by Tom Morris

While trying to read a statute to unravel its meaning, have you ever felt dismayed or sidetracked when you came across a phrase such as this: “as specified in sub-subparagraph (D) of subparagraph (III) of paragraph (g) of subsection (4) of this section”? That’s a lot of words—what is a “sub-subparagraph”, anyway?—and understanding them is made even more difficult due to the fact that they’re presented in reverse order from how most of us probably think. It’s as if, to describe how much money was being appropriated, we said “19 cents, 235 dollars, 452 thousand dollars, and 2 million dollars” instead of “2,452,235.19 dollars”. Surely, a better format for statutory references is possible.

Well, the Office of Legislative Legal Services has decided that a better format is possible, and, in drafting bills for the 2017 regular session, we have already started using it.

First, it’s important to understand the scope of the changes. When a statute refers to a portion of a different statute, that’s called an “external” reference, and we don’t use the format described above. Instead, if you’re in a statute other than section 24-30-122, the reference would previously have been something like “section 24-30-122 (4)(g)(III)(D), C.R.S.”. The main difference in external references going forward is that we’re dropping the “C.R.S.” (the abbreviation for “Colorado Revised Statutes”). We figure that, if you’re reading title 8, you know when you see a reference to section 24-1-104, it’s referring to a section in another title of the Colorado statutes and that we’re not straying down the freeway and into another state’s statutes.

Second, we used to include the number of a title or article only when the reference was located in a title or article other than the one being referenced, but we would always include the part number regardless of whether the reference was in or out of that part. We will now treat titles and articles as we currently treat parts: We’ll always include the article and title number (so references to “this article” in statute now become “this article 12,” for example).

The most significant changes we’re making relate to “internal” references. For example, if the reference is located in section 24-30-122 and the reference is to a portion of that same section, that’s an internal reference. Instead of listing the various types of C.R.S. subdivisions (sub-subparagraph, subparagraph, paragraph, and subsection) in reverse order, we’ll use a format similar to that used for external references. So if you’re in section 24-30-122, the reference will usually be “subsection (4)(g)(III)(D) of this section”.

There are a few things to note about this new format. First, we’re no longer going to refer to sub-subparagraphs, subparagraphs, or paragraphs; every internal reference to a C.R.S. subdivision will be to a “subsection”. Second, for both external and internal references, we will no longer put a space between the parentheses—so it will be “(2)(a)” rather than “(2) (a)”. Third, if the internal reference is to the same subdivision where the internal reference is located, we will include the complete string of higher-level subdivisions in the reference. For example, we used to write “this paragraph (d)”, but now we’ll write “this subsection (3)(d)”. Finally, every internal reference to a different subdivision will end with “of this section”. We used to write “paragraph (a) of this subsection (1)”, but now we’ll write “subsection (1)(a) of this section”.

Here’s a table that summarizes our old and new citation formats for internal references:

Format Before 2017	Format Beginning in 2017
this paragraph (d)	this subsection (3)(d)
this sub-subparagraph (C)	this subsection (1)(e)(II)(C)
paragraph (a) of this subsection (1)	subsection (1)(a) of this section
subparagraph (III) of paragraph (b) of this subsection (4)	subsection (4)(b)(III) of this section
sub-subparagraph (A) of subparagraph (IV) of paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of this section	subsection (2)(c)(IV)(A) of this section

Finally, we will make these changes only prospectively and only in those sections of statute that are included in bills; we will not update the citation format for the entire C.R.S. through the publications process. All new citations will follow the new format. The bill drafters, subject to the sponsors’ preferences, will update existing references in the same way that other grammatical or terminology updates to existing statutes are made.

So there will be some inconsistency in the C.R.S. in how our statutory references are phrased for quite some time. But we’ve concluded that using a citation format that is as specific and accurate as our current system—and that uses less terminology and is more concise, easier to understand, and more internally consistent—is an easy choice. We hope that you’ll agree!

by Patti Dahlberg

Duplicate bill requests – eventually every legislator will run into one of them. The Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS) tries to identify possible duplicate bill requests as early as possible in the drafting process, but it can be tricky. For example, Legislator A may submit a bill request regarding “Agricultural Products” and Legislator B may submit a bill request regarding “Fruits and Vegetables.”  In the end, it may be that these two bill requests overlap one another or are actually duplicates. There’s also a chance that the two bills will end up with nothing in common or be opposites.

