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 Rodriguez

ORIGINAL DATE

LAST UPDATED

2/07/2007

HB

SHORT TITLE

County Officer Midterm Salary Increases, Ca

SJR 7

ANALYST Moser

APPROPRIATION (dollars in thousands)

Appropriation

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY07

FY08

NFI

NFI

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

Attorney Generals Office (AGO)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

Senate Joint Resolution 7, if approved by the voters, would amend Article 10 Section 1 of the

New Mexico Constitution to allow boards of county commissioners to provide a midterm salary

increase for elected county officers “as authorized by law".

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

None.

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

Article IV Section 27 of The New Mexico Constitution provides in part “nor shall the compensa-

tion of any officer be increased or diminished during his term of office, except as otherwise pro-

vided in this constitution." If this resolution is enacted, implementing legislation could also be

enacted to allow boards of county commissioners to authorize salary increases for themselves,

the sheriff, assessor, treasurer, clerk, surveyor and/or the probate judge. See NMSA Sections 4-

38-6, 4-42-1. Current annual salaries for county officers are established in NMSA Sections 4-44-

1 to 4-44-14.

Senate Joint Resolution 7 – Page

2

The Attorney Generals Office states that the New Mexico Supreme Court in State ex rel. Hara-

gan v. Harris 126 N.M. 310 (1998) discussed the interrelation between Article IV Section 27 and

Article X Section 1 and held that the legislature had no authority to provide for mid-term salary

increases for local officials, and that such increases were unconstitutional. The Court discussed

the reasons behind the prohibition and stated: “The purpose of the language in Article X Section

1 on which Petitioners rely is to replace the fee-based system of compensation operated by the

counties prior to statehood with a salary-based system controlled by the Legislature…Both pro-

visions are intended to preclude arbitrary variations in compensation that might "harass and

cripple the county officer by reducing her or his compensation during her or his service or cause

the bestowal of an unmerited increase." (citations omitted).

EM/sb