[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6631988,"mediaKeyId","2676141-8b76a483ff13b2f145ee9ce1bb227b77","parentId",2676141,"title","Votes at a glance: Judiciary committee advances several bills including CPAs and salvage-title fix","audioSeconds",360,"startMs",2640000,"endMs",3000000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2676141-8b76a483ff13b2f145ee9ce1bb227b77&start=2640&end=3000","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2676141-8b76a483ff13b2f145ee9ce1bb227b77/thumbnail_2640000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6631988/New-Mexico/Votes-at-a-glance-Judiciary-committee-advances-several-bills-including-CPAs-and-salvage-title-fix","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6631988-fdb762637b24ccc29d4dae46aff67969/orig.mp4?Expires=1776148536&Signature=JLpunTYbL01eFwup4014L8bl2QHqVFIAOARHICeTalKZNOoqmqBFsWi2G-mWUQykux~TxsuP5LCQE2rlvyHX-aOaXw9mTZNe0iMkm0wng7IIjO90P~HSa3SJOnIBFI9ZH3HA9xVIckmEc8IWPj6L8GIGLMKbdnDCYtEmdXc7i6meQiiv8m4HSfAvaKl8AJHDx2Iw9haZmmmdQkKZVSFqSKMx4gBDQaTtFckrL1sLpjhIBgRQoNxOW39R8eumOLEEQ-TdwFxRbh2NtBFR~PwdVl4rl9xMUUONc4RJYhFMaMrEUi6yU2djOD4d7tpyh8h7cFNnCAQHb-bh8uQTnpWvUw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Mexico Legislature","date","2025-03-17T00:00:00Z","article","The House Judiciary Committee recorded verbal actions on several bills during the session. Where the transcript shows a formal committee outcome, the chair declared the motions carried by voice vote; no roll-call tallies were recorded.

- House Bill 296 (public-accountancy act substitute): The committee adopted a due-pass motion for a substitute that updates licensing, certification, qualifications and reciprocity for certified public accountants to address reported workforce shortages. Larry Horan, a registered lobbyist for the state society of CPAs, and Jeanette Contreras, president of the New Mexico Society of CPAs, testified in support. The committee chair noted a consensus that the state has a shortage of CPAs and the bill was reported out with a due pass motion.

- House Bill 99 (vehicle salvage-title process): The committee adopted a due-pass motion for legislation creating a standardized process enabling insurance carriers to obtain salvage titles when a vehicle has been declared a total loss and the carrier cannot obtain the title from the prior owner. The sponsor said the bill formalizes longstanding practice and has the endorsement of the Tax and Revenue Department. The committee reported the bill out by voice vote; the transcript records no objection.

The transcript indicates both bills moved forward with no recorded roll-call. Committee members and sponsors described the measures as noncontroversial in committee, with supporting testimony for each.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate - Judiciary Mar 17, 2025 4:43 PM - 6:30 PM","oneSentenceSummary","The committee advanced several bills by voice vote with no roll-call recorded: HB296 on accountancy licensing, HB99 on salvage-title procedures, in addition to bills covered in separate articles. Committee recorded no roll-call tallies in the transcript.","taxTitle","Senate, Committees, Legislative, New Mexico","taxId",29062,"location","New Mexico","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6631995,"Committee debates medical licensure compact; rulemaking, immunity and withdrawal terms spark objections",3245,1875000,5120000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2676141-8b76a483ff13b2f145ee9ce1bb227b77&start=1875&end=5120","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2676141-8b76a483ff13b2f145ee9ce1bb227b77/thumbnail_1875000.jpg","/articles/6631995/New-Mexico/Committee-debates-medical-licensure-compact-rulemaking-immunity-and-withdrawal-terms-spark-objections","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6631995-f8a86b686c60ed27103369ced9089731/orig.mp4?Expires=1776148536&Signature=gfq2Vpcs0rOBbpRnhxYERodlKN-lGy35qiOD3in5cBSMz5GxFV-5bFRh-b0Qo-5AJyvJTERJKnW5RP14kqBYxcQRiDQ9uT~UtcUA6ES8pIiSBsH7n0hv0c9BwWgRXRNfrLDWdCC9Xjgcfn2wdgd5zm1G1hewlM1asOSsie7-m3GOSWm~Qc7og6LuFIceOLthkQHGB7OsNsV5~uWc2n~dEtwENDQ3YA7sfXCCooy9cHYOv6JCKRH1SxBS9qKeFhLqSg9YJBA9dNjzXyyxjILvsilEoS4kzRiGYH1oWmh7XsKfFpgos16vd61~~Xg0tCCjdTrh3X5mRRXF3v3G7QL8Iw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Committee members engaged in detailed debate over whether the state should adopt the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact (House Bill 243), focusing on the compact’s delegated rulemaking authority, liability and immunity language, subpoena provisions and the commission’s dispute-resolution and withdrawal processes.