When a drafter suspects duplication, he or she will attempt to gather additional information from the requesting legislators to help determine whether the bills are identical, substantially similar, or include partial duplication. Once the drafter decides that bill requests are likely duplicates, he or she will take the following steps:

• First, the drafter will contact the sponsor of the second bill request (i.e., the request filed later in time), referred to in these steps as Legislator B. The drafter will inform Legislator B that the OLLS believes that his or her request may be a duplicate of a previously submitted bill request but cannot, at this time, disclose the name of the legislator who made the first request (Legislator A) because this would be a violation of the confidentiality requirements. The drafter can let Legislator B know whether the first request was made by someone in the same house or the opposite house of the legislature or by someone in the same party.
• The drafter will then ask Legislator B for permission to disclose to Legislator A that Legislator B has filed a bill request that appears to be a duplicate bill. If the bill has already been introduced, the drafter will inform Legislator B about the existence of the introduced bill and ask whether he or she wants to continue pursuing the duplicate bill request. In this case, there would be no need for the drafter to try to contact Legislator A.

When contacted by the OLLS, Legislator B may:

• Decide to withdraw his or her request.
  • If Legislator B withdraws the bill request before the bill’s introduction deadline because it is a duplicate bill request, he or she may submit another bill request, even if the deadline for requesting a bill request has passed. Legislator B must file the replacement request as soon as possible — usually within 24 hours — after withdrawing the first request.
  • If the drafter does not identify the bill request as a duplicate until right before its introduction deadline, Legislator B may need to obtain delayed bill permission in order for the drafter to have sufficient time to draft the replacement bill. If necessary, the OLLS can assist Legislator B in obtaining delayed bill authorization.
• Decide not to let the drafter contact Legislator A.
  • If Legislator B does not want the OLLS to contact Legislator A and wishes to continue with the bill request, the drafter will continue working on both requests without divulging any more information to either legislator about the other legislator’s request.
• Give the drafter permission to contact Legislator A.
  • If Legislator B gives the drafter permission to contact Legislator A and disclose Legislator B’s name, then the drafter will contact Legislator A and explain that Legislator B has requested what appears to be a duplicate to Legislator A’s bill request. Legislator A then has the option of withdrawing or moving forward with his or her request or talking with Legislator B before making a decision. The drafter will need Legislator A’s permission to disclose to Legislator B that Legislator A is the sponsor of the duplicate request.

A drafter may need to engage in several conversations with the affected legislators to determine their desires regarding their duplicate bill requests. Once the disclosure is made, the drafter will leave it up to the two affected legislators to consult with each other about how they wish to resolve the duplicate bill situation.

In resolving a duplicate bill situation, Legislator B and Legislator A may wish to join efforts as a prime sponsor in each house, become joint prime sponsors if they are serving in the same house (in which case the bill will count against each legislator’s five-bill limit), or decide that one legislator will be a prime sponsor and the other will be a sponsor (i.e., the legislator’s name appears on the bill before introduction, but he or she is not the prime sponsor). Either Legislator B or Legislator A may decide to kill his or her bill request or they may both want to go forward with their bills and let the situation be worked out through the process. It’s their decision.

In no event, however, will a legislator be required to withdraw a bill request just because another legislator has already submitted the same or a similar request. Nor does the OLLS refuse a bill request on the grounds that it may be the same as another legislator’s request. Being the first legislator to request a bill in a hot subject area does not necessarily mean that he or she will be notified of any other requests that were made in that same subject.

by Patti Dahlberg

Although the Colorado General Assembly is only in session from January to May each year, General Assembly members know that being a legislator requires year-round attention to legislative responsibilities. The first bill request deadline is still almost three months away (Thursday, December 1), but there are significant benefits to starting the bill drafting process as early as possible during the interim. (See Ask OLLS posting “The start of the legislative session is over 4 months away. Why should I bother to get my bill requests in now?”)

