Legislative documents used to determine intent

MICHELI FILES: Resorting to legislative history is generally appropriate only where statutory language is ambiguous. As the California Supreme Court has said, “Our role in construing a statute is to ascertain the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. In determining intent, we look first to the words of the statute, giving the language its usual, ordinary meaning. If there is no ambiguity in the language, we presume the Legislature meant what it said, and the plain meaning of the statute governs.”

Thus, “[o]nly when the language of a statute is susceptible to more than one reasonable construction is it appropriate to turn to extrinsic aids, including the legislative history of the measure, to ascertain its meaning.” Even where statutory language is ambiguous, and resort to legislative history is appropriate, as a general rule in order to be cognizable, legislative history must shed light on the collegial view of the Legislature as a whole. [emphasis added]

Thus, to pick but one example, the Supreme Court has said, “We have frequently stated . . . that the statements of an individual legislator, including the author of a bill, are generally not considered in construing a statute, as the court’s task is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature as a whole in adopting a piece of legislation.”

Taking Judicial Notice

There are numerous decisions where appellate courts have taken judicial notice of the entire legislative history of a statute. Some decisions have criticized parties who submit only selected parts of legislative history. For example, in Drouet v. Superior Cour], the Supreme Court rejected an interpretation based on “isolated fragments of the Act’s legislative history,” pointing to a “single paragraph in a Senate committee analysis….”

Similarly, in Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp., the Second District Court of Appeal criticized the respondents’ reliance on two items of legislative history, noting that these were only “brief summaries” that would not be viewed as “comprehensive statements of the intent of the statute.”

In People v. Valenzuela, the Fourth District Court of Appeal denied a request for judicial notice of a letter from the bill’s author to the governor. Aside from the fact that the letter was not proper legislative history since it reflected the views of one legislator, the court was also “reluctant to sanction defense counsel’s selective presentation of one excerpt from the legislative history obtained from the Legislative Intent Service.” “The entire legislative history should have been submitted to us.”

California Law on Legislative Intent

In California, the use of legislative intent has long been established by both statute and case law. For example, California’s Code of Civil Procedure, which was enacted in 1872, provides the following mandate to the courts: “In the construction of a statute, the intention of the Legislature … is to be pursued, if possible …”

Similarly, the judicial notice statute in California law identifies admissible legislative history materials in Evidence Code Section 452(c). The cases cited under this section of state law identify various records with which the courts have a high comfort level to determine the intent of the Legislature in adding or amending a particular code section.

In broad terms, evidence of legislative intent can be derived from two primary sources: Either an intrinsic analysis of the statute and its surrounding statutory context according to standard principles of statutory construction; or, by use of extrinsic aids to reconstruct the legislative history of a statute to understand the meaning of the language.

As previously discussed, legislative intent is particularly difficult to ascertain in this state because there is limited documentation in the proceedings of the California Legislature. In order for a court to resort to the statute’s legislative history, the court must be persuaded that the statute is sufficiently ambiguous.

Limitation on California Materials

The fundamental limitation in most California legislative history materials is that there is rarely an explanation of why certain words were chosen or why particular phrases were put in a statute. As a result, when interpreting a statute, it is difficult to know why the bill contains certain language, or why other language was not used, or why the language was changed, and what was intended by the chosen language.

Broadly speaking, one may be able to understand what the statutory language says, but rarely do bill analyses provide insights into why specific language was chosen. Moreover, the intent of specific bill language is rarely known outside a handful of individuals who were directly involved in drafting the bill language, or at least negotiated it, which is generally limited to the author and his or her staff, the bill’s sponsor, proponents, opponents, and policy committee staff. On other occasions, we may include fiscal committee staff and possibly leadership staff.

As will be discussed in greater detail below, the courts attribute intent to the entire legislature, as opposed to the bill’s author, for example, yet only a handful of legislators truly know the intent of a bill and why certain bill language was chosen for the statute. On the other hand, the vast majority of legislators voting on the bill do not.

Again, this is not a criticism of legislators. They consider and vote upon several thousand bills and amendments each year and so they cannot be expected to know details about all of those bills. That is why this author believes the courts should rely primarily upon what the bill author says about the bill’s intent and the language chosen.

The bill’s author is in the best position to provide a clear statement of legislative intent as he or she is most intimately involved with the bill and the specific language used in that bill. As such, courts should provide greater deference to author’s statements of intent, rather than documents shared with the entire legislature. In addition, all documents related to legislative history and intent should be merely subject to a relevance test.

A Closer Look at Certain Legislative Documents

The following is a brief summary of some of the key documents related to legislative history and intent:

Statements of Individual Legislators – The California Supreme Court has looked to “individual legislators’ (including co-authors’) comments from the Assembly and Senate committee files.” The state Supreme Court referred to these materials, among others judicially noticed, as “expressions of legislative intent to construe it [the term “managing agent”] in the statute’s relative context.

Statements by Sponsors – In Quarterman v. Kefauver, the First District Court of Appeal extracted the sponsor statements from legislative committee analyses. Similarly, the Second District Court of Appeal in Soil v. Superior Court made several references to the statements of the sponsor of the legislation, and those of the opponents, as found in legislative committee analyses.

The bill’s author is in the best position to provide a clear statement of legislative intent as he or she is most intimately involved with the bill and the specific language used in that bill.

Legislative Intent Language – Some bills include “intent” language expressing findings and declarations of the Legislature regarding what the bill’s changes are intended to do or mean. Bill drafters should consider the pros and cons of using intent language. The following is one appellate court’s view of such language:

“That two legislators report contradictory legislative intent fortifies judicial reticence to rely on statements made by individual members of the Legislature as an expression of the intent of the entire body. Other extrinsic aids to determine legislative intent are generally more persuasive.”

Legislative Counsel Opinions – Legislative Counsel Opinions are issued to legislators confidentially. As the client, a legislator can release an opinion and it is given weight by the courts. However, these opinions may not be shared with the entire legislature.

Letters to the Journal – Letters to the Journal of the Assembly or Senate are valuable for explaining the specifics of a bill, why it was carried by the author, and whether any provisions need to be clarified.

LAO Analyses – Legislative Analyst Office analyses are also viewed positively. However, they only analyze the budget and ballot measures. LAO previously analyzed the fiscal impact of all bills, but that has not occurred since the early 1990s.

Veto of Prior Bill – A veto message of a prior bill has been determined to shed light on legislative intent. Of course, this is written by the Governor and is not utilized by the Legislature as a whole when they are voting on a bill.

Bill Files – Bill files can offer several documents that may shed light on the legislature’s intent. This can include the author’s bill files, committee bill files, and the Governor’s chaptered bill files. Legislators and the Governor decide whether to make public their bill files. Committee bill files are subject to public inspection.

The author’s bill files could include public and private documents, such as internal memoranda, press releases, committee statements, and correspondence. Committee bill files contain bill versions, analyses, support and oppose letters, research, studies, opinions, testimony, and correspondence.

Governor’s chaptered bill files include bills, analyses from the Legislature, as well as the analyses of the Department of Finance (on the fiscal impacts) and relevant executive branch agencies and departments. These files are usually confidential until the Governor is out of office. So, they are not actually relied upon by the entire legislature.

Other Reports – The California Law Revision Commission and Little Hoover Commission occasionally write reports on particular topics. They often make recommendation to changes in the law. Courts have relied upon these documents.