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 Maestas, A
LAST UPDATED
ORIGINAL DATE 1/30/2025
SHORT TITLE Anti-Hazing Act
BILL
NUMBER Senate Bill 148
ANALYST Hanika-Ortiz
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
Public Defender
No fiscal
impact
Indeterminate
but moderate
Indeterminate
but moderate
Indeterminate
but minimal
Recurring General Fund
County Jails
No fiscal
impact
At least $19.2 At least $19.2 At least $38.4 Recurring
County General
Funds
NMCD
No fiscal
impact
No fiscal
impact
At least $28.2 At least $28.2 Recurring General Fund
Colleges and
Universities
No fiscal
impact
At least $649.0 At least $649.0
At least
$1,298.0
Recurring
General, Other
State and
Federal Funds
K-12 Schools
No fiscal
impact
At least $100.0 At least $100.0
At least
$200.0
Recurring General Fund
Total
No fiscal
impact
At least $768.2 At least $796.4
At least
$1,564.6
Recurring
Parentheses ( ) indicate expenditure decreases.
*Amounts reflect most recent analysis of this legislation.
Conflicts with Senate Bill 10
Sources of Information
LFC Files
Agency Analysis Received From
Higher Education Department (HED) New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (NMIMT)
New Mexico Highlands University (NMHU
New Mexico State University (NMSU)
University of New Mexico (UNM)
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)
New Mexico Attorney General (NMAG)
Agency Analysis was Solicited but Not Received From
Public Education Department (PED) Senate Bill 148 – Page 2
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Senate Bill 148
Senate Bill 148 (SB148) enacts the Anti-Hazing Act (Act) to create the new crimes of “hazing”
and “failure to report hazing” with criminal penalties and consequences that include permitting a
victim to commence a civil action for damages that include great physical or psychological harm.
The bill defines the term “student organization” in a public or private school, college or
university, such as a club, a society, an association, an athletic or club sports team, a fraternity or
sorority, a music band or student government, whether or not the organization is established or
recognized by the public or private school (presumably K-12) or post-secondary educational
institution
Section 3 creates the crime of hazing, which is an “intentional, knowing, or reckless act,”
whether committed by one or more, that was part of an affiliation with a student organization and
that also risked physical or psychological injury, regardless of whether the student consents.
Whoever commits hazing would be guilty of a misdemeanor. Under this section, the crime of
hazing may be elevated to a second-degree felony depending on severity of physical or
psychological injury. The bill also creates the crime of “failure to report hazing” and classifies it
as a misdemeanor.
Section 4 allows a victim to commence a civil action for damages from hazing. The action may
be brought against other participants, student organizations, school staff, volunteers, or colleges
and universities for failing to help mitigate the risk. A student who participates in hazing also
forfeits entitlements and a student organization that sanctions the activity forfeits official
recognition.
Section 5 requires institutional policies to include prohibiting hazing. Beginning with the 2025
fall term and each fall thereafter, a college or university must provide students hazing prevention
education, its institutional policies prohibiting hazing, its hazing reporting requirements, and the
civil and criminal consequences of hazing another. Lastly, this section requires colleges and
universities to establish a hazing prevention committee of students, school staff, and parents.
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
There is no exact estimate for what institutions expect to spend on programming and reporting
requirements, but compliance may require significant administrative and financial resources.
The cost to implement anti-hazing education, committees and reporting systems, and coordinate
with law enforcement, could be as high as $1.3 million in total over three years the large
universities reported, depending on the size of the campus and how much effort to date on the
issue. For example, New Mexico State University (NMSU) has a hazing prevention committee
that has met monthly since 2023. Smaller colleges should see fewer if any hazing acts but could Senate Bill 148 – Page 3
still face challenges meeting expectations. The University of New Mexico (UNM) noted training
costs would be about $15.3 thousand annually for its students.
