SANTA FE — A proposed constitutional amendment known as the Green Amendment is once again before New Mexico lawmakers, reviving a measure that has been rejected repeatedly by the Legislature amid ongoing concerns about its legal scope and economic impact.
This year’s proposal, House Joint Resolution 3, would amend Article II of the New Mexico Constitution to establish a fundamental right to a “clean and healthy environment,” requiring state and local governments to protect air, water, soil, ecosystems and natural resources for current and future generations.
The effort is led once again by Rep. Joanne Ferrary, who has sponsored or co-sponsored multiple versions of the proposal alongside lawmakers including Sen. Antoinette Sedillo Lopez and Rep. Patricia Roybal Caballero.
Versions of the Green Amendment have been introduced nearly every year since 2021 but have never reached the ballot. A 2021 proposal stalled in its first committee. A 2022 version, HJR 2, advanced through initial House committees but failed to secure final passage. In 2023, a Senate version, SJR 6, never received a hearing in the Senate Rules Committee. Subsequent efforts in 2024 and 2025 again failed to advance beyond early committee stages before adjournment.
Because HJR 3 is a constitutional amendment, it would not require the governor’s signature. If approved by both chambers of the Legislature, it would go directly to voters for final approval.
Supporters argue the amendment would strengthen environmental protections and give communities a clearer legal pathway to challenge government actions they believe threaten public health or natural resources. Ferrary has said in prior sessions that constitutional protection is necessary to place environmental rights on par with other fundamental rights.
Opposition in earlier sessions has centered on concerns from business and energy stakeholders. During legislative debates in 2023, representatives of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association warned that the amendment could create legal uncertainty.
“This amendment would inject uncertainty into permitting and regulatory decisions and expose the state to constant litigation,” the association said in testimony opposing a previous version of the proposal.
Critics have also argued that existing environmental statutes already provide enforcement mechanisms, and that elevating environmental policy to constitutional status could complicate infrastructure, energy and public works projects.
Despite repeated legislative rejections, supporters have continued to reintroduce the amendment, arguing that voters — rather than lawmakers — should ultimately decide whether environmental rights belong in the state constitution.
Whether HJR 3 advances further than past attempts remains uncertain as lawmakers again weigh environmental goals against legal and economic concerns that have stalled the measure in prior years.
