[1]NOTE:
As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended only for use by the
standing finance committees of the legislature. The Legislative
Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information
in this report when used in any other situation.
Only the most recent
FIR version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the
LFC’s office in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.
|
SPONSOR: |
Vaughn |
DATE TYPED: |
01/30/02 |
HB |
138 |
||
|
SHORT TITLE: |
Daily Moment of Silence in Public Schools |
SB |
|
||||
|
|
ANALYST: |
Baca |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
|
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
|
FY02 |
FY03 |
FY02 |
FY03 |
|
|
|
|
NFI |
|
|
|
|
(Parenthesis)
Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
State Department of Education (SDE)
Attorney General’s Office (AGO)
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
House Bill 138 amends
the Public School Code to require the State Board of Education (SBE) to, in
turn, require local schools to observe a daily minute of silence among the
school children.
Significant Issues.
The requirement of a
moment of silence gives rise to the applicability of religious freedom guarantees. In its analysis, the AGO references the
continued evolution of prayer\silence in the schools in the nation’s court
systems. Citing Duffy versus Las
Cruces Public Schools, the AGO concludes that “Duffy not only
suggests the uncertainty of federal law on the point, it also casts plausible
doubt on the constitutionality of HB 138 relative to state law. If the legislature chooses to pass HB 138,
the likelihood of legal challenge is high and the likelihood of success of that
legal challenge is not insignificant.”
The SDE, on the other
hand states that “This bill is clearly unconstitutional and would
violate the First Amendment to the federal Constitution which prohibits laws
that establish religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof. It would also violate the “free speech”
clause in that it requires students to have a moment of silence. Additionally and concurrently, it would run
afoul of Article II (“Bill of
Rights”) of the New
Mexico Constitution, which also guaranties free speech and prohibits compelled
adherence to any religious practice.”
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS
1. Does the sponsor have any
evidence suggesting this bill would be constitutional ?
2. Have parents been asked to
express an opinion on this bill ?
3.
Have local school
board members and\or school administraotors and been asked thier opinionregarding
this bill ?
[1]Begin typing on the * in replace mode. Do not add or delete spaces.