Skip to main content
Independent and nonpartisan. SaveYourState is a civic information resource. It is not a government website and is not affiliated with any government agency, party, or campaign.

New Mexico · November 3, 2026 general election · Statewide ballot measure

Constitutional Amendment 3: what your vote means

Nominating committees for university boards of regents. On every New Mexico ballot. Official sources checked October 22, 2026.

Constitutional Amendment 3 · Legislatively referred constitutional amendment

Nominating committees for university boards of regents

Official ballot title (quoted exactly)

PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 12, SECTION 13 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF NEW MEXICO TO ESTABLISH NOMINATING COMMITTEES TO PROVIDE LISTS OF NOMINEES TO THE GOVERNOR FOR APPOINTMENT OF NONSTUDENT MEMBERS TO THE BOARDS OF REGENTS OF STATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS; PROVIDING THAT STUDENT MEMBERS OF BOARDS OF REGENTS SHALL BE APPOINTED FROM A LIST PROVIDED BY AN ELECTED STUDENT GOVERNING BODY OF THE INSTITUTION; PROVIDING THAT, EXCEPT FOR A STUDENT MEMBER, MEMBERS OF THE BOARDS OF REGENTS SHALL NOT HAVE CHANGED THEIR POLITICAL PARTY REGISTRATION IN THE TWELVE MONTHS PRECEDING APPOINTMENT.

Ballot text as printed by the New Mexico Legislative Council Service in its summary of the constitutional amendments on the November 3, 2026 ballot.

A YES vote means:

The governor would appoint nonstudent regents of state educational institutions from lists provided by nominating committees set up by the Legislature, and student regents from lists provided by elected student governing bodies.

A NO vote means:

The governor would continue to appoint regents, with Senate consent, under the current rules.

What it would change

  • Who is affected: the 10 state educational institutions, the governor, and the Senate.
  • Nominating committees: no more than half of members from one political party.
  • Student regents: lists would come from elected student governing bodies instead of institution presidents.
  • Party registration: nonstudent regents could not have changed party registration in the 12 months before appointment.
  • Fiscal impact: No official fiscal impact statement is published in the Legislative Council Service summary or the Secretary of State voter guide for this amendment.

Official arguments, summarized

Short neutral summaries of the arguments printed in the official voters’ pamphlet. The committees that wrote them are responsible for their content. Read the full text at the link below.

Argument for

Supporters say committees would vet qualified nominees and reduce political influence on appointments.

Argument against

Opponents say it would dilute the governor’s and Senate’s authority and accountability, since nominating committees are not accountable to voters.

Legislative Council Service: arguments for and against Constitutional Amendment 3 (PDF)

Who supports it and who opposes it

These lists come from official campaign filings (registered committees) and public endorsements, each linked to its source. They are not complete, and SaveYourState does not endorse anyone listed.

Who supports it

Not yet compiled

Who opposes it

Not yet compiled

Official sources

SaveYourState is independent and nonpartisan, not a government site, and does not take positions on ballot measures. This explainer describes effects only, using the official ballot title, explanatory statement, full text, and fiscal impact statement. If anything here differs from those documents, the official documents control.