Statutory statements by the Legislature should guide courts

When the California Legislature includes certain statements in legislation that is ultimately enacted, I believe these enacted statements should guide California courts. What am I talking about? These statements include legislative findings and declarations, intent statements, and related statutory language.

These types of statements should be codified and read by the courts as part of the statutory language when judges and justices engage in statutory interpretation of ambiguous enactments.

Of course, the most effective way for legislators to be confident that legislation will have the desired effect (and their intent fulfilled) is to use clear, consistent, and unambiguous language. However, it is unrealistic to believe that every statute will cover every situation and not have any possible ambiguities.

As a result, I think the courts in this state should be guided by codified statements. These types of statements commonly appears at the beginning of a bill, sometimes under headings such as “Findings” or “Purposes.” In California, these preliminary provisions generally take one or more of the following forms:

• Legislative findings and declarations
• Intent of the Legislature
• Purpose of the legislation
• Policy of the State

In whatever form these preliminary statements come in, they should be given great weight by the judicial branch when interpreting the statutory language that follows these initial statements. Why? Because they represent the view of the Legislature and provide an explanation or rationale for the statutory enactment.

These enacted findings and intent statements could offer both main types of statutory interpretation perspectives (textualism and purposivism) a basis for construing statutes. For the textualists, they are reviewing the text, not just the code section language, but also the other codified or uncodified legislative statements. Also, this approach allows the purposivists to pursue their effort to understand the purposes of the Legislature in enacting the code section language.

Enacted findings or purpose statements are often the most accurate reflection of the legislative view. Unfortunately, they are often ignored or not viewed with the level of respect that I believe they are entitled to by state judges. However, enacted findings or purpose statements have important implications for statutory interpretation.

These types of legislative statements should be given deference by the state’s judiciary just like some other examples we see on occasion in California statutes. Perhaps the most popular one in California law is the following: “This act shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes.” Why is this phrase needed? Shouldn’t that be obvious guidance to a court when interpreting a statute?

In brief research, I found at least 225 code sections that contain this phrase in California’s 29 Codes. So, although it is not commonly used in California law, judges normally follow this statutory guidance.

According to state courts, “The fundamental rule of statutory construction is that a court should ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law.” Upland Police Officers Assn. v. City of Upland (2003) 111 Cal.App.4^th 1294, 1303. “We must construe the statute with a view to promoting rather than defeating its general purpose and the policy behind it. We are mindful that statutes must be interpreted ’so as to give a reasonable and common-sense construction…, a construction that is practical rather than technical, and will lead to wise policy rather than mischief or absurdity’.” (Upland, 111 Cal.App.4^th at p. 1303)

Do the state’s courts have to accept these legislative statements contained in California statutes? No, but they are more often than not cited by the courts to support their interpretation of what the Legislature intended when the courts interpret statutes. As a result, I believe they should be set forth more often in state law and should be given strong deference by the judicial branch in this state.

Support for The Micheli Files is provided by The McGeorge School of Law Capital Center for Law & Policy.