Submitting bill requests early allows legislators, legislative staff, and stakeholders more time to research, consider, develop, and draft bills. And there are other benefits for legislators who can invest a little more time on bill drafting earlier in the fall.

Time Management:
There’s no way around it – bill request deadlines require legislators and staff to complete the bulk of the bill drafting before the convening date of the next session. A legislator can wait until the deadline to submit his or her bill requests and spend the four to five weeks immediately before session – including the holidays – in heavy drafting mode or try to shift a portion of the pre-session drafting demands to earlier in the interim and:

• Reduce the time demands of drafting in December and January, allowing more time to prepare for session, meet with constituents and stakeholders, and tie up other personal matters before the session starts.
• Save big on time and enjoy bill request flexibility by having a solid draft of a bill completed by November. (There is no need to finalize a bill until closer to the desired introduction date.)
• Have the luxury of focusing on one or two bill requests at a time. Once a bill draft is close to being finished, the request can be set aside and the legislator and drafter can start work on another bill. This way, a legislator isn’t just trading a busy December for a busy September or October, but instead leveling the time demands of bill drafting over four to five months.
• Allow legislative staff more time to assist in developing and drafting the legislation. Staff is more readily available to attend meetings, consult on drafting language, and, if needed, provide in-depth research before December.

A lot can change between now and January and it may seem that drafting in September and October could be a waste of time. After all, a legislator may need to significantly change, update, or even withdraw a bill draft before introduction. But that’s okay, because it’s usually easier and faster to revise or rewrite an existing bill draft than to create it from scratch at the last minute. Even if a legislator finds that he or she must withdraw a bill request, he or she doesn’t lose the benefits of early drafting efforts.

Decision-making:

• Early interim bill drafting allows a legislator and the bill’s stakeholders more time to make informed decisions about the bill’s content. Early interim drafting may require legislators to set some internal production deadlines to keep the bill draft moving along, especially when working with larger groups of stakeholders and constituents.
• With a bill draft in hand, even if it’s only an initial draft, a legislator is better equipped to know whether to introduce the bill, who to approach for second house sponsorship, and where the bill fits best in his or her bill introduction order.
• Often it is impossible to determine if a bill request is identical or substantially similar to another legislator’s bill request until draft language is available. By having drafts completed earlier in the interim, staff can more easily identify duplicate bills and the legislator can decide whether to proceed or replace the request sooner. (See Ask OLLS posting “What happens if I make the same bill request as another legislator?”)
• If a legislator has his or her bill drafted in the fall, he or she may authorize a fiscal analyst to provide an early estimate of how much the bill may cost. Knowing how expensive a bill may be before it’s introduced enables the legislator to consider changes before the bill is introduced and becomes public.
• The ability to review drafts of bills before the December 1 deadline is one of the best reasons to use more of the interim to develop and draft bills. If a legislator must decide whether to withdraw and replace one or more bill requests, then it’s best to make that decision before the first bill request deadline when the rules allow greater flexibility in making and replacing bills.

by Patti Dahlberg and Julie Pelegrin

Section 19 of article V of the state constitution specifies that an act takes effect “on the date stated in the act, or, if no date is stated in the act, then on its passage.” This seems simple enough. But there are other considerations and constitutional provisions that can affect when a bill eventually becomes law. To determine the date that a bill becomes law, you will need to read the last few sections of the bill to find the appropriate “clause.”

Effective date clauses:

It is common practice for a bill to state that it takes effect on a specific date, which may be several weeks or months after adjournment of the legislative session. This interval of time between the date that the bill is signed into law and the specified effective date allows state agencies, local governments, courts, and citizens to learn of the new law and make any required adjustments to comply with the new law. A typical effective date clause looks like this:

SECTION 20. Effective date. This act takes effect July 1, 2015.

