LAS CRUCES – The New Mexico Civil Rights Act, which would remove qualified immunity protection for public employees, cleared its first committee in the New Mexico House of Representatives on Monday, January 25.
House Bill 4 was passed by the House State Government, the Elections and Indian Affairs Committee with 5-3 votes. Republicans Greg Nibert, Bill Rehm and Martin Zamora voted against the bill. Democrats who voted in favor were Georgene Louis, D. Wonda Johnson, Gail Chasey, Daymon Ely and Kristina Ortez. It now goes to the House Judiciary Committee, which has to give its approval before it can be heard in the House.
The bill was first proposed by a nine-member civil rights commission headed by former New Mexico Supreme Court Justice Richard Bosson. The commission was set up by the legislature during a special session last June at the request of Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham. It was founded in response to protests calling for police reform and social justice after the death of George Floyd, a black man killed by police in Minnesota.
The bill would prohibit the use of qualified immunity in civil court actions alleging a violation of constitutional rights filed against the state or a city or county.
Qualified immunity is described in the draft law’s personnel analysis as a “court-created defense that is admissible before federal civil rights courts”, which protects state actors from liability, unless their behavior violates “clearly defined statutory or constitutional federal rights over which a reasonable person Would know. ”
“It essentially tells any government actor that they can blatantly violate people’s rights. You are no longer accountable as long as you are the first person to do just that, violating those rights, ”said Billing Sponsor Brian Egolf, D-Santa Fe. Egolf is spokesman for the New Mexico House.
He found that even in a case where foster parents were found guilty of abusing the children in their care in a criminal court, they were protected by qualified immunity from a civil court. This meant that the victims could not get any compensation.
Mark Baker, vice chairman of the Civil Rights Commission, said groups as diverse as the American Civil Liberties Union and the CATO Institute are calling for qualified immunity to be lifted.
Egolf emphasized that qualified immunity was an invention of the courts.
“For those concerned about right-wing activism, this is literally the best example in the entire history of the legal activism law,” he said. “There is no law anywhere. This was created entirely from whole fabric by the courts. “
He said the original intent in the 1950s was to protect police officers who abused black civil rights, and it expanded from then on.
Under the proposed bill, individuals would still be protected, but the government agency or agency they work for would be held liable for their behavior.
Nibert, R-Roswell, said he was concerned the bill could lead to increased insurance costs for cities and counties across the state, and could cause some to lose their ability to reinsure.
“When counties, cities and other government agencies cannot get reinsurance, they have less money to pay premiums,” he said. “That can ruin the whole purpose.”
The main requirement of the insurance companies was that the bill did not allow for punitive damages. Baker said the bill did not allow for punitive damages, which was a request from insurance companies.
Legislative staff analysis estimates the bill would increase costs to state and local governments by about $ 7 million a year. The number of civil rights cases is projected to increase by approximately 50 percent and settlements and judgments to more than double from $ 3.6 million to $ 8.1 million.
The analysis found that a person with a right to civil rights would be more likely to seek legal action in a state court than in a federal court where immunity continues to apply. And the New Mexico Constitution could protect civil rights more comprehensively, including rights that do not exist in federal law, adding additional opportunities for legal action. The cost is also increased by the fact that the bill does not include a limit on damage and includes legal fees.
In its final report, the Civil Rights Commission acknowledged concerns about increased costs, but said it was impossible to predict exactly how high it would be. And it is argued that the cost is justified, and that those whose rights are violated now have no recourse.
Legislators “must consider continuing to save money by forcing those harmed by government misconduct to pay the costs,” the report said.
Comments are closed.