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 Fox-Young
ORIGINAL DATE
LAST UPDATED
2/20/07
HB 628
SHORT TITLE Voter ID Requirements
SB
ANALYST Ortiz
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (dollars in thousands)
FY07
FY08
FY09 3 Year
Total Cost
Recurring
or Non-Rec
Fund
Affected
Total
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
LFC Files
Responses Received From
Attorney General’s Office (AGO)
Association of County Clerks
No Responses Received From
Secretary of State
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Bill
House Bill 628 is intended to amend the Election Code, NMSA 1978, NMSA 1978, § 1-1-1 et
seq., by (1) requiring county clerks to issue voter photo identification to persons who present
certain identifying documents; (2) allowing persons who cast provisional ballots because they
did not provide the required photo identification to have their ballots counted if they affirm
within two days after the election that the voter has a religious objection to being photographed;
(3) requiring in-person voters to present photo identification before voting; (4) requiring absentee
voters to submit copies of photo identification with their mail-in ballots; (5) allowing provisional
ballots to be counted only if the voter casts the ballot in the precinct in which the voter is
registered; and (6) allowing submission of required identification after the polls close.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
There is no appropriation tied to this bill but there are several costs that will be incurred. First,
county clerks would be required to issue, free of charge photo ID cards. Second, a windowed
envelope for absentee ballots is also required.
pg_0002
House Bill 628 – Page
2
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
According to the AGO, HB 628 requires photo identification for in-person and absentee voting.
Similar statutes in other jurisdictions requiring photo identification for in-person voting have
been challenged under various state and federal constitutional and legal theories with mixed
results. Cf.
, e.g.
, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, et al.
, ___F.3
rd
___, 2007 WL
16194 (7
th
Cir. (Ind.)) (Indiana law, requiring voters to present photo identification to vote in
person, was not undue burden on the right to vote; law furthered state’s compelling interest in
preventing voter fraud and burden on right to vote was slight); González, et al. v. State of
Arizona, et al.
, 2006 WL 3627297 (D. Ariz. 2006) (consolidated plaintiffs seeking preliminary
injunction to enjoin enforcement of state law requiring photo identification to register to vote and
to cast vote did not establish substantial likelihood of success that law violated state and federal
equal protection clauses, the National Voting rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, and impedes the
fundamental right to vote); Common Cause/Georgia, League of Women Voters of Georgia, Inc.
v. Billups, et al.
, 439 F.Supp.2d 1294 (D. N.D. Ga. 2006) (organizations seeking preliminary
injunction to enjoin enforcement of state’s photo identification requirement for in-person voting
established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that photo ID
requirement violated federal equal protection clause; burden on affected voters was severe and
statute was not sufficiently narrowly drawn to serve state interest in preventing voter fraud); and
Weinschenk v. State of Missouri
, 203 S.W.3
rd
201 (Mo. 2006) (statute placed substantial burden
upon the fundamental right to vote and thus was subject to strict scrutiny; statute was not strictly
necessary or narrowly tailored to meeting the state’s compelling interests, thus violating equal
protection and fundamental right to vote). To date, New Mexico courts have not addressed the
constitutionality of photo ID requirements for in-person and/or absentee voting. It appears likely
that this issue ultimately will decided by the United States Supreme Court, given the diversity of
opinions, as noted above.
The AGO further adds that there is a pending federal court case regarding the legality of
Albuquerque’s photo ID requirements. It appears the Federal Judge will hear the case on March
13, 2007. American Civil, et al v. Chavez et al
(05-CV-01136-M CA-WDS)
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
According to the Association of County Clerks, counties would be hit with an enormous fiscal
impact.
Additionally, notes the Association of County Clerks, provisional ballots will only be allowed in
the precinct that you live which is contrary to the point of provisional voting. An example of a
provisional ballot allows a person to walk into a district other than one’s own and vote for all
national and statewide offices, and if the voter is deemed eligible that these would be counted.
Of course, based on this example votes made on district races would not count. To allow
provisional ballots be cast only in a voters district will likely disenfranchise voters because if
there is an administrative error or if a person moved and they are at the wrong precinct their
ballot will be ineligible and not count.
Lastly, offers the Association of County Clerks, requiring clerks to post a list of voters who cast
absentee ballots on the first day after election may be a challenge because the bill does not
pg_0003
House Bill 628 – Page
3
include funding to hire staff to assist with this additional responsibility.
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS
How will voters be forced to come get there photo taken.
What will the purpose of the photo ID. If it’s to prevent voter fraud, what evidence is there that
this will do alleviate it.
Is there evidence that there is voter fraud.
EO/nt