Constitutional Amendment 1

Argument for

no rhetorical technique found

1. Provides greater transparency to the public and the legislature regarding why a governor vetoed a bill. With the ability to pocket veto a bill, the governor can veto a bill passed by both chambers of the legislature without an explanation.

This can leave the public and the legislature in the dark about what objections the governor had and does not provide information on how the bill might be reintroduced in the future in a manner that the governor would sign. By using the pocket veto, the governor is able to avoid explaining the governor's position on potentially politically sensitive pieces of legislation.

Eliminating the pocket veto would ensure that a substantive explanation is given by the governor for the veto, the public knows the opinion of the governor on the legislation and the legislature understands how to address the governor's concerns. 2. Potentially brings greater balance among the branches of government.

The governor's ability to pocket veto a bill gives the governor great power over the enactment of laws passed by the legislature. With the elimination of the pocket veto, the legislature would have an increased chance of passed bills becoming law, especially for a politically fraught bill, because to veto a bill, the governor would have to be intentional about the veto and provide a reason.

The proposed amendment would also provide an avenue for the judicial branch to weigh in on whether the governor has provided a "substantive explanation" for the veto if the explanation is challenged.

From nmlegis.gov, the official voter guide.

Argument against

no rhetorical technique found

1. This proposed amendment is unnecessary and could be overly burdensome. The proposed amendment is unnecessary because the legislature currently can require the governor to provide a reason for vetoing a bill by presenting the bill to the governor before the last three days of a session.

The legislature also has the option to override a governor's veto, regardless of the governor's rationale for pocket vetoing a bill.

Further, with only 20 days to act after the adjournment of the legislature, providing a written, substantive explanation for every bill to be vetoed could be overly burdensome and create a logjam of work in the executive branch in the short time after session that the governor has to consider legislation for signature or veto.

This could result in "bad bills" becoming law because the governor ran out of time before a veto message could be written. 2. The requirement to provide a "substantive explanation" is undefined. To veto a bill, the governor would be required to provide a "substantive explanation" for the veto, but there is nothing in the proposed amendment to indicate what that would entail.

This could lead to an increase in litigation between the legislative and executive branches at a cost to the taxpayers. Additionally, the litigation could delay the enactment of a bill, leaving the public in limbo as to whether or when the law will be in effect.

From nmlegis.gov, the official voter guide.

Supporting

No registered committee supporting Constitutional Amendment 1 found as of 2026-10-21.

Opposing

No registered committee opposing Constitutional Amendment 1 found as of 2026-10-21.