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 available 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 Lujan
DATE TYPED 01/30/04 HB 473
SHORT TITLE Additional Santa Fe Magistrate Judge
SB
ANALYST McSherry
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation Contained Estimated Additional Impact Recurring
or Non-Rec
Fund
Affected
FY05
FY06
FY05
FY06
NFI
$84.7
NFI
NFI Recurring General Fund
NFI
$21.4
NFI
NFI Non-recurring General Fund
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Duplicates/Relates to:
House Bill 473 relates to other bills increasing the number of judges in magistrate and district
courts:
Senate Bill 26, Additional Guadalupe Magistrate Judge, SB25, Additional 4
th
District Judge, and
Senate Bill 379, Additional 9
th
District Judge.
House Bill 473 duplicates the proposed appropriation in the executive recommendation for the
General Appropriation Act.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
LFC Files
Administrative Office of the Courts
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Bill
House Bill 473 appropriates $106.3 thousand from the general fund to the Administrative Office
of the Courts for the purpose of providing funding for an additional Santa Fe magistrate judge.
The bill also amends Section §35-1-29, NMSA 1978 in order to change the statutorily-set number
of magistrate judges in Santa Fe County from 3 to 4. The funding level proposed includes salary,
benefits, furniture, supplies, and equipment for one magistrate judge. An amount of $84.9 thou-
sand, of the total $106.3 thousand proposed, is recurring. Any unexpended or unencumbered bal-
ance remaining at the end of the fiscal year 2006 would revert to the general fund.
The proposed bill provides for the additional judgeship to be filled by appointment by the gover-
nor and for the appointee judge to serve starting July 1, 2006 and until succeeded by a magistrate
judge elected during the general election in 2006. The elected magistrate judge’s term of office
pg_0002
House Bill 473 -- Page 2
would span January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2007.
Significant Issues
According to the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), a “Weighted Caseload Study” was
completed in November 1998 in order to provide the legislature with a methodology for determin-
ing the need for additional judgeships. A weighted caseload study assigns a weight, expressed in
minutes, for each court case type. The weight represents the average amount of judge’s time nec-
essary to process a case of that type. Then each weight is multiplied by the number of new cases
filed per category.
The AOC reports that, this year, the Chief Judges Council reviewed all district, metropolitan, and
magistrate judgeship requests statewide and considered the overall need, as determined by the
Weighted Caseload Study, and as provided through narrative and testimony by the individual
courts. The AOC reports that the results of the Weighted Caseload Study for judges reflects a
state-wide shortfall of 23 judgeships.
The results of the judgeship study for magistrate, Metro and district courts are provided as an at-
tachment.
According to the table provided by the AOC regarding magistrate judgeships, a reported total of 8
magistrate judges are needed statewide. This is the number of judges lacking when partially
needed magistrate judges are included in the total and when the reported excess judgeships are
not. The total number of full (1.0) judgeships needed according to the study is 4. The total num-
ber of full (1.0) excess judgeships is also 4. If another full judgeship should be considered needed
when the judgeship deficit in a given county is 0.5 judges or greater as is described in the attach-
ment’s footnote, then the total number of magistrate judgeships needed would be 9. If an excess
judgeship is considered as 0.5 judges or more in the same manner then the weighted study shows
15 excess magistrate judges. 6 of the 15 “excess” judgeships, however, are in single-judge coun-
ties.
The judiciary is requesting the twelve judgeships considered, through the unified budget process,
to be the most critically needed in FY06. The judiciary has established two levels of judgeship
request priorities: tier one consists of one Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court Judge, two mag-
istrate court judges (for Santa Fe and San Juan Counties), and three district court judges located in
the Second, Ninth, and Eleventh Judicial Districts. Tier two consists of two magistrate judges
located in the Sandoval and McKinley Counties, one Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court
Judge, and three district court judges located in the Eleventh, Thirteenth and Second Judicial Dis-
tricts. The Council voted to support the Santa Fe magistrate judgeship request in this bill. The
court currently has 3 judges and the weighted caseload study indicates that the court needs an ad-
ditional 1.80 judges.
PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS
FY 05 is the second year that the magistrate courts are participating in performance based budg-
eting. The AOC reports that House Bill 473 may have an impact on three established measures:
cases disposed as a percent of cases filed, the amount of bench warrant revenue collected, and
the amount of criminal case fees and fines collected.
pg_0003
House Bill 473 -- Page 3
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The appropriation of $106.3 thousand contained in this bill is a recurring expense in the amount
of $84.7 thousand and a nonrecurring expense in the amount of $21.4 thousand to the general
fund. Any unexpended or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of 2006 shall revert to the
general fund.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
The AOC reports that the primary long-term administrative effect on the court would be more
efficient and expeditious disposal of cases.
CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP
HB473 includes the funding recommended for an additional Santa Fe magistrate judge included in the
executive budget recommendation. Related bills include: SB 26, Additional Guadalupe District Magis-
trate, SB 25, Additional 4
th
District Judge, and SB 379, Additional 9
th
District Judge.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
The AOC relates that the proposed magistrate judge would run for office in the 2006 general
election, making the term of office end on December 31, 2010. AOC recommends an amend-
ment: on page 2, line 3, removing the following language: “The elected magistrate’s term of of-
fice shall begin on January 1, 2006 and shall end on December 31, 2007.” The sentence would
then be replaced with the following: “The first full term of office of the elected magistrate shall
begin on January 1, 2007 and end on December 31, 2010.”
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
The AOC asserts that without the new Santa Fe magistrate judgeship, there will be less efficient
and less expeditious disposal of cases and court administration and that without the additional
judgeship, it will take longer for court users to get their cases resolved.
The attached judgeship study results shows almost all district courts to have a shortage of judges
or an almost exact number of judges as need; the magistrate results, however show many coun-
ties which did not demonstrate need for additional judgeships, or show an “excess” of judge-
ships.
ALTERNATIVES
Magistrate judgeships could be redistributed to meet the demand with the current supply of
judgeships.
WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL.
Santa Fe Magistrate Court will maintain 3 judges.
pg_0004
House Bill 473 -- Page 4
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS
Does the judiciary support the reallocation of funds from counties with “excess” judgeships to
those counties that show need for additional judgeships.
EM/sb
Attachment
pg_0005
House Bill 473 -- Page 5
ATTACHMENT
Agency
MAGISTRATE COURTS Judge Need
1
(based on
weighted
caseload study
Current
Actual
Judges
Gap
(negative
num ber
denotes
need)
Catron
0.19
1.00
0.81
Chaves
2.25
2.00
(0.25)
C ib o la
1 .8 0
2 .0 0
0 .2 0
Colfax
0.79
2.00
1.21
Curry
2.81
2.00
(0.81)
De Baca
0.22
1.00
0.78
D o n a Ana
6 .4 0
5 .0 0
(1.40)
Eddy
2.05
3.00
0.95
Grant
1.54
2.00
0.46
Guadalupe
0.70
1.00
0.30
H a rd in g
0 .0 3
1 .0 0
0 .9 7
Hidalgo
0.87
1.00
0.13
L e a
2 .1 6
5 .0 0
2 .8 4
Lincoln
1.18
2.00
0.82
Los Alamos
0.11
1.00
0.89
Luna
1.34
1.00
(0.34)
McKinley
4.26
3.00
(1.26)
Mora
0.19
1.00
0.81
Otero
2.51
2.00
(0.51)
Quay
1.22
1.00
(0.22)
Rio Arriba
1.28
2.00
0.72
Roosevelt
1.15
1.00
(0.15)
San Juan
5.87
4.00
(1.87)
San Miguel
1.75
2.00
0.25
Sandoval
2.59
2.00
(0.59)
Santa Fe
4.80
3.00
(1.80)
Sierra
0.75
1.00
0.25
Socorro
1.06
1.00
(0.06)
Taos
0.97
2.00
1.03
To rran ce
0 .9 6
1 .0 0
0 .0 4
U n io n
0 .2 3
1 .0 0
0 .7 7
Valencia
2.48
3.00
0.52
TOTAL POSITIONS NEEDED
3
:
8.00
(8.00)
Judges
Judge and Staff Need for Magistrate
Courts for FY 06
1
Weighted Caseload Study for judges revisited in 1998 by NM AOC and
Heidi Green, National Center for State Courts
pg_0006
House Bill 473 -- Page 6
ATTACHMENT
Agency
Judge Need
1
(based on
weighted
caseload
study)
Current
Actual
Judges
Hearing
Officers/Special
Masters
2
(at
66% of judge
weight)
Gap
(negative
number
denotes
need)
First Judicial District
8.72 7.00
1.33
(0.39)
Second Judicial District
29.82 23.00
4.66
(2.16)
Third Judicial District
8.30 7.00
0.66
(0.64)
Fourth Judicial District
2.58 2.00
0.34
(0.24)
Fifth Judicial District
10.25 8.00
0.00
(2.25)
Sixth Judicial District
3.86 3.00
0.00
(0.86)
Seventh Judicial District
3.22 3.00
0.66 0.44
Eighth Judicial District
2.82 2.00
1.00 0.18
Ninth Judicial District
5.53 3.00
0.54
(1.99)
Tenth Judicial District
1.22 1.00
0.11
(0.11)
Eleventh Judicial District
9.66 6.00
0.66
(3.00)
Twelfth Judicial District
4.56 4.00
0.66 0.10
Thirteenth Judicial District
8.55 6.00
1.33
(1.22)
DISTRICT POSITIONS NEEDED
4
:
12
Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court
18.68 16.00
(2.68)
- if hearing officer/special master is shared with another district, FTE time was estimated
2
Court Administrat ors provided information based on:
Judge and Staff Need for District Courts and
Metropolitan Court for FY 06
Judges/Hearing Officers
1
Wei ghted Casel oad St udy for judges revi sit ed i n 1998 by NM AOC and Heidi Green, Nati onal
Center for State Courts