Are Canons of Statutory Construction Relied Upon Unnecessarily?

For purposes of statutory construction, the courts and bill drafters use a series of “canons” to guide them in interpreting statutes (for judges) and in drafting statutes (for drafters). These include textual canons (intrinsic aids), linguistic presumptions and grammatical conventions, substantive canons, and extrinsic aids. It is impossible to list them all, but there are some common canons, and those are most useful for legislative drafting.

One the main ones used by the California courts is starting with the presumption that the Legislature drafts its bills carefully and intentionally. Because of this presumption, the usual approach of the judicial branch is to narrow statutes rather than expand them, and the courts in this state are less activist in their interpretation.

Critics of statutory canons argue that legislators frequently use redundant terms out of an abundance of caution (“belt-and-suspenders” drafting) rather than distinct intent. How should California judges balance real-world legislative drafting habits against the rigid assumption of the Rule Against Surplusage, for example?

The Rule Against Surplusage explains that different words in the same statute cannot have the same meaning. In other words, one word is not duplicative or redundant of another word found in the statute. The “rule against surplusage” is used when reading a statute and it appears that one or more parts of the statute are redundant. 

Some legal scholars argue that relying heavily on canons like the Rule Against Surplusage allows courts to reshape statutes under the guise of neutral textualism. As a result, there is legal and academic debate whether this canon of statutory construction makes California courts more or less restrained when interpreting the state laws.

Is it the right approach that courts presume that the California Legislature does not include “surplus” or unneeded words when drafting a statute?  What should a California court do if applying the Rule Against Surplusage creates a harsh or absurd result? Ot what if this canon’s application conflicts with the plain meaning of the text? Does the canon of avoiding absurd results ever override the anti-surplusage presumption?

Could the use of canons, such as the Rule Against Surplusage, create an over-reliance so the intent of the Legislature is not followed?