NEW MEXICO
This policy brief gives reporters quick access to important concepts, laws, and procedures governing elections in New Mexico.
It is organized around three pillars: transparency, verification of results, and judicial review, with particular attention to the processes that matter when elections are close, contested, or disputed. The brief explains the roles of election officials and observers, procedures for verifying and certifying results, recounts, and the legal processes available when election disputes arise.
Note: References to the state Election Code in Chapter 1 of the New Mexico Statutes Annotated are abbreviated "NMSA"
It is organized around three pillars: transparency, verification of results, and judicial review, with particular attention to the processes that matter when elections are close, contested, or disputed. The brief explains the roles of election officials and observers, procedures for verifying and certifying results, recounts, and the legal processes available when election disputes arise.
Note: References to the state Election Code in Chapter 1 of the New Mexico Statutes Annotated are abbreviated "NMSA"
PILLAR 1: Transparency
Election officials, like all public servants, deserve respect and support. However, it’s important to ensure these officials are accountable to the voters. Like many other areas of governance in the United States, transparency is one of the key mechanisms for that accountability. While there are many ways transparency can be built into election systems, one of the most important is the right established by law for competing parties to post their own observers to watch many of the phases of the election.
QUESTION 1: What are the roles of canvassing boards, challengers, and observers?
1.a. A hierarchy of institutions and officials oversee elections in New Mexico.
County Clerks: In New Mexico, primary responsibility for election oversight falls to elected county clerks, who are the local chief election officers, responsible for administration of elections for the county (NMSA §1-13-4).
County Commissions: Unlike some states that have dedicated county election boards, New Mexico law assigns the role of certifying elections within the county to the county commission, comprised of three or five elected members (NMSA §1-13-1). Each commission has the legal authority to delegate the responsibility to the county board of registration to serve as the canvassing board, but this practice is uncommon.
State Canvassing Board: The three-member State Canvassing Board is comprised of the secretary of state, the governor, and the chief justice of the state supreme court (NM Const. V§2). The Board’s role is to accept the county canvass reports after each election and certify the results statewide (NMSA §1-13-15). This function requires a vote of at least two members.
———--
CONTEXT: What is a canvass?
A canvass is the post-election process for reviewing and verifying election returns before results become official. New Mexico defines the canvass as the process used to confirm that ballots were accurately counted, accurately aggregated, and accurately included in the final election results. (NMAC §1.10.39.7)
———--
Challengers and Watchers: Designated representatives of the political parties may observe the conduct of the election and the counting and recording of votes. New Mexico calls these people challengers, watchers, or county canvass observers depending on their specific roles (NMSA §1-2-22). These individuals should not be confused with “election observers,” described below.
1.b. New Mexico establishes clear qualifications and restrictions for challengers, watchers, and observers.
Challengers in New Mexico must be voters within the county to which they are appointed, while watchers must only be voters within the state (NMSA §1-2-22). Challenges and watchers cannot be appointed if they are a candidate, family member of a candidate, or a law enforcement officer (NMSA §1-2-22). Challengers are appointed by the county chair of each political party or by the state party chair if the county chair does not make an appointment (NMSA §1-2-21)
1.c. New Mexico requires training for watchers and challengers.
Challengers and watchers must complete a training before serving. The training is provided by county clerks using a uniform curriculum developed by the Secretary of State and covers permitted and prohibited activities (NMSA §1-2-22).
———--
CONTEXT: Political party observers are an important part of the process.
Election observers who represent their political parties can provide important validation about the vote counting process, and they can be trusted messengers within their political networks. However, without proper training, they can make mistakes or false assumptions.
One example of the importance of training observers comes from the Principles for Trusted Elections, a cross-partisan program co-chaired by family members of former U.S. Presidents Gerald R. Ford (Republican) and Jimmy Carter (Democrat). The principles call on all candidates to “encourage political parties and others to train poll-watchers on the election process and appropriate roles and behaviors, responsibilities, and obligations.”
Candidates, voters, and civic organizations can endorse these principles by completing a short online form.
———--
County Clerks: In New Mexico, primary responsibility for election oversight falls to elected county clerks, who are the local chief election officers, responsible for administration of elections for the county (NMSA §1-13-4).
County Commissions: Unlike some states that have dedicated county election boards, New Mexico law assigns the role of certifying elections within the county to the county commission, comprised of three or five elected members (NMSA §1-13-1). Each commission has the legal authority to delegate the responsibility to the county board of registration to serve as the canvassing board, but this practice is uncommon.
State Canvassing Board: The three-member State Canvassing Board is comprised of the secretary of state, the governor, and the chief justice of the state supreme court (NM Const. V§2). The Board’s role is to accept the county canvass reports after each election and certify the results statewide (NMSA §1-13-15). This function requires a vote of at least two members.
———--
CONTEXT: What is a canvass?
A canvass is the post-election process for reviewing and verifying election returns before results become official. New Mexico defines the canvass as the process used to confirm that ballots were accurately counted, accurately aggregated, and accurately included in the final election results. (NMAC §1.10.39.7)
———--
Challengers and Watchers: Designated representatives of the political parties may observe the conduct of the election and the counting and recording of votes. New Mexico calls these people challengers, watchers, or county canvass observers depending on their specific roles (NMSA §1-2-22). These individuals should not be confused with “election observers,” described below.
1.b. New Mexico establishes clear qualifications and restrictions for challengers, watchers, and observers.
Challengers in New Mexico must be voters within the county to which they are appointed, while watchers must only be voters within the state (NMSA §1-2-22). Challenges and watchers cannot be appointed if they are a candidate, family member of a candidate, or a law enforcement officer (NMSA §1-2-22). Challengers are appointed by the county chair of each political party or by the state party chair if the county chair does not make an appointment (NMSA §1-2-21)
1.c. New Mexico requires training for watchers and challengers.
Challengers and watchers must complete a training before serving. The training is provided by county clerks using a uniform curriculum developed by the Secretary of State and covers permitted and prohibited activities (NMSA §1-2-22).
