Some California Bill Drafting Suggestions
Legislative drafters also attempt to eliminate legalese
By Chris Micheli, November 18, 2024 1:50 pm
After surveying legislation during the 2024 Legislative Session, I have a couple of observations and would like to suggest some bill drafting changes I have. So, here they are:
Legislative drafters strive for clarity and consistency, and they try to eliminate ambiguity and unnecessary verbiage. For example, we should stop adding to statutes the following, and repeal the following from existing statutes, phrases such as these:
“The ___ (e.g., officer, or court) may, in its discretion, authorize ….” Why does it say that? We already know that the term “may” is discretionary itself. “May” is permissive according to the general provisions of California Codes. As a result, it is duplicative and, therefore, unnecessary to write in statute both the word “may” and “in its discretion” as they both mean the same thing. So, it should simply say: “The ___ may authorize…”
Legislative drafters also attempt to eliminate legalese. Yet, we find in new legislation, as well as in existing statutes, the following:
“___ (e.g., department) is hereby established in state government.” Instead, it should simply provide: “___ (e.g., department) is established in state government.” OR “…. such person shall…” Instead, it should provide: “… the person shall…”
Consistency is also valuable when drafting legislation. When bills include important information in “plus” sections at the end of the measure, in all instances, except one, the specific constitutional reference is included. These apply to special statutes, public purposes, and state-mandated local programs, for example.
However, this does not include urgency clause statements. For example, existing plus sections provide: “This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution ….” I think the better approach would be to specify the constitutional provision, so it would read as follows: “This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Section 8(d) of Article IV of the California Constitution ….”
- California Courts and Sunset Clauses in Statutes - December 20, 2024
- California Courts and the Legislative Open Records Act - December 19, 2024
- California Courts and Urgency Clauses in Statutes - December 18, 2024
In defense of a statute expressing that the word “may” is permissive, (and, by extension, that the word “shall” is mandatory), see Garrison v. Rourke (1948) 32 Cal. 2d 433, at 437: ” . . . words otherwise generally mandatory or permissive will be given a different meaning when the provisions of the statute, properly construed, require it.” The Court held that the use of the word “shall” in a certain statute actually means “may”, and is authority for the courts to construe the use of the word “may” in a statute to mean “shall”.