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 Sen. Jaramillo/Rep. Chavez, N.
LAST UPDATED
ORIGINAL DATE 2/5/2025
SHORT TITLE Parole & Parole Board Changes
BILL
NUMBER Senate Bill 17
ANALYST Valdez
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT*
(dollars in thousands)
Agency/Program
FY25 FY26 FY27
3 Year
Total Cost
Recurring or
Nonrecurring
Fund
Affected
NMPD
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Recurring General Fund
Total
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
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) Administrative Office of the District Attorneys (AODA)
Law Office of the Public Defender (LOPD)
New Mexico Sentencing Commission (NMSC)
Crime Victims Reparation Commission (CVRC)
New Mexico Parole Board (NMPD)
Agency Analysis was Solicited but Not Received From
New Mexico Attorney General (NMAG)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Senate Bill 17
Senate Bill 17 (SB17) amends Section 31-21-10 on parole authority and procedure in several
ways. In Section 1, the bill adds language to Subsection A indicating that serving a 30-year
sentence, “shall be construed as the retributive portion of the life sentence.” Next, the bill adds
language that the parole board should consider risk and readiness as demonstrated by rule
compliance in prison, education or vocational training, maturity, rehabilitation, and “a fitness to
reenter society” in parole decisions. Further, SB17 requires that the parole board: hear from
family or representatives of the victims (if the family or representative chooses), consider
mitigating and aggravating circumstances of the offense, and consider the inmate’s criminal
history, before ordering the parole of an inmate sentenced to life imprisonment.
Senate Bill 17 – Page 2
Section 2 amends Section 31-21-24 of the Parole Board Act to change the citation from “Section
1 through 5 of this act” to “Sections 31-21-22 through 31-22-26 NMSA 1978.
Section 3 changes the criteria required to remove a member from the parole board. The law
currently states the governor may remove a member “as provided in Article 5, Section 5, of the
Constitution of New Mexico.” Instead, SB17 would change the language to allow removal “only
for incompetence, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” The bill would require that removal
follow a proceeding commenced by the board or the governor. Additionally, the law adds that
the state Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over removal of board members, and the
member may also be removed by impeachment pursuant to Article IV, Section 36, of the
Constitution of New Mexico.
Lastly, in Section 4, SB17 adds Section 31-21-25.2, “Conscientious Scheduling of Hearing in
Cases of Homicide,” requiring that the parole board not schedule hearings on the birthday or
death anniversary of a homicide victim, “when practicable.”
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
Much of the substantive change proposed by SB17 is procedural and will not carry significant
fiscal implications. The New Mexico Parole Board (NMPD) may be impacted by any hearing in
which they participate stemming from changes required by SB17. NMPD may incur the cost of
processes related to the hearing and representation in front of the Supreme Court if needed.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
The Administrative Office of Courts (AOC) states that codifying the criteria for parole of those
who have served life sentences improves transparency. AOC also argues that requiring input
from the victim’s family may be consistent with the rights of crime victims detailed in the New
Mexico Constitution, Article II, Section 24.
Regarding the amended removal process for board members, AOC states:
Parole board members serve staggered six-year terms. SB17 removes the current
provision that only refers to the governor’s authority in NM Constitution, Article V,
Section 5, to remove “any officer appointed by him unless otherwise provided by law.”
The process set forth in SB17 appears intended to exercise the Legislature’s authority to
provide a process for removal “by law.” This appears to be an authorized exercise of
legislative power. See e.g. State ex rel. NM Judicial Standards Commission v. Espinosa,
2003- NMSC-017, para. 29, upholding the governor’s authority under Section V,
Paragraph 5, to remove commissioners in the absence of limiting legislation; “Similarly,
for many executive boards the Legislature has exercised its authority to expressly limit
the governor's removal power. It has done so by specifying the reasons for which an
appointee can be removed, or by requiring notice and a hearing prior to removal. As one
of many examples, members of the lottery authority "may be removed by the governor
for malfeasance, misfeasance or willful neglect after reasonable notice and a public
hearing unless the notice and hearing are expressly waived in writing by the member." Senate Bill 17 – Page 3
NMSA 1978, § 6-24-5 (1995). For some entities the Legislature has required the consent
of two-thirds of the Senate. See Section 52-9-5 NMSA 1978 (employers mutual
company board of directors); Section 58-29-5 NMSA 1978 (2001) (small business
investment corporation). By imposing a similar limit on the governor's removal power,
the Legislature could prevent future governors from making wholesale changes to the
commission while at the same time allowing for removal for cause.”
AOC raises concerns the Legislature might not the authority to grant original jurisdiction powers
to the Supreme Court:
SB17 also states the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction and final decision
authority over proceedings to remove parole board members (Section 3.C). The New
Mexico Constitution provides in Article VI, Section 3, the “Supreme Court shall have
original jurisdiction in quo warranto and mandamus against all state officers, boards and
commissions. . .” In the Espinosa case cited above (2003-NMSC-017, para. 4) the
Supreme Court held a writ seeking relief quo warranto was appropriate to challenge the
governor’s removal authority of appointed state officials. Although the Supreme Court
has on numerous occasions upheld its authority to exercise original jurisdiction in
challenges to actions that draw parallels to removal of parole board members, it is unclear
that it is for the Legislature to confer such jurisdiction … .
The office further raises concerns about potential conflicts in the application of the parole
member removal proceedings outlined in the bill, noting board member being considered for
removal would be notified and have an opportunity for a hearing.
With SB17’s immediate reference to the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction after
establishing the opportunity to be heard, it is not clear if the bill contemplates an
evidentiary hearing in the Supreme Court, which would be highly unusual. The
circumstances for removal in the bill suggest the need for findings of fact that are
appropriate to an administrative or district court proceeding. SB17 would benefit from
clarifying where the bill contemplates the opportunity to be heard will occur.
The Administrative Office of District Attorneys (AODA) notes the addition of the clause that
says that parole board members may be removed by impeachment is likely redundant, and
members are probably already subject to this provision. AODA goes on to note the significance
of the word “only” in Section 3, Subsection C. The word “only” creates the presumption for
AODA that the intent of the bill is to “usurp the governor’s power to remove the board members
under Article V, Subsection 5. They note that in Denish v. Johnson, 1996-NMSC-005, paragraph
53, 121 NM 280, a similar provision made the governor’s removal of a member of the Board of
Regents of New Mexico Tech illegal. This limit on executive power is consistent with the
proposal in SB17.
The New Mexico Sentencing Commission (NMSC) notes variation in the processes of parole
boards across the states:
Discretionary parole for those serving life sentences is available in most states (47,
including Washington, DC, as of 2017), but the process varies widely from state to state.
New Mexico is considered one of 11 states that “continue to retain parole boards to
determine discretionary or mandatory release but have curtailed these processes for those
sentenced for certain offenses or replaced indeterminate sentences with mandatory terms
or truth-in-sentencing laws” (p. 27). See Kokkalera & Allison, “The (not so) United Senate Bill 17 – Page 4
States of Parole: A State-of-the-Art Review of Discretionary Release for Individuals
Serving Life”, Journal of Criminal Justice and Law (2024) (available at:
https://jcjl.pubpub.org/pub/parol-in-the-united-states-state-of-the-art/release/1).”
OTHER SUBSTANT IVE ISSUES
The New Mexico Crime Victims Reparation Commission notes that permitting virtual
participation in parole hearing by members and representatives of victims’ families would be
emotionally comforting and protect anonymity. Virtual participation would also prevent contact
between the family and representatives of the victim and supporters of the offender. These
factors would encourage participation in the process.
JV/hg/sgs