The New Mexico Legislative Council Service is responsible for providing research, bill drafting, and other legislative support services to the New Mexico Legislature. A core function involves ensuring that proposed legislation aligns with constitutional mandates and existing statutory frameworks. When drafting legislation that impacts the distribution of state funds, particularly those derived from severance taxes, a critical consideration is the constitutional prohibition against the state engaging in the business of making appropriations for local improvements or private enterprises. Article 4, Section 31 of the New Mexico Constitution states, “The legislature shall not pass local or private bills in any of the cases enumerated in section eight of this article, nor shall the legislature appropriate money for the payment of the debt or obligation of any county, school district, or political subdivision, or any private corporation or individual, nor shall the legislature authorize any county, city, town or township to incur debt or liability, nor shall the legislature appropriate money for the payment of the debt or obligation of any county, school district, or political subdivision, or any private corporation or individual.” This prohibition is designed to prevent the state from directly funding local projects or private ventures, thereby maintaining a clear separation of governmental functions and preventing potential favoritism or misuse of state resources. Instead, funding for such initiatives typically flows through established intergovernmental agreements, grants, or other mechanisms that adhere to constitutional boundaries. Therefore, a bill drafted to directly allocate severance tax revenue to a specific municipal park renovation project would likely be considered an unconstitutional appropriation for a local improvement.

The New Mexico Legislature’s Committee Substitute for House Bill 123 (CS/HB 123) aims to amend the New Mexico Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Specifically, it proposes to introduce a new section, \( \S 14-4-20.1 \), which would require state agencies to provide a detailed “impact statement” for all proposed rules exceeding a certain threshold of regulatory burden. This impact statement must include an analysis of economic effects, a review of alternative regulatory approaches, and a justification for the chosen regulatory path, demonstrating that it is the least burdensome means to achieve the statutory objective. The bill also mandates that such impact statements be published alongside the proposed rule in the New Mexico Register and be subject to a 60-day public comment period, an extension from the current 30-day period for rules requiring an impact statement. The legislative intent behind this provision is to enhance transparency and accountability in the rulemaking process, ensuring that the public and regulated entities have a comprehensive understanding of the rationale and consequences of new regulations before they are adopted. This aligns with broader principles of good governance and administrative efficiency by fostering informed public participation and encouraging agencies to consider the full spectrum of potential consequences. The APA, as it currently stands, does not mandate this level of detailed pre-adoption analysis for all proposed rules, making the proposed amendment a significant procedural shift. The specific threshold for when an impact statement is required would be defined by the State Budget Division in consultation with the Legislative Finance Committee, based on projected annual compliance costs.

The question concerns the application of the New Mexico Administrative Procedures Act (APA) regarding the effective date of administrative rules when no specific effective date is provided in the rule itself. New Mexico law, specifically the New Mexico APA, dictates that if an agency rule does not specify an effective date, it becomes effective on the 60th day after the last day of the legislative session in which the rule was filed with the State Records Center. The legislative session in New Mexico typically adjourns on the third Thursday of February in even-numbered years and on the last day of a 60-day session in odd-numbered years. For the purpose of this question, we assume the legislative session adjourned on the last day of February 2023, which was February 28, 2023. Therefore, counting 60 days from February 28, 2023, leads to April 29, 2023. The calculation is as follows: Days remaining in February after adjournment: 28 – 28 = 0 days. Days in March: 31 days. Days in April: 29 days (to reach the 60th day). Total days: 0 + 31 + 29 = 60 days. Thus, the rule becomes effective on April 29, 2023. This principle ensures that rules have a predictable and publicly known timeline for implementation, allowing regulated entities and the public adequate notice. The APA aims to provide transparency and due process in the promulgation of administrative rules. The specific timeframe of 60 days is a common feature in administrative law across various states to allow for review and preparation before a rule takes effect.