Representative Matthews, the bill sponsor, said the compact is intended “to have more doctors available for the citizens of our state” by expediting licensure through an interstate mechanism. Rick Masters, general counsel for the compact commission and a longtime practitioner in interstate-compact law, answered questions and described the compact as an interstate administrative instrument adopted by 43 states and territories.

Several senators raised multiple specific objections. Senator Duhigg proposed a long list of amendments to remove or alter compact language he characterized as incompatible with New Mexico law: he recommended striking the model’s purpose clause, removing references to a non-existent New Mexico “gross misdemeanor” category, deleting language that would give compact rules the force of state law, limiting or removing broad immunity provisions, narrowing the commission’s rulemaking/public-records language, and striking provisions that would require states to continue bearing costs or legal obligations after withdrawal.

Masters responded that compacts are contractual; states that materially deviate from the model statute can create enforcement problems with other member states and potentially leave the state out of the shared system. He said some suggested edits — such as timing or operational wording for withdrawal and coordination — are negotiable, but that wholesale deletion of rulemaking or immunity language could jeopardize the compact’s uniform operation across member states. He offered to work with the committee to find language that preserves state protections while keeping the compact operationally consistent with other states.

Committee members voiced several recurring concerns:
- Rulemaking: Multiple senators said they were uncomfortable delegating rulemaking authority to a multistate commission whose rules could be treated as having the force of law in New Mexico. Masters said the compact uses administrative-rule processes analogous to state agencies and that ultra vires rules would be disallowed, but committee members asked that legal guardrails be tightened in statute if New Mexico joins.
- Immunity and liability: Senators questioned broad immunity language in the model compact and whether it effectively shields commission staff and contractors from legal accountability. Masters said the commission’s intent is to align liability exposure with the member state’s limits so that members and commission staff are treated similarly to other state officials for civil-liability purposes.
- Subpoena and enforcement authority: Some senators expressed concern that the compact’s cross-state subpoena language might allow subpoenas issued in one member state to be enforced in New Mexico without ordinary judicial oversight; the committee asked for language to limit cross-state subpoenas to joint, agreed investigations and for appropriate court oversight.
- Withdrawal and effective-dates: Senators flagged provisions that would delay the legal effect of a state’s withdrawal from the compact (for instance, requiring a one-year wind-down) and questioned whether the compact could require a state to continue paying dues or fees after it has repealed membership by statute. Compact counsel said the timetable is meant to allow operational wind-down and protect licensees who depend on multistate arrangements, and offered to negotiate alternative timelines.

Other topics included the compact’s dispute-resolution and arbitration framework and the compact’s revenue and staffing model; compact counsel said the commission employs staff and collects fees, and offered to provide an annual report and budget for committee review.

