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 SRC

ORIGINAL DATE

LAST UPDATED

2/9/07

2/24/07 HB

SHORT TITLE Automatic Recount in Certain Elections

SB 449/SRCS

ANALYST Ortiz

APPROPRIATION (dollars in thousands)

Appropriation

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY07

FY08

$500.

Recurring

General Fund

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

Relates to HB 698

REVENUE (dollars in thousands)

Estimated Revenue

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY07

FY08

FY09

$500.

Recurring Automatic

Recount Fund

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Revenue Decreases)

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

Attorney General’s Office (AGO)

Secretary of State

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

The Senate Rules Committee Substitute for SB 449 would provide a requirement for automatic

recounts of any federal or state election where the margin of victory is less than one-half of one

percent of the total votes cast. The bill lays out requirements for the Secretary of State to

implement those recounts and a means of forcing compliance by authorizing the use of

Senate Bill 449 – Page

2

Mandamus. It also creates a means of funding through the establishment of an election recount

fund and an initial appropriation for FY08 of $500,000.00. Any unspent funds up to

$1,500,000.00 would remain in the Recount Fund and would not revert to the General Fund.

However, any unspent excess over $1,500,000.00 would revert to the General Fund.

The Committee Substitute is different from the original bill because it: (a) makes the bill

applicable to state candidates, (b) removes the county clerks from the initial notification process;

(c) deletes the requirement that the Secretary of State create new rules; (d) makes the automatic

recount process follow existing statutes in the Election Code; and (e) updates the ballot

terminology in Section 1-14-16.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

The appropriation of $500 thousand contained in this bill is a RECURRING expense to the

GENERAL FUND. Any unexpended or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of a

FISCAL YEAR shall revert to the GENERAL FUND.

According to the Secretary of State, the amount of a recount would be approximately $800

thousand.

Continuing Appropriations language

This bill creates a new fund and provides for continuing appropriations. The LFC has concerns

with including continuing appropriation language in the statutory provisions for newly created

funds, as earmarking reduces the ability of the legislature to establish spending priorities.

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

1.

The language switch from “statewide" to “state" candidates may mean that all legislative,

PRC commissioners, district judge races will be subject to the automatic recount bill.

2.

The removal of the county clerks from the initial notification process creates some

uncertainty when the automatic recount process will commence (i.e. after the State

Canvassing Board approves the returns three weeks after Election Day.)

3.

As noted in the original analysis, the bill would create an initial appropriation of

$500,000.00 for FY08. There is no known figure as to how much a recount would cost or

how many would be required in any given period of time. There is no language to

address what would happen if there were multiple recounts in an election cycle and the

available funds were depleted.

According to the AGO, the bill would create an initial appropriation of $500,000.00 for FY08.

There is no known figure as to how much a recount would cost or how many would be required

in any given period of time. There is no language to address what would happen if there were

multiple recounts in an election cycle and the available funds were depleted. Also, the bill does

not address whether or not the $500,000.00 appropriation is to be made each and every year or

only in years with an election cycle applicable to the specific requirements of this bill – namely

when New Mexico has a federal or statewide election.

Senate Bill 449 – Page

3

TECHNICAL ISSUES

The AGO also notes the following:

Other sections of the Election Code deal with recounts in various ways and some of the language

may need to be reconciled with other provisions of the code. For example, § 1-14-14 defines

who may apply for a recount. This bill should perhaps include language indicating that this new

automatic refund provision is a stand alone process.

Much of the specific issues can be addressed by rule however:

1. Special mention should be made of recounting or rechecking hand counted ballots to be sure

they are part of a recount. With the new paper ballot system, a larger amount of “hand tallying"

occurs.

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

The Secretary of State notes strong support of this bill citing that it provides greater voter

confidence in outcomes in close elections.

CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP

Relates HB698, HB698 and SB449 when originally introduced were duplicates but the substitute

makes the bill applicable to state candidates, removes the county clerks from the initial

notification process; deletes the requirement that the Secretary of State create new rules; makes

the automatic recount process follow existing statutes in the Election Code; and updates the

ballot terminology in Section 1-14-16.

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

Why should the fund be limited to a maximum of $1.5 million.

Is there data from other states with automatic recounts to support the funding provided in this

bill.

EO/mt