The core principle being tested here is the proper application of the New Mexico Sunshine Law (specifically, the Inspection of Public Records Act, NMSA 1978, § 14-3-1 et seq.) and its exceptions in the context of legislative drafting. When a legislative body or its committees are deliberating on a matter that could foreseeably lead to the introduction of a bill, preliminary discussions, drafts, or analyses that are not yet considered final working documents may still be subject to public disclosure. However, certain communications or documents that constitute attorney-client privilege, deliberative process privilege (though this is more complex at the state legislative level than federal executive), or are specifically exempted by statute are protected. In this scenario, the committee’s internal drafting sessions, where proposed amendments are being formulated and debated prior to any formal introduction or public hearing, are generally considered part of the legislative process. While the Sunshine Law mandates openness, it recognizes that some internal deliberations, especially those involving legal advice or sensitive policy considerations not yet ready for public consumption, may be shielded. The key is whether the information sought is a record of governmental action or a protected deliberative process. In New Mexico, the Inspection of Public Records Act is broad, but the legislative process often involves stages where internal drafting and policy formulation occur before public disclosure is mandated or even feasible. The question hinges on identifying which of the provided scenarios most accurately reflects a situation where records might be withheld under established legal principles applicable to legislative drafting in New Mexico, balancing transparency with the practicalities of crafting legislation. The scenario involving the legislative counsel’s confidential advice on potential constitutional challenges to a proposed bill directly invokes attorney-client privilege, a well-recognized exception to public disclosure laws. This privilege protects communications between public officials and their legal advisors when seeking legal advice. Therefore, the records of these specific discussions would likely be exempt from public disclosure under the Inspection of Public Records Act. Other scenarios might involve records that are more clearly public, such as meeting minutes or final drafted versions.

The New Mexico Legislative Council Service (LCS) plays a crucial role in assisting the legislature with bill drafting and legal research. When a legislator decides to introduce a bill, the LCS is tasked with transforming the legislator’s policy idea into a legally sound and properly formatted bill. This process involves several stages, including consultation with the legislator to understand the intent and scope of the proposed legislation, researching existing New Mexico statutes and case law to ensure consistency and avoid conflicts, and drafting the bill in compliance with the rules of legislative procedure and the LCS Style Manual. The LCS must also consider the potential fiscal impact of the bill, though the actual fiscal impact analysis is typically conducted by other legislative agencies like the Legislative Finance Committee. The drafting process requires a deep understanding of statutory construction, constitutional law, and administrative law within New Mexico. The final draft must clearly articulate the legislative intent, define terms precisely, and specify the operative provisions and effective dates. It is not the role of the LCS to lobby for the bill or to secure co-sponsors, although they may provide information to assist the legislator in these endeavors. The primary focus remains on the technical and legal accuracy of the bill’s text.

The question concerns the legislative process in New Mexico, specifically the requirements for overriding a gubernatorial veto. In New Mexico, Article IV, Section 22 of the Constitution of New Mexico addresses the process of vetoing and overriding legislation. If the Governor vetoes a bill, the Legislature has the opportunity to reconsider it. To override a veto, the bill must receive a two-thirds vote of the members elected to each house. This means that in the New Mexico House of Representatives, which has 70 members, a two-thirds vote requires at least 47 affirmative votes (\(70 \times \frac{2}{3} \approx 46.67\), rounded up to 47). Similarly, in the New Mexico Senate, which has 42 members, a two-thirds vote requires at least 28 affirmative votes (\(42 \times \frac{2}{3} = 28\)). Therefore, for a bill to become law over a gubernatorial veto, both the House and the Senate must achieve this supermajority threshold. The explanation focuses on the constitutional provision governing veto overrides, emphasizing the specific supermajority requirement for both legislative chambers in New Mexico. This process is designed to ensure significant legislative consensus is needed to enact a bill when the executive branch opposes it.

The core principle being tested here is the concept of legislative intent and how it is determined, particularly in the context of New Mexico’s statutory framework. When a statute’s language is ambiguous or unclear, courts and legislative drafters look to various sources to ascertain the legislature’s original purpose in enacting the law. These sources, often referred to as aids to construction, include legislative history, committee reports, floor debates, and the plain meaning of the words used in the statute. The goal is to understand what the legislature intended to achieve with the legislation. For instance, if a new tax provision in New Mexico is enacted to stimulate a specific industry, and its wording could be interpreted to apply to a broader range of businesses, a drafter or court would examine the legislative history to see if the intent was narrowly focused. This might involve reviewing testimony before legislative committees, statements made by the bill’s sponsor during floor debates, or reports from legislative service bureaus that analyze the bill’s impact. The weight given to each of these sources can vary, but generally, explicit statements of purpose or intent within the legislative process carry significant weight. The principle is to interpret the law in a manner that gives effect to the legislature’s will, rather than creating an unintended outcome through misinterpretation of the statutory text. This approach ensures that laws are applied consistently with the policy objectives that motivated their creation.

