In November, New Mexico voters approved a constitutional amendment to Article 5 of the state’s constitution.

Constitutional Amendment 2 creates an independent ethics commission with jurisdiction to investigate, adjudicate and issue advisory opinions concerning civil violations of laws governing ethics, standards of conduct and reporting requirements.

In order to be a functional commission, the Legislature must pass laws granting the commission all of its powers and duties.

As a result, state Rep. Daymon Ely introduced House Bill 4 setting out the new agency’s responsibilities.

The bill states the commission will have jurisdiction to investigate and adjudicate a complaint alleging a civil violation of the Lobbyist Regulation Act and the Campaign Reporting Act.

Additionally, the commission would have the authority to suspend a person from consideration for award of a contract if the person violates the Procurement Code.

If passed, sections 1 through 5, 7, and 37 of the bill will be effective July 1, 2019. The remaining sections will be effective January 1, 2020.

New Mexico voters approved a constitutional amendment to Article 5 of the state’s constitution.

Constitutional Amendment 2 creates an independent ethics commission with jurisdiction to investigate, adjudicate and issue advisory opinions concerning civil violations of laws governing ethics, standards of conduct and reporting requirements.

The commission will have jurisdiction over state officers and employees of the executive and legislative branches, lobbyists, and seekers or holders of government contracts.

In order to be a functional commission the Legislature must pass laws granting the commission all of its powers and duties.

The Missouri Ethics Commission recently released a series of advisory opinions related to Constitutional Amendment 2. The amendment, passed by the voters in the November election, amended state campaign finance laws.

The new advisory opinions address issues not fully articulated in the constitutional amendment. Opinions confirm: contribution limits do not apply to local candidates; the definitions of continuing and political action committees are substantially the same and are interpreted to be the same; and contribution limits only apply to continuing or political action committees if a contribution to the committee is designated for a specific candidate.

Another opinion finds a limited liability company to be a corporation for the purpose of the corporate contribution ban if the LLC is an eligible entity electing to be classified as a corporation under the federal tax code.

Other opinions relate to the eligibility of foreign corporations contributing to Missouri PACs, the application of the $25,000 per election aggregate limit to be received by a political party, and the applicability of contribution limits to state legislative campaign committees.

Constitutional Amendment 2, a reform measure approved in November, is facing a second legal challenge in federal court from plaintiffs who claim the amendment unconstitutionally restricts free speech and association.

The suit was filed by Farmers State Bank and Herzog Services, with additional plaintiffs including the American Democracy Alliance, Missourians for Worker Freedom, Freedom PAC, the Free and Fair Election Fund, and John Elliott, a citizen. Plaintiffs contend the amendment’s contribution restrictions impermissibly prohibit corporate (including nonprofit) contributions in ballot measure and judicial retention campaigns.

A separate suit was filed by the Association of Missouri Electrical Cooperatives earlier in December.

The 2016 election was about a lot more than just a battle between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Across the country, states asked voters to consider a variety of ballot measures, including a few campaign finance issues. At the 2016 National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) State Vote seminar held in Washington, D.C., Wendy Underhill recapped a number of those issues and the decisions that voters made on Nov. 8.

Both California and Washington held votes related to the United States Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United vs. FEC. Voters approved ballot measures that urged government leaders to use their power to work to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling, possibly through a constitutional amendment, if possible.

In Missouri, voters approved an initiative establishing limits on campaign contributions to candidates for state or judicial office; while in South Dakota, voters approved an initiative to create a publicly funded campaign finance program and an ethics commission.

For more from the NCSL State Vote seminar you can view some of the presentation slides here. To see a list of ballot measure election results of interest to government relations professionals, take a look at our 2016 election dashboard.