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 Campos
DATE TYPED 02/09/05 HB
SHORT TITLE Additional Guadalupe District Magistrate
SB 26
ANALYST McSherry
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation Contained Estimated Additional Impact Recurring
or Non-Rec
Fund
Affected
FY05
FY06
FY05
FY06
$94.0
Indeterminate Recurring General Fund
$75.0
Indeterminate Recurring General Fund
$87.0
Indeterminate Recurring General Fund
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Senate Bill 26 relates to other bills proposing to increase the number of judgeships at certain
courts: SB 25, Additional 4
th
District Judge, HB 476 Additional Santa Fe Magistrate Judge, SB
379, Additional 9
th
District Judge.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
LFC Files
Administrative Office of the Courts
Administrative Office of the District Attorneys
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Bill
Senate Bill 26 appropriates $2 thousand from the general fund. $94 thousand would be for the
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to provide salary, benefits, and supplies for an addi-
tional Guadalupe Magistrate Judge. $75 thousand would be for Fourth Judicial District Attorney
for additional staff and $87 thousand would be for the Public Defender for the increased work-
load in the Guadalupe Magistrate District.
The bill would increase the number of judges in Guadalupe County from 1 to 2 judges. The
main court in Guadalupe County is in Santa Rosa and the bill proposes that the two judges would
rotate to Vaughn on a regular basis. The proposed judge would begin service on July 1, 2005
and would be appointed by the governor. The judge would then seek election in the 2006 gen-
eral election.
pg_0002
Senate Bill 26 -- 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 Metro-
politan 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 consists of two magistrate judges located in the Sandoval and McKinley Counties, one Ber-
nalillo County Metropolitan Court Judge, and three district court judges located in the Eleventh,
Thirteenth 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 Guadalupe Magistrate Court shows a need of -0.3 judges in the study results, in other words,
0.3 judges in excess. Other magistrate courts were determined to have needs for judges ap-
proaching 3 new judges. According to AOC, the Guadalupe County Magistrate Court does not
have the space to house an additional judge.
PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS
Additional workforce could have the potential to increase performance for the magistrate court,
public defender and district attorney.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
According to the Administrative Office of the District Attorneys (AODA), the appropriation con-
tained in the legislation is enough to pay the salary and benefits of an experienced prosecutor.
According to the Public Defender, the appropriation would not be sufficient to pay for additional
support staff but initially the office may be able to support another attorney with current re-
sources.
According to AOC, the bill’s proposed appropriation of $256 thousand to pay for the costs of
salaries, benefits, furniture, supplies and equipment for an additional judge and additional staff
with the office of the district attorney and public defender department is short by $12.3 thousand.
According to AOC, the total recurring costs as a portion of the proposed appropriation would be
$246.9 thousand.
pg_0003
Senate Bill 26 -- Page 3
CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP
Senate Bill 26 relates to other bills proposing to increase the number of judgeships at certain
courts: SB 25, Additional 4
th
District Judge, HB 476 Additional Santa Fe Magistrate Judge, SB
379, Additional 9
th
District Judge.
WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL.
AOC asserts that cases in will continue to be processed at the current rate.
The Guadalupe Magistrate court will continue with 1 rather than 2 judgeships.
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS
1.
Why is an additional judgeship being proposed for a county that does not demonstrate a
need in the judiciary weighted caseload study.
EM/sb:yr
Attachment
pg_0004
Senate Bill 26 -- 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 26 -- 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.)