The core principle being tested is the legislative intent behind the creation of a specific statutory provision and how that intent guides interpretation when the statutory language is ambiguous. In New Mexico, as in most common law jurisdictions, legislative intent is paramount. When drafting legislation, drafters aim to clearly articulate the purpose and scope of the law. However, unforeseen circumstances or evolving societal norms can lead to situations where the existing statutory language does not perfectly address a new factual scenario. In such cases, courts and legislative drafters look to the legislative history, committee reports, floor debates, and the overall purpose of the act to ascertain what the legislature intended to achieve. This process is crucial for ensuring that statutes are applied in a manner consistent with their original goals, even when faced with novel applications. Understanding the foundational purpose of a law, such as promoting public safety or ensuring fair competition, allows for a more accurate and just application of its provisions. The legislative drafting process itself involves extensive research into existing problems and the desired outcomes, all of which contribute to the legislative intent that underpins statutory interpretation. Therefore, when faced with an interpretive challenge, the most effective approach is to return to the source of the law: the legislature’s stated or implied purpose.

The New Mexico Legislative Council Service (LCS) is responsible for providing staff support to the Legislature, including bill drafting. A core function involves ensuring that proposed legislation adheres to constitutional requirements and existing statutory law. When drafting legislation, particularly amendments to existing statutes, a critical consideration is the principle of “germane” or “related” subject matter. This principle, often derived from constitutional provisions or established case law, dictates that an amendment must be relevant to the subject of the original bill or the section of law being amended. Introducing entirely unrelated provisions can lead to constitutional challenges, such as a violation of single-subject rules or prohibitions against “logrolling” (combining unrelated measures to gain votes). In New Mexico, Article IV, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution states that “no bill shall be so amended as to change its original purpose.” This means that a bill initially intended to regulate water rights in the Pecos River basin cannot be amended to include provisions for state park funding, as the latter is unrelated to the former’s original purpose. The LCS must carefully review proposed amendments to ensure they maintain a logical and legal connection to the bill’s core intent and the statutory framework it seeks to modify. The correct approach involves identifying the primary purpose of the original legislation and ensuring any proposed changes directly relate to or further that purpose, without introducing extraneous matters.

The core principle here relates to the legislative process in New Mexico, specifically concerning the amendments to existing statutes. When a bill proposes to amend a section of the New Mexico Statutes Annotated (NMSA), the amendment must clearly identify the section being altered. This is crucial for clarity, notice, and legal precision. The legislative drafting manual for New Mexico emphasizes that amendments should not introduce entirely new subject matter or repeal existing law through implication without explicit language. The proposed amendment to NMSA 1978, Section 14-3-1, which deals with the publication of municipal ordinances, is problematic because it seeks to modify this section by adding a new subsection (B) that pertains to the electronic archiving of legislative records. While electronic archiving is a relevant legislative topic, its direct amendment of a statute governing municipal ordinance publication, without a clear nexus or a broader restructuring of the publication or archiving laws, raises questions of germaneness and proper legislative practice. The legislative intent is best served by ensuring that amendments are directly related to the subject matter of the section being amended. Introducing a provision on electronic archiving into a section on municipal ordinance publication, without a more integrated approach, can be seen as introducing extraneous material. Therefore, the most appropriate legislative action would be to introduce a new bill dedicated to electronic archiving of legislative records, or to amend a different section of the statutes that more directly addresses record management and archiving. This ensures that each bill has a singular, clear purpose and that amendments are narrowly tailored to the provisions they modify, adhering to principles of good legislative drafting and avoiding substantive changes through tangential amendments.

