[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6315971,"mediaKeyId","2377913-ba2f74bc5c5b341dea29ba0e5b019a75","parentId",2377913,"title","Committee hears Uniform Public Expression Protection Act substitute; supporters urge protections against SLAPP suits","audioSeconds",454,"startMs",4682000,"endMs",5136000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2377913-ba2f74bc5c5b341dea29ba0e5b019a75&start=4682&end=5136","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2377913-ba2f74bc5c5b341dea29ba0e5b019a75/thumbnail_4682000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6315971/New-Mexico/Committee-hears-Uniform-Public-Expression-Protection-Act-substitute-supporters-urge-protections-against-SLAPP-suits","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6315971-6e4b776159d1f56d4fb91c48d35aa59d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770791644&Signature=HTUjH7WURoSe~4Hbk9TFdQq0FCDARgKWLhIss9Thbe8k~q~~vNfFUjJKze2sFXVf-M9CPxULtLIpbof-jddtqIWCVC6fEJzKf9LMohkb2joZHf1obEdvOH~HlYUbO1E0Jc3kA4KPz2R1hvR9GMSfKqr16qiv2XFd5l6eptrknLCVs1xA3CSIuleCMvOu5kZQkiAERDekPjuDev4NxvycU-iGXD4eQIJ5qXbns1Hic3mNrUWtv5eWE4j-l4qqjSQBNFfOz2IjPboozBlTSccrLc6MYytuXsGUUUMKOv2UXPXsAstDIP9e7VS2cDXBY8Gr8b3RkvXq~rgF4OCU4GS8dA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Mexico House of Representatives","date","2025-02-22T00:00:00Z","article","The House Judiciary Committee heard a committee substitute for House Bill 169, the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (an anti-SLAPP measure) intended to shield people exercising free-speech rights from meritless lawsuits aimed at silencing them.

Sponsor materials describe the bill as expanding the state’s narrow existing anti-SLAPP protections to cover speech about matters of public concern and to provide a quicker avenue to dismiss lawsuits that are filed primarily to intimidate or silence critics. The sponsor said adopting the uniform act would make New Mexico the 36th state to adopt a modern statute of this type.

Multiple advocates spoke in favor during the committee’s time-limited public comment period. Supporters included New Energy Economy, civil-rights attorney Jeffrey Haas, the Albuquerque Journal (represented by Brian Fanno), and community and youth organizers. Testimony described the bill as protecting individuals, journalists and neighborhood and advocacy groups from costly litigation intended to chill speech.

A lobbyist and nonprofit leader, Norm Gomm of New Mexico Water Advocates, told the committee his organization supports the bill to prevent lawsuits that would divert scarce nonprofit resources. Public commenters online and in the room emphasized the bill’s role in protecting youth and community organizers from strategic lawsuits against public participation.

The committee did not vote on the measure during the session. Staff and the sponsor indicated they would continue work on the substitute and return for further consideration; the committee set public comment limits and noted schedule constraints affecting next steps.

No formal amendments or roll-call votes occurred on HB 169 during the hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Judiciary - Feb 22, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The committee heard a committee substitute for House Bill 169, modeled on a uniform Public Expression Protection Act to protect speakers from frivolous lawsuits. Public commenters and advocacy groups voiced support; the committee did not vote and scheduled further consideration.","taxTitle","House of Representatives, Legislative, New Mexico","taxId",78418,"location","New Mexico","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6315976,"Committee hears bill to update New Mexico press-shield law; hearing continued for revised draft",1660,2950000,4610000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2377913-ba2f74bc5c5b341dea29ba0e5b019a75&start=2950&end=4610","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2377913-ba2f74bc5c5b341dea29ba0e5b019a75/thumbnail_2950000.jpg","/articles/6315976/New-Mexico/Committee-hears-bill-to-update-New-Mexico-press-shield-law-hearing-continued-for-revised-draft","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6315976-a6baf47093a0933a6b3befbd22f1f9d6/orig.mp4?Expires=1770791644&Signature=WOuW0fF-K2cHXen7calbWCg4ojPQAjdlzKaXwiavS6d1MBNUxDgRaQ6HEuVFXt6AP8SdriNARVvMVl8VAWCDbXMfaFIbSAGQ7pOyL6GTJlROHYobS1Uyp~5OLa6ZHqI1BVvzSVvArfrakJu1xJRdUlzFqypSuktiSoh7M-Xv0XAPO9sJ3kGJxZ4T7MAH6~dXH4TgiFxKMapCeDY9yszTov-K7E77n3Cf9EMKHs7jth2mGEEHLYErED1qsF83T~eZzS89hvihkDEX4E3IM0QDkf9Xp61-WnrKwwtYwxJD7reNYmlvY8zLc5LNzW8mGZ04iHyh430EsIscCVtPYJAxrA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Lawmakers in the House Judiciary Committee discussed House Bill 153, a measure to modernize New Mexico’s press-shield statute originally enacted in 1973. The sponsor said the bill updates definitions of who qualifies as a journalist and clarifies protections for electronic communications and service providers.

The sponsor described the bill as bringing New Mexico law in line with federal-model statutes and noted it would exclude judicial subpoenas from the statutory protections because the New Mexico Supreme Court has previously limited legislative attempts to constrain courts.