———--
CONTEXT: Political party observers are an important part of the process.
Election observers who represent their political parties can provide important validation about the vote counting process, and they can be trusted messengers within their political networks. However, without proper training, they can make mistakes or false assumptions.
One example of the importance of training observers comes from the Principles for Trusted Elections, a cross-partisan program co-chaired by family members of former U.S. Presidents Gerald R. Ford (Republican) and Jimmy Carter (Democrat). The principles call on all candidates to “encourage political parties and others to train poll-watchers on the election process and appropriate roles and behaviors, responsibilities, and obligations.”
Candidates, voters, and civic organizations can endorse these principles by completing a short online form.
———--
QUESTION 2: What about nonpartisan election monitors or the general public?
2.a. Nonpartisan election monitoring is different from partisan observation.
Nonpartisan election observation is an impartial process where trained observers systematically gather data about an election in order to assess key aspects of the process and report on the degree to which the election was fair, peaceful, and credible. Grounded by facts and evidence, trustworthy observers validate the critical work being done by those on the front lines of our democracy. When organized correctly, observers cannot be party actors or advocates — in fact, observers agree to follow a strict code of conduct to ensure they remain nonpartisan and do not interfere with the voting process. According to The Carter Center, which is an international leader in election monitoring, nonpartisan observation is a common best practice in many democracies around the globe.
2.b. New Mexico permits nonpartisan monitors and researchers to observe election procedures.
New Mexico law separately recognizes “election observers,” including international observers registered with the U.S. Department of State and academics registered with the New Mexico Secretary of State to conduct election research (NMSA §1-1-3.2). The Secretary of State requires registered observers to follow established procedures for election observation.
———--
CONTEXT: Titles Can Be Confusing
Throughout this section we use the terms “nonpartisan election observers” or “nonpartisan election monitors” to refer to people whose role is to be impartial and focus on the process. These people are often researchers or “good government” experts. This role is often confused with assigned observers for ballot initiatives, independent candidates, or nonpartisan candidates (such as observers for nonpartisan school board races).
———--
Nonpartisan election observation is an impartial process where trained observers systematically gather data about an election in order to assess key aspects of the process and report on the degree to which the election was fair, peaceful, and credible. Grounded by facts and evidence, trustworthy observers validate the critical work being done by those on the front lines of our democracy. When organized correctly, observers cannot be party actors or advocates — in fact, observers agree to follow a strict code of conduct to ensure they remain nonpartisan and do not interfere with the voting process. According to The Carter Center, which is an international leader in election monitoring, nonpartisan observation is a common best practice in many democracies around the globe.
2.b. New Mexico permits nonpartisan monitors and researchers to observe election procedures.
New Mexico law separately recognizes “election observers,” including international observers registered with the U.S. Department of State and academics registered with the New Mexico Secretary of State to conduct election research (NMSA §1-1-3.2). The Secretary of State requires registered observers to follow established procedures for election observation.
———--
CONTEXT: Titles Can Be Confusing
Throughout this section we use the terms “nonpartisan election observers” or “nonpartisan election monitors” to refer to people whose role is to be impartial and focus on the process. These people are often researchers or “good government” experts. This role is often confused with assigned observers for ballot initiatives, independent candidates, or nonpartisan candidates (such as observers for nonpartisan school board races).
———--
QUESTION 3: What are poll observers allowed to see?
3.a. Most election procedures are open to political party observation.
Challengers and watchers may observe voting from designated areas in polling locations and may also observe specified ballot-counting and post-election activities (NMSA §1-2-25). County canvass observers may observe the county canvass. State law limits how many representatives may be present and prohibits observers from handling ballots or voting records, participating in the count, viewing protected voter information, or interfering with election operations.
Challengers and watchers may observe voting from designated areas in polling locations and may also observe specified ballot-counting and post-election activities (NMSA §1-2-25). County canvass observers may observe the county canvass. State law limits how many representatives may be present and prohibits observers from handling ballots or voting records, participating in the count, viewing protected voter information, or interfering with election operations.
PILLAR 2: Verification of Results
For citizens and politicians, elections are a lot like horse races, with the focus squarely on who’s ahead at the end. For election professionals, by contrast, a better metaphor is a series of accounting problems. Does everything balance, including seal numbers on equipment, the number of ballots used, initial tabulations and audit results, etc.? Election procedures and paperwork are built to facilitate this verification.
Verification is supported by redundancy, with multiple layers of checks designed to find any errors and confirm accuracy.
Verification is supported by redundancy, with multiple layers of checks designed to find any errors and confirm accuracy.
QUESTION 4: How is the security and accuracy of equipment verified?
4.a. Vote counting accuracy is tested before voting.
Prior to every election, election officials conduct “logic and accuracy” testing of voting tabulators to confirm that they accurately count paper ballots and properly identify overvotes and undervotes (NMSA §1-11-6). The testing can be observed by representatives of political parties and organizations, election observers, and candidates.
After the election, officials check vote totals as results are compiled at the county and state levels and reported on the state’s election results website. Together with the state’s audits, recount procedures, and other safeguards, these checks are designed to identify errors before election results are finalized.
4.b. No equipment used to count ballots is connected to the internet.
New Mexico law requires voting systems to operate as stand-alone, non-networked systems without connection to the internet (NMSA §1-9-7.7).
4.c. Any electronic devices used must produce a paper record, which is retained to be available for rechecking.
New Mexico requires all voting systems to use a paper ballot that voters mark either by hand or electronically (NMSA §1-9-7.1). The paper ballots are retained for audits and recounts; in a recount, if there is a discrepancy, state law provides that the paper ballot is the true and correct record of the voter’s choices.
4.d. Voting equipment is certified by the Secretary of State and uniform across New Mexico.
New Mexico requires voting systems to be certified and approved by the Secretary of State (NMSA §1-9-14). Certified systems must undergo independent testing and comply with the Election Code and applicable federal voting system guidelines. Voting systems already in use are also subject to periodic recertification (NMSA §1-9-7.4).
