations are needed.
Should this proposed constitutional amendment be approved by voters, SJR13 has the potential
to impact general fund revenue. Laws 2024, Chapter 24, establishes a new $15 million maximum
distribution from the tax administration suspense fund to SOS’s election fund, which would
otherwise contribute to the general fund. SOS reports that the 2024 primary election cost
approximately $14 million. The 2028 primary election would be the first open primary if SJR13
is passed and approved by voters. Higher voter turnout under SJR13 would likely increase the
need for additional BOD systems, as noted by SOS, which would add an estimated $4–6 million
in nonrecurring costs starting in FY28 but would by extension also increase the recurring costs
for new system maintenance, potentially above the $15 million cap for the election in FY28.
Considering the 2024 primary election cost of $14 million for a closed primary election, this
analysis assumes the costs for additional BOD maintenance and other open primary election
costs, like additional poll workers, would increase total election costs beyond the election fund’s
$15 million cap. SJR13 would create additional recurring costs, howeverthis exact fiscal impact
is unknown.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
SJR13 duplicates Senate Bill 16 (SB16), which would allow unaffiliated votes to vote in open
primaries, but SJR13 makes this change to the state’s constitution as opposed to SB16 making it
in statute. SJR13 does not require voters to affiliate with a political party unlike SB16.
In the California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
that, while states play a role in structuring and monitoring the primary election process, the
process by which political parties must select their nominees are not wholly public affairs that
states may regulate freely, ultimately ruling that political parties have the constitutional right to
determine their own nominees without interference from non-members as per the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution’s right of association.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), 15 states have completely
open primary elections, including Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. States with open primaries
typically do not disclose the ballot an unaffiliated voter chose to vote on. Seven states are “open
to unaffiliated voters” for primary elections, including Arizona and Colorado, meaning that these
states allow unaffiliated votes to participate in any party primary they choose, but do not allow
voters who are registered with one party to vote in another party’s primary.
Changing New Mexico from one of 10 states with closed primary elections to an open system
could increase voter participation. SOS notes that as of December 2024, more than 340,000
voters, 24.4 percent of registered voters in New Mexico, were not affiliated with one of the three
major parties (Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian).
SOS states that in Crum v. Duran, 2017-NMSC-013, the New Mexico Supreme Court observed
that state legislatures could not infringe on a voter’s right to vote; however, legislatures may
reasonably regulate elections and impose voter qualifications. The Supreme Court upheld the
Legislature’s authority to enact election-related laws. SOS states that Crum “does not foreclose a Senate Joint Resolution 13 – Page 3
subsequent legislature from eliminating, altering, or otherwise revising the requirement of major
party affiliation designation to vote in a primary election, as long as such subsequent legislation
is defensible as a reasonable exercise of ‘manner, place, and time’ authority.”
While Crum affirms the Legislature has the power to make open primaries, this ruling does not
override First Amendment rights of political parties as ruled in Jones, in which minor parties
could still challenge a fully open system should SJR13 pass and be approved by voters.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
SOS states that a roster of all eligible voters, affiliated or not, would be required for each county,
which could pose changes to current BOD systems; SOS does not anticipate this will cause an
increase in costs.
CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP
Relates to Senate Bill 16.
EH/hj/SL2