Committee debates restoring appointed state board of education; resolution does not advance

Senate Joint Resolution 3, which would send a constitutional question to voters on whether to reestablish an appointed State Board of Education responsible for naming a state superintendent, drew extensive testimony from education stakeholders and robust committee debate but did not move forward out of the Senate Education Committee in this hearing.

Sponsor argument: Senator Solis (sponsor) said the change would improve continuity: under the proposal the board would be 10 appointed members with staggered six-year terms and stakeholder-based appointments (legislative leaders, governor, unions, tribes and the superintendent association identified in the sponsor's vision). The sponsor framed the change as a voters'choice matter and emphasized avoiding frequent leadership turnover.

Support and opposition: The New Mexico School Board Association, school superintendents and other supporters testified that the board model can provide greater consistency and recommended the voters get to decide. Opponents included a senior official from the Public Education Department, education advocacy groups and business organizations; they argued past appointed boards were politicized, that the resolution lacks implementing language about appointment mechanisms, and that restoring an appointed board could reduce clear accountability to voters and the governor.

Committee concerns: Senators explored trade-offs: supporters cited long-term stability and the size/structure of the proposed board; skeptics focused on appointment authority, representation for rural districts, and the constitutional and legislative mechanics required to implement the change. The sponsor said enabling legislation would be developed in the next session if voters approved.

Committee action: The committee considered a do-pass motion but the resolution did not advance out of committee in this meeting.

What happens next: Because the resolution was not carried forward, proponents said they would continue refining implementation plans and legislation that would define appointment processes and safeguards if the question reaches voters in a future election.