Kip Purcell, an attorney who identified himself as an expert on press-shield law, told the committee that New Mexico’s current statute was written before the internet era, that many states now have shield statutes, and that the bill aims to protect journalists, modern media and electronic service providers while respecting court authority on judicial subpoenas. Purcell described the bill as “as close as possible to the federal model statute” while excluding judicial subpoenas because of constitutional limits described in Ammerman v. Hubbard Broadcasting Co. and the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Branzburg v. Hayes.

Committee members raised questions about how the bill would interact with criminal search warrants and whether protections for administrative or executive subpoenas could unintentionally hamper criminal investigations. Purcell said the bill is intended to govern administrative and legislative subpoenas but not judicial subpoenas or warrants and that enforcement of administrative subpoenas typically requires court proceedings.

Committee members and staff noted that multiple draft versions and late technical edits had created confusion. Sponsors indicated a consolidated 0.3 draft had been prepared; the committee agreed to continue detailed consideration after members had time to review the revised draft. The committee did not vote on House Bill 153 during the session and scheduled further discussion after circulation of the consolidated draft.","Lawmakers discussed a bill to update the state's 1973 press-shield statute to add modern communications and carve out judicial subpoenas; sponsors and an expert witness briefed the committee and asked for time to circulate a consolidated '0.3' draft before further action.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6315980,"House committee advances bill requiring lobbyists to disclose employers and bill positions during session",2876,42000,2918000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2377913-ba2f74bc5c5b341dea29ba0e5b019a75&start=42&end=2918","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2377913-ba2f74bc5c5b341dea29ba0e5b019a75/thumbnail_42000.jpg","/articles/6315980/New-Mexico/House-committee-advances-bill-requiring-lobbyists-to-disclose-employers-and-bill-positions-during-session","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6315980-2942d3c38872f929f5fe5e5e1cc3c624/orig.mp4?Expires=1770791644&Signature=fjUNd5LPvi9dq-9pRq4mKbsK-YGFtHGrJOtbJOzMeZTUvVnH6B9Je2vP1avdWWb4os6SWXd0lKeQBSZs-WIR9GRq4v6mRTLZGSvQ5Upc-eiKCTUyTztNzjObgm6Fg-TZF1tYAhdVmjRaZxtWNb8Ky~l5w18L4vL1LEgqHcRJA-L0lI1uvCTLvOemfqtkTPZB0uHAj-wivI4kGQTlslakvvTQdZ9~ZRt-1CLFOau9JThlhILotXI9FcWBFIAW06bi1zEcZU1MBVfw3thObWVKsgey-t9jUuoJcZZSnZrZ8it6DaYZ59fqNQi4ch0H3Zr2A4ACH0cE220y8uk65Uul3Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee on Oct. 12 advanced House Bill 143, a lobbying-transparency measure that would require paid lobbyists to file a one-time lobbying-activity report during a legislative session and link it on the Secretary of State’s website.

Supporters say the change would make clearer who is influencing legislation and allow both legislators and the public to see which employers are behind lobbying efforts on particular bills.

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Silva, and co-sponsor Senator Steinborn told the committee the report would name the lobbyist’s employer and list specific bills the lobbyist is working to influence, along with whether the lobbyist is supporting, opposing or neutral on each bill. Senator Steinborn said the requirement is “designed to be very streamlined and efficient even for the lobbyists,” and that a lobbyist would only have to file another report if their position on a bill changes.

Public commenters who supported the bill included disability advocate Nat Dean, Sharon Argenbright and a representative identified as Barbara Califf from Borders of New Mexico. Supporters told the committee that clearer labeling of who is acting as a paid lobbyist — as opposed to an unpaid advocate or representative — would help the public and the press understand policy influences.

Committee members pressed sponsors on timing and enforcement. Sponsors said the reporting trigger is when paid attempts to influence legislative action commence and that the Secretary of State would define timing parameters. Representative McQueen and others raised concerns that positions on bills can change quickly as amendments arrive; sponsors replied that any position change would require an additional filing and that the Secretary of State could define reasonable intervals.

Committee members amended the bill to clarify filing timing. Representative McQueen offered an amendment to strike a clause reading “prior to the adjournment of a legislative session” and instead require filings within a defined interval. The committee agreed to a compromise that sets the report deadline as \"within 48 hours after the commencement of the lobbying activity,\" and directed that the report be filed in a format prescribed by Secretary of State rule.

After discussion and the friendly amendment, the committee conducted a roll-call on the bill and recommended it for a do-pass. Recorded votes on the committee’s floor were: Yes — Representative Abeyta; Representative Hartman-v-Hill; Representative McQueen; Leader Sapanski; the vice chair; and the chair. No — Representative Hall (who asked to explain her vote), Representative Martinez and Representative Reeb. Committee staff announced the bill has a do-pass recommendation to the full House.

The bill does not require lobbyists to report dollar amounts or campaign contributions; sponsors said it is focused on naming the employing organization and the bills and positions involved.

Committee members said the Secretary of State’s office will need to draft rules to define “as soon as practicable” and to handle repeated filings if positions change. Sponsors and members also noted they intend to refine the language before floor action if necessary.

Votes at a glance: House Bill 143 — Do pass (committee recommendation).","The House Judiciary Committee voted to give House Bill 143 a do-pass recommendation after adopting an amendment that requires lobbyists to file a lobbying-activity report online, identifying their employer and position on specific bills within 48 hours of starting activity.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears Uniform Public Expression Protection Act substitute; supporters urge protections against SLAPP suits

Committee hears bill to update New Mexico press-shield law; hearing continued for revised draft

House committee advances bill requiring lobbyists to disclose employers and bill positions during session