Describing a Spot Bill

Describing a Spot Bill By Chris Micheli 

In the California Legislature, a “spot bill” is basically used as a placeholder for a future measure to be amended into the spot bill. Bills introduced in the California Legislature without substantive language in them are called “spot bills.” These are to be distinguished from “intent bills,” which are also a placeholder but express a statement of legislative intent.

Spot bills make technical changes to an existing statute. For example, a spot bill could simply change “a person” to “any person.” Spot bills are deemed to be nonsubstantive changes to the law. As described by the Office of Legislative Counsel, a “spot bill” is one that does not make any substantive change to existing law, “and would not otherwise affect the ongoing operations of state or local government.”

 

When a reader comes across a spot bill among the introduced bills, they will see in the Legislative Counsel’s Digest one of the following two statements:

 

“This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to the law.”

 

“This bill would make a nonsubstantive change to the law.”

 

What is the difference between the two statements? Nothing.

 

It is simply up to the Deputy Legislative Counsel who drafted the spot bill to determine which statement will be used in the Digest. However, I believe the latter statement should be used. Why? Because the former statement is duplicative.

 

Just like we should not use in legislative drafting phrases such as “null and void” or “may, in their discretion,” because they are duplicative words, the Digest should simply state that the bill makes a nonsubstantive change.

 

Moreover, since we usually draft in the affirmative or active voice, rather than the negative or passive voice, perhaps the Digest should actually state: “This bill would not make a substantive change in the law.”

 

Ultimately, it is up to the bill drafter to determine which phrase to use, but just as California is updating its Codes to reflect modern drafting language, so too should the Legislative Counsel Digest language adapt.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Another Reason to Limit Bill Introductions?

Another Reason to Limit Bill Introductions?  By Chris Micheli             As I did my final review of Governor Newsom’s actions on the 1,046 bills sent to him after the 2023 Legislative Session, I noticed that some of the Governor’s veto messages provide additional rationales for limiting bill introductions.             Out of 156 vetoes from the 2023 Session, the number one reason for the Governor’s veto was budget concerns or cost pressures. In fact, 41% of the vetoes used that basis. That by itself is not a reason to limit bill introductions, but another statistic may provide such a reason…             By my count, just over 1/3 of the bills vetoed by Governor Newsom likely should not have been sent to his Desk and, arguably, should not have made it through the process at all. In fact, perhaps they should not h...
Read more

Frequently Asked Questions about California’s Budget Process

Frequently Asked Questions about California’s Budget Process  By Chris Micheli             What are the main parts of the California state budget? They are the Budget Bill, Budget Bill Junior, Trailer Bills, and Supplemental Reports.             What is the Budget Bill? This bill contains the appropriations and “Budget Bill Language”. Note that only a Budget Bill (or BBJ) can contain multiple appropriations. It requires a majority vote for passage and the bill takes effect immediately. There is just one Budget Bill. What is the “Budget Bill Jr.”? This is the bill that amends the main Budget Bill by making changes to multiple appropriations. There are often multiple BBJs. What is a Trailer Bill? This bill makes the statutory changes needed to implement the budget. It is the same as any other bill, but it takes effect immediately with a majority vote if it contain...
Read more

Can Any Bill Call an Election?

Can Any Bill Call an Election?  By Chris Micheli             In June 2024, we saw two bills that contain a provision to call an election.             Both bills contain a “plus” section at the end of the bill, which is an uncodified statute, stating the following: “this act calls an election within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect.” Such a measure only requires a majority vote, unless some other constitutional provision requires a higher vote threshold (e.g., a tax increase). What is the basis for this statement? Section 8(c)(3) of Article IV of the state Constitution provides: “ Statutes calling elections, statutes providing for tax levies or appropriations for the usual current expenses of the State, and urgency statutes shall go into effect immediately upon their enactment.” However, there is no further gui...
Read more