Arguments For and Against Proposed Constitutional Amendment 1
2012
Arguments For - Equal Representation - Municipal Judges Should Be Represented, Along With Other Judges And Magistrates:
A basic tenet of a representative democracy is the concept of "equal representation". While there are 82 municipal judges in the state, the membership of the Judicial Standards Commission does not include a municipal judge. Conversely, there are only 66 magistrate judges in the state and the Commission membership includes one magistrate judge. Additionally, there are five Supreme Court justices, 10 Appellate Court judges and 89 District Court judges in the state and the Commission membership includes two justices or judges. Adding a municipal judge to the membership of the Commission is a necessary step in providing equal representation for municipal judges on the oversight body that monitors their job performance. - Fairness - Fair Complaint Resolution Process Should Include Municipal Judge Commissioner:
When a complaint alleging misconduct is lodged against any individual, primary to determining the merits of the complaint is a fair resolution process carried out by fully informed individuals. It is inherently unfair for complaints regarding a municipal judge's job performance to be resolved solely by persons without the current, first-hand experiences and views of a municipal judge. Since the job performance of municipal judges is overseen by the members of the Judicial Standards Commission, and since currently there are no municipal judge members guaranteed a seat on the Commission, adding a municipal judge as a member addresses a matter of fairness. - Retains Current Balance Of Power - While Retaining Commission's Current Balance Of Power By Citizen Members, Proposal Provides Equal Footing For Municipal Judges:
This amendment would put municipal judges on equal footing with magistrate judges, who are already represented on the Judicial Standards Commission. Including a municipal judge member would ensure that the unique perspectives of municipal judges would be heard alongside those of the other judges, attorneys and citizen Commission members, particularly in the event that a municipal judge is the subject of a complaint alleging misconduct. Additionally, because the amendment will also add a citizen position on the Commission, the current balance of judicial officials and citizens will be retained. If anything, adding a municipal judge and another citizen position to the Commission will serve to expand the insight and knowledge helpful in carrying out the important duties of the Commission, therefore positively impacting its work.
Arguments Against - Too Many Members - Increasing Membership Will Impede Commission's Ability To Reach Consensus In Timely Manner:
Adding two more members to the Judicial Standards Commission will make the Commission too big, impeding its ability to perform its constitutionally mandated duties in a streamlined and timely manner. The Commission was already expanded in 1998 from nine commissioners to its current membership of 11. Adding two more members, for a total of 13, will make the Commission's work unnecessarily difficult because it is always challenging to obtain consensus when more people are involved in a process, and all disciplinary recommendations of the Commission require a majority consensus. If the commissioners are unable to reach agreement concerning the serious matters before them related to alleged judicial misconduct, their work will be hampered and perhaps stalled. If the work of the Commission is delayed or halted due to lack of consensus, the state's judicial system could be negatively impacted. It is not in the best interests of the citizens of this state to take measures that could unnecessarily slow down any governmental oversight process, particularly one designed to ensure the standing of its judiciary. - Wrong Change - Instead, Commission Needs Mechanism For Removing Unfit Commission Members For Cause:
Increasing its membership is not the change that is needed for the Judicial Standards Commission, at least not until a mechanism for removing commissioners for cause is adopted. The provisions in Article 6, Section 32 of the Constitution of New Mexico, as well as the existing governing statute and this proposed amendment, all fail to provide a mechanism for the removal of a commissioner for malfeasance, conflict of interest or other good cause. Current law provides only for a manner in which to fill a vacancy and for the selection of a successor upon a commissioner's death or resignation or when the commissioner "no longer has the qualifications required for his original selection". Additionally, the New Mexico Supreme Court has held that none of the Commission's appointing parties has the power to remove a commissioner. In the event that a commissioner commits an act determined to be malfeasance, is convicted of a felony or is otherwise no longer fit to serve on the Commission, there is nothing in the statutes providing a mechanism to remove that commissioner. This critical void in the law presents the greatest danger to the work of the Commission and is immeasurably more important than adding yet more commissioner positions. - Unnecessary Constitutional Amendment - Changes Could Be Accomplished By Amending Existing State Law, Instead Of Permanently Changing Constitution:
It is not necessary to amend the Constitution of New Mexico to add a municipal judge to the membership of the Judicial Standards Commission because if the Legislature wants municipal judge representation on the Commission, it can easily be accomplished by amending existing law while leaving intact the state's constitution. New Mexico's constitution does not bar a municipal judge from serving as a commissioner and already provides that Commission membership will include justices and judges. A statutory change is sufficient to allow representation of municipal judges. Existing state law designates that commissioners' positions 8 and 9 must be filled by a Supreme Court justice, Appellate Court judge or District Court judge. A bill amending that provision of law to also include a municipal judge could be passed by the Legislature. Making that change would not impact the balance of power on the Commission because the six citizen members would still retain a majority. So, there would be no need to add the amendment's proposed citizen member to the Commission. Unlike state laws, the state's constitution is not amenable to frequent alteration because it can only be changed by a majority of voters during a general or special election. Permanently altering the constitution for this proposed change is unnecessary and unwise. - Too Costly - Increasing Commission Memberships Adds Unnecessary Costs:
Adding more members to the Judicial Standards Commission will increase the costs to the taxpayer for funding the Commission's work. Members of the Commission are entitled to per diem and mileage reimbursement. Adding yet more positions to boards and commissions amounts to a waste of the taxpayers' money. The state cannot afford the increased costs associated with adding members to the Commission.
|