SB 138 revises a state tax distribution tied to the Oil and Gas Proceeds and Pass-Through Entity Withholding Tax Act. Under current law, a portion of those net receipts is distributed to the magistrate retirement fund and the judicial retirement fund, with additional language governing when those distributions stop if the funds become fully funded. The bill removes those magistrate and judicial retirement fund distributions from the statute and instead directs the distribution to the legislative retirement fund.
The bill also changes the amount and structure of the legislative retirement fund distribution. Rather than a fixed distribution tied to the prior language, the bill provides for a distribution of $75,000 or, if greater, an amount equal to one-twelfth of the amount needed to pay retirement benefits due under the legislative retirement plan for the succeeding calendar year. The bill deletes the existing provisions that required annual funded-ratio reviews for the magistrate and judicial retirement funds and the related notification process for stopping those distributions.
Impact
SB 138 would amend Section 7-1-6.43 NMSA 1978, changing how oil and gas tax receipts and pass-through entity withholding tax revenues are allocated. The practical effect is to eliminate earmarked distributions to the magistrate retirement fund and judicial retirement fund and redirect those revenues to the legislative retirement fund. It also removes statutory provisions that conditioned the magistrate and judicial distributions on the funded status of those funds, while preserving a funding mechanism for legislative retirement benefits.
Sentiment
Based on the available record, the bill appears to be a technical fiscal and retirement-funding measure rather than a highly controversial policy proposal. The caption and text suggest a straightforward reallocation of an existing revenue stream to support legislative retirement obligations. No committee transcripts or vote history were provided, so there is no documented debate or recorded opposition in the materials available here.
Contention
The main policy issue raised by the bill is the reallocation of money away from the magistrate and judicial retirement funds and toward the legislative retirement fund. That shift could draw concern from supporters of court retirement funding, who may view the removal of dedicated distributions as reducing support for those systems. On the other hand, supporters of the bill would likely emphasize the need to ensure adequate funding for legislative retirement benefits and to simplify the distribution structure by deleting the now-unused magistrate and judicial provisions.