New Mexico lawmaker wants to strengthen press shield law
Rep. Sarah Silva (D-Las Cruces) outside her office in the New Mexico Legislature on Friday, Jan. 31, 2025. (Photo by Austin Fisher / Source NM)
A freshman state lawmaker and leaders in both legislative chambers want to update and strengthen New Mexico's press shield law.
Rep. Sarah Silva (D-Las Cruces) is carrying House Bill 153, which would update the definition of a journalist to include bloggers and nonprofit news outlets (like Source NM).
It would also protect reporters' electronic communications, such as email, from state spying.
The bill is modeled after the federal PRESS Act, which Congress failed to enact last year after then President-elect Donald Trump ordered congressional Republicans to block it. That would have codified regulations adopted by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2021 under former President Joe Biden.
'We see examples at the federal level of government chipping away at journalists' ability to do their jobs by pursuing the identities of unnamed sources and deterring whistleblowing,' Silva said in a statement on Friday.
Trump tells U.S. Senate Republicans they 'must kill' journalism shield law
Silva's Protect Reporters From Exploitive Spying Act is being co-sponsored by House Speaker Javier Martínez (D-Albuquerque) and Senate Majority Leader Peter Wirth (D-Santa Fe), according to a news release from the Democratic majority in the House.
The House of Representatives assigned the bill for hearings in the House Government, Elections and Indian Affairs Committee, and then the House Judiciary Committee. Those committee chairs on Friday had not yet scheduled it for a hearing.
If enacted, the legislation would only apply to proceedings in the state government's legislative and executive branches because of a 1976 New Mexico Supreme Court ruling forbidding the Legislature and governor from enacting laws related to rules of evidence in court.
The high court's press shield rule provides 'reasonably strong' protection against compelling journalists from disclosing confidential sources and information, according to a compendium written by Albuquerque lawyer Charles K. Purcell, an expert on the state's shield law and rule and a New Mexico Foundation for Open Government board member.
However, Purcell wrote, that protection goes away whenever someone can convince a judge that the source or information is 'crucial' to their case and they have no other way of getting it.
According to the news release, Silva and Purcell will ask the Supreme Court's Rules of Evidence Committee to consider changing the shield rule.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump is under water on some of his top issues — including immigration, poll shows
President Donald Trump is under water on some of his most favorable issues — immigration and the economy — according to a new Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday. The poll shows Trump's approval rating at 38 percent among registered voters, a three point drop from April. He's also losing support on subjects that were crucial to his November victory. On immigration — an issue that the president hammered on the campaign trail — Trump's approval rating dropped five points from April, to 43 percent. His already low approval rating on the economy did not budge, remaining at 40 percent. The results show a majority of voters, 54 percent, disapprove of Trump's handling of the issue. The poll surveyed 1,265 self-identified registered voters from June 5-9, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percent. The results come as Trump's approval has been steadily picking up since it dropped significantly in April, according to RealClearPolitics' polling average. The negative polling did not stop at the president himself. A majority of the voters polled also had objections to his premier piece of legislation, the 'big, beautiful bill' making its way through Congress. Fifty-three percent of the voters polled did not support the legislation. Divided among party lines, 67 percent of Republicans supported, while 89 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of independents opposed it. On Medicaid funding, an issue that has become Democratic messaging priority, 47 percent of those surveyed thought funding should increase, while 40 percent think it should stay about the same, and just 10 percent think federal funding should decrease. The bill as passed by the House is estimated to end Medicaid coverage for millions of people. Quinnipiac also asked voters what they think of billionaire Elon Musk, and his approval rating is crashing among Republicans following his very public breakup with Trump. Among Republicans, 62 percent had a favorable view of Musk, a 16 point drop from April. But while Trump's approval languishes, it's not clear Democrats will be able to take advantage of it. A vast majority of voters — 70 percent — disapprove of the way Democrats in Congress are doing their jobs, while 20 percent approved. That's 12 points lower than how voters viewed Republicans in the survey.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's ‘big beautiful bill' could wreck Utah's groundbreaking AI laws
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful' budget package could derail the state's groundbreaking artificial intelligence laws unless it is changed. The 1,000-page bill that passed the House last month includes a 10-year prohibition on AI regulations. An updated Senate version removed the all-out ban but conditioned $500 million in AI infrastructure grants on states pausing enforcement of AI laws. Behind these provisions is a desire by some lawmakers to prevent a nationwide patchwork of AI regulations that hampers innovation amid competition with China. But Cox, and Utah's top tech policymakers, said the approach taken by Trump's bill interferes with the state's right to react to rapidly evolving technologies. 'Our hope is that the last version of this bill that passes, whatever that looks like, will allow for the smart type of regulation that we're doing in Utah, and prevent the bad kind of regulation that would stop AI from reaching its fullest potential,' Cox said Tuesday during a monthly PBS broadcast. Utah has been recognized around the world for having the 'first and smartest of the AI regulations that have been proposed,' according to Cox. These policies include bills that create a state-run AI policy lab, clarify consumer protection liability for AI and require AI disclosures in industries like finance and mental health. The governor said that multiple members of the U.S. House have told his team that they were not aware of the AI moratorium when they voted on the bill. Members of the White House and Senate have also said that they don't want the 'BBB bill' to eliminate Utah's law, Cox said. 'AI companies actually support what we're doing because they recognize that this is the right way to do AI regulation as opposed to just piecemeal,' Cox said. Cox agreed that 'a hodgepodge' of AI laws around the country would cause the U.S. to 'fall behind and we would lose this global race that is happening right now.' But he said a moratorium on AI policy shouldn't come at the expense of Utah's novel approach which doesn't actually tell AI companies how they can develop their models. Utah Rep. Doug Fiefia, R-Herriman, said the problem goes beyond counterproductive policy. It targets the foundation of states rights that has allowed Utah to lead out on so many issues, according to Fiefia, a freshman lawmaker who previously worked at Google. 