Do Misspellings Get into California Statutes?

It may be a surprise, but occasionally a bill makes it all the way through the legislative process, and is enacted into law, and thereafter needs to be corrected because of a misspelling. The following is a recent example from a bill amending the Corporations Code:

423. (a) Shares are not assessable except as provided in this section or as otherwise provided by a statute other than this division. If the articles expresssly expressly confer such authority upon the corporation or the board, and subject to any limitations therein contained, the board may in its discretion levy and collect assessments upon all shares of any or all classes made subject to assessment by the articles. This authority is in addition to the right of the corporation to recover the unpaid subscription price of shares or the remainder of the consideration to be paid therefor.

In addition, the following is a recent example from a bill amending the Food and Agricultural Code:

29208. (b) The inspector’s supervison supervision shall be in addition to, but not in conflict with, the applicable air pollution control district or air quality management district regulations and fire control laws.

It is doubtful that a court in this state would not apply a statute as written, even with a misspelled word. While it is unlikely a bill would be introduced to correct a misspelling in an existing statute, these technical corrections are usually done in an omnibus committee bill, or when a bill proposes to amend a statute that currently has a misspelled word.