Prior to every election, election officials conduct “logic and accuracy” testing of voting tabulators to confirm that they accurately count paper ballots and properly identify overvotes and undervotes (NMSA §1-11-6). The testing can be observed by representatives of political parties and organizations, election observers, and candidates.
After the election, officials check vote totals as results are compiled at the county and state levels and reported on the state’s election results website. Together with the state’s audits, recount procedures, and other safeguards, these checks are designed to identify errors before election results are finalized.
4.b. No equipment used to count ballots is connected to the internet.
New Mexico law requires voting systems to operate as stand-alone, non-networked systems without connection to the internet (NMSA §1-9-7.7).
4.c. Any electronic devices used must produce a paper record, which is retained to be available for rechecking.
New Mexico requires all voting systems to use a paper ballot that voters mark either by hand or electronically (NMSA §1-9-7.1). The paper ballots are retained for audits and recounts; in a recount, if there is a discrepancy, state law provides that the paper ballot is the true and correct record of the voter’s choices.
4.d. Voting equipment is certified by the Secretary of State and uniform across New Mexico.
New Mexico requires voting systems to be certified and approved by the Secretary of State (NMSA §1-9-14). Certified systems must undergo independent testing and comply with the Election Code and applicable federal voting system guidelines. Voting systems already in use are also subject to periodic recertification (NMSA §1-9-7.4).
QUESTION 5: How do officials verify registration and validity of individual votes?
5.a. Identification is not required to vote in person.
Identification is not required to vote in statewide elections in New Mexico. However, a copy of identification is required when registering to vote for the first time; various forms of identification are acceptable that show the voter’s name and current address (including a photo ID, utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, student ID, or tribal ID). Registrants who fail to submit identification with their mailed-in, first-time registration, are required to present ID when voting in person or absentee.
Some municipal jurisdictions in New Mexico have ordinances that require voter identification to vote in city elections.
5.b. Mail ballot applications include identity verification requirements.
In New Mexico, voters must verify their identity to apply for an absentee ballot (NMSA §1-6-4). Voters requesting a mailed ballot on a paper application must provide their name, address, year of birth, and signature. Online applications require a current or expired New Mexico driver's license or state identification number and an affirmation that the information submitted is accurate. Additional identification requirements apply to certain first-time New Mexico voters who registered by mail without providing the identification required by federal law.
5.c. New Mexico officials draw on a range of sources to update voter rolls, within limits set by federal law.
A challenge that New Mexico, and every other state, faces is that Americans move a lot and rarely let voting officials know. The result is an ongoing risk that voting rolls will contain names of people no longer eligible to vote in the state. However, wide-scale purges of voter rolls can lead to worries about possible voter suppression.
A system that helps address voter registration problems is the Election Registration Information Center (ERIC), which enables limited information-sharing between states. New Mexico is a member of ERIC and can use that membership to help identify names of voters no longer in the state. (In the last several years, nine states withdrew their membership in ERIC based on misinformation about the program, and subsequently encountered significant problems replacing the data benefits of the system.)
During the voter list maintenance process, New Mexico’s election administrators, as required by law, maintain and update their voter rolls continually — checking obituaries and probate records, receiving monthly reports from NM Vital Statistics about deceased individuals, and suspending or reinstating voters based on conviction or sentence-completion notices from the Department of Corrections. This is done in conjunction with the proactive measures already in place in New Mexico, such as automated voter registration, as well as online and same-day voter registration.
Federal law prohibits removing voters simply for not voting. But a state can remove someone from the rolls if it sends a notice to a non-voter, or a voter who appears to have moved, and the voter fails to respond (or vote) within the next two federal elections. Even if a voter has not responded during that time frame, federal law prohibits removing voters from the rolls within 90 days of an election.
5.d. New Mexico law prohibits registration by noncitizens.
To register to vote in New Mexico, state law requires the registrant to be a U.S. citizen, a resident of New Mexico, and at least 18 years old on or before the day of the election (NMSA §1-4-2). Citizenship papers are not required to register, and applicants must attest to their citizenship status and other qualifications on the application form. Making false statements on a voter registration form is a felony under state law (NMSA §1-20-3). Federal law separately makes it a crime to willfully falsely represent oneself as a U.S. citizen, and false claims of U.S. citizenship can carry immigration consequences for noncitizens (8 U.S.C. §1182). Non-citizen voting is extremely rare.
5.e. New Mexico provides procedures for reporting election law violations and challenging voter eligibility.
New Mexico law allows the Secretary of State to challenge in court a person’s qualifications to vote (NMSA §1-4-22). Citizens who question a voter’s eligibility, who witness voter intimidation, or who have reason to believe that violations of election ethics have occurred may report the incident to the Secretary of State’s office, county clerk, or county district attorney.
The New Mexico Secretary of State’s Office is charged with investigating complaints related to elections and ethics under New Mexico law. Concerns may be submitted by mail or email, using this complaint form. The office does not process or investigate anonymous complaints.
In 2026, New Mexico also enacted new prohibitions on interference with voting and election administration.
Identification is not required to vote in statewide elections in New Mexico. However, a copy of identification is required when registering to vote for the first time; various forms of identification are acceptable that show the voter’s name and current address (including a photo ID, utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, student ID, or tribal ID). Registrants who fail to submit identification with their mailed-in, first-time registration, are required to present ID when voting in person or absentee.
Some municipal jurisdictions in New Mexico have ordinances that require voter identification to vote in city elections.
5.b. Mail ballot applications include identity verification requirements.
In New Mexico, voters must verify their identity to apply for an absentee ballot (NMSA §1-6-4). Voters requesting a mailed ballot on a paper application must provide their name, address, year of birth, and signature. Online applications require a current or expired New Mexico driver's license or state identification number and an affirmation that the information submitted is accurate. Additional identification requirements apply to certain first-time New Mexico voters who registered by mail without providing the identification required by federal law.
5.c. New Mexico officials draw on a range of sources to update voter rolls, within limits set by federal law.
