Panel consolidates civil investigative-demand authority for attorney general; supporters call it accountability tool, critics worry about scope

House Bill 62, which would centralize civil investigative demand (CID) authority under the attorney general’s general enforcement powers, advanced from committee with a do-pass recommendation as amended following significant discussion about scope and judicial oversight.

Sponsor testimony described HB 62 as a ‘‘cleanup’’ measure to create consistency across statutes that currently grant investigatory authority in a piecemeal way. The sponsor said the bill would place CID authority in a single statutory framework so the public, courts and regulated entities understand the process for compelling documentary evidence prior to filing civil actions.

Julie Mead, general counsel for the attorney general’s office, testified that CIDs are ‘‘a useful tool’’ that allow the office to gather evidence before filing a lawsuit, narrow issues and reduce wasteful use of judicial resources. She said the bill removes scattered CID provisions from several statutes and places them under a unified procedural process.

Supporters included the ACLU of New Mexico, which said a structured investigative demand process could identify and address systemic civil-rights violations; the group urged careful monitoring of investigatory authority but noted the bill could strengthen accountability. The ACLU’s testimony referenced recent state investigations and high-profile accountability concerns.

Opponents and skeptical members of the committee raised several concerns. Committee members pressed for clarity on which statutes would be affected; Mead and the attorney general’s office provided a list that includes provisions in the Tobacco Escrow Fund, Affordable Housing Act, Charitable Solicitations Act, Unfair Practices Act, Pyramid Promotions Schemes Act, False Advertising Act and the Subdivision Act. Members also noted that the bill specifies Santa Fe district court as the venue for court review of CID applications and asked whether that would force witnesses and out-of-state entities to appear in Santa Fe for the court review. The attorney general’s office said the Santa Fe provision was intended for efficiency because many CIDs are directed at out-of-state companies and that, if a civil action were later filed, venue would lie in the jurisdiction where the subject entity resides.

Several lawmakers voiced political and practical concerns about concentrating investigatory authority, with one member saying the change felt “very broad” and expressing unease about potential political uses of expanded investigative power. Supporters argued the unified procedure adds judicial review and an appeal process that provide checks on investigatory authority.

The committee amended the bill and then passed HB 62 as amended. The transcript records a motion and roll-call; the chair announced that the committee will pass House Bill 62 as amended.

Ending: The committee advanced HB 62 with amendments. Supporters said the change would streamline investigatory procedure and provide judicial oversight; several members requested clarifying language on venue and statutory scope and noted the bill’s breadth warranted continued scrutiny.