The New Mexico Legislature operates under a bicameral system, with a Senate and a House of Representatives. The process of enacting legislation involves several stages, including introduction, committee review, floor debate, and passage by both chambers. Once a bill has passed both the Senate and the House in identical form, it is presented to the Governor for approval or veto. The Governor has ten days (excluding Sundays) to act on a bill. If the Governor signs the bill, it becomes law. If the Governor vetoes the bill, it does not become law unless the Legislature overrides the veto. A veto override requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. If the Governor neither signs nor vetoes the bill within the ten-day period, and the Legislature is still in session, the bill automatically becomes law without the Governor’s signature. However, if the ten-day period expires while the Legislature is adjourned, the bill does not become law. This is known as a pocket veto. In this scenario, the bill passed both houses on April 3rd. The Governor received the bill on April 4th. The legislative session adjourned sine die on April 5th. Therefore, the ten-day period for the Governor to act would expire on April 14th (April 4th + 10 days, excluding Sundays). Since the Legislature adjourned on April 5th, before the ten-day period expired, the Governor can effectively pocket veto the bill by taking no action. Thus, the bill will not become law.

The question concerns the principle of legislative intent and how it is determined when drafting statutes in New Mexico. Legislative intent is the primary guide for statutory interpretation. When the language of a statute is ambiguous or unclear, courts and drafters look to various sources to ascertain what the legislature intended when enacting the law. These sources include the plain language of the statute itself, legislative history (such as committee reports, floor debates, and sponsor statements), and the context in which the statute was passed. The New Mexico Constitution and the New Mexico Statutes Annotated provide guidance on statutory construction. Specifically, the Legislative Council Service (LCS) plays a crucial role in assisting legislators with bill drafting, which inherently involves understanding and articulating legislative intent. The LCS would consider the legislative history, the purpose of the bill as articulated by its sponsor, and the specific wording to ensure the drafted language accurately reflects the intended outcome. For instance, if a bill aims to regulate a new technology, the drafter would consult with stakeholders, review similar legislation in other states, and analyze the sponsor’s stated goals to capture the precise intent. The process involves not just stating a goal but translating that goal into legally operative language that is clear, unambiguous, and enforceable. The ultimate aim is to create a statute that is consistent with the overall legal framework of New Mexico and achieves the desired public policy objective. The process of drafting requires a deep understanding of how courts will interpret the law, emphasizing the importance of precision and clarity in statutory language.

The core principle at play here is the concept of statutory interpretation, specifically focusing on the hierarchy of legislative intent and the role of legislative history in resolving ambiguity. When a statute is unclear or its application is disputed, courts look to various sources to discern the legislature’s intent. The plain meaning rule, which prioritizes the ordinary and grammatical meaning of words, is the primary tool. However, if the plain meaning is ambiguous or leads to an absurd result, courts may consult legislative history. New Mexico, like many states, considers legislative history, which includes committee reports, floor debates, and sponsor statements, as persuasive evidence of intent. The New Mexico Legislature’s own rules and practices, as well as judicial precedent, guide the weight given to different forms of legislative history. In this scenario, the conflicting interpretations of “reasonable accommodation” for a disability under the New Mexico Human Rights Act necessitate an examination of the legislative record. The legislative intent behind the amendment, as evidenced by committee discussions and the sponsor’s statements, would be crucial. If the amendment explicitly aimed to broaden protections beyond federal interpretations, this would guide the interpretation. The explanation would detail how a legislative drafter would approach such an ambiguity by researching the legislative history of the specific amendment to the New Mexico Human Rights Act, looking for committee reports, statements by the bill’s sponsor, and records of floor debates to ascertain the intended scope of “reasonable accommodation” in the context of disability. This research would inform the drafting of any clarifying language or the interpretation of existing provisions, ensuring alignment with the legislative will.

The New Mexico Legislature, in its role of creating statutory law, must adhere to constitutional mandates and established legislative practice. When drafting a bill that proposes to amend an existing statute, the drafter must clearly identify the specific section or subsection of the New Mexico Statutes Annotated (NMSA) that is being modified. The principle of specificity is paramount to ensure that the amendment is unambiguous and that the legislative intent is readily understood. Failure to precisely pinpoint the section to be amended can lead to confusion, interpretation disputes, and potentially render the amendment ineffective or invalid. Therefore, the correct legislative drafting practice involves referencing the precise NMSA designation. For instance, if a bill aims to change a provision within the “Public Health Act,” it would need to specify the exact chapter, article, and section number, such as NMSA 1978, § 24-1-1, or a more granular subsection if applicable. This meticulous referencing ensures that the amendment is integrated correctly into the existing body of law and that its scope is clearly defined.

