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 Saavedra

DATE TYPED 03/09/05 HB 901/aHJC

SHORT TITLE Additional Judgeships

SB

ANALYST McSherry

APPROPRIATION

Appropriation Contained Estimated Additional Impact Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY05

FY06

FY05

FY06

$312.4

Indeterminate Recurring General Fund

$312.4

Indeterminate Recurring General Fund

$312.4

Indeterminate Recurring General Fund

$584.4

Indeterminate Recurring General Fund

$106.3

Indeterminate Recurring General Fund

$106.3

Indeterminate Recurring General Fund

$106.3

Indeterminate Recurring General Fund

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

House Bill 901 Relates to: SB 26, Additional Guadalupe District Magistrate; SB 25, Additional

4

th

District Judge; and would duplicate: SB 379, Additional 9

th

District Judge; and HB 473, Ad-

ditional Santa Fe Magistrate Judge.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)

Public Defender (PD)

Corrections Department (CD)

FOR THE CORRECTIONS OVERSIGHT, COURTS AND JUSTICE COMMITTEE

SUMMARY

Synopsis of HJC Amendment

House Judiciary Committee Amendment would designate one of the bill’s proposed Bernalillo

County Metropolitan Court to have a docket primarily composed of criminal offenses associated

with driving while intoxicated offenses.

House Bill 901/aHJC -- Page 2

Synopsis of Original Bill

House Bill 901 appropriates $1,840.5 thousand from the general fund. $312.4 thousand would

be appropriated to the 2

nd

Judicial District Court; $312.4 thousand would be appropriated to the

9

th

Judicial District Court, $312.4 thousand would be appropriated to the 11

th

Judicial District

Court, $584.4 thousand would be appropriated to Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court; and

$318.9 ($106.3*3) would be appropriated to the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC); for

the purpose of funding new judgeships including the associated staff, furniture equipment and

supplies. House Bill 901 proposes to increase the number of judges in the 2

nd

, 9

th

, and 11

th

dis-

trict courts by one judge per court, in the Bernalillo Metropolitan Court by two judges, and in the

Sandoval, Santa Fe, and San Juan magistrate courts by one judge per court.

The bill proposes to remove NMSA 1978, Section 34-8A-4.1, Subsections B, C, and D which

allowed for the initial appointments of the Metro judges and provides for the Metropolitan Court

judges to be appointed, elected and retained in accordance with Article 6 of the constitution of

New Mexico.

The bill proposes that the magistrate court judgeships in San Juan, Sandoval and Santa Fe Coun-

ties would be filled by appointments by the governor and would begin serving on July 1, 2005.

The appointed magistrates would serve until succeeded by a magistrate elected at the general

election in 2006. The first full term of office of the elected magistrates would begin on January

1, 2007.

The bill changes the precincts associated with each magistrate election “division” in the San Juan

Magistrate district in order to create a fifth division to be associated with the proposed fifth mag-

istrate judge in the district.

The three district court judgeships in the Second, Ninth and Eleventh judicial districts would be

appointed by the governor pursuant to the provisions of Article 6 of the constitution of New

Mexico.

The effective date of the Act would be July 1, 2005.

Significant Issues

In November 1998 an expanded study to provide the legislature with a methodology for deter-

mining the needs for additional judgeships, a “Weighted Caseload Study,” was conducted. The

study assigned a weight, expressed in minutes, for each type of case heard in a court. The weight

represented the average amount of judge’s time necessary to process a case of that type. Each

weight was multiplied by the number of new cases filed per category. The results of the study

are attached.

The Office of the Public Defender (PD) asserts that House Bill 901 includes an appropriation for

the judges and magistrates, but not for the Public Defender Department or the district attorneys.

According to the Department, for each new judge and magistrate, the Department would need

funding for additional employees to staff courtrooms.

The Public Defender cites the following as corresponding annual costs to the proposed additional

judgeships:

House Bill 901/aHJC -- Page 3

$103.8 thousand plus $20 thousand in contract attorney services for 1 additional district

court courtroom (in district where the Department has an office) to support 1 attorney and

1 support staff member per courtroom.

$40 thousand in contract attorney services to support 1 additional district court courtroom

(in districts where the Department does not have an office).

$311.3 thousand plus $5.0 thousand in contract attorney services to support 2 additional

metropolitan court courtrooms to support 3 attorneys and 3 support staff.

$40 thousand in contract attorney services to staff 1 additional magistrate court court-

room in Santa Fe County with 1 attorney and 1 support staff member per courtroom.

$40 thousand in contract attorney services to staff 1 additional magistrate court court-

room in Sandoval and McKinley counties.

