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 Swisstack

ORIGINAL DATE

LAST UPDATED

01/21/05

HB 61

SHORT TITLE Additional Judge in 13

th

District

SB

ANALYST McSherry

APPROPRIATION (dollars in thousands)

Appropriation

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY06

FY07

$313.0

Recurring

General Fund

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

Companion to Senate Bill 148.

Relates to House Bills…. And Senate Bills…

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

Public Defender (PD)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

House Bill 61, “Additional Judge in the 13th District” appropriates $313,000 from the general

fund to the 13 Judicial District for the purpose of funding one new judgeship and three associated

staff. The bill also amends the statutorily-set number of judges in the 13

th

Judicial District from

six to eight and designates the new judgeship position’s location to be in Sandoval County. The

current statute places three judges in Valencia, two in Sandoval and one in Cibola.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

The appropriation of $313,000 contained in this bill is a recurring expense to the general fund.

Any unexpended or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of fiscal year 2007 shall revert

to the general fund.

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

According to the Public Defender, for each new judge, the Department will need funding for ad-

ditional employees. The bill does not include funding for public defender contracts or salaries,

or for district attorneys. Sandoval County uses contract public defenders and according to the

House Bill 61 – Page

2

department, a new $75 thousand dollar contract would be required to fund a contract public de-

fender associated with the bill’s proposed judge.

The 13

th

Judicial District is ranked 2

nd

to the 5

th

Judicial District in the judiciary’s priorities for

new judgeships.

The priority ranking of the judiciary’s judgeship request is based upon a judgeship study con-

ducted in 1997. The case-loads have been updated in the prioritization, however the “case-

weights,” the relative value associated with each category of case, has not been updated since

1997.

Eight new judgeships, including three district court judges were created in FY06. The 13

th

Judi-

cial District was not prioritized among the top eight requests in FY06.

PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS

Should HB 61 pass, the caseload of the judges in Sandoval Country would decrease by 33 per-

cent. The increase in time available per case should increase the performance of this court. The

court has not proposed targets associated with the proposed increase, however the “percent cases

disposed” measure’s outcome should improve.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

The four additional employees (1 judges and 3 associated staff) will increase the administrative

workload for the 13

th

Judicial District court.

CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP

House Bill 61 is a compansion bill to … and relates to House Bill… and House Bill…. Which

propose creation of judgeships in ….. respectively.

TECHNICAL ISSUES

The appropriation should be made to the “thirteenth judicial district court.” There is not an

agency known as the “thirteenth judicial district.”

WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL

If House Bill 61 is not enacted, the 13

th

Judicial District will continue with six judges.

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

1.

What is the relative caseload between the three counties in the 13

th

Judicial District.

2.

How will the relative caseload proportion change with the proposed additional judgeship in

Sandoval County.

3.

Is there a courtroom available for the proposed judge.

4.

What amount of the $313 thousand included in the bill’s appropriation is for non-recurring

expenses such as a judge’s quarter’s furnishings.

5.

Is there an ideal proportion of funded judges, district attorneys and public defenders within a

given district. Will the increase proposed in this bill reflect this proposal.

EM/mt