A challenge that New Mexico, and every other state, faces is that Americans move a lot and rarely let voting officials know. The result is an ongoing risk that voting rolls will contain names of people no longer eligible to vote in the state. However, wide-scale purges of voter rolls can lead to worries about possible voter suppression.
A system that helps address voter registration problems is the Election Registration Information Center (ERIC), which enables limited information-sharing between states. New Mexico is a member of ERIC and can use that membership to help identify names of voters no longer in the state. (In the last several years, nine states withdrew their membership in ERIC based on misinformation about the program, and subsequently encountered significant problems replacing the data benefits of the system.)
During the voter list maintenance process, New Mexico’s election administrators, as required by law, maintain and update their voter rolls continually — checking obituaries and probate records, receiving monthly reports from NM Vital Statistics about deceased individuals, and suspending or reinstating voters based on conviction or sentence-completion notices from the Department of Corrections. This is done in conjunction with the proactive measures already in place in New Mexico, such as automated voter registration, as well as online and same-day voter registration.
Federal law prohibits removing voters simply for not voting. But a state can remove someone from the rolls if it sends a notice to a non-voter, or a voter who appears to have moved, and the voter fails to respond (or vote) within the next two federal elections. Even if a voter has not responded during that time frame, federal law prohibits removing voters from the rolls within 90 days of an election.
5.d. New Mexico law prohibits registration by noncitizens.
To register to vote in New Mexico, state law requires the registrant to be a U.S. citizen, a resident of New Mexico, and at least 18 years old on or before the day of the election (NMSA §1-4-2). Citizenship papers are not required to register, and applicants must attest to their citizenship status and other qualifications on the application form. Making false statements on a voter registration form is a felony under state law (NMSA §1-20-3). Federal law separately makes it a crime to willfully falsely represent oneself as a U.S. citizen, and false claims of U.S. citizenship can carry immigration consequences for noncitizens (8 U.S.C. §1182). Non-citizen voting is extremely rare.
5.e. New Mexico provides procedures for reporting election law violations and challenging voter eligibility.
New Mexico law allows the Secretary of State to challenge in court a person’s qualifications to vote (NMSA §1-4-22). Citizens who question a voter’s eligibility, who witness voter intimidation, or who have reason to believe that violations of election ethics have occurred may report the incident to the Secretary of State’s office, county clerk, or county district attorney.
The New Mexico Secretary of State’s Office is charged with investigating complaints related to elections and ethics under New Mexico law. Concerns may be submitted by mail or email, using this complaint form. The office does not process or investigate anonymous complaints.
In 2026, New Mexico also enacted new prohibitions on interference with voting and election administration.
QUESTION 6: How are the initial tabulations checked and verified?
6.a. New Mexico officials can pre-process and scan early ballots.
New Mexico allows election officials to process mailed ballots before Election Day, including opening ballot envelopes and scanning ballots into voting machines in advance (NMSA §1-6-14). Results cannot be disclosed before the polls close. Processing mailed ballots before Election Day is considered a best practice that can help election officials report unofficial results more quickly.
6.b. New Mexico conducts a post-election audit using randomly selected precincts and hand counts.
For statewide elections, an independent auditor oversees a post-election risk-limiting audit (NMSA §1-14-13.2). In a general election, the check covers all federal offices, governor, and the other statewide office with the smallest winning margin. The auditor publicly selects a random sample of precincts no later than 12 days after the election. The number of precincts selected depends on the margin in each race, with closer contests requiring larger samples.
Election officials hand count the paper ballots for the selected races and precincts and compare those totals with the original machine counts. State law requires the sampling process to provide at least a 90% probability of detecting faulty tabulators if the error would change the outcome of a selected contest. If discrepancies are sufficiently large, additional precincts are checked and a full hand recount may ultimately be required. Each county clerk must report the audit results to the independent auditor within 14 days; the auditor then reports the results to the Secretary of State and releases them to the public.
———--
CONTEXT: Official results come later; in the interest of transparency, preliminary returns are presented on election night.
Today, lack of understanding of the certification process contributes to concerns about the accuracy and trustworthiness of results. When misinformation about these post-election activities is disseminated, it can make it harder for officials to do their jobs in a timely and accurate manner.
———--
6.c. New Mexico’s method of auditing is preferable to widespread hand counts.
Confusion about the certification process has led some activists to demand that ballots be hand counted. This is not recommended as a best practice in election administration.
Research shows that hand counts are less accurate than machine counting. Audits involving partial hand counts can be used as an additional data point and an additional check to verify the overall outcome, but full hand counts would make elections slower, less accurate, and less secure. New Mexico and most other states use sample-based audits to ensure their count is timely and accurate.
———--
CONTEXT: More On Hand Counts
At best, a system that relies on hand counting will take longer to generate results. But, the real risk is that it opens the door to exhausted poll workers making errors, which gives bad-faith actors more fodder and time to act. We should want our election officials to do their jobs using the best, most proven technology and methods.
———--
6.d. Once all audits are complete, the canvass ensures that significant issues are addressed.
During the county canvass, election officials reconcile election records, account for ballots, document discrepancies, count qualified provisional and hand-tallied ballots, and validate the results entered in the state’s official reporting system (NMSA §1-13-4). The county canvassing board then considers and approves the county canvass report (NMSA §1-13-13).
The Secretary of State conducts a second review of county results before the state canvass (NMAC §1.10.39.12). An independent auditor also verifies the results before the Secretary of State prepares the state canvass report for the State Canvassing Board (NMSA §1-14-13.2).
County canvassing boards generally must approve results no later than 10 days after the election, or 13 days in counties with more than 150,000 voters (NMSA §1-13-13). The State Canvassing Board meets on the third Tuesday after the election to certify the election results (NMSA §1-13-15).
6.e. Candidates in close elections may qualify for a recount.
