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 Asbill
ORIGINAL DATE
LAST UPDATED
02/07/06
HB
SHORT TITLE Additional Judgeships in the Fifth Judicial District SB 102
ANALYST McSherry
APPROPRIATION (dollars in thousands)
Appropriation
Recurring
or Non-Rec
Fund
Affected
FY06
FY07
$627.1
Recurring
General Fund
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Senate Bill 102 duplicates House Bill 35. The bill relates to Senate Bill 148 and to House Bill 61.
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (dollars in thousands)
FY06 FY07 FY08 3 Year
Total Cost
Recurring or
Non-Rec.
Fund
Affected
Total
0
0 5.0-28.0 5.0-28.0
Recurring General Fund
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
LFC Files
Judiciary judgeship request
Responses Received From
Public Defender Department (PDD)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Bill
Senate Bill 102, “Additional Judgeships in the Fifth District,” appropriates $627.132 thousand
from the general fund to fifth judicial district court for the purpose of funding two new judge-
ships and associated staff.
The bill creates the positions by increasing the statutorily set number of judgeships in the fifth
judicial district from eight to ten. The new judges would be appointed by the governor and be
required to run for the office in the upcoming primary and general elections primary in order to
serve an additional term.
pg_0002
Senate Bill 102 – Page
2
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The appropriation of $627.132 thousand contained in this bill is a recurring expense to the gen-
eral fund. Any unexpended or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of fiscal year 2007
shall revert to the general fund.
This bill would fund 2 judges and 3 associated staff with each judgeship; this would result in 8
new positions at the fifth judicial district court. Additional FY08 operating budget impact is as-
suming benefits, technology and supplies costs for the 8 additional FTE would result in a two
hundred to one thousand dollars of additional operational expenses per employee and salary in-
crease in the amount of 1-5 percent ($4-$20 thousand) in future years.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
There is no appropriation contained in the bill for the Public Defender Department or the district
attorney. According to the Public Defender Department, whenever a judge hears criminal cases,
the courtroom will need to be staffed by the Public Defender Department and the district attorney
to handle the cases. The Public Department cost estimate for they Department for each new
judge is as follows:
To staff 1 additional district court courtroom (in district where the Department has an office
such as the Fifth Judicial District) – 1 attorney and 1 support staff member per courtroom at
an annual cost of $112,500 plus $5,000 in contract attorney services.
Using this calculation, the Public Defender Department estimate for new attorneys and staff
to adequately cover two new judgeships is $235,000 per year for attorneys and support staff.
The judiciary judgeship study indicates a need for 3 new judgeships in the 5
th
Judicial District.
The District has been ranked as the 1
st
and 3
rd
priorities within the judiciary judgeship priorities.
The judgeship study was completed in 1997; while the weights assigned to each category of case
have not been updated, the caseloads for each district were updated to determine relative judge-
ship need.
The FY06 judgeship request did not include any judgeships for the 5
th
Judicial District, despite
the judgeship study’s documentation of a need for 3 new judgeships.
PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS
The addition of judgeships will reduce the number of caseload for the judges in the 5
th
Judicial
District and allow more time to be spent on individual cases.
Additional judgeships without corresponding increases to other criminal justice components
could lead to
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
An additional 8 positions in the 5
th
Judicial District will lead to more workload for administrative
oversight in the court.
pg_0003
Senate Bill 102 – Page
3
CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP
Senate 102 duplicates House Bill 35 and relates to Senate Bill 148 and House Bill 337
, “Create
Additional Judgeships,”
House Bill 31 “Additional Judgeship in the 13
th
District” and Senate Bill
102,
“Additional Judges in the 5
th
Judicial District.”
WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL
The 5
th
Judicial District will not receive additional judgeships and associated staff.
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS
1. Why were judgeships for the 5
th
Judicial District not prioritized among the 8 judgeships re-
ceived in FY06.
2. Is there an established formula between district attorneys, public defenders and the courts
which can be used to determine the appropriate balance for these three components of the crimi-
nal justice system.
3. What proportion of the amount of the $627.132 is a one time cost. Can the appropriation be
considered partially one-time, as were similar appropriations during the 2005 legislative session.
EM/yr:nt