Why Defining Words by Cross-Reference Should Cease

When adding a new law to California statutes, there are basically two ways of defining a word or phrase in that new statute. The first is to define the word or term in the new statute. The second is to cross-reference an existing definition that is contained in another section of law.

With a cross-reference, the definition of the word or phrase could come from the same Code in which you are adding a new section, or it could come from a different Code (recall there are 29 Codes that contain 156,000 statutes in California law).

Why do I think it is not a good idea to cross-reference a definition?

First, and most importantly, it requires the reader to go find that other section of law to see the definition that is applicable. It is much easier for the reader to see the definition right there in what they are reading, rather than make them hunt for it. Just like the best drafting includes the definitions at the front of a section, it is a best practice to define the word or phrase in each statute so it is readily available.

This allows the enforcement entity or the person or entity that needs to comply with the law to readily determine whether or not the statute is applicable.

Second, using a cross-reference makes your code section dependent upon the other Code section, which could be amended or repealed at some time in the future. This means your section’s definition is dependent, for good or bad, upon the other Code’s definition. As a result, it is necessary to keep apprised with what is going on with that other Code’s definition that applies to your section as well.

Third, it is an inefficient way of drafting. I think the better approach is to simply replicate the desired definition and put it into your Code section that you are adding. It is easier on the reader and is just a cut-and-paste task for the bill drafter.