Committee hears hours of testimony on HB44 age‑verification bill; sponsor agrees to roll for redraft

Representative Black, sponsor of HB44, told the House Commerce & Economic Development Committee the bill is intended to make it harder for minors to access explicit online material by requiring reasonable age verification for websites where roughly one third of accessible content is sexual or explicit in nature.

"I find this to be common sense," Representative Black said in opening remarks, describing the measure as narrowly targeted and modeled on similar statutes in other states.

The nut graf: The committee heard more than an hour of testimony from advocacy groups, public‑interest organizations, small business owners and individuals. Supporters argued that age verification would reduce unintentional exposure of children to graphic material and protect child development. Opponents — including booksellers, civil liberties organizations, LGBTQ and mental‑health advocates and tech trade associations — warned that the bill’s definitions are vague, the verification technology raises privacy and security risks, enforcement through civil suits is an inadequate remedy and the law may chill speech or block access to constitutionally protected material.

Supporters who testified said minors are being exposed at young ages and that the state should add protective barriers for elementary and middle‑school children. Nikki McCarty of Concerned Women for America told the committee the bill "would make it more difficult for obscene and exploitative materials to reach the eyes and minds of our children." Jody Hendricks, a local bookstore owner, and Mikayla Peterson, a youth advocate, said that early exposure to violent sexual material causes harm and that age verification is an accepted mitigation.

Opponents raised implementation and civil‑liberties concerns. Deborah Condit, owner of Books on the Bosque, said the bill’s identity‑assurance requirement (citing NIST Level 2 methods) would force small online retailers to collect personal IDs and biometric data, a cost and privacy risk she said would effectively stop their online sales. "These measures would be impossible for us to implement and would stop any traffic from any person going to our website, minor or not," Condit testified.

Civil‑liberties and library groups — represented in testimony by the ACLU of New Mexico, the Free Speech Coalition and Equality New Mexico — argued the draft’s scope and the private civil enforcement mechanism risk creating a chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech and would push users to outlets outside state jurisdiction. ACLU witness Tashana Prieto said age‑gating proposals pose "numerous threats to our online privacy and safety" and urged education and parental controls as preferred tools.

Health and youth advocates said the bill could inadvertently block medically accurate information. Gabrielle Dietrich of NAMI New Mexico said vague definitions could prevent LGBTQ and especially transgender youth from finding lifesaving health information online. Several maternal‑health and breastfeeding advocates warned that the text’s terminology risks labeling nonsexual health information as explicit.

Committee members asked detailed technical and legal questions about how the bill would measure the percentage of explicit content (by file count, content hours or other metrics), which online platforms are covered and how identity‑assurance systems would operate. Representative Murphy asked whether the department of justice or another state agency would enforce the law; the sponsor said enforcement is civil and that the bill relies on private suits and civil remedies — an approach the sponsor said was chosen to reduce constitutional risk and litigation exposure.

After roughly an hour and a half of public testimony and a wide-ranging discussion in committee, the committee chair asked the sponsor whether he wished to proceed as drafted. Representative Black agreed to roll the bill for further work with stakeholders. "Of course, I would love to roll this bill," he said; the chair announced the bill would be rolled for redrafting and further stakeholder engagement.

Ending: The committee did not vote on HB44. The sponsor committed to work with legal and technical stakeholders and opponents to refine definitions, narrow exemptions and address privacy, enforcement and feasibility concerns before returning with revised language.