Legislative drafting error: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:12, 30 December 2014

Revision as of 10:20, 19 February 2017

Line 3:

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.

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|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>