The bill creates criminal penalties and civil remedies. The charges may be enhanced to felonies,
depending upon the harm inflicted, and when combined with civil remedies, could contribute to
an increased burden on public defenders, courts and jails. States with anti-hazing laws may see
more civil lawsuits as personal injury lawyers pursue legal remedies for victims. Additional
increased system costs beyond incarceration, such as costs to the judicial branch for increased
trials or to law enforcement to investigate and arrest individuals for the new crimes under SB148,
are not included in this analysis but could be moderate. However, such lawsuits are often high-
profile, settling early to reduce the bad publicity, which may reduce the number that go to trial.
Incarceration drives costs in the criminal justice system, so any changes in the number of
individuals in prison and jail and time served from this bill could have moderate fiscal impacts.
The creation of any new crime, increase of felony degree, or increase of sentencing penalties will
likely increase the population of prisons and jails, consequently increasing long-term costs for
the state and county general funds. LFC estimates a marginal cost (the cost per each additional
inmate) of $19.2 thousand per county jail inmate per year, based on incarceration costs at the
Metropolitan Detention Center. SB148 is anticipated to increase the number of incarcerated
individuals.
Additionally, the second-degree felony in the bill is punishable by up to nine years in prison. The
New Mexico Corrections Department reports the average cost to incarcerate one inmate in FY24
was $56.7 thousand. Due to the high fixed costs of state prison facilities and administrative
overhead, LFC estimates a marginal cost of $28.2 thousand per year across prison facilities.
It is difficult to estimate how many individuals will be charged, convicted, or sent to jail or
prison for new crimes. Without additional information, this analysis assumes at least one person
will be incarcerated in county jails and one person in state correctional facilities each year for
crimes. To account for time to adjudication, correctional facility costs are not anticipated to be
incurred until one year after the bill takes effect, in FY27; however, county jail costs and a
minimal cost may apply in FY26 for individuals detained before adjudication. This analysis
estimates SB148 will increase annual prison costs by at least $28.2 thousand in FY27 and at least
$56.4 in FY28.
A K-12 school, college or university that could have taken steps to prevent hazing but didn’t, or
staff that knew or reasonably should have known but did not make attempts to prevent it, are
civilly liable. Schools are self-insured and costs to settle claims would likely come from state
resources.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Because of nation-wide concerns about severe injury and death from hazing, the federal bi-
partisan Stop Campus Hazing Act (SCHA) was signed into law December 23, 2024. The Act
requires institutions that participate in federal student aid programs to start collecting hazing
statistics, have anti-hazing policies in place, begin documenting violations by mid-year, make
those violations publicly available by the end of 2025, and include hazing statistics in their Senate Bill 148 – Page 4
annual security reports starting with the 2026 report. Institutions that do not comply face loss of
federal funding.
Under SCHA, the federal Department of Education will ensure institutions follow the policy,
education and reporting requirements in the new Act. Section 3(J) also states the NMAG and
district attorneys have concurrent jurisdiction to enforce provisions of SB148.
The consequence for hazing a student includes loss of state-funded scholarships and awards.
NMSU noted it does not remove a student’s state funding as part of sanctions or punishment.
On page 6(C) lines 21 to 25 to page 7 lines 1 to 3 “any organization, association or student living
group that knowingly permits hazing…shall forfeit any official recognition…” by the institution.
Changing “shall” to “may” will allow the institution to make a judgement call about withdrawing
recognition and for how long. NMSU says the current standard is to revoke a charter long
enough for all students associated with the organization to have left the university (four to six
years).
On page 8 lines 11 to 18 universities also expressed concern about the makeup of the
committees, given student time commitments. Therefore, NMSU recommended changing “Fifty
percent of committee members shall include students…” to “Committee members shall include
at least two undergraduates and one graduate student attending the institution…”
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
Private and public colleges and universities would use staffing resources to provide training,
investigate allegations, report and maintain records, and coordinate with police.
CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP
This bill relates to Senate Bill 10. SB10 and SB148 have similar policy requirements for
institutions, but SB148 is vague in terms of public reporting, and contains enhanced criminal
penalties depending upon the harm.
OTHER SUBSTANT IVE ISSUES
Forty-four states have legal consequences for hazing activities. The six states without these laws
include Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, South Dakota, Wyoming, New Mexico. HED reports that
most institutions in New Mexico have anti-hazing policies in place in their student codes of
conduct.
AHO/JV/hj/SL2