I Developments in Washington's Law of Law-Making - Gonzaga ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

GONZAGA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 44:3 a bill are listed in the ministerial portion of the bill title and are revised throughout the legislative process as the bill changes. 269 The offset drafting method currently used by the legislature employs text formatting so that legislation internally demonstrates how it changes the underlying section, and the reader no longer need compare the bill to the original section to discern the changes. Specifically, the offset method uses underscoring to indicate that an amendatory section adds language to the statutory text and strikeout font enclosed in double parentheses to indicate where an amendatory section deletes language. 2 70 For example: Sec. 1. RCW 1.01.100 and 2007 c 1 2 are each amended to read as follows: This is a statute. ((Deletiens from this sectien are indicated with strikeouat font and double parentheses.)) Additions to the section are indicated with underscore. Joint rules of the legislature require that bills considered by the legislature use this drafting format, 271 and by statute, ballot measures must also be printed in the voters' pamphlet under the same formula. 272 Significantly, though employed in bill drafting at least as early as 1945, the offset method did not appear in Washington's session 271 laws until 1969. An introductory note to the 1969 laws explains that the offset method of printing the session laws is intended "to present the new laws in the exact form in which they were adopted by the legislature" because "the style quickly and graphically portrays the.., changes to existing laws. ' 274 B. Article II, Section 37 and the Courts In order to determine whether legislative drafters have complied with the requirements of article II, section 37, Washington courts have developed the two-part 269. See OriginalActs, supra note 146, at 41-43. 270. BILL DRAFrTNG GUIDE, supra note 245, pt. II, § 3, at 5. 271. WASH. LEGISLATURE JOINT RULE 13 (2009-2010), available at http://www.leg.wa.gov/documents/lic/Documents/Subscriptions End-of Session HistoricaliLegMa n.pdf, at 422. 272. WASH. REV. CODE § 29A.32.080 (2004). There is no direct statutory requirement that the ballot measure text circulated with the petition under RCW 29A.72. 100 use the offset formula, see infra at 47. 273. E.g., 1969 Wash. Sess. Laws ch. 6. The author would like to thank Assistant Attorney General and Statute Law Committee member Joe Panesko for calling her attention to the history of the offset format. 274. 1969 Wash. Sess. Laws at ii.
2008/09] WASHINGTON'S LAW OF LAW-MAKING Weyerhaeuser!WEA 2 75 inquiry, with each of these tests corresponding to one of the purposes of the section. The first part of the test is intended to promote the purpose of requiring the law "to disclose the effect of the new legislation." 76 To avoid "confusion, ambiguity, and uncertainty in the statutory law through the existence of separate and disconnected legislative provisions, original and amendatory, scattered through out" the code, the court requires "that no further search.., be required to determine the provisions of such section as amended. '277 In other words, is the "new enactment such a complete act that the scope of the rights or duties created or affected by the [new] legislation... can be determined without referring to any other statute or enactment? ' 278 The second part of the test addresses the purpose of disclosing "the nature and content of the law which is being amended and the effect of the amendment upon it'2 79 -in essence, the act's effect on existing laws, both those directly amended in the act and other statutes not included in the act. 28 It inquires whether "a straightforward determination of the scope of [the] rights or duties under the existing statutes [would] be rendered erroneous by the new enactment? ' '2si Amalgamated Transit cautioned that this second test should not be used "in isolation" because a complete act may "result in a person reading an existing statute" without being able to tell that "there is new law on the subject.'2 82 The classic example of a bill that flunks both of these tests is a budget proviso that alters codified law. In Flanders v. Morris, 283 codified statutes established the eligibility criteria for a particular form of public assistance, but a controversial budget proviso added a further condition for recipients to meet before they could receive the benefit. 284 The court rejected the proviso, reasoning that it was an amendment to the existing codified criteria, but "the statute will never reflect this change but will continue to read as it always has .... One seeking the law on the subject would have to know one must look under an "appropriations" title in the uncodified session laws to find the amendment. ' 285 275. Weyerhaeuser Co. v. King County, 592 P.2d 1108, 1114 (Wash. 1979); Wash. Educ. Ass'n v. State, 604 P.2d 950, 952 (Wash. 1980). 276. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State, 11 P.3d 762, 800 (Wash. 2000) (citing State v. Thome, 921 P.2d 514, 522 (Wash. 1996)). 277. Id (quoting Flanders v. Morris, 558 P.2d 768, 773 (Wash. 1977)). 278. Id at 800-01 (quoting Wash. Educ. Ass', 604 P.2d at 952 (internal citations omitted)). 279. Id at 801 (quoting Flanders, 558 P.3d at 774). 280. Id at 801 (citing Thorne, 921 P.2d at 522). 281. Id at 800 (citing Wash. Educ. Ass 'n, 604 P.2d at 952). 282. Id. at 804. 283. Flanders, 558 P.2d at 771. 284. Id; cf supra note 170 (discussion of "rider" amendments). 285. Flanders, 558 P.2d at 774 (emphasis included).
Page 1 and 2: Grasping for the "Elephant in the C
Page 3 and 4: 2008/09] WASHINGTON'S LAW OF LAW-MA
Page 29 and 30: 2008/091 WASHINGTON'S LAW OF LAW-MA
Page 39: 2008/09] WASHINGTON'S LAW OF LAW-MA
Page 81: 2008/09] WASHINGTON'S LAW OF LAW-MA

I Developments in Washington's Law of Law-Making - Gonzaga ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?