Committee leadership and members said they were not ready to forward the compact and requested follow-up negotiation on the listed concerns. No final committee vote on the compact was recorded in the transcript; sponsors and compact counsel agreed to continue discussions and to circulate proposed fixes for review.","Lawmakers and compact counsel debated proposed membership in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, with senators raising concerns about commission rulemaking authority, liability/immunity language, subpoena/enforcement provisions and the compact’s withdrawal and dispute-resolution terms.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6632000,"Committee advances bill to allow DNA entry into CODIS when suspects die before charge",709,881000,1590000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2676141-8b76a483ff13b2f145ee9ce1bb227b77&start=881&end=1590","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2676141-8b76a483ff13b2f145ee9ce1bb227b77/thumbnail_881000.jpg","/articles/6632000/New-Mexico/Committee-advances-bill-to-allow-DNA-entry-into-CODIS-when-suspects-die-before-charge","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6632000-c0e7892468a563a49b87daa5dd9dbdc3/orig.mp4?Expires=1776148536&Signature=HrnpcVcol9UCjGmpNB2GH~Hs7TgIFTOWL0dlN87OSUXDFgEpCD4uTj1Vd2j~V96uhI5TcKCRAsnDHlKsrWeNx-z7SqqYnMcyBJjMwKmHzarVaOpq0QJzOxn54lGTNK3pXBlI989XjcaGT2z39KwBKSzcLlhDVfrsBgWIJWOLvIXS50-Or0XACE1~CgRnc98m-z4H9aK8sy20WNKVgCHaI8sehhXisjEtR8EZsJuZWgfxRBgHjxUKGIb8qqVrjNHlnNnPHmVDjb8x-1XkaphCog0mJJX~DElr1lEbq5FnJKr-uABt8Ohk8ho6Ru~92MIoMnGMOcmsX3EE-moCmyuERg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee voted to advance House Bill 340, a measure aimed at closing gaps that prevent law enforcement from entering otherwise-collected DNA profiles into the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) in certain circumstances.

Representative Baker, the bill's sponsor, told the committee the legislation “creates a mechanism in the unusual circumstances where someone dies after DNA has been collected, but before it can be entered in the CODIS system,” and would also “mandate automatic DNA entry for individuals who die in prison or were released before July 1997, provided the DNA was collected in accordance with law.”

Troy Wees, chief of the New Mexico State Police, testified in support and described the measure as a tool for solving cold cases and reducing investigative workload. Representative Baker cited a high-profile case in which law enforcement collected a suspect’s DNA after an arrest but could not enter it into CODIS because the suspect died before a preliminary hearing; sponsors argued that the bill would close that procedural gap and could help bring closure in other unsolved cases.

Committee members asked several procedural and policy questions. Senator Duhigg sought clarification about the statutory triggers that currently permit CODIS entry and whether the bill would lower the standard for retaining samples collected before 1997; sponsors responded that the measure is meant to address two scenarios: (1) an arrest followed by an intervening death before a preliminary hearing, and (2) individuals collected while in custody before 1997 who currently cannot be entered until release. Chief Wees said the proposal would “bring closure for families at a sooner time rather than making them wait until there's a release or the person dies in custody.”

Senator Maestas asked whether the bill creates a standalone subsection rather than amending the existing statutory section (29-3-10); sponsors said the drafters prepared it as a standalone subsection but that the compilation commission could place it into the existing code in final codification.

The committee chair and other members framed the bill as providing investigators with an additional tool to solve violent crime and to reduce wasted investigative effort. After discussion, the committee moved and adopted a due-pass motion on House Bill 340 as amended; the chair declared the motion carried after there was no objection.

The transcript records the committee's action as a voice vote with no roll-call tally recorded. Committee members and law-enforcement witnesses urged that the measure be considered by the full chamber to help resolve cold cases and deliver answers to victims’ families.","The committee approved changes to permit judges to order entry of DNA into the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) in limited circumstances and to require entry for certain individuals who died in custody or were incarcerated before 1997.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6632005,"Committee adopts amended supported-decision-making language, forwards bill for full chamber",1633,132000,1765000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2676141-8b76a483ff13b2f145ee9ce1bb227b77&start=132&end=1765","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2676141-8b76a483ff13b2f145ee9ce1bb227b77/thumbnail_132000.jpg","/articles/6632005/New-Mexico/Committee-adopts-amended-supported-decision-making-language-forwards-bill-for-full-chamber","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6632005-4018379aaed7854b7a06d80259e47a4c/orig.mp4?Expires=1776148536&Signature=fCQOTKzTTdIIypwp4P3Gxt05f2qLmmq8jVeSZiOOgyILcDr9IV8Gw5HA6tQLpFblTN76XywLTZ1bgyr79~-3zHwK-1Fc084LDNXDXh1O9pd76wfTHvSTieXvwjwCKT6QVzquB-QS4gzDYPLcMl9lckLRWcUJx~v2o2QO9QPGtNUxuC-ASd4vbhUUBdtp50Z6Lg2FmpKHxDo7tsuuzNlbTlideXl6A-ycfhGkhXYyw6eHemou5plyg5shGVpCs0PKTFgKodbo80huQgJUrvt9nybIDlMWlX-wCF8McP4~PpZADPNxIAV1QBAY5dFq0CK9MGA7sX0vPRaLxSGr4UCM2w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee voted to advance legislation that would add a statutory supported-decision-making framework as an alternative to guardianship and provide a model form for use in the state.

