Legislative drafting error: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 10:52, 21 May 2011

Latest revision as of 22:51, 13 August 2024

(6 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Use American English|date = January 2019}}

'''Drafting error'''s sometimes occur in legislation. Usually these errors are minor, such as incorrect punctuation or capitalization, and the meaning is unaffected. But sometimes the matter is more substantive.

{{Short description|Errors in drafting laws}}

{{Use mdy dates|date = January 2019}}

'''Drafting errorerrors'''s sometimes occur in [[legislation]]. Usually these errors are minor, such as incorrect punctuation or capitalization, and the meaning is unaffected. But sometimes the matter is more substantive.

Commonly, the error will have something to do with cross-referencing of statutes. For instance, the U.S. statutes pertaining to probation had a drafting error which caused the section about revocation of probation for failing to submit to a drug test to incorrectly reference a section about domestic violence.<ref>{{cite court|litigants=United States v. Coatoam|date=2001|court=CA6 Ohio|vol=245|reporter=F3d|opinion=553|url=http://openjurist.org/245/f3d/553/united-states-of-america-v-walter-coatoam}}</ref> By clerical error, the law also omitted an accurate reference to community confinement.<ref>{{citation|url=http://www.ussc.gov/2004guid/7b1_3.htm|title=USSG 7B1.3, Footnote to Application Note 5|year=2004}}</ref><ref>{{cite court|litigants=United States v. D'Amario|date=2005|court=CA1 RI|vol=412|reporter=F3d|opinion=253}}</ref> However, in both cases, courts upheld Congressional intent.

Commonly, the error will have something to do with cross-referencing of statutes. For instance, the U.S. statutes pertaining to probation had a drafting error which caused the section about revocation of probation for failing to submit to a drug test to incorrectly reference a section about domestic violence.<ref>{{cite court|litigants=United States v. Coatoam|date=2001|court=CA6 Ohio|vol=245|reporter=F3d|opinion=553|url=http://openjurist.org/245/f3d/553/united-states-of-america-v-walter-coatoam}}</ref> By clerical error, the law also omitted an accurate reference to community confinement.<ref>{{citation|url=http://www.ussc.gov/2004guid/7b1_3.htm|title=USSG 7B1.3, Footnote to Application Note 5|year=2004|access-date=March 14, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100112101517/http://www.ussc.gov/2004guid/7b1_3.htm|archive-date=January 12, 2010|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite court|litigants=United States v. D'Amario|date=2005|court=CA1 RI|vol=412|reporter=F3d|opinion=253}}</ref> However, in both cases, courts upheld Congressional intent.

Sometimes courts refuse to apply [[legislative intent]] that conflicts with the text of the law, as in the case of the [[Virginia General Assembly]] accidentally repealing the exemptions of almost all industries from the statute requiring employers to allow employees not to work on [[Christian Sabbath|Sabbath]]. It was necessary for the legislature to re-assemble for a special session to correct the error.<ref>{{citation|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/14/us/virginia-lawmakers-trudge-back-to-scene-to-repair-error.html?pagewanted=1|title=Virginia Lawmakers Trudge Back to Scene to Repair Error|author=Bacon, Lisa|date=July 14, 2004|publisher=New York Times}}</ref>

Sometimes courts refuse to apply [[legislative intent]] that conflicts with the text of the law, as in the case of the [[Virginia General Assembly]] accidentally repealing the exemptions of almost all industries from the statute requiring employers to allow employees not to work on [[Christian Sabbath|Sabbath]]. It was necessary for the legislature to re-assemble for a special session to correct the error.<ref>{{citation|url=httphttps://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/14/us/virginia-lawmakers-trudge-back-to-scene-to-repair-error.html?pagewanted=1|title=Virginia Lawmakers Trudge Back to Scene to Repair Error|author=Bacon, Lisa|date=July 14, 2004|publisherwork=New York Times}}</ref>

There have been instances, most commonly involving [[ballot initiative]]s, in which the drafting error was known prior to enactment. For instance, in the case of Proposition 165, a California [[welfare reform]] initiative, [[Governor Pete Wilson]] announced that his public campaign statements would let the courts know that a provision eliminating the legislature's power to override a veto was an "unintended error," and the mistake would be corrected, if necessary, by the courts.<ref>{{citation|url=http://articles.latimes.com/1992-10-26/local/me-743_1_state-supreme-court|title=Perspective On Proposition 165|publisher=Los Angeles Times|date=October 26, 1992|author=Uelmen, Gerald F.}}</ref>

There have been instances, most commonly involving [[ballot initiative]]s, in which the drafting error was known prior to enactment. For instance, in the case of Proposition 165, a California [[welfare reform]] initiative, [[Governor of California|California Governor]] [[Pete Wilson]] announced that his public campaign statements would let the courts know that a provision eliminating the legislature's power to override a veto was an "unintended error," and the mistake would be corrected, if necessary, by the courts.<ref>{{citation|url=httphttps://articleswww.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-10-26/local/-me-743_1_state743-supreme-courtstory.html|title=Perspective On Proposition 165|publisherwork=Los Angeles Times|date=October 26, 1992|author=Uelmen, Gerald F.}}</ref>

==References==

Line 11 ⟶ 15:

[[Category:Statutory law]]

[[Category:ErrorLegal error]]