House committee advances constitutional amendment to split sessions into two 45‑day periods and remove germaneness rule

Representative McQueen, sponsor of House Joint Resolution 1, told the House committee the proposal would “strengthen the role of the legislature” by replacing the current 60‑day/30‑day schedule with two 45‑day sessions and by removing the germaneness rule so bills could be considered in consecutive years.

The measure would keep the overall annual number of legislative days roughly the same but distribute them more evenly between sessions. McQueen said the amendment is intended to give lawmakers more consistent opportunity to work bills to completion, preventing momentum from stalling when a measure fails to clear the floor in a single biennial cycle.

Supporters argued the change would increase legislative engagement and efficiency. Representative Luhan said the amendment would reduce executive control over the legislative agenda and noted it could be paired with a separate proposal to establish a paid legislature. Representative Onion Arnoux and others said they have seen worthwhile bills die for lack of time and said the change would make it easier to keep legislative momentum. Representative Melissa (public commenter/supporter) said the proposal would strengthen the legislature without expanding the total number of days in the biennium.

Opponents pressed practical concerns. Representative Zamora asked how a paid‑legislature proposal being discussed elsewhere would interact with session length; McQueen said the two are separate proposals. Zamora and other members argued 15 fewer days in one session could reduce time available for substantive bills and suggested the legislature should first consider internal rule changes and session organization before amending the constitution. Representative Zamora said, “I think we ought to be happy with what we have,” reflecting a belief among some members that internal changes might address the problem without a constitutional change.

Committee members also discussed statutory and rule implications. McQueen acknowledged a statute, section 2‑6‑1 of the New Mexico Statutes Annotated, now limits when bills may be introduced by reference to “legislative days.” He said he plans a separate statutory repeal to remove that conflict because the proposed constitutional amendment does not itself change statutory deadlines. Committee staff also noted rules govern whether bills retain their place between sessions; McQueen and members said that issue could be handled by rule rather than the constitution.

The committee voted to give HJR 1 a recommendation of do pass. Vice Chair Little moved the do‑pass motion and Representative Anya Nornu seconded it. The chair announced the measure passed the committee by a recorded vote of 6 in support and 3 in opposition.

If the resolution clears the legislative process, it would go on the statewide ballot. Committee members raised the Secretary of State’s cost estimate (about $140,000) for placing a constitutional amendment on a general‑election ballot and discussed language on the ballot so voters will understand the change. McQueen said, if approved by voters, the change would take effect January 1, 2027.