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 Lujan
LAST UPDATED
ORIGINAL DATE 2/28/25
SHORT TITLE Allow Telecommunication Marriages
BILL
NUMBER House Bill 557
ANALYST Chavez
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT*
(dollars in thousands)
Agency/Program
FY25 FY26 FY27
3 Year
Total Cost
Recurring or
Nonrecurring
Fund
Affected
Courts
No fiscal
impact
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
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) New Mexico Attorney General (NMAG) Agency Analysis was Solicited but Not Received From
New Mexico Counties
SUMMARY
Synopsis of House Bill 557
House Bill 557 (HB557) proposes to amend Section 40-1-2 NMSA 1978, the statute governing
marriage solemnization. The bill would add language to allow for a “witness” and would define
it as a person who is at least 18 years of age and observes the ceremony in real time, either in
person or via telecommunication.
HB557 also proposes to amend Section 40-1-10 NMSA 1978, the statute governing marriage
licenses issued by county clerks. The bill would add language to clarify that a marriage
ceremony is to be conducted by a person authorized by the laws of New Mexico to solemnize
marriages who is physically present in New Mexico at the time of the ceremony.
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.
House Bill 557 – Page 2
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) provides the following:
There will be a minimal administrative cost for statewide update, distribution and
documentation of statutory changes. Any additional fiscal impact on the judiciary would
be proportional to the enforcement of this law and the involvement of judicial officers in
marriage ceremonies. New laws, amendments to existing laws and new hearings have the
potential to increase caseloads in the courts, thus requiring additional resources to handle
the increase.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
AOC provides the following:
1. New Mexico does not recognize a marriage which is not formally consummated by
contract and solemnized before an official. Hazlewood v. Hazlewood, 1976-NMSC-
074, 89 N.N. 659, 556 P.2d 345, Merrill v. Davis, 1983-NMSC-070, 100 N.M. 552,
673 P.2d 1285.
There is a question as to how a witness will be able to sign a marriage certificate if
they are not present.
2. The title to the bill is “Allow Telecommunications Marriages.” The HB557
amendment to Section 40-1-2 NMSA 1978 allows a witness to observe a ceremony in
real time, in person or via telecommunication. The amendment does not permit the
person solemnizing the marriage to solemnize via telecommunication. (Subsection
A(1) appears to delineate between the person solemnizing and witness, defining
“solemnize” to mean to join in marriage before witnesses.) In fact, the HB 557
amendment to 40-1-10 NMSA 1978 requires the licensed person who is solemnizing
the marriage to be physically present in New Mexico at the time of the ceremony.
Does this permit a person who is physically present in New Mexico to solemnize a
wedding via telecommunication, as long as they are actually physically present in this
state? That is unclear.
There is also no explicit granting of the ability for the parties to a marriage to appear
at the ceremony via telecommunication.
The New Mexico Attorney General (NMAG) provides the following:
The term “telecommunication” is not defined in HB557 and does not reference a
definition elsewhere in statute. HB557’s language could cause confusion because it does
not specify if the witness would be required to have both audio and visual display of the
ceremony to satisfy the requirements. Furthermore, HB557’s proposed language also
does not provide for how a witness would sign a marriage certificate if they observed the
ceremony in real time via telecommunications. This could cause confusion and legal
issues in issuing marriage licenses in the state to ensure validity.
FC/hj/Sl2