$70 thousand in contract attorney services to staff 1 additional magistrate court court-

room in the 11

th

and 13

th

Judicial Districts.

AOC asserts that the Chief Judges Council reviewed all district, metropolitan, and magistrate

judgeship requests statewide and considered both the need as was determined by the Weighted

Caseload Study applied to FY 04 data as well as additional narrative and testimonial information.

The Council has proposed two “tiers” of judgeship need. The first tier includes one judge for

each of the following: 2

nd

District, 9

th

District, 11

th

District, Metro Court, Santa Fe Magistrate

and San Juan Magistrate. The second tier includes and additional 2

nd

District Judge, an addi-

tional 11

th

District Judge, an additional Metro Court Judge, a 13

th

District Judge, and a Sandoval

Magistrate Judge.

According to AOC, Sandoval County needs a new magistrate judge in the town of Bernalillo be-

cause the Bernalillo Magistrate Court has the highest per-judge caseload in the state, with one

judge handling 6,520 new case filings in FY 2004. Sandoval County has another magistrate

court in Cuba, AOC continues, but the distance from Cuba to Bernalillo and the caseload in Cuba

(2,206 new filings in FY 04) prevents the judge in Cuba from providing the assistance necessary

to handle the caseload in Bernalillo. AOC reports that Sandoval County is growing rapidly and

the caseload in the Bernalillo Magistrate Court is going to continue to grow along with it.

PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS

FY 05 is the second year that the courts are participating in performance based budgeting. This

bill may have an impact on the measures of the district and magistrate courts in the following

measures: cases disposed as a percent of cases filed (district and magistrate), percent change in

case filings by case type (district), amount of bench warrant revenue collected (magistrate),

amount of criminal case fees and fines collected (magistrate).

The Public Defender asserts that whenever these judges hear criminal cases, the courtrooms will

need to be staffed by the Public Defender Department and the district attorney and that the de-

partment’s ability to staff the courtrooms will be difficult without additional staffing.

House Bill 901/aHJC -- Page 4

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

The appropriation contained in this bill is primarily a recurring expense to the general fund. Any

unexpended or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of FY06 shall revert to the general

fund. The AOC reports that $1,584.3 thousand of the $1,840.5 thousand proposed in this bill

would be recurring, while the additional funds would be used for one-time purchases.

The Public Defender states that the total estimate for new Department attorneys and staff to ade-

quately cover all the courtrooms is $1,332,500 per year for 20 new FTE’s. The funds are not in-

cluded in HB901 or in the agency’s proposed executive or LFC budget.

The Administrative Office of the District Attorneys did not respond with an estimate of costs as-

sociated with the proposed new judgeships.

The Corrections Department reports that the additional judgeships could minimally increase the

amount of criminal proceedings and probation violation hearings taking place in a given period

which could bring about a minimal increase in prison populations and parole/probation

caseloads.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

The AOC reports that the primary long-term administrative effect on the courts upon passage of

this bill would be more efficient and expeditious disposal of cases in the district, metropolitan

and magistrate courts.

CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP

SB 26, Additional Guadalupe District Magistrate SB 25, Additional 4

th

District Judge relate to

HB901, but do not duplicate the proposed funding or new judgeships

SB 379, Additional 9

th

District Judge and HB 473, Additional Santa Fe Magistrate Judge dupli-

cate portions of HB901

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

The Corrections Department reports that, in both the short and long term, this bill would mini-

mally increase the burden on the prison administrative and probation/parole staff because of the

increasing prison population and probation/parole caseloads. The Department predicts that it

would be able to absorb the additional burden due to the fact that the numbers of persons con-

victed would be minimal.

WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL.

The AOC reports that, currently, the courts listed in this bill to which judges are proposed to be

added are experiencing significant delays in hearing and disposition of cases. If HB901 were not

enacted, it is likely the current situation would continue.

EM/lg:njw:yr

House Bill 901/aHJC -- Page 5

ATTACHMENT

Judge and Staff Need for District Courts and Metropolitan Court

for FY 06

Agency

Judges/Hearing Officers

Judge

Need

1

(based

on

weighted

caseload

study)

Current

Actual

Judges

Hearing Offi-

cers/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)

1

Weighted Caseload Study for judges revisited in 1998 by NM AOC and Heidi Green, National Center for State

Courts

2

Court Administrators provided information based on:

- if hearing officer/special master is shared with another district, FTE time was estimated

- hearing officers/special masters given credit of .66 of a district judge as authorized by Chief Judges Council on

May 21, 2004

4

Total Positions Needed (.5 or greater need rounded to the

next whole number.)