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

ORIGINAL DATE

LAST UPDATED

1/25/06

2/13/06 HB 337/aHAFC

SHORT TITLE Create Additional Judgeships

SB

ANALYST McSherry

APPROPRIATION (dollars in thousands)

Appropriation

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY06

FY07

$3,506.1

Recurring

General Fund

$283.5 Non-Recurring

General Fund

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

Companion to: Senate Bill 148

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court (BCMC)

Administrative Office of the District Attorneys (AODA)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of HAFC amendment

House Bill 337 “Create Additional Judgeships,” as amended by HAFC, would add $1,617,100.0,

to the original bill’s appropriation of $2,172,476.0 for a total appropriation of $3,789,576.

The additional appropriation would fund:

•

the 3

rd

Judicial District Attorney ($123,000) and Public Defender ($112,500),

•

the 5

th

Judicial District Attorney ($278,000) and Public Defender ($225,000),

•

he 9

th

Judicial District Attorney ($123,000) and Public Defender ($112,500),

•

the 11

th

Judicial District Attorney ($139,000) and Public Defender ($112,500),

•

The 13

th

Judicial District Attorney ($81,000) and Public Defender ($75,000),

•

The 2

nd

District Attorney in Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court ($123,000) and Public

Defender in Metro Court ($112,500).

The amounts would fund an additional salaries and benefits, furniture, supplies and equipment.

Because some of the authorized purchases include in the appropriation are one-time expenses

House Bill 337/aHAFC – Page

2

(furniture), the recurring total appropriation is estimated at $5 thousand less for each additional

agency (listed above).

Synopsis of Original Bill

House Bill 337 appropriates $2,172,476 from the general fund ($1,954,032 recurring) to the 3

rd

($313,566, $283,217 recurring), 5

th

($627,132, 564,434 recurring), 9

th

($313,566, $283,217 re-

curring), 11

th

($313,566, $283,217 recurring) and 13

th

($313,566, $283,217 recurring) judicial

districts and the Bernalillo Metropolitan Court ($291,080, $254,730 recurring) for the purpose of

creating six new judgeships, one in the 3

rd

, 9

th

, 11

th

, and 13

th

judicial districts and the Bernalillo

County Metropolitan Court, and two in the 5

th

Judicial District.

The funds included in the appropriation are for the salaries and benefits of a judge and three as-

sociated staff, supplies and equipment.

The bill increases the number of judges in the: 3

rd

District from seven to eight; 5

th

District from

eight to ten; 9

th

District from four to five; 11

th

District from seven to eight, and designates the

new judge to reside and hold principal office in San Juan County; 13

th

District from six to seven

and designates the new judge to reside and hold principal office in Sandoval County; Bernalillo

County Metropolitan Court from eighteen to nineteen.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

The appropriation of $3,789,576 contained in this bill is a recurring expense to the general fund.

Any unexpended or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of fiscal year 2007 shall revert

to the general fund. A portion of the appropriated funds ($383.444.0) should be designated as

non-recurring as it will be used for one-time furniture and equipment purchases.

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

Eight new judgeships were created in FY06: two in Bernalillo Metropolitan Court, one in the 2

nd

Judicial District, one in the 9

th

Judicial District, one in the 11

th

Judicial District, and three magis-

trates.

The judgeship study used to prioritize the need for new judgeships was completed in 1997.

The courts’ caseloads have been updated since the study, however, the case-weight assigned to

each type of case has not been updated.

The seven judgeships contained in this bill are those ranked as the highest need in the 1997

judgeship study, updated with case weights.

Not all the courts have courtrooms available for new judges. For example, Metro Court would

have to build out one of the two available spaces for a new courtroom in order to provide space

for an additional judge. Funding to build-out this courtroom is not contained in the bill.

According to Metro Court a 6 percent increase in the number of cases in FY05 caused the addi-

tional two judgeships to only decrease caseload by 84 cases per judge. The Court estimates that

an additional judge would reduce caseload by 400 cases per judge in FY07.

House Bill 337/aHAFC – Page

3

PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS

Additional judges will lessen the caseload per judge in the 3

rd

, 5

th

, 9

th

, 11

th

, 13

th

and Metropolitan

Court, allowing additional time to be spent on individual cases.

Additional judges without corresponding increases in prosecution and defense attorneys may

lead to an imbalance within the three participating parties in criminal cases.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

Additional personnel will increase the administrative workload at each of the courts proposed to

receive judgeships. Each judgeship includes 3 associated staff.

CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP

House Bill 337 duplicates Senate Bill 148.

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

The case weights determined in the 1997 judgeship study may no longer be useful.

WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL

The seven judges proposed may not be created in FY07. There are, however, several other

judgeship bills which could also be enacted.

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

1.

Which courts have courtrooms available for additional judges. Of those that do not,

what is the plan to provide courtroom space for the additional judges included in this bill.

2.

Is there an ideal proportion of increases to courts/DAs and PDs. Does the amended ver-

sion of the bill address this ideal proportion.

EM/nt:yr:mt