Senate panel advances anti‑hazing bill for higher education after removing K–12 language; bill moves to judiciary 4–3

Senate Bill 148, the Anti‑Hazing Act, was amended in the New Mexico Senate Education Committee to remove references to K–12 public schools and to apply the proposed criminal and institutional provisions to institutions of higher education. After debate over felony-level penalties and institutional sanctions, the committee voted 4–3 to give the bill a do‑pass recommendation to the Judiciary Committee.

Sponsor Senator Maestas described the bill as a response to serious hazing incidents and said it creates criminal and civil remedies alongside institutional obligations. Sean Sullivan, representing the New Mexico Department of Justice, explained the committee amendment that removed “public school” references in ten places: “The effect of that amendment is to remove a K through 12 application to K through 12 schools in this bill. The bill as amended would only apply to higher education institutions,” he said.

Committee members and witnesses debated penalty levels. The bill as presented ties criminal severity to resulting harm: misdemeanor hazing for basic violations and enhanced felony charges where hazing causes great bodily harm or death. Sponsor and DOJ representatives argued indexing penalty severity to resulting harm is appropriate; opponents urged caution about criminalizing students and said existing criminal statutes (assault, battery, sexual offenses) already address some conduct.

Supporters included Stephanie Rodriguez, New Mexico cabinet secretary of higher education, who said, “New Mexico is 1 of 6 states in the books that does not have criminalized hazing in some form,” and urged passage. University of New Mexico student‑life staff and fraternity and sorority advisers testified in favor and asked for funding for prevention education; Chris Brooks, UNM fraternity and sorority advisor, offered model training modules and said a modest education budget would help deliver prevention programming. Parents who described personal tragedies also spoke in support.

Opponents included representatives from the Office of the Public Defender and the ACLU’s New Mexico office. Public Defender counsel Ricky Lee Chavez said the office supported prevention but opposed creating a new criminal offense for behavior that might already be covered by existing law and warned about the long‑term consequences for young people entering the criminal system. Jasmine Teidingfong of ACLU New Mexico said civil remedies and institutional education should be emphasized in place of broad criminalization and raised concerns about institutional discretion to withhold scholarships or awards.

Committee amendments adopted earlier in the hearing removed K–12 references and struck a contested reference to “junior varsity” and “varsity” to keep the text focused on student organizations; the sponsor accepted those technical changes. A later amendment offered by Senator Pope to remove felony escalations was not adopted after debate.

After final discussion the committee voted 4–3 to send SB148 to Judiciary. Committee members said they expect further legal and drafting work in Judiciary and welcomed continued stakeholder engagement on implementation details such as reporting, training funding and protections for anonymous reporting.

Ending: The bill will be considered next by the Judiciary Committee, where sponsors and opponents said they expect additional changes and discussion on penalties, reporting and institutional responsibilities.