Automatic recounts are triggered when races are particularly close. The threshold required to trigger an automatic recount depends on the office in question, as follows (NMSA §1-14-24):
New Mexico also allows candidates to request a recount when they believe an error or fraud in counting, tabulation, or certification caused the results to be incorrectly determined (NMSA §1-14-14). The candidate must apply to the Secretary of State within six days after completion of the applicable canvass (NMSA §1-14-14). Applicants generally must provide a deposit for the cost of the recount; if the recount identifies error or fraud sufficient to change the winner, the state or county bears the cost (NMSA §1-14-15).
———--
CONTEXT: Recounts Rarely Change the Outcome
An analysis by FairVote found that in roughly 7,000 statewide races across the U.S. from 2000-2023, there were only three recounts that changed the outcome of the race, and those were all elections with a margin of victory of less than 0.06%. In fact, most recounts differ marginally from the original results of the election. The purpose of recounts is not to confirm exactly the same results, but rather to ensure that any individual errors or attempts at fraud could not have changed the results of an election.
———--
New Mexico allows election officials to process mailed ballots before Election Day, including opening ballot envelopes and scanning ballots into voting machines in advance (NMSA §1-6-14). Results cannot be disclosed before the polls close. Processing mailed ballots before Election Day is considered a best practice that can help election officials report unofficial results more quickly.
6.b. New Mexico conducts a post-election audit using randomly selected precincts and hand counts.
For statewide elections, an independent auditor oversees a post-election risk-limiting audit (NMSA §1-14-13.2). In a general election, the check covers all federal offices, governor, and the other statewide office with the smallest winning margin. The auditor publicly selects a random sample of precincts no later than 12 days after the election. The number of precincts selected depends on the margin in each race, with closer contests requiring larger samples.
Election officials hand count the paper ballots for the selected races and precincts and compare those totals with the original machine counts. State law requires the sampling process to provide at least a 90% probability of detecting faulty tabulators if the error would change the outcome of a selected contest. If discrepancies are sufficiently large, additional precincts are checked and a full hand recount may ultimately be required. Each county clerk must report the audit results to the independent auditor within 14 days; the auditor then reports the results to the Secretary of State and releases them to the public.
———--
CONTEXT: Official results come later; in the interest of transparency, preliminary returns are presented on election night.
Today, lack of understanding of the certification process contributes to concerns about the accuracy and trustworthiness of results. When misinformation about these post-election activities is disseminated, it can make it harder for officials to do their jobs in a timely and accurate manner.
———--
6.c. New Mexico’s method of auditing is preferable to widespread hand counts.
Confusion about the certification process has led some activists to demand that ballots be hand counted. This is not recommended as a best practice in election administration.
Research shows that hand counts are less accurate than machine counting. Audits involving partial hand counts can be used as an additional data point and an additional check to verify the overall outcome, but full hand counts would make elections slower, less accurate, and less secure. New Mexico and most other states use sample-based audits to ensure their count is timely and accurate.
———--
CONTEXT: More On Hand Counts
At best, a system that relies on hand counting will take longer to generate results. But, the real risk is that it opens the door to exhausted poll workers making errors, which gives bad-faith actors more fodder and time to act. We should want our election officials to do their jobs using the best, most proven technology and methods.
———--
6.d. Once all audits are complete, the canvass ensures that significant issues are addressed.
During the county canvass, election officials reconcile election records, account for ballots, document discrepancies, count qualified provisional and hand-tallied ballots, and validate the results entered in the state’s official reporting system (NMSA §1-13-4). The county canvassing board then considers and approves the county canvass report (NMSA §1-13-13).
The Secretary of State conducts a second review of county results before the state canvass (NMAC §1.10.39.12). An independent auditor also verifies the results before the Secretary of State prepares the state canvass report for the State Canvassing Board (NMSA §1-14-13.2).
County canvassing boards generally must approve results no later than 10 days after the election, or 13 days in counties with more than 150,000 voters (NMSA §1-13-13). The State Canvassing Board meets on the third Tuesday after the election to certify the election results (NMSA §1-13-15).
6.e. Candidates in close elections may qualify for a recount.
Automatic recounts are triggered when races are particularly close. The threshold required to trigger an automatic recount depends on the office in question, as follows (NMSA §1-14-24):
- One-fourth percent (0.25%) for federal or statewide office, state ballot initiative, or nonpartisan judicial retention election for the supreme court or the court of appeals
- One-half percent (0.5%) for public education commissioner, district attorney, any office elected countywide in a county with more than 150,000 voters, local ballot initiative, or nonpartisan judicial retention election for district court or the metropolitan court
- One percent (1%) for any other office
New Mexico also allows candidates to request a recount when they believe an error or fraud in counting, tabulation, or certification caused the results to be incorrectly determined (NMSA §1-14-14). The candidate must apply to the Secretary of State within six days after completion of the applicable canvass (NMSA §1-14-14). Applicants generally must provide a deposit for the cost of the recount; if the recount identifies error or fraud sufficient to change the winner, the state or county bears the cost (NMSA §1-14-15).
———--
CONTEXT: Recounts Rarely Change the Outcome
An analysis by FairVote found that in roughly 7,000 statewide races across the U.S. from 2000-2023, there were only three recounts that changed the outcome of the race, and those were all elections with a margin of victory of less than 0.06%. In fact, most recounts differ marginally from the original results of the election. The purpose of recounts is not to confirm exactly the same results, but rather to ensure that any individual errors or attempts at fraud could not have changed the results of an election.
———--
QUESTION 7: Who certifies results in New Mexico, and what issues have arisen around certification?
7.a. Certification is the official sign-off on election results at different levels of election governance.
In New Mexico, certification happens at the county and state levels. As noted previously, county certification is the responsibility of each county’s board of commissioners, which also serves as the county canvassing board (NMSA §1-13-1). Boards of county commissioners have three or five members, elected in partisan elections. The boards have broad administrative responsibilities in the county, in addition to their narrow involvement in elections.