The measure, discussed as an amendment to House Bill 149, was presented and discussed in committee and ultimately adopted as amended. Senator Wirth, who introduced the proposed amendment language for committee consideration, said the change would create “a process whereby the judge can consider, to do something that’s less restrictive,” and that the amendment draws from existing uniform statutes and courts’ practices.

The amendment makes several substantive changes to the draft language. Among them, the committee adopted a requirement that supported-decision-making agreements follow the model statutory power-of-attorney or health-care decision forms promulgated by the Supreme Court rather than leaving an unstructured “form” to be drafted locally. The amendment also adjusted the witnessing/notary requirement: instead of allowing either two witnesses or a notary, the updated text requires two witnesses and their signatures be acknowledged by a notary public (the committee discussion referred to the mechanism used for wills).

On capacity determinations, the amendment replaced language that read “presumed to have capacity … unless otherwise determined by a court” with a medical-team standard. The adopted text defers to a decision maker’s primary care practitioner and one other qualified health professional — or a court — to determine inability to make decisions, a change supporters said would reduce the need to bring routine capacity disputes to court.

The amendment also added prohibitions and limits on supporters’ authority. As adopted, a supporter “shall not receive compensation as a result of the supporter's duties under [a] supported decision-making agreement,” and must stop serving if the supporter questions the decision maker’s capacity. The committee inserted additional prohibitions on certain acts by supporters, including “signing legal documents on behalf of the decision maker,” but later agreed to an additional qualification so that those prohibitions would not nullify an otherwise applicable power-of-attorney. Senator Brown (committee discussion) offered language making the prohibitions “subject to any authority or powers granted in a power of attorney” so that a separate power of attorney would remain effective.

Supporters of the amendment said the changes reflect work by the state’s judicial leadership and model statutes adopted elsewhere (committee members cited Arizona’s 2023 statute as an influence). Alice McGlick, a committee adviser who spoke during debate, urged adding the adjective “qualified” to the description of the additional health professional and recommended that, when mental illness or developmental disability is at issue, the second professional be someone with training in assessing functional impairment. The committee added that wording.

Representative Ferrari formally moved the amendment in committee and committee leadership said the bill would move out “with a due pass” as amended. The committee recorded no roll-call tally in the transcript; the chair declared the motion carried after there was no objection and instructed staff to prepare the revised committee report.

Committee members said they expect to continue refining technical language as the bill moves toward the floor, but several expressed support for the overall approach as a less-restrictive alternative to guardianship that preserves the decision maker’s autonomy while adding court-accessible safeguards.

The committee also discussed procedural questions — including whether the model form should be mandatory or labeled a model. Committee members agreed the Supreme Court should promulgate the form as a model, and the committee left room for minor future tweaks.

The bill was reported out of committee as amended for further consideration by the full chamber.","A House Judiciary committee voted to advance legislation adding a supported-decision-making option and model form, adopting multiple amendments addressing capacity determinations, witness/notary formalities and limitations on supporters’ compensation and authority.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Judiciary committee advances several bills including CPAs and salvage-title fix

Committee debates medical licensure compact; rulemaking, immunity and withdrawal terms spark objections

Committee advances bill to allow DNA entry into CODIS when suspects die before charge

Committee adopts amended supported-decision-making language, forwards bill for full chamber