By: Gillian Barkhurst and Dan Boyd
SANTA FE — A two-term Democratic lawmaker has backed away from her proposal to reshape New Mexico’s public records laws, amid criticism from a state open government group.
But another proposal to change the state’s Inspection of Public Records Act is still pending at the Roundhouse, with some records custodians saying they’ve been increasingly inundated by records requests.
Rep. Kathleen Cates, D-Rio Rancho, told the Journal this week she would not be pursuing legislation she introduced, House Bill 139, that would change access to government documents by giving local officials sweeping power to reject open records requests they find bothersome.
“My goal was to open the conversation about how to deliver transparency in our government without creating undue burdens for small and rural municipalities with limited resources,” Cates said.
“I appreciate the feedback I received on the bill and look forward to continuing the conversations we started,” she added.
Advocates for open government had argued the bill would have kneecapped journalists’ ability to report on the government and violated constituents’ “right to know.”
“The whole purpose of the bill is to take away people’s right to access and just provide a myriad of ways in which public bodies can shield their records from the public,” said Amanda Lavin, the legal director for New Mexico Foundation for Open Government.
The initial bill allowed records custodians to deny “vexatious requesters” from soliciting records for three years. The bill does not outline what “vexatious requester” means, giving custodians far-reaching power to block people they personally find annoying, Lavin said.
That could have repercussions for journalists, she said, who are among the most frequent requesters of public records.
The bill would also have redefined the often-used “broad and burdensome” exemption to IPRA to include any request that takes longer than an hour to complete, granting records custodians broad discretion over what records they release. If a custodian decides to fulfill a request that takes longer than an hour, there would be a $30 fee imposed for each additional hour.
Lavin also said the bill could violate human rights, as its definition of a “person” excluded anyone currently incarcerated.
Barrage of records requests sparks concern
This year’s debate at the Roundhouse comes as record custodians say they are facing a deluge of requests for public documents, video footage and other records.
A report released recently by the New Mexico Municipal League found records requests had more than doubled across the state since 2020, with requests for police records — especially lapel camera footage — rising even more rapidly.
Melanie Romero, the clerk for Corrales, said Thursday the village has seen the number of records requests it gets increase from 151 requests in 2021 to 339 requests last year.
“We’ve seen a huge increase in requests for body cam footage and 911 audio,” said Romero, who said it typically takes one hour of staff time to process 30 minutes of footage to ensure it is properly redacted.
Among the requests received by Corrales was at least one from an out-of-state resident who subsequently posted the footage on their YouTube channel, she added.
Statewide, up to one-third of records requests some cities are receiving are being made by commercial data brokers like LexisNexis that sell records and incident reports after obtaining them, according to the report.
Based on the report’s findings, the Municipal League is backing a separate bill, House Bill 283, that would require anyone requesting public records to attest whether the records sought would be used for commercial purposes.
A fee of up to $30 per hour could then be charged by local governments to process commercial records requests. That fee would not be imposed on traditional media like newspapers, radio and television stations.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Christine Chandler, D-Los Alamos, would also change the way alleged violations of the state’s public records law are handled.
Specifically, it would require requesters who do not receive the records they are seeking within a 15-day period to file a written notification before they could file a lawsuit.
History of public records law
New Mexico’s public records law was enacted in the 1940s and allows anyone to request government records, with exceptions for medical records, trade secrets and more.
Lawmakers have added additional exceptions in recent years, including a 2023 change that exempted law enforcement videos of death notifications, nudity or certain other images from being accessible to the public.
A previous 2019 change exempted law enforcement records containing identifying information of certain crime victims and witnesses.
Alison Nichols, the New Mexico Municipal League’s director of policy, said the bill backed by the organization during this year’s 60-day session would update parts of IPRA that have been largely unchanged for 40-plus years.
“The bill is intended to address the exponential growth in records and make sure the general public and media are able to access records in a timely manner without getting crowded out by requests from for-profit entities,” Nichols said.
Follow Gillian Barkhurst on X and Bluesky.
This story was published in the Albuquerque Journal as part of a collaboration between the Albuquerque Journal and UNM’s Statehouse Reporting Project.
Gillian Barkhurst is a student at the University of New Mexico pursuing a Bachelor of the Arts in Multimedia Journalism and Mass Communication, with a minor in Spanish. Her work has been published in the Albuquerque Journal, Limina: UNM Non-Fiction Review, the Daily Lobo and New Mexico News Port. Gillian is currently a staff writer at the Albuquerque Journal.