The question pertains to the principle of germane amendments in New Mexico legislative drafting, specifically concerning bills introduced in the House of Representatives. A germane amendment is one that is relevant and pertinent to the subject matter of the bill it seeks to amend. New Mexico’s legislative rules, particularly Rule 15-1-10 of the House Rules, govern the admissibility of amendments. This rule generally requires amendments to be germane to the subject matter of the bill. If a proposed amendment introduces entirely new subject matter or is unrelated to the existing provisions of the bill, it would likely be deemed non-germane and out of order. For instance, if a bill concerns the regulation of educational standards in New Mexico public schools, an amendment proposing to change zoning laws for commercial properties in Santa Fe would be considered non-germane because it addresses a distinct and unrelated subject. The purpose of the germaneness rule is to prevent the “logrolling” or “pork-barrel” tactics where unrelated provisions are attached to a bill to gain passage, thereby maintaining the integrity and focus of the legislative process. A skilled legislative drafter must anticipate potential amendments and ensure that the bill’s structure and content are robust enough to withstand challenges based on germaneness, or conversely, understand when to propose amendments that are clearly within the scope of the original bill’s intent and subject matter.

The core principle being tested here is the distinction between a bill and a memorial in the New Mexico legislative process, specifically concerning their legal effect and purpose. A bill, upon passage and enactment, becomes law, creating binding legal obligations, rights, or prohibitions. New Mexico Statutes Annotated (NMSA) Chapter 3, Article 4, governs the legislative process, including the form and effect of bills. Memorials, conversely, are generally expressions of sentiment, requests, or directives to governmental bodies or officials, but they do not carry the force of law. They are often used to convey the legislature’s opinion on a matter or to request specific actions that do not require statutory authority. Therefore, a document that proposes to amend existing statutes or create new statutory provisions, as described, is inherently a bill. The scenario clearly outlines the intent to change the law, which is the fundamental purpose of a bill. The other options describe documents that do not have the force of law or are not the primary vehicle for substantive legal change. A resolution, while having some binding effect within the legislature or on its internal procedures, does not typically amend state law in the way a bill does. An executive order is issued by the governor and operates independently of the legislative process, although it can be subject to legislative oversight or challenge. A joint resolution, while passed by both houses, often has a more limited scope than a bill, frequently used for constitutional amendments or to ratify federal actions, but the scenario’s focus on amending statutes points directly to a bill.

The core principle being tested here is the proper application of legislative intent and statutory construction when interpreting amendments to existing New Mexico law. When a legislative act amends a specific section of prior law, the amendment is generally understood to modify only that particular section, unless the amendatory language clearly indicates a broader intent to repeal or replace the entire original act or a larger portion of it. In this scenario, the 2023 amendment to Section 14-3-1 of the New Mexico Statutes Annotated (NMSA) specifically targets subsection (B) concerning the definition of “public meeting.” The amendment’s text, “amending subsection B to read: ‘B. Public meeting means a gathering of a quorum of members of a governmental body…'”, demonstrates a precise surgical change to that specific subsection. It does not contain language that purports to repeal or rewrite Section 14-3-1 in its entirety, nor does it suggest an intent to alter other unrelated subsections that might exist within that section. Therefore, the principle of limited amendment applies, meaning only the designated subsection is affected by the legislative action. This adherence to the specific language of the amendment is crucial for maintaining the integrity and predictability of statutory law, ensuring that changes are precisely what the legislature intended and not broader than expressed. The process of legislative drafting requires meticulous attention to the scope and effect of amendments to avoid unintended consequences or ambiguities in the law.

The New Mexico Legislature operates under a biennial session system. This means that regular sessions convene in odd-numbered years. A regular session can last for a maximum of 30 days in even-numbered years and 60 days in odd-numbered years. The Governor of New Mexico has the authority to call special sessions. These special sessions are limited to 30 days and can address specific issues designated by the Governor. During a regular session, the Legislature can consider any matter within its constitutional purview. However, during a special session, the scope of legislative action is restricted to the subjects specified in the Governor’s proclamation calling the session. This distinction is crucial for understanding the legislative process in New Mexico, as it dictates the types of bills that can be introduced and acted upon at different times. The constitutional framework ensures that the Legislature’s powers are exercised within defined parameters, balancing the need for legislative action with the Governor’s executive oversight.

