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 Campos
DATE TYPED 02/07/05 HB
SHORT TITLE Additional Fourth District Judge
SB 25
ANALYST McSherry
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation Contained Estimated Additional Impact Recurring
or Non-Rec
Fund
Affected
FY05
FY06
FY05
FY06
NFI
$300.0
NFI Indeterminate Recurring General Fund
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Senate Bill 25 relates to other bills proposing to increase the number of judgeships at certain
courts: SB 26, Additional Guadalupe District Magistrate, HB 476 Additional Santa Fe Magistrate
Judge, SB 379, Additional 9
th
District Judge.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
LFC Files
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)
Public Defender Department (PDD)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Bill
Senate Bill 25 appropriates $300 thousand from the general fund to the Fourth Judicial District
Court for the purpose of one additional judgeship along with the associated benefits, furniture,
supplies, and equipment for an additional district judge and support staff for the judge. Any un-
expended or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of the fiscal year 2006 shall revert to the
general fund.
According to the proposed bill, the additional judgeship would be filled by appointment by the
governor pursuant to the provisions of Article 6 of the Constitution of New Mexico. The bill
amends NMSA 1978, §34-6-7 in order to add an additional judge in the Fourth Judicial District
resulting in a total of three district judges.
The effective date of this act would be July 1, 2005.
pg_0002
Senate Bill 25 – Page 2
Significant Issues
In November 1998, the judiciary updated a “weighted caseload study” which was designed to
provide a methodology for determining the distribution of needs for additional judgeships. This
type of study assigns a weight, expressed in minutes, for each type of case heard in a court. The
weight represents the average amount of judge’s time found to be necessary to process a case of a
particular type. Each weight is multiplied by the number of new cases filed per category. At-
tached are the findings of the study.
According to the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), the Chief Judges Council reviewed
all district, metropolitan, and magistrate judgeship requests statewide and considered both the
need as determined by the Weighted Caseload Study as well as additional narrative and testimo-
nial information. AOC states the Weighted Caseload Study for judges reflects a total need for 23
new judgeships and that the judiciary is requesting the twelve most critically needed judgeships in
FY 06 prioritized into a two tier system. Tier one consists of one Bernalillo County Metropolitan
Court Judge, two magistrate court judges located in the Santa Fe and San Juan Counties, and three
district court judges located in the Second, Ninth, and Eleventh Judicial Districts. Tier two con-
sists 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, Thir-
teenth and Second Judicial Districts. AOC asserts that the funding request for an additional judge
for the Fourth Judicial District is not within the unified judgeship package.
The Fourth Judicial District Court shows a need of 0.24 judges in the study results. Other districts
were determined to have needs for judges approaching 3 new judges. AOC reports that the
Fourth Judicial District does not have the space to house an additional judge, but that the district
is working with San Miguel County to obtain capital outlay funds to build a new courthouse.
AOC asserts that it is the intent of the Fourth Judicial District to request an additional judge when
the Weighted Caseload Study supports another judge.
PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS
AOC reports that 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 courts in the following
areas: cases disposed as a percent of cases filed, percent change in case filings by case type, and
clearance rate.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The appropriation of $300 thousand contained in this bill would be a recurring expense to the
general fund. Any unexpended or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of fiscal year
2006 shall revert to the general fund.
According to the Administrative Office of the Courts, an additional $12.4 thousand would be
needed to cover the costs of an additional district judge. $312.4 thousand is the amount being
proposed for other judgeships, and is projected to include all associated costs of the new judge-
ship. AOC cites a recurring cost of $277 thousand and $35 thousand in one-time costs.
The Office of the Public Defender points out that there is no appropriation for the Public De-
fender Department or the district attorney included in this bill. PD asserts that it is not known at
this time how many criminal cases the new judge would hear, and that an estimate of the fiscal
pg_0003
Senate Bill 25 -- Page 3
impact would be based on the proposed judge’s caseload.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
Additional judges could have an impact on reduced administrative workload at the Fourth Dis-
trict. The proposed additional judge could also increase workload for other criminal justice con-
tributing parties.
CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP
Senate Bill 25 relates to other bills proposing to increase the number of judgeships at certain
courts: SB 26, Additional Guadalupe District Magistrate, HB 476 Additional Santa Fe Magistrate
Judge, SB 379, Additional 9
th
District Judge.
WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL.
The Fourth Judicial District Court will continue with 3, rather than 4 judgeships.
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS
1.
Why is the additional judgeship being proposed for the Fourth Judicial District Court
when the latest judgeship study showed a need of less than 0.24 judgeships.
EM/sb
Attachment
pg_0004
Senate Bill 25 -- Page 4
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.)
pg_0005
Senate Bill 25 -- Page 5
Judge and Staff Need for Magistrate
Courts for FY 06
Agency
Judges
MAGISTRATE COURTS Judge Need
1
(based on
weighted
caseload
study
Current
Actual
Judges
Gap
(negative
number
denotes
need)
Catron
0.19 1.00
0.81
Chaves
2.25 2.00
(0.25)
Cibola
1.80 2.00
0.20
Colfax
0.79 2.00
1.21
Curry
2.81 2.00
(0.81)
De Baca
0.22 1.00
0.78
Dona Ana
6.40 5.00
(1.40)
Eddy
2.05 3.00
0.95
Grant
1.54 2.00
0.46
Guadalupe
0.70 1.00
0.30
Harding
0.03 1.00
0.97
Hidalgo
0.87 1.00
0.13
Lea
2.16 5.00
2.84
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
Torrance
0.96 1.00
0.04
Union
0.23 1.00
0.77
Valencia
2.48 3.00
0.52
TOTAL POSITIONS
NEEDED
3
:
(8.00)
1
Weighted Caseload Study for judges revisited in 1998 by NM AOC and
Heidi Green, National Center for State Courts
3
Total Positions Needed (.5 or greater need rounded to the next whole
number.)