During certification, the boards receive precinct-by-precinct results and other information and affirm that the aggregate outcome accurately sums up the underlying data. County-level certification must be completed between six and ten days after the election (or 13 days for counties with more than 150,000 voters) (NMSA §1-13-13). The report of the canvass, signed by the members of the canvassing board, includes “the final vote counts for each candidate contest and ballot question voted on by voters of the county separated by mailed ballots, early voting and election day voting,” and additional data such as a report of all provisional ballots accepted and rejected (NMSA §1-13-13).
State-level certification is the responsibility of the State Canvassing Board, which comprises the secretary of state, the governor, and the chief justice of the state supreme court (NM Const. V§2). The board is required to “approve the report of the canvass and declare the results of the election” on the third Tuesday after the election (NMSA §1-13-15).
7.b. Certifying results is “ministerial,” a required function, not an exercise of individual discretion or judgment.
A court can compel certification if the county or state canvassing boards refuse to certify. New Mexico case law illustrates that it is “‘quite well settled that [clerks and canvassing boards] act only ministerially, and not judicially,’ and that ‘the power of the court to compel ministerial officers to act is without doubt.’”
If a county board or the state board refused to certify, a court can mandate certification be completed, relying on a writ of mandamus, which compels government officials to comply with the law and is an effective tool for addressing certification refusal.
The county boards have limited powers to investigate and correct precinct returns. For example, the law provides that if “it appears that there is a discrepancy within the election returns” or “a discrepancy between the number of votes set forth in the certificate for any candidate and the number of electors voting,” the county canvassing board “shall immediately issue a summons directed to the precinct board, commanding them to forthwith appear and make the necessary corrections or supply omissions” (NMSA §1-13-5).
If a discrepancy is discovered and corrected after the county canvassing board has already met, the county clerk must prepare an amended canvass report and the county canvassing board must reconvene to certify the corrected results and file an amended certificate of canvass (NMAC §1.10.39.13).
7.c. Some individuals responsible for certification in New Mexico have refused to certify results.
All such refusals have been resolved, in some cases by court orders. In previous elections, members of two county canvassing boards in New Mexico voted against certifying results. Each instance was resolved. In one case, the Secretary of State filed a legal action that led to a court mandating that the board members certify the results. In another, the canvassing board member who voted against certification was outvoted.
Across the country in recent years, each instance of refusal to certify was resolved: courts compelling certification; the refuser changing their vote; or the refuser being outvoted on the certifying body. Election results were not affected, nor were post-election timeframes significantly delayed. However, these types of conflicts can create baseless doubts about elections among voters, and they can undermine faith that officials will adhere to the law in the face of partisan concerns and pressures.
7.d. New Mexico law provides other means to address challenges and concerns about election results.
Candidates, political parties, voters, and other parties may be able to challenge election-related actions or results in state or federal court, depending on the nature of the claim and applicable law. These challenges are managed by courts, institutions expressly designed for the task of hearing evidence and rendering judgment. New Mexico law also provides for audits and recounts, which can identify potential problems with the accuracy of results. (See Pillar 3 for information on legal challenges to election results.)
Strictly speaking, therefore, until any recounts and court challenges are completed, the results certified by the state and county canvassing boards may be subject to change. It is rare, however, for an election outcome to change after certification.
———--
CONTEXT: Certification in U.S. Different from Other Democracies
Election certification is a feature of U.S. elections that is highly unusual from an international perspective. A study of 12 major democracies found that none has a separate certification step in their election process. In fact, none has the word “certification” (or its equivalent) in their election laws at all. Instead, election administrators announce the results, courts hear any challenges, and court decisions are final. Also, very few countries involve political parties in the results process. In the U.S., by contrast, most of the individuals involved in certification at the state and local levels are either party members elected in partisan elections or are nominated by parties to election boards.
———--
In New Mexico, certification happens at the county and state levels. As noted previously, county certification is the responsibility of each county’s board of commissioners, which also serves as the county canvassing board (NMSA §1-13-1). Boards of county commissioners have three or five members, elected in partisan elections. The boards have broad administrative responsibilities in the county, in addition to their narrow involvement in elections.
During certification, the boards receive precinct-by-precinct results and other information and affirm that the aggregate outcome accurately sums up the underlying data. County-level certification must be completed between six and ten days after the election (or 13 days for counties with more than 150,000 voters) (NMSA §1-13-13). The report of the canvass, signed by the members of the canvassing board, includes “the final vote counts for each candidate contest and ballot question voted on by voters of the county separated by mailed ballots, early voting and election day voting,” and additional data such as a report of all provisional ballots accepted and rejected (NMSA §1-13-13).
State-level certification is the responsibility of the State Canvassing Board, which comprises the secretary of state, the governor, and the chief justice of the state supreme court (NM Const. V§2). The board is required to “approve the report of the canvass and declare the results of the election” on the third Tuesday after the election (NMSA §1-13-15).
7.b. Certifying results is “ministerial,” a required function, not an exercise of individual discretion or judgment.
A court can compel certification if the county or state canvassing boards refuse to certify. New Mexico case law illustrates that it is “‘quite well settled that [clerks and canvassing boards] act only ministerially, and not judicially,’ and that ‘the power of the court to compel ministerial officers to act is without doubt.’”
If a county board or the state board refused to certify, a court can mandate certification be completed, relying on a writ of mandamus, which compels government officials to comply with the law and is an effective tool for addressing certification refusal.
The county boards have limited powers to investigate and correct precinct returns. For example, the law provides that if “it appears that there is a discrepancy within the election returns” or “a discrepancy between the number of votes set forth in the certificate for any candidate and the number of electors voting,” the county canvassing board “shall immediately issue a summons directed to the precinct board, commanding them to forthwith appear and make the necessary corrections or supply omissions” (NMSA §1-13-5).
If a discrepancy is discovered and corrected after the county canvassing board has already met, the county clerk must prepare an amended canvass report and the county canvassing board must reconvene to certify the corrected results and file an amended certificate of canvass (NMAC §1.10.39.13).
7.c. Some individuals responsible for certification in New Mexico have refused to certify results.
