Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance
committees of the Legislature. LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports if they
are used for other purposes.
F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
SPONSOR Hochman-Vigil
LAST UPDATED
ORIGINAL DATE 1/30/25
SHORT TITLE Additional Second District Judgeship
BILL
NUMBER House Bill 147
ANALYST Chavez
APPROPRIATION*
(dollars in thousands)
FY25 FY26
Recurring or
Nonrecurring
Fund
Affected $306.8 Recurring General Fund
Parentheses ( ) indicate expenditure decreases.
*Amounts reflect most recent analysis of this legislation.
Sources of Information
LFC Files
Agency Analysis Received From
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) Agency Analysis was Solicited but Not Received From
New Mexico Attorney General (NMAG)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of House Bill 147
House Bill 147 (HB147) amends 34-6-5 NMSA 1978 to create an additional district judge
position in the 2
nd
Judicial District Court. HB147 also appropriates $306.8 thousand from the
general fund to the 2
nd
Judicial District Court for the purpose of creating a new judgeship,
including salaries and benefits for the judge and staff, furniture, equipment, and supplies.
This bill does not contain an effective date and, as a result, would go into effect 90 days after the
Legislature adjourns if enacted, or June 20, 2025.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The appropriation of $306.8 thousand contained in this bill is a recurring expense to the general
fund. Any unexpended or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of FY26 shall revert to the
general fund.
According to the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), the appropriation would pay for the
additional district court judge, a court monitor, and a trial court assistant, specifically. House Bill 147 – Page 2
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
AOC provides the following:
There are currently 30 district court judges at the 2
nd
Judicial District Court. Four judges
are assigned to the family court division that hears domestic violence cases, divorce,
custody, parentage, child support, extreme risk firearm protection cases, kinship
guardianship cases, and certain adoption cases. Every other division at the 2
nd
Judicial
District Court has added judges to their division but family court has had four judges
since 1997. In the past 28 years the family court caseload has grown significantly and
new case types have been added to the court’s docket.
In FY24, there were 9,676 cases filed or reopened in the family court division. Those
cases are in addition to the 3,529 cases that were still pending from the previous fiscal
year. In FY24, there were 3,651 domestic violence cases filed or reopened. Judges are
required to review and countersign all domestic violence orders as well as be on-call 24
hours-a-day for emergency restraining orders, which averaged 55 calls per month in
FY24.
The family court division has eight hearing officers who help the judges, but they have
limited dockets and cannot make final binding decisions, which all must be made by the
assigned judge. The need for timely decisions is hampered if parties cannot have cases
either heard or reviewed by a judge in a timely fashion.
Over 75 percent of family court cases have at least one self-represented party. Usually
both parties are unrepresented, which increases time on the bench as well as time drafting
orders for the unrepresented parties.
PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS
The additional judgeship would improve the second judicial district’s family court by hearing
cases and issuing final decisions at a faster rate. The new judgeship would improve the backlog
reported during the budget request cycle that results in waiting lists of up to six to eight months.
WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL
AOC provides the following:
Without the additional judge, the Court will likely need more hearing officers to address
the increases in caseloads and case complexity. But that will result in longer waiting
periods for final orders as a hearing officer only issues recommendations and they have
thirty (30) days to issue recommendations in all non-domestic violence cases, and the
parties have fourteen (14) days to object to any recommendation by a hearing officer,
which sometimes results in a second hearing in front of the assigned judge and further
delay
FC/sgs/SL2/rl