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 Brand
t/Sanchez/Ramos/Gallegos
LAST UPDATED
ORIGINAL DATE 03/11/2025
SHORT TITLE Prohibiting Antisemitic Discrimination
BILL
NUMBER Senate Bill 195
ANALYST Gygi
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT*
(dollars in thousands)
Agency/Program
FY25 FY26 FY27
3 Year
Total Cost
Recurring or
Nonrecurring
Fund
Affected
AOC
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Recurring General Fund
NMAG No fiscal impact No fiscal impact No fiscal impact
No fiscal
impact
Recurring General Fund
WSD No fiscal impact No fiscal impact No fiscal impact
No fiscal
impact
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) Attorney General (NMAG) Workforce Solutions Department (WSD)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Senate Bill 195
Senate Bill 195 (SB195) would add a new section in the Human Rights Act (Section 28-1-7
NMSA 1978) to include prohibitions on antisemitic discriminatory acts or communication. The
entities prohibited from this behavior include individuals, employers, public officers, and public
sector entities. Individuals who qualify for protection include (1) Jewish people, (2) those
perceived to be Jewish, (3) their property, or (4) towards Jewish institutions and religious
facilities. Individuals who claim to have received discriminatory action may file a claim for
review in accordance with the Human Rights Act.
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 Workforce Solutions Department (WSD) anticipates no additional fiscal impact if SB195 is
enacted because it already enforces applicable Human Rights Act prohibitions. The Senate Bill 195 – Page 2
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) reports its caseload could possibly increase but any
additional costs are assumed to be minimal. The Attorney General (NMAG) anticipates no fiscal
impact.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
SB195 would prohibit antisemitic discrimination through action or communication. AOC notes
there were 31 reports of antisemitism in New Mexico (24 in Albuquerque alone) in 2023, eight
in 2022 and six in 2021.
1
In the United States as a whole there were 8,873 such incidents
reported in 2023 and 3,698 in 2022.
All agencies submitting analysis point out there is ambiguity regarding the meaning of “Jewish
people” and who/what is protected. For example, AOC states:
Jewish identity has been defined as an ethnicity, a nation, a culture, a race, and/or a
religion. Not all ethnic Jewish people practice the religion. Not all practitioners of the
religion are ethnic Jewish people. Where the bill just uses the phrase “Jewish people” it
may lead to confusion as to which of the Jewish identities are included.
AOC and NMAG anticipate challenges for enforcement because of this ambiguity as well as a
potential conflict due to the legal principle of “statutory construction.” As AOC explains:
If the conduct is already prohibited, singling one group out for specific protection creates
a challenge for judges interpreting the statute. It is a rule of statutory construction that a
more specific statute controls over a more general one. Reviewing courts would then be
in a position to have to determine what special consideration should be given to the
specific group identified versus the more broadly defined general classes of people.
AOC also has concerns about conflicts with First Amendment Rights:
With all prohibitions against discrimination, not all manifestations of antisemitism are
illegal. Due to the protections of the First Amendment, sometimes instances of
antisemitic speech do not cross the line into actionable harassment or other forms of
prohibited conduct.
AOC further notes that legislation such as SB195 could harm other groups and set a precedent
for other groups to request special protections under the Human Rights Act:
Given that Jewish people may already be protected from discrimination by the current
Human Rights Act, other interest groups may feel that it is necessary to advocate for their
own specific prohibition or risk be excluded from the protections envisioned.
PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS
AOC indicates increased caseloads without additional resources potentially may impact the
following performance measures:
• Cases disposed of as a percent of cases filed, and
• Percent change in case filings by case type.
1
See Anti-Defamation League at https://www.adl.org/resources/report/audit-antisemitic-incidents-2023. Senate Bill 195 – Page 3
TECHNICAL ISSUES
NMAG notes the term “discrimination” does not match the definition of “discriminatory
practice” used in the Human Rights Act (HRA).
The HRA’s enumerated unlawful discriminatory practices contain both the prohibited
action (ex., a refusal to hire) as well as the protected classification (ex. “because of
race”). SB195 appears to operate on the prohibited actions but not the protected
classification. Combining the two terms would require a plaintiff to prove that, for
example, a defendant failed to hire the plaintiff because of antisemitism as well as his or
her race
To avoid some of the issues noted above, SB195 could retain its definition of
antisemitism and, instead of including the language in section 1(B), amend the existing
protected classifications in the unlawful discriminatory practices definitions of the HRA
to include “on the basis of antisemitism.”
ALTERNATIVES
WSD notes that:
Executive Order 2022-118
2
includes a more sophisticated approach to defining anti-
Semitism in the context of state agency actions, and it does not create potential conflicts
with the Human Rights Act.
KG/rl/SL2/hj
2
https://www.governor.state.nm.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Executive-Order-2022-118.pdf