The principle of germane amendments in legislative drafting, particularly in New Mexico, dictates that amendments must be relevant to the subject matter of the bill being amended. This ensures that legislation remains focused and avoids the practice of “logrolling” or attaching unrelated provisions to a bill to gain support. New Mexico law, specifically through legislative rules and interpretations of constitutional provisions regarding single subjects in bills, guides this principle. An amendment that broadens the scope of the original bill beyond its stated purpose, or introduces entirely new and disconnected subjects, would likely be considered not germane. For instance, if a bill concerns the regulation of solar energy installations, an amendment proposing changes to property tax rates for commercial buildings unrelated to solar energy would not be germane. The question tests the understanding of this core drafting principle by presenting a scenario where an amendment’s relevance is questioned. The correct answer identifies the amendment that most clearly deviates from the original bill’s subject matter, thereby violating the germane amendment rule.

The core principle tested here is the legislative intent behind amendments to the New Mexico Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), specifically concerning the establishment and modification of child support orders when a child resides in a different state. New Mexico, like all states, adopted UIFSA to streamline child support enforcement across state lines. Section 40-5A-205 of the New Mexico Statutes Annotated (NMSA 1978) addresses the jurisdiction of New Mexico courts to establish a child support order when the child does not reside in New Mexico. This section, consistent with the federal mandate of UIFSA, establishes that New Mexico courts may exercise jurisdiction to establish a support order if New Mexico is the child’s home state or was the child’s home state within the past five years, among other criteria. However, the question pivots to a modification scenario. NMSA 1978, Section 40-5A-611, governs the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child support order. It states that a tribunal of this state that has issued a child support order consistent with Section 40-5A-205 or 40-5A-206 has the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify that order until it determines that neither the child, the child’s parent, nor the child’s other parent nor any individual obligor with a substantially similar relationship to the child has resided in this state for a continuous period of six months and that either the child, a child who is a minor when the matter is before the tribunal for modification, or one of the parents or an individual obligor with a substantially similar relationship to the child resides in this state. In the given scenario, the child and the custodial parent have resided in Colorado for three years, and the non-custodial parent (obligor) resides in New Mexico. For New Mexico to retain jurisdiction to modify the existing order, it must be the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. This jurisdiction is lost if the child and at least one parent no longer reside in New Mexico for a continuous period of six months. Since the child and custodial parent have lived in Colorado for three years, and there’s no indication the non-custodial parent has also left New Mexico, the critical factor for losing continuing exclusive jurisdiction is the absence of the child and *a* parent from New Mexico for that six-month period. The presence of the obligor in New Mexico does not maintain the state’s continuing exclusive jurisdiction over modification if the child and the custodial parent have established a new home state and the child has not resided in New Mexico for the specified duration. Therefore, New Mexico would likely no longer have continuing exclusive jurisdiction to modify the child support order. The correct answer is that New Mexico would not have continuing exclusive jurisdiction.

The core principle tested here is the legislative power of the Governor of New Mexico concerning bills passed by the Legislature. Article IV, Section 22 of the New Mexico Constitution outlines the Governor’s options upon receiving a bill: sign it into law, veto it, or allow it to become law without signature if the Legislature is in session. If the Legislature adjourns, the Governor has ten days (excluding Sundays) to act; if no action is taken, the bill does not become law. In this scenario, the Legislature adjourned on April 5th. The Governor received the bill on April 6th. The ten-day period for action, excluding Sundays, begins on April 7th. Counting ten days from April 7th, excluding Sunday, April 9th, and Sunday, April 16th, brings us to April 19th. Since the Governor did not sign or veto the bill by April 19th, and the Legislature was adjourned, the bill fails to become law. This is commonly referred to as a “pocket veto” in some jurisdictions, though New Mexico law simply states it does not become law. Understanding the precise timeline and the impact of legislative adjournment on the Governor’s veto power is crucial for legislative drafting and analysis in New Mexico. The drafting of legislation must anticipate these constitutional provisions to ensure intended outcomes.