All such refusals have been resolved, in some cases by court orders. In previous elections, members of two county canvassing boards in New Mexico voted against certifying results. Each instance was resolved. In one case, the Secretary of State filed a legal action that led to a court mandating that the board members certify the results. In another, the canvassing board member who voted against certification was outvoted.
Across the country in recent years, each instance of refusal to certify was resolved: courts compelling certification; the refuser changing their vote; or the refuser being outvoted on the certifying body. Election results were not affected, nor were post-election timeframes significantly delayed. However, these types of conflicts can create baseless doubts about elections among voters, and they can undermine faith that officials will adhere to the law in the face of partisan concerns and pressures.
7.d. New Mexico law provides other means to address challenges and concerns about election results.
Candidates, political parties, voters, and other parties may be able to challenge election-related actions or results in state or federal court, depending on the nature of the claim and applicable law. These challenges are managed by courts, institutions expressly designed for the task of hearing evidence and rendering judgment. New Mexico law also provides for audits and recounts, which can identify potential problems with the accuracy of results. (See Pillar 3 for information on legal challenges to election results.)
Strictly speaking, therefore, until any recounts and court challenges are completed, the results certified by the state and county canvassing boards may be subject to change. It is rare, however, for an election outcome to change after certification.
———--
CONTEXT: Certification in U.S. Different from Other Democracies
Election certification is a feature of U.S. elections that is highly unusual from an international perspective. A study of 12 major democracies found that none has a separate certification step in their election process. In fact, none has the word “certification” (or its equivalent) in their election laws at all. Instead, election administrators announce the results, courts hear any challenges, and court decisions are final. Also, very few countries involve political parties in the results process. In the U.S., by contrast, most of the individuals involved in certification at the state and local levels are either party members elected in partisan elections or are nominated by parties to election boards.
———--
PILLAR 3: Judicial Review
No institution is better suited to consider evidence and render judgment than the judicial system; this is why the rule of law in elections is anchored in recourse to the courts. Many countries give courts responsibility for confirming the results of all elections, not just contested ones, and some countries have election tribunals solely dedicated to this task. At a minimum, all democracies allow some level of judicial recourse to challenge potentially unlawful behavior that may have impacted election results.
QUESTION 8: What recourse do candidates or citizens have if they think election officials did something wrong?
8.a. Unsuccessful candidates can protest the results in state court.
New Mexico law allows an unsuccessful candidate to contest an election in state district court (NMSA §1-14-1). The contestant must file a verified complaint no later than 30 days after issuance of the certificate of nomination or certificate of election to the successful candidate (NMSA §1-14-3). If the contestant proves that the majority of legal votes were cast for that candidate, state law authorizes the court to award the contested office accordingly (NMSA §1-14-4).
New Mexico law allows an unsuccessful candidate to contest an election in state district court (NMSA §1-14-1). The contestant must file a verified complaint no later than 30 days after issuance of the certificate of nomination or certificate of election to the successful candidate (NMSA §1-14-3). If the contestant proves that the majority of legal votes were cast for that candidate, state law authorizes the court to award the contested office accordingly (NMSA §1-14-4).
QUESTION 9: What is required of plaintiffs and what can journalists expect in an election challenge?
9.a. Plaintiffs must be able to show they have standing.
The person bringing the contest or lawsuit must have standing. The source of this requirement—and what plaintiffs must show to meet it—may vary between federal and state courts. But either way, the plaintiff must show a concrete interest in the outcome. For example, a voter or elected official from one state will not have standing to challenge the result in a different state.
9.b. Challenges in state or federal court may include a broader set of allegations and races than in recounts and expedited contests.
In expedited contests, the plaintiff’s allegations must be sufficient to warrant potentially overturning the election results. However, challenges to elections do not always focus on disputing the vote count or challenging election results. Some cases may be brought to ensure voters are treated equally and fairly under the law and seek remedies aside from changing the outcome of a particular race. These cases may continue well after the certification of results and the seating of elected officials.
Challenges in state or federal court alleging the violation of state or federal law may implicate multiple races, including state legislative and federal races. Because this type of litigation can be so varied and complicated, journalists should consult with election law experts who are not involved in the case for help explaining the context and potential implications to readers.
9.c. Courts assume the election results produced through the election process are accurate until plaintiffs can prove otherwise.
This starting point is roughly analogous to the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” in criminal cases. Altering the outcome of an election without proof invalidates the votes of the people.
———--
CONTEXT: Fraud is not fraud without proof.
Much of the discussion of flaws in recent elections is based on the theory that because fraud theoretically might have occurred, the election must be suspect. A criminal conviction based solely on what might have happened would never be tolerated, and a change in an election outcome based on similar logic would be deeply unfair to candidates and voters alike.
———--
9.d. The presence of wrongdoing alone is generally not enough to change results.
If an accusation of error or wrongdoing does not involve enough votes to change the results of an election, some cases may still continue on other grounds. For example, even if an accusation of bribery involves only a small number of votes, it is still a serious accusation. If proven true, that accusation may not warrant changing the outcome of an election, but may point to other remedies against the individuals involved.
In practice, most claims against election results do not withstand scrutiny in court and very few election contests result in a decision to change the outcome. In most circumstances, the parties may appeal to a higher court.
———--
CONTEXT: Do the Math
Journalists reporting on election cases, especially in the immediate aftermath of the election, should carefully examine the remedy requested by the plaintiffs and weigh whether the allegations in the complaint could plausibly justify the remedy. Consider an election which was won by 4,000 votes. Even if a plaintiff proves that 1,000 voters were improperly turned away from polling stations, overturning the election results would be an inappropriate remedy. The judge may rule against the election authority and order process changes or individual penalties, but the results of the election will stand.
———--
The person bringing the contest or lawsuit must have standing. The source of this requirement—and what plaintiffs must show to meet it—may vary between federal and state courts. But either way, the plaintiff must show a concrete interest in the outcome. For example, a voter or elected official from one state will not have standing to challenge the result in a different state.
9.b. Challenges in state or federal court may include a broader set of allegations and races than in recounts and expedited contests.
