CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
House Joint Resolution 12 is a memorial-style application asking Congress to call an Article V convention of the states for a limited set of proposed U.S. constitutional amendments. The resolution says the convention should be restricted to three broad goals: imposing fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting federal power and jurisdiction over public and private lands, and limiting the terms of federal officials and members of Congress. It also directs New Mexico to appoint commissioners to the convention and to include representatives of federal land users among those appointees.
The resolution is largely framed as a response to federal debt, regulatory burdens, and federal control over land in New Mexico. It argues that federal spending and regulation have become excessive and harmful to local governments, small businesses, working families, and land users, and it seeks a constitutional mechanism to restore state and local authority. If adopted, it would not itself change New Mexico statutes or create a new state regulatory program; instead, it would formally commit the legislature to seek a federal constitutional convention and transmit that application to Congress and congressional leaders. It also states that the application is continuing until enough states apply on the same subject.
The general sentiment in the bill is strongly critical of federal government spending, regulation, and land management, and strongly supportive of state sovereignty and fiscal restraint. The findings emphasize balanced budgets, federal debt, and the burdens of federal overreach, suggesting a reform-oriented, anti-centralization posture. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented legislative debate in the supplied materials to indicate broader support or opposition within the legislature.
The main points of contention likely concern the use of an Article V convention, the scope of the proposed convention, and the policy goals it would pursue. Supporters would likely view the resolution as a way to pressure Washington on debt, term limits, and land-use control, while critics may worry about the unpredictability of a constitutional convention, the risk of opening the U.S. Constitution to broader changes, and the federalism implications of restricting national authority. The land-management provisions may also be especially contentious in New Mexico because of the large share of land under federal control and the competing interests of conservation, resource users, local governments, and federal agencies.
If adopted, HJR12 would not amend New Mexico law directly, but it would formally apply to Congress under Article V of the U.S. Constitution for a convention of the states and direct state officials to transmit the application and appoint commissioners. Its practical effect would be to add New Mexico to the count of states seeking a limited constitutional convention on fiscal restraints, federal land jurisdiction, and term limits, potentially contributing to the threshold needed for Congress to call such a convention. It would also signal legislative support for limiting federal authority over public and private lands and for stronger state and local control.
The bill’s tone is strongly supportive of fiscal restraint, term limits, and reduced federal power, with a clear anti-overreach and pro-state-sovereignty message. The text suggests sympathy for land users, local governments, and small businesses affected by federal regulation. No committee discussion or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of bipartisan support or organized opposition in the available materials.
The most notable contention is the proposal to use an Article V convention, which some lawmakers and observers often view as risky because of uncertainty about how broad the convention’s scope could become. Another likely point of dispute is the bill’s effort to limit federal jurisdiction over public and private lands, especially in a state where federal land management is a major issue and where environmental, tribal, conservation, and resource-development interests may differ sharply. Term limits for federal officials and Congress, as well as the bill’s criticism of federal spending and regulation, are also likely to divide supporters of smaller government from those who favor stronger federal oversight and national policy coordination.