A revised civil rights bill that would end “qualified immunity” in New Mexico is headed to Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s desk after passing both chambers Wednesday.

The big question: Will the governor sign it?

Lujan Grisham’s press secretary didn’t return messages seeking comment on House Bill 4, which cleared the state Senate just after midnight Wednesday on a 26-15 vote with several amendments.

The changes include eliminating mandatory attorney’s fees and requiring that a government agency receive notice of a potential claim involving law enforcement within a year — provisions designed to assuage the concerns of cities and counties worried the proposed New Mexico Civil Rights Act will lead to higher insurance rates and costly settlements.

The House of Representatives on Wednesday afternoon voted 43-26 — mostly along party lines, with Republicans opposing the measure — to concur with the Senate amendments to the bill.

“We will soon have a clear path to justice and a meaningful way to hold government accountable,” House Speaker Brian Egolf, a Santa Fe Democrat, tweeted after the vote. “This is a bright day for the NM Constitution.”

A few House Republicans questioned the amendments and spoke again of the negative impact they feel the legislation could have on law enforcement and other government agencies.

Rep. Larry Scott, R-Hobbs, voiced concerns that a number of people involved in any one alleged civil rights violation could also file individual suits under the act.

“I could certainly understand why communities across the state have had so much concern about this legislation. It would appear as though one misstep with a large number of people present could be potentially ruinous to a small community,” he said.

Most of the opposition to the bill comes from the proposal to eliminate a doctrine known as qualified immunity as a legal defense to civil rights complaints filed against government agencies in state District Court. The doctrine shields government workers, including police, from personal liability under federal law when workers violate people’s constitutional rights.

Currently, lawsuits alleging violations of U.S. constitutional rights are filed in federal court. HB 4 would create a path to filing similar claims in a state court under the New Mexico Bill of Rights. Damages would be capped at $2 million.

Republican members of the Senate decried the measure during the late-night debate Tuesday, describing it as anti-law enforcement and saying it would lead to increased costs for government agencies that ultimately would be passed on to taxpayers.

“This bill doesn’t do anything to address the problem of public employees who violate individuals’ rights,” said Sen. Craig Brandt, R-Rio Rancho. “It’s just a slap in the face to all the officers in our state. All we’ve done in this bill is create a lawyer enrichment bill.”

The Senate sponsor of the bill, Sen. Joe Cervantes, D-Las Cruces, asked lawmakers to “reject some of the rhetoric” heard in the chamber, calling it a tactic to divide them.

“It’s only diversionary to try and suggest this is us versus the police,” he said.

Republicans said government concerns about higher insurance rates and increased exposure to liability were real.

“We’ve been here a long time with cities and counties calling in saying, ‘Please don’t do this to us. Please don’t do this to us.’ Because if we do this to them, we’re doing it to the people of New Mexico,” said Sen. Bill Sharer, R-Farmington.

“We don’t want to deprive somebody of their civil rights, but we also don’t want to make the taxpayers of whatever jurisdiction just pour money into this endless pit of lawsuits,” he added.

Sen. Stuart Ingle, R-Portales, said New Mexico would be dropping off a “precipice” with the civil rights bill.

“We have the most liberal liability laws of any place except Washington, D.C., and the stuff we didn’t have has now been added through this,” he said. “It’s going to open up areas for liability that we have never seen before. And our counties and our cities, our highway departments, every state agency we have, I think, is going to be subject to things that they have never even thought about.”

The vote in the Senate also was largely along party lines, with one exception. Sen. George Muñoz, a more moderate Democrat from Gallup, sided with Republicans in opposing the proposal.

(6) comments

Francisco Carbajal

Senator Joe Cervantes, D-Las Cruces, asked lawmakers to "reject some of the rhetoric" heard in the chamber and "it's only divisionary to try and suggest this is us versus the police," he said. The fact remains that Senator Cervantes is the primary "rhetoric poster child of divisionary tactics" against the police, period! On the same note, the Attorney General Hector Balderas is the true owner and titleship of SB375 and Cervantes is the co-owner of this "anti-police" theme. Lastly, if Lujan-Grisham signs on to these "anti-police" legislation, then, she definitely will be a "first-term" Governor and ride into the sunset. Bye, Bye to all of them on the next election cycle. Their is are two old dichos that remind me of Cervantes, Balderas and Grisham-Lujan that goes like this: "Donde las dan, las toman." and "El burro entra, el burro sale." The moral translation of both dicho's may vary.

zach miller

this is protects a person's civil rights, if you see it as anti-police, that says more about police and you than it does about the bill.

Francisco Carbajal

Mr. Zach Miller, here is a Northern, New Mexico dicho just for you: "Cada quien tiene su modo de dar chiche." I am not asking for your opinion. This dog-fight is between me and two state legislators (Cervantes and Egolf). Stay in your lane.

zach miller

If local governments don't want this to be expensive, they could just try not violating a person's civil rights in a manner that makes remedy in court applicable.

zach miller

Glad our legislators listened to the people who live here and not the companies running media from out of state. Literally every media posted op-ed against this bill because it was "too expensive"

Its never too expensive to have your civil rights protected by being able to go to court when those rights are violated.

Chris Mechels

The level of hypocrisy and dishonesty on both sides of this argument is spectacular.

Two of those arguing against this bill, Ingle and Munoz, are bringing SB375, which is extremely destructive to police training our state.

As usual, when the Legislature "finally" wakes up to a problem, they are destructive, and SB375 is VERY destructive.

Another bill, SB227, which DOES respond to "BLM" and the NM problems with Use of Force, is dead, dead, dead... The cops, and their unions, killed it.

Just when you thought things couldn't get worse, as we already are the worst state in the nation for police matters, we raise the bar, and make it worse.

Despair is the appropriate emotion. We are so much WORSE than Minnesota, where Floyd was killed, and we are making things WORSE is response to BLM. Now that takes a record level of outright stupidity, passing this SB375 unanimously in the Senate. Wow... Stupidity reigns... Must be the water.

Our media, living is some alternative universe, has no knowledge, or interest, in any of this. Just what DO they care about??

Welcome to the discussion.

Thank you for joining the conversation on Santafenewmexican.com. Please familiarize yourself with the community guidelines. Avoid personal attacks: Lively, vigorous conversation is welcomed and encouraged, insults, name-calling and other personal attacks are not. No commercial peddling: Promotions of commercial goods and services are inappropriate to the purposes of this forum and can be removed. Respect copyrights: Post citations to sources appropriate to support your arguments, but refrain from posting entire copyrighted pieces. Be yourself: Accounts suspected of using fake identities can be removed from the forum.