The scenario describes a proposed amendment to the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Act. When drafting legislation that amends existing statutes, precision in referencing the specific sections being altered is paramount. The amendment targets subsection B of Section 74-2-5 of the New Mexico Statutes Annotated (NMSA). This means that only the provisions within that specific subsection are subject to modification or repeal. The act of amending a particular subsection does not, by itself, implicitly or explicitly alter other subsections or sections of the same act unless the amendment language explicitly states such a broader effect. Therefore, the amendment’s scope is strictly limited to the content of NMSA 74-2-5(B). The core principle here is that legislative amendments are precise surgical instruments, affecting only what is specified. Any broader interpretation would require explicit language to that effect, such as a clause repealing or modifying an entire section or multiple subsections. In this case, the language “amends subsection B of Section 74-2-5” confines the legislative action to that singular part of the statute.

The core principle being tested here is the legislative intent behind the New Mexico Open Meetings Act, specifically as it pertains to the “notice” requirement for public bodies. The Act, codified in NMSA 1978, Chapter 10, Article 15, mandates that public bodies provide reasonable public notice of all meetings. This notice must be sufficient to inform interested parties of the time, place, and agenda of the meeting. The concept of “reasonable notice” is not defined by a strict number of hours or days but is interpreted based on the nature of the public body, the anticipated complexity of the agenda, and the typical means by which the public accesses such information. For a regular monthly meeting of a state agency with a predictable schedule, a shorter notice period might be deemed reasonable if it is consistently applied and easily accessible. However, for an emergency or special meeting, or a meeting with a highly complex or unusual agenda, a longer notice period would generally be expected to fulfill the spirit of the Act, which is to ensure transparency and public participation. The question focuses on the practical application of this principle by a specific entity, the New Mexico Board of Pharmacy, and requires an understanding of how the Act’s general requirement translates to a specific regulatory body’s operational procedures. The scenario highlights the tension between administrative efficiency and the public’s right to know and participate. The effectiveness of a notice is measured by its ability to actually inform the public, considering the usual channels of communication for that particular body.

The core principle being tested is the requirement for legislative bills in New Mexico to be introduced in a manner that clearly distinguishes between existing law and proposed changes. This is achieved through specific drafting conventions. When amending an existing statute, the proposed new language is typically underscored, and language to be deleted is indicated by striking through it or enclosing it in brackets. However, when introducing entirely new provisions that do not amend existing text directly but rather create a new section or chapter, these conventions are not used. Instead, the new text is presented plainly. The question posits a scenario where a bill proposes to create a new section within the New Mexico Statutes Annotated (NMSA) that does not repeal or amend any existing law. Therefore, the appropriate drafting method is to present the new language without any special markings indicating deletion or insertion, as there is no existing text being modified. The other options represent methods used for amending existing law, not for introducing wholly new statutory provisions.

The scenario describes a bill that proposes to amend an existing New Mexico statute. Legislative drafting in New Mexico, as in most states, follows a structured process to ensure clarity, consistency, and adherence to legal principles. When drafting an amendment, the primary goal is to clearly indicate what part of the existing law is being changed, added, or removed. This is typically achieved through specific drafting conventions. Section 2 of the proposed bill aims to modify a specific subsection of the New Mexico Statutes Annotated (NMSA) 1978, § 3-10-5. The phrase “shall be amended to read as follows” is a standard legislative preamble used to signal that the subsequent text will replace the existing language of the cited provision. The content following this phrase is the new wording intended for the statute. Therefore, the correct drafting approach is to present the proposed new language directly after this introductory clause, ensuring that the entirety of the original subsection is replaced by the new text as intended by the bill’s sponsor. This method avoids ambiguity and clearly communicates the legislative intent to modify the statute.

The core principle tested here is the procedural requirement for amending existing New Mexico statutes. When a bill seeks to amend a statute, it must clearly identify the section or sections to be changed and specify the exact language to be added or deleted. This is not merely about stating an intent to amend but about providing the precise textual alterations. New Mexico law, particularly the statutes governing legislative procedure and bill drafting, mandates this specificity to ensure clarity and avoid ambiguity in the enacted law. A bill that purports to amend a statute but fails to set forth the specific language of the amendment, or that attempts to repeal and reenact a section without clearly indicating the new text, would be procedurally deficient. The legislative counsel’s office, responsible for bill drafting, adheres to these strict requirements to maintain the integrity of the legislative process and the clarity of New Mexico’s codified laws. Therefore, a bill that proposes to amend a statute by simply referencing the statute’s number and stating “shall be amended to read as provided in this act” without further textual specification would not meet the standard for a valid amendment. The act must contain the specific text of the amendment itself.

