New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 20-2-3 (2026)

Governor; power to call out militia.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A. The governor may, in case of insurrection, invasion, riot or breach of the peace
or of imminent danger thereof or in case of other emergency, order into active service of
the state the militia or any components or parts thereof that have not been called into
federal service. As used in this section, "emergency" includes any man-made or natural
disaster causing or threatening widespread physical or economic harm that is beyond
local control and requiring the resources of the state.

   B. The governor may also order any member of the national guard to active state
service for a period not to exceed a cumulative total of four months within a calendar
year for any individual member for the following reasons:

       (1)    to protect critical infrastructure in the state from a cybersecurity threat or
security vulnerability;
      (2)    to protect an information system owned or operated by the state from a
cybersecurity threat or security vulnerability;

       (3)    to protect information that is stored on, processed by or transiting on an
information system owned or operated by the state from a cybersecurity threat or
security vulnerability; or

       (4)    to identify the source of a cybersecurity threat.

   C. A member of the national guard called to active service pursuant to the
provisions of Subsection B of this section shall not have any police powers or arrest
authority. "Subsection B of Section 20-2-3 NMSA 1978" shall be cited on all orders,
vouchers and payroll documents submitted for reimbursement pursuant to Section 20-1-
6 NMSA 1978 in support of all actions authorized by Subsection B of this section. In no
case shall an activation ordered pursuant to Subsection B of this section be used to
incur a debt under Article 9, Section 7 of the constitution of New Mexico.

    D. In case of any breach of the peace, tumult, riot or resistance to process of this
state or imminent danger thereof, the sheriff of a county may call for aid from the
governor as commander-in-chief of the national guard. If it appears to the governor that
the power of the county is insufficient to enable the sheriff to preserve the peace and
protect the lives and property of the peaceful residents of the county or to overcome the
resistance to process of this state, the governor shall, on application of the sheriff, order
out such military force as is necessary.

     E. When any portion of the militia is called out for the purpose of suppressing an
unlawful or riotous assembly, the commander of the troops shall cooperate with the civil
officers to the fullest extent consistent with the accomplishment of the object for which
the troops were called. The civil officials may express to the commander of the troops
the general or specific objective that the civil officials desire to accomplish, but the
tactical direction of the troops, the kind and extent of force to be used and the particular
means to be employed to accomplish the object specified by the civil officers shall be
left solely to the commander of the troops present on duty.

    F. When any portion of the militia is ordered into active service pursuant to this
section in case of an emergency, the militia may provide those resources and services
necessary to avoid or minimize economic or physical harm until a situation becomes
stabilized and again under local self-support and control, including the provision, on a
temporary, emergency basis, for lodging, sheltering, health care, food and any
transportation or shipping necessary to protect lives or public property; or for any other
action necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare.

    G. In the event of the exercise by the governor of the powers under this section, the
governor shall first utilize the personnel and assets of the national guard and only in
their absence or insufficiency utilize the personnel and assets of the state defense
force.
History: 1978 Comp., § 20-2-3, enacted by Laws 1987, ch. 318, § 10; 1999, ch. 140, §
3; 2017, ch. 93, § 1.

                                    ANNOTATIONS

Repeals and reenactments. — Laws 1987, Chapter 318 repealed former 20-2-3
NMSA 1978, as enacted by Laws 1943, ch. 29, § 1, relating to the definition of militia,
and enacted a new section, effective April 10, 1987.

Cross references. — For constitutional power of governor to call out militia, see N.M.
Const., art. V, § 4.

The 2017 amendment, effective April 6, 2017, authorized the activation of the national
guard in the case of cybersecurity threats, placed limits on the authority exercised
pursuant to such activation, and prohibited the incurrence of debt for such activations;
added new Subsections B and C, and redesignated the succeeding subsections
accordingly; and in Subsection F, after "health care, food", added "and".

The 1999 amendment, effective June 18, 1999, added the last sentence in Subsection
A, added Subsection D, redesignated former Subsection D as Subsection E and made
minor stylistic changes.

Generally. — When acting within the power vested in him by N.M. Const., art. V, § 4
and this section, the governor may order into active service the militia of the state and
may direct locality of operations. He is made the sole judge of the facts that may seem
to demand the assistance of the military forces of the state. The presumption of course
is that he will not exercise this power unless it becomes necessary. To his good
judgment and sound discretion, the law has left the final decision as to whether the
military arm of the state shall be ordered into active service. There is no power in the
courts to control or restrain his acts. State ex rel. Charlton v. French, 1940-NMSC-010,
44 N.M. 169, 99 P.2d 715.