In expedited contests, the plaintiff’s allegations must be sufficient to warrant potentially overturning the election results. However, challenges to elections do not always focus on disputing the vote count or challenging election results. Some cases may be brought to ensure voters are treated equally and fairly under the law and seek remedies aside from changing the outcome of a particular race. These cases may continue well after the certification of results and the seating of elected officials.
Challenges in state or federal court alleging the violation of state or federal law may implicate multiple races, including state legislative and federal races. Because this type of litigation can be so varied and complicated, journalists should consult with election law experts who are not involved in the case for help explaining the context and potential implications to readers.
9.c. Courts assume the election results produced through the election process are accurate until plaintiffs can prove otherwise.
This starting point is roughly analogous to the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” in criminal cases. Altering the outcome of an election without proof invalidates the votes of the people.
———--
CONTEXT: Fraud is not fraud without proof.
Much of the discussion of flaws in recent elections is based on the theory that because fraud theoretically might have occurred, the election must be suspect. A criminal conviction based solely on what might have happened would never be tolerated, and a change in an election outcome based on similar logic would be deeply unfair to candidates and voters alike.
———--
9.d. The presence of wrongdoing alone is generally not enough to change results.
If an accusation of error or wrongdoing does not involve enough votes to change the results of an election, some cases may still continue on other grounds. For example, even if an accusation of bribery involves only a small number of votes, it is still a serious accusation. If proven true, that accusation may not warrant changing the outcome of an election, but may point to other remedies against the individuals involved.
In practice, most claims against election results do not withstand scrutiny in court and very few election contests result in a decision to change the outcome. In most circumstances, the parties may appeal to a higher court.
———--
CONTEXT: Do the Math
Journalists reporting on election cases, especially in the immediate aftermath of the election, should carefully examine the remedy requested by the plaintiffs and weigh whether the allegations in the complaint could plausibly justify the remedy. Consider an election which was won by 4,000 votes. Even if a plaintiff proves that 1,000 voters were improperly turned away from polling stations, overturning the election results would be an inappropriate remedy. The judge may rule against the election authority and order process changes or individual penalties, but the results of the election will stand.
———--
QUESTION 10: Why do some election challenges go to trial while others are dismissed by the judge?
10.a. Dismissal decisions hinge on multiple variables.
Before any case goes to trial, there are typically hearings and motions to determine if the case should be dismissed. A case may be dismissed for many reasons:
Many election-related legal actions are dismissed without going to trial because they fall short of one or more of these standards.
Before any case goes to trial, there are typically hearings and motions to determine if the case should be dismissed. A case may be dismissed for many reasons:
- Jurisdiction: The court may lack the power/authority to hear the claim.
- Standing: The plaintiff may lack the legal right to bring the challenge.
- Venue: The plaintiff may have filed in the wrong court.
- Failure to State a Claim: The plaintiff’s allegations may not contain a legally recognizable claim that can be adjudicated by the courts.
- Unreasonable Delays (also known as "Laches"): A case may be dismissed if a party unreasonably delays bringing it, and if that delay causes prejudice.
Many election-related legal actions are dismissed without going to trial because they fall short of one or more of these standards.
QUESTION 11: What are some of the challenges of reporting on election cases?
11.a. The timelines are tight.
Election cases can involve compressed timelines, particularly when a dispute could affect canvassing, certification, a recount, or the seating of an elected official. Cases may involve a rapid sequence of motions, responses, hearings, and appeals that can be challenging to explain to a general audience.
11.b. The legal system generally is not focused on communicating to the public.
Court rulings address questions of law. This can mean that the implications of a decision for election results are not directly stated or are expressed using technical legal terminology.
For example, a dismissal does not necessarily mean that a court resolved every factual dispute in a case. Courts may dismiss cases for legal or procedural reasons, including lack of jurisdiction or standing, untimeliness, or failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Reporters should identify the specific basis for dismissal when explaining what a ruling does—and does not—decide.
In other words, reporters need to learn to “speak court” and press legal experts to give clear, simple explanations of what is going on inside the courtroom in order to translate important legal developments into language the public can understand.
Election cases can involve compressed timelines, particularly when a dispute could affect canvassing, certification, a recount, or the seating of an elected official. Cases may involve a rapid sequence of motions, responses, hearings, and appeals that can be challenging to explain to a general audience.
11.b. The legal system generally is not focused on communicating to the public.
Court rulings address questions of law. This can mean that the implications of a decision for election results are not directly stated or are expressed using technical legal terminology.
For example, a dismissal does not necessarily mean that a court resolved every factual dispute in a case. Courts may dismiss cases for legal or procedural reasons, including lack of jurisdiction or standing, untimeliness, or failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Reporters should identify the specific basis for dismissal when explaining what a ruling does—and does not—decide.
In other words, reporters need to learn to “speak court” and press legal experts to give clear, simple explanations of what is going on inside the courtroom in order to translate important legal developments into language the public can understand.
New Mexico Election Handbook
New Mexico Administrative Code
Department of State Website
VOTE411, a project of the League of Women Voters that provides state-by-state information for everyday voters.
New Mexico Administrative Code
Department of State Website
VOTE411, a project of the League of Women Voters that provides state-by-state information for everyday voters.
Date |
Election Activity |
11/3/26 |
Election Day |
11/13/26 |
Deadline to complete county canvass and certification (most counties). |
11/16/26 |
Deadline to complete county canvass and certification (Bernalillo County). |
11/19/26 |
Deadline to request county recount (most counties). |
11/23/26 |
Deadline to request recount (Bernalillo County). |
11/24/26 |
State Canvassing Board finalizes canvass and certifies results. Determination of need for automatic recounts. |
11/30/26 |
Deadline to request recount of certified multi-county or statewide results. |
Note: This material should be used for general informational purposes only.
It is provided as a resource to journalists and reflects ERN's research findings at the time of publication. It does not constitute legal advice, nor should it replace independent confirmation.
It is provided as a resource to journalists and reflects ERN's research findings at the time of publication. It does not constitute legal advice, nor should it replace independent confirmation.
