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 Foley

DATE TYPED 02/07/2005 HM 6

SHORT TITLE

Protect Nm Workers From Union Violence

SB

ANALYST Moser

APPROPRIATION

Appropriation Contained Estimated Additional Impact Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY05

FY06

FY05

FY06

NFI

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

Attorney General Office

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

Senate Memorial 6 requests the New Mexico congressional delegation vote to reinstate the

“Hobbs Act” to restrict “union violence”. The memorial contains several “whereas” clauses al-

leging that some unions have resorted to violence, bribery and extortion which has spilled over

into political campaigns. The memorial alleges that the Hobbs Act was “thrown out by judicial

activism”.

Significant Issues

The Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), provides that "whoever in any way or degree obstructs, de-

lays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by rob-

bery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to

any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this sec-

tion shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

House Memorial 6 -- Page 2

The attorney General’s office responded that in 1973 the United States Supreme Court inter-

preted that provision with respect to union violence in order to exact changes to working condi-

tions. U.S. v. Emmons, 410 US 396 (1973). The Supreme Court held “the literal language of the

statute will not bear the Government's semantic argument that the Hobbs Act reaches the use of

violence to achieve legitimate union objectives, such as higher wages in return for genuine ser-

vices which the employer seeks. In that type of case, there has been no "wrongful" taking of the

employer's property; he has paid for the services he bargained for, and the workers receive the

wages to which they are entitled in compensation for their services. [410 U.S. 396, 401]” The

Court also stated: “The legislative framework of the Hobbs Act dispels any ambiguity in the

wording of the statute and makes it clear that the Act does not apply to the use of force to

achieve legitimate labor ends.” The court recognized there are state remedies available to address

“union violence”.

The Attorney General further indicates that the Hobbs Act has not been “thrown out”, and is still

being used to prosecute federal crimes. It is unclear what the memorial is asking for when it re-

fers to “reauthorizing” the Hobbs Act “to restrict union violence”. Presumably the sponsor is

asking the congressional delegation to amend that section to cover union violence. Even if that

were accomplished, issues would still be raised in individual criminal cases in light of the Su-

preme Court’s holding in United States v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995). That case held that

Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause when it enacted the Gun-free

School Zones Act. However, the Hobbs Act statute has survived attacks based on Lopez as long

as the government shows some “concrete and explicit” impact on interstate commerce.

GM/njw