Should a special law be based on conclusions and statements?

I have previously written about special statutory declarations and their sufficiency. There are “special statutes” bills in the California Legislature that are used when legislators believe that the provisions of a bill are unique and should only apply in certain circumstances or to a certain legal entity or jurisdiction. Not every bill can be assigned a special statutory designation.

If a special law is required for certain, unique reasons, the bill specifies that it is a “special law” and a brief explanation why the general law cannot apply in that case. At the end of the bill, in what the Office of Legislative Counsel calls the “plus section” would be the following language: “The Legislature finds and declares that a special law is necessary and that the general law cannot be applied within the meaning of Section 16 Article IV of the California Constitution , because the…”

Unlike the constitutional provision for urgency laws, which must contain a statement of the facts justifying the bill’s urgency status, there is no such language in Article IV, Section 16, concerning general and special laws. Since all bills that are special statutes contain standardized language (i.e., defining and stating that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be applied), this may be all that is required under the State Constitution.

In the 2022 session, the bill that came to Governor Newsom’s desk invoked the conclusions and statements contained in section 1 of the bill. At the time, I suggested that this approach could serve as an example for future legislation.

AB 612 (Berman) was recently introduced to the 2023 session, which includes provisions containing various findings and statements, as well as legislative findings and statements regarding the need for a special surplus public property law in the City of Pacifica.

AB 612, section 1 of the bill, contains six legislative findings and declarations. Thereafter, Section 4 of the Section Plus bill provides that a special statute is necessary “because of the unique circumstances set out in Section 1 of this statute regarding the promotion of increased public access to Pacifica State Beach and the California Coastal.” drag.”

As a result, instead of restating the findings in the plus section at the end of the bill, or including a simple statement in the plus section, this bill draws on the extensive legislative findings and declarations contained in the uncodified section 1 of the bill. That should be enough for any court in that state to approve the definition of a special law.

Content Source

California Press News – Latest News:
Los Angeles Local News || Bay Area Local News || California News || Lifestyle News || National news || Travel News || Health News

Related Articles

Back to top button