House panel advances bill to let governments charge commercial requesters and add notice period for public-records disputes

Representative Chandler, sponsor of House Bill 283, told the committee the measure makes several modest but operational changes to the state’s Information Practices/Inspection of Public Records Act intended to ease burdens on local governments processing high volumes of requests.

Chandler said the bill would allow governments to charge “commercial requesters” — examples given included data brokers such as LexisNexis — adopt an administrative notice-and-cure framework so agencies have a chance to fix disputed responses before a requester goes to court, and set a two-year statute of limitations for suits. "We recognize more work will need to be done over the course of the summer," Chandler said, describing the bill as an initial step that would be followed by a task force to examine the statute more broadly.

The bill drew broad support from municipal officials and county leaders who described sharp growth in requests and rising staff costs. "We looked at over 200,000 individual IPRA requests from local governments, 29 cities and counties across the state," said Lisonbee Nichols of the New Mexico Municipal League, summarizing the league’s analysis and saying some cities had seen average monthly requests more than triple between 2020 and 2024. Joya Sperston, executive director of New Mexico Counties, said some counties now employ multiple full-time custodians dedicated to public-records requests.

Municipal speakers provided city-level data during public comment: the City of Santa Fe reported 10,824 requests in 2024 and said it has five dedicated staff; Albuquerque’s city clerk said the city handled 15,000 requests last year and now has roughly 30 staff working on records requests.

Journalists and transparency advocates opposed several provisions. Lucas Spearman, assistant managing editor of the Albuquerque Journal and president of the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government, said the bill "is well intentioned but potentially harmful," arguing it added "unnecessary red tape" that could deter public scrutiny. Amanda Lavin, legal director for the same foundation, said the proposal "fundamentally change[s] the way the public can access public records in New Mexico."

Key amendments and provisions

- Commercial-requester fee: Under the amended bill, requesters who certify they are seeking records for a commercial purpose would be subject to a statutory fee of $30 per hour for production after the first hour (the first hour would be free). Sponsor testimony said the fee is aimed at large, for-profit data brokers that repeatedly request broad records and repackage them for resale.

- Media exclusion: The amendment added an explicit exclusion for "online media outlets" and other journalism organizations so that journalists and recognized media outlets are not treated as commercial requesters for the fee provision; the sponsor said final definition would be addressed in later rulemaking by the attorney general.

- Notice-and-cure: The bill inserts a written-notice step. If a requester believes a response is incomplete or improperly redacted, they would give written notice to the public body; the public body then has 15 calendar days from receipt to respond and to remedy the alleged violation. Sponsors said the step is intended to encourage informal resolution before litigation.

- Statute of limitations: The measure would establish a two-year limitation period for bringing suit under the inspection of public records law; current law has no express deadline for filing such suits.

- Task force: The bill creates a task force chaired by the attorney general’s office to study IPRA and to recommend rules or administrative procedures; the sponsor said the task force would report back by Dec. 15 of the year set in the bill.

Debate and concerns

Supporters argued the reforms address a growing operational problem caused in part by new and voluminous records such as body-worn camera footage, which municipal witnesses estimated takes about two hours to review and redact for every hour of footage. Municipal League testimony said commercial data-broker requests accounted for about 15% of all requests in the sample and more than one-third in several cities, and that local governments had increased staffing for records by roughly 50% between 2020 and 2024.

Opponents warned the bill would chill access and create barriers for small businesses and transparency advocates. Christine Barber of the Foundation for Open Government said billing a small contractor thousands of dollars for routine permit information would undercut business activity; Jasmine Tydingfong of the ACLU of New Mexico urged that any commercial-purpose definition be narrowly drawn to avoid sweeping in legal and advocacy requests.

Committee action and process notes

The committee adopted a sponsor amendment clarifying the 15-calendar-day notice-and-cure language and adding the media exclusion. After extended questions and debate, Vice Chair Little moved a do-pass recommendation with no endorsement, which passed by committee vote as amended.

Why it matters

The bill would change operational practice for custodians of public records across New Mexico’s cities and counties and could alter how journalists, researchers and businesses obtain government records. Supporters say the changes would free up staff time and reduce litigation by encouraging early resolution; opponents say they risk narrowing access and introducing fees that deter legitimate requests.

What’s next

As amended, the committee issued a do-pass recommendation with no endorsement. The measure also sets up a task force chaired by the attorney general’s office to return recommendations by the deadline in the bill. The bill text as discussed in committee leaves several items for rulemaking or task-force clarification, including the final scope of the commercial-purpose definition and the media exclusion.

(Notes: The article summarizes committee discussion and public comment as recorded in the committee transcript. Where the transcript records numeric details — for example counts of requests in specific cities, staffing increases, and the $30 hourly rate — those figures are reported here as the witnesses presented them to the committee.)