HB339 amends New Mexico’s Human Rights Act to add source of income as a protected basis in housing-related discrimination. It makes it unlawful to refuse to sell, rent, lease, sublease, or negotiate for housing, or to impose different terms, conditions, or advertising restrictions, because an applicant’s income comes from lawful sources such as wages, Social Security, pensions, child support, alimony, or government or nonprofit housing assistance, including vouchers. The bill also defines an “invalid screening process” and provides that using one is evidence of source-of-income discrimination.
The bill further creates a new enforcement framework for complaints involving public accommodations and housing accommodations under a new Section 28-1-7.3. Complaints under that section must be filed with the attorney general, who is authorized to investigate, issue subpoenas, bring civil actions, seek injunctions and civil penalties up to $5,000 per violation, and refer matters for criminal prosecution when appropriate. The bill also updates related Human Rights Act provisions to route these specific housing/public accommodation claims away from the Human Rights Bureau grievance process and into attorney general enforcement, while preserving the existing bureau process for other discrimination claims.
In practical terms, the bill expands state fair-housing protections and could affect landlords, property managers, real estate brokers, housing providers, and entities administering rental or housing assistance programs. It also clarifies that housing providers may not use screening methods that exclude or discount lawful assistance income in a way that functions as income discrimination. The bill takes effect July 1, 2025.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available voting history is supportive but not unanimous: HB339 passed the House on final passage by a 41-24 vote. No committee transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded committee debate to summarize, but the floor vote suggests meaningful backing with a substantial minority opposed.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s treatment of housing vouchers and other assistance income, especially the prohibition on “invalid screening processes,” which may be viewed by opponents as limiting landlord discretion or imposing compliance burdens. Supporters are likely focused on expanding housing access and preventing discrimination against voucher holders, low-income renters, and people relying on public benefits or other non-wage income.
HB339 amends the Human Rights Act to add source of income as a protected category in housing discrimination claims and creates a new attorney general enforcement pathway for public accommodation and housing accommodation violations. It changes the legal duties of housing providers and others involved in rental, sale, and financing of housing by prohibiting discrimination based on lawful income sources and by treating certain screening practices as evidence of unlawful discrimination. It also shifts complaint handling for these new section 28-1-7.3 claims from the Human Rights Bureau to the attorney general, while leaving the existing bureau process in place for other Human Rights Act claims.
The bill appears to have generally favorable support, as shown by its 41-24 House final passage vote, but it was not broadly unanimous. The absence of committee transcripts limits insight into detailed debate, yet the vote margin indicates a clear majority in favor alongside a notable bloc of opposition. The likely policy direction—expanding fair housing protections and enforcement—suggests support from housing-rights advocates and resistance from some landlord or property-owner interests.
The most likely areas of contention are the new source-of-income protections, especially for voucher holders and applicants using public or nonprofit housing assistance, and the bill’s definition of an invalid screening process. Opponents may argue that the bill constrains tenant screening and increases regulatory and litigation exposure for housing providers, while supporters likely contend that such screening practices are a common mechanism for excluding low-income renters. The new attorney general enforcement authority, including subpoenas, civil penalties, and possible criminal referral, is another likely point of concern because it increases the stakes of alleged violations and centralizes enforcement outside the Human Rights Bureau.