Effects of using militia. — Where the governor of the state, seeking to quell
insurrection, calls out the militia by executive process and puts them in charge, such
military forces do not act as sheriffs or deputy sheriffs, but their power supersedes the
civil authorities; the courts may not, under writs of habeas corpus, interfere with their
arrests made during insurrection. State ex rel. Roberts v. Swope, 1933-NMSC-097, 38
N.M. 53, 28 P.2d 4.

Quartering of men and equipment. — Governor may expend money to quarter men
and equipment of national guard, although men and equipment are not engaged in
active duty. State ex rel. Charlton v. French, 1940-NMSC-010, 44 N.M. 169, 99 P.2d
715.

Converting and quartering of cavalry. — Governor may convert cavalry into a
mechanized unit in an emergency to provide better for the public defense, and may
order armories altered to quarter same. State ex rel. Charlton v. French, 1940-NMSC-
010, 44 N.M. 169, 99 P.2d 715.

Enlistment generally. — A voluntary enlistment is a contractual relationship between
the person enlisting and the state. It is a contract which, in effect, changes the status of
the party enlisting. 1955 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 55-6315.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 53 Am. Jur. 2d Military, and Civil
Defense §§ 3, 32.

Constitutionality of statute providing for payments to public officers or employees who
enter military service of the United States or their dependents, 145 A.L.R. 1156.

Workmen's compensation: person in military or naval service, 150 A.L.R. 1456.

6 C.J.S. Armed Services § 295.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases, 1956–2007 · leading case: State v. Duran, 496 P.2d 1096 (N.M. Ct. App. 1972).
State v. Duran, 496 P.2d 1096 (N.M. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 9× “The issues concern:’ (1) admissibility of lay testimony concerning the condition of the victim’s right arm; (2) the constitutionality of § 20-2-3, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 4); (3) admissibility of rebuttal testimony as to prior statements and conduct of defendant; and (4) ¿he-…”
State v. Lindsey, 464 P.2d 903 (N.M. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 4× “Defendant’s contention, that the trial court erred in failing to suppress evidence of prior convictions, is predicated upon his claim that the court, by refusing to sustain his motion to suppress evidence as to his prior convictions, placed him in an unfair dilemma, in that he…”
State v. Carlton, 484 P.2d 757 (N.M. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 3× “” Section 20-2-3, N.M.S.A. 1953, provides, in part, “A witness may be questioned as to whether he has been convicted of any felony or misdemeanor, * * * ” It is held that the cross-examination may not go beyond the name of the particular offence.”
State v. Williams, 417 P.2d 62 (N.M. 1966). · cites it 2× “Section 20-2-3, N.M.S.A. 1953 provides: “A witness may be questioned as to whether he has been convicted of any felony or misdemeanor, and upon being so questioned, if he either denies the fact or refuses to answer, the opposite party may prove such conviction; and a…”
State v. McFerran, 459 P.2d 148 (N.M. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 2× “Section 20-2-3, N.M.S.A.1953 permits'questions as to prior convictions.”
State v. Coca, 451 P.2d 999 (N.M. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 3× “Section 20-2-3, N.M.S.A. 1953 states: “A witness may be questioned as to whether he has been convicted of any felony or misdemeanor, and upon being so questioned, if he either denies the fact or refuses to answer, the opposite party may prove such conviction; and a certificate,…”
State v. Sero, 474 P.2d 503 (N.M. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “Section 20-2-3, N.M.S.A.1953 authorizes such questioning.”
State v. Paul, 458 P.2d 596 (N.M. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 2× “Before his cross-examination began, defendant objected to any questioning concerning prior convictions on the basis that *■ * ar¡y such testimony * * *” was prejudicial.”
State v. Waller, 456 P.2d 213 (N.M. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 2× “Section 20-2-3, N.M.S.A. 1953, states in part: “A witness may be questioned as to whether he has been convicted of any felony or misdemeanor, and upon being so questioned, if he either denies the fact or refuses to answer, the opposite party may prove such conviction; * * *.”
Allen - Key v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 54 (Vet. App. 2007). “” N.M. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-3 (2007) (emphasis added).”
State v. Turnbow, 354 P.2d 533 (N.M. 1960). “The testimony elicited from Mrs. Turnbow was limited to the names of the offenses of which she had been convicted and the time of their commission.”
State v. Ocanas, 303 P.2d 390 (N.M. 1956). · cites it 2× “The sufficiency of the evidence is challenged.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.