The principle of germane amendments in legislative drafting, particularly within the context of New Mexico, dictates that amendments must relate directly to the subject matter of the bill being amended. This ensures that legislation remains focused and avoids the practice of “logrolling” or attaching unrelated provisions to a bill to gain support. New Mexico law, specifically through legislative rules and established practice, adheres to this principle. When considering an amendment to an existing statute, the amendment must pertain to the specific section or subject that the original statute addresses. For instance, if a bill amends a section of the New Mexico Uniform Licensing Act concerning the licensing of real estate brokers, an amendment to that bill must also relate to real estate broker licensing or a closely associated aspect of the Uniform Licensing Act as it pertains to that specific section. An amendment that introduces entirely new subject matter, such as provisions related to environmental regulations or public education funding, would be considered not germane. The legislative counsel’s office and presiding officers are responsible for ruling on the germaneness of proposed amendments. The rationale is to maintain the integrity of the legislative process, ensuring that each bill has a clear purpose and that the public and legislators understand the scope of proposed changes.

The New Mexico Legislature operates under a constitutional framework that dictates the process of bill introduction, amendment, and passage. Article IV of the New Mexico Constitution outlines these procedures. Specifically, Section 15 addresses the amendment of bills, stating that “no bill shall be amended so as to change its original purpose.” This principle is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the legislative process and ensuring that proposed legislation is not fundamentally altered in a way that misleads the public or bypasses proper scrutiny. When a bill is introduced, its core intent is established. Subsequent amendments must be germane to this original purpose. If an amendment fundamentally alters the bill’s objective, it could be deemed unconstitutional or procedurally improper, potentially leading to its rejection or invalidation. For instance, if a bill initially aimed to regulate the sale of fireworks, an amendment to ban all fireworks entirely would likely exceed the scope of the original purpose. Similarly, an amendment to a bill concerning public education funding that instead imposes new taxes on unrelated industries would likely be considered outside the bill’s original intent. The legislative drafting process must therefore carefully consider the potential impact of amendments to ensure they remain consistent with the bill’s foundational goal, as mandated by constitutional provisions.

The principle of legislative drafting requires that a bill’s provisions be germane to its title, meaning that all sections of a bill must relate to the subject matter announced in the title. This concept, often referred to as the “single subject rule,” is a fundamental constitutional constraint designed to prevent legislative logrolling and surprise amendments. In New Mexico, this principle is enshrined in Article IV, Section 15 of the New Mexico Constitution. When drafting a bill, a legislator or their staff must ensure that no unrelated or incongruous provisions are inserted into a bill that would not be reasonably understood from its title. For example, a bill with a title concerning the regulation of alcoholic beverages cannot validly include provisions that mandate changes to public education funding, as these subjects are not germane to each other. The intent is to provide fair notice to legislators and the public about the bill’s contents. The drafting process must meticulously align each proposed section with the overarching purpose stated in the title.

The core principle being tested here is the legislative process in New Mexico, specifically concerning the effective date of enacted legislation when no specific date is provided. New Mexico law, as codified in the New Mexico Statutes Annotated (NMSA) § 12-1-2, addresses this. This statute dictates that if a bill does not contain an emergency clause or a specific effective date, it becomes law on the 90th day after the adjournment of the legislative session in which it was passed. The 2024 regular legislative session in New Mexico adjourned on February 15, 2024. Therefore, to determine the effective date, one must count 90 days from February 15, 2024. February has 29 days in 2024 (a leap year). Days remaining in February after the 15th: \(29 – 15 = 14\) days. Days needed: \(90 – 14 = 76\) days. March has 31 days. Days remaining: \(76 – 31 = 45\) days. April has 30 days. Days remaining: \(45 – 30 = 15\) days. The remaining 15 days fall in May. Therefore, the 90th day after adjournment is May 15, 2024. This is the date the legislation becomes effective if no other provision is made. Understanding this default rule is crucial for legislative drafters to ensure clarity and proper implementation of new laws. The absence of a specified effective date triggers this statutory default, which is a fundamental aspect of legislative drafting in New Mexico, ensuring a predictable transition for the application of new statutes.