Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance

committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports

if they are used for other purposes.

Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are a vailable on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).

Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may not. Previously issued FIRs and

attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

SPONSOR Wirth

DATE TYPED 02/07/05 HB 254

SHORT TITLE Court of Review for Human Rights Appeals

SB

ANALYST McSherry

APPROPRIATION

Appropriation Contained Estimated Additional Impact Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY05

FY06

FY05

FY06

NFI

NFI

NFI Indeterminate Recurring General Fund

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

Conflicts with Senate Bill 174 (see below).

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)

Human Rights Commission (HRC)

SUMMARY FOR THE CORRECTIONS OVERSIGHT, COURTS AND JUSTICE

COMMITTEE

Synopsis of Bill

House Bill 254 amends Section 28-1-13 NMSA 1978 to change appellate jurisdiction from the

Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals in appeals cases filed under the Human Rights Act.

Significant Issues

House Bill 254 is sponsored by the Corrections Oversight, Courts and Justice Committee.

The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction for direct appeals in most other administrative appeals al-

ready. According to the AOC, the proposed changes in House Bill 254 would make the proce-

dure for appeals filed under the Human Rights Act more consistent with the procedures currently

in place for other administrative appeals.

House Bill 254 conflicts with Senate Bill 174 which extends the 30 day requirement to 90 days.

House Bill 254 -- Page 2

PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS

The AOC asserts that the proposed changes would enhance the efficiency of the disposition of

human rights cases because the Court of Appeals utilizes a fast-track calendar.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

Minimally impact may be experienced by both the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court as the

human rights cases formerly assigned to the Supreme Court would rather be heard by the Court

of Appeals.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

Proposed changes would create a new area of jurisdiction within the Court of Appeals. How-

ever, the AOC asserts that the number of appeals per year filed under the Human Rights Act is

small enough that the change in jurisdiction will have a minimal significant impact on the overall

caseload and operations of the Court.

CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP

House Bill 254 provides that an aggrieved party must file Notice of Appeal to the District Court

within 30 days of commissions order. Proposed legislation, Senate Bill 174 would extend the 30

day requirement to 90 days.

WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL.

The Supreme Court, rather than the Court of Appeals, would continue to be the appellate court

for Human Rights cases.

The AOC asserts that if this legislation is not enacted the appellate courts will potentially experi-

ence some delays in disposing of cases arising under the Human Rights Act. AOC also states

that an inconsistency in the procedures for pursuing administrative appeals. This inconsistency

in procedures can cause confusion among litigants and attorneys and may create a danger that

litigants will be deprived of their right to appeal due to a failure to follow the proper appellate

procedure applicable to their particular case.

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

1. Why was the jurisdiction of Human Rights cases originally assigned to the Supreme Court

rather than the Court of Appeals.

EM/sb:yr