Legislative drafting error: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Tisane (talk | contribs)
m correct cite
Tisane (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 4:
 
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 the [[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>
 
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>
 
==References==