Some Notes on Bills Declaring Existing Law
Some Notes on Bills Declaring Existing Law By Chris Micheli
As we near the end of the California Legislative Session, we see more bills that claim to make changes to statutes, and those amendments are claimed to be "declaratory of existing law." How is that done and how do California courts view those types of legislative proclamations?
To begin, in most instances, legislation applies prospectively, meaning after the law has been enacted and takes effect. Nonetheless, there are times when the Legislature desires statutes to be applied retroactively, and sometimes they also specify a prospective application date.
The following is an example of specific language contained in a bill that is intended to apply retroactively:
The requirement to provide COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave as set forth in this section shall take effect 10 days after the date of enactment of this section, at which time the requirements shall apply retroactively to January 1, 2021.
Another approach used on occasion is the following is an example of language where the Legislature states its intent that a court apply the bill retroactively:
It is the intent of the Legislature that a court interpret this section, as amended by the act adding this subdivision, in a manner consistent with the interpretation of this section as it read prior to January 1, 2013.
And, in unique circumstances, the following is an example of one of these declaratory of existing law statements:
The amendments to this subdivision made by Section 11 of Chapter 256 of the Statutes of 2021 do not constitute a change in, but are declaratory of, existing law.
Is this statement sufficient? I do not believe so, which leaves it susceptible to judicial challenge. That is because I believe the Legislature actually needs to explain to a reviewing court why the amendatory language should be applied retroactively.
So, how could the statement above be strengthened and make it more likely to be acceptable to the courts of this state?
1.
Explain
immediately after the declaratory statement why the amendment(s) to the earlier
statute do not change existing law, but simply clarify it.
2.
Add
legislative findings and declarations and a statement of legislative intent in
Section 1 of the bill, which could be codified or uncodified language. These
statements should explain in detail why the amendment(s) to an existing statute
are not changing the existing law.
3.
Ideally,
the Assembly and Senate Floor Analyses should also describe in detail the
intended retroactive application of the law change. Floor analyses are
communicated to the Legislature as a whole, which is the guiding principle for
courts in citing persuasive legislative history.
Comments
Post a Comment