'States are laboratories for innovation when it comes to policy, and I believe that the federal government should not overreach on this process and allow it to work,' Fiefia said. 'We will not give over our control because the federal government believes that it's the right thing to do to win this race.' On Tuesday, Utah House legislative leadership, and 62 state senators and representatives, sent a letter authored by Fiefia to Utah's congressional delegation arguing that the moratorium hindered 'Utah's nationally recognized efforts to strike the right balance between innovation and consumer protection.' Not only would the moratorium harm state efforts to legislate guardrails, it would also hurt businesses that are using AI responsibly by allowing their competitors to engage in unethical behavior, according to Fiefia. States have shown they are more nimble than the federal government when they need to adapt to change, Fiefia said. And this is the approach Fiefia believes Utah has demonstrated in opening up legal pathways for innovation while updating the law for the threats posed by AI. 'Just because we want to move fast in this global arms race of AI doesn't mean we can't do so with a seat belt,' Fiefia said. 'I believe that we can both win this AI race, but also doing it in a thoughtful and meaningful way.' The AI moratorium faces procedural hurdles in addition to ideological pushback. Utah Sen. Kirk Cullimore, R-Sandy, pointed out that reconciliation bills are meant only to amend the annual budget and not make substantive policy shifts. Some senators have alleged that the AI moratorium does not comply with the 'Byrd Rule,' a procedural requirement that prohibits 'nonbudgetary' additions during the budget 'reconciliation' process. Cullimore, who was the sponsor behind most of Utah's AI legislation, was in Washington, D.C., last week, speaking with members of the House Commerce Committee, which oversaw the inclusion of the AI moratorium provisions. The intentions behind the moratorium, Cullimore said, were to prevent states from implementing what are called 'foundational regulations' that restrict the kind of technology AI companies can develop. Utah's laws do not do this, according to Cullimore, who also signed Fiefia's letter, but they would still be sidelined by the 'big beautiful bill' even if the moratorium is replaced by the conditioned federal funding. 'I think the drafting of the moratorium was so broad that it potentially encompassed all of that stuff,' he said. 'So I hope that that we can refine the text a little bit, and then if they want to put those conditions in on foundational regulation, I think that'd be appropriate.'
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Hegseth says troops in LA are lawful. He just can't explain why.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday insisted the Pentagon's deployment of troops to Los Angeles was lawful. He just couldn't cite the law he was following. The Pentagon chief clashed with several lawmakers at a Senate budget hearing as he sought to defend President Donald Trump's decision to send thousands of troops, including 700 active-duty Marines, to California in response to mass deportation protests. But when asked to explain the legal underpinning that justifies the Marine deployment, the Defense secretary blanked. 'I'd have to pull up the specific provision,' he told Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.). 'But our Office of General Counsel, alongside our leadership, has reviewed and ensured, in the order that we set out, that it's completely constitutional for the president to use federal troops to defend federal law enforcement.' When Baldwin pushed again, Hegseth said, 'It's in the order, ma'am, but we'll make sure we get it to you as well.' Hegseth, a former Fox News anchor who appears calm in front of the camera, faced a tougher time at Wednesday's Senate defense appropriations subcommittee than he did at a House budget hearing the day before. Democrats peppered him with questions about the domestic deployments, research budget cuts and the impact of tariffs on the defense industrial base. Republicans largely avoided focusing on Los Angeles, although they lashed out at him on Trump's tardy budget and approach to Ukraine. The Defense secretary argued the deployments to Los Angeles and along the southern border, where the military has 13,000 National Guard and active-duty troops, are necessary to protect the country. 'We very much support President Trump's focus on defending [the] homeland on our southern border,' he said, 'as well as supporting law enforcement officials doing their job in ICE in Los Angeles who deserve not to be assaulted, accosted and rioted while rounding up one of the 21 million illegals allowed in as an invasion under the previous administration.' But Democrats questioned whether the moves violated laws that govern the use of the military on U.S. soil. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) pressed Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Dan Caine about the argument underpinning the orders. 'Is the United States being invaded by a foreign nation?' he asked. 'I don't see any foreign state-sponsored folks invading,' Caine replied. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) raised concerns about Trump politicizing the military, asking Hegseth whether he supported deploying the National Guard to the Capitol in response to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection that sought to overturn the election. Hegseth would not say. 'All I know is it's the right decision to be deploying the National Guard in Los Angeles to defend ICE agents,' he said. Murphy called Hegseth's response evidence of a double standard. 'You are not willing to defend against attacks made on our democracy by supporters of the president, but you are willing to deploy the National Guard to protect against protestors who are criticizing the president,' he said. But it was Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the usually restrained Senate Armed Services Committee's ranking member, who was the most forceful in tone. He raised alarms about the Los Angeles deployment, as well as several Homeland Security requests for 20,000 more troops to assist at the border, for 'military forces to detain or arrest American citizens,' and to provide drone surveillance. 'Is it your intent to approve these requests?' Reed asked. 'Are you prepared to authorize DHS to use drones and also to authorize military forces to detain or arrest American citizens?' Hegseth did not respond directly, but defended the administration's actions. 'Every authorization we've provided the National Guard and the Marines in Los Angeles is under the authority of the President of the United States — is lawful and constitutional,' he said. 'They are assisting in defending law enforcement officers … executing their job in the city of Los Angeles.'