Applicability clauses:

An applicability clause specifies that the new law will apply to certain events or transactions that occur on or after the effective date. An applicability clause can be used with either an effective date clause or a safety clause (see below). Applicability clauses are frequently used in criminal laws and other acts concerning contracts, contractual relationships, or court proceedings. The following are some common applicability sections:

SECTION 81. Effective date – applicability. This act takes effect November 1, 2015, and applies to offenses committed on or after said date.

Or

SECTION 25. Applicability. This act takes effect upon passage and applies to fiscal years beginning on or after July 1, 2015. (Note: This applicability clause must be accompanied by a safety clause.)

Safety clauses and 90-day Petition Clauses:

Section 19 of article V of the state constitution says that a bill takes effect upon passage if it doesn’t specify an effective date. But section 1 of article V of the state constitution says that the people reserve to themselves the power to approve or reject at the polls all or any portion of an act passed by the General Assembly – generally referred to as the “referendum power.” To refer an act to the ballot, a citizen must submit a petition to the Secretary of State within 90 days after the General Assembly adjourns the legislative session.

Section 1 of article V also says that the people cannot refer an act to the ballot if the act is “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety….” To clearly identify an act that is not subject to the referendum power, the General Assembly will include in the act a safety clause:

SECTION 17. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.

If an act includes a safety clause, section 11 of article IV of the state constitution determines the date of passage. This section requires that every bill be presented to the Governor for approval or veto. A bill becomes law when signed by the Governor, when the Governor fails to act on the bill within the time allowed, or, in the case of a vetoed bill, when the General Assembly overrides the Governor’s veto.

In the vast majority of cases involving a safety clause, the date of passage is the date of the Governor’s signature. For those bills that the Governor does not sign or veto, the date of passage is the day following the final date for the Governor to act on a bill presented to him or her. If the Governor vetoes a bill and the General Assembly overrides the veto, the date of passage is the date on which the second house passes the veto override motion.

The Colorado courts have held that the General Assembly is vested with the exclusive power to decide the appropriateness of using the safety clause. The question of including the safety clause in legislation is a matter of debate in the legislative process, and the courts will not review or question the General Assembly’s decision.

If the General Assembly decides a bill is not necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, it doesn’t make sense for it to pass without a specified effective date and take effect upon passage only to have its effectiveness questioned 90 days later when a citizen turns in a petition to put the act on the ballot. To avoid this, in each bill that does not have a safety clause, the General Assembly includes a “90-day petition” clause. This clause is really a specialized type of effective date clause. The standard 90-day petition clause reads as follows:

SECTION 33. Act subject to petition – effective date. This act takes effect at 12:01 a.m. on the day following the expiration of the ninety-day period after final adjournment of the general assembly (August 5, 2015, if adjournment sine die is on May 6, 2015); except that, if a referendum petition is filed pursuant to section 1 (3) of article V of the state constitution against this act or an item, section, or part of this act within such period, then the act, item, section, or part will not take effect unless approved by the people at the general election to be held in November 2016 and, in such case, will take effect on the date of the official declaration of the vote thereon by the governor.

Bills usually default to the effective date specified in the 90-day petition clause, but they may have a different specified effective date, which must be later than 90 days after adjournment. In some cases, this date is many months into the future, sometimes even into the next year.

Fun Facts About Referendums:

• The General Assembly can refer an act or part of an act to the people by substituting a referendum clause in place of the safety clause or 90-day petition clause. The bill then becomes a “referred bill,” and it is not subject to the Governor’s veto power.
• The procedure by which the people can refer to themselves an act or part of an act passed by the General Assembly is often called a “recision referendum” or an “initiated referendum.”
• According to General Assembly records, the last act that was referred to the ballot by petition of the people was in 1932. The act increased the tax on oleomargarine – and it was affirmed by the voters.
• Appropriation acts for the support and maintenance of the departments of state and state institutions are not referable either by petition of the people or by an act of the General Assembly, even if the acts do not contain the safety clause.

By Ed DeCecco and Sharon Eubanks

A critical part of legislation that creates a new program or changes an existing one is the appropriation clause. Through this clause, the General Assembly exercises its plenary power of the purse and authorizes an agency to spend state money from an identified source for a particular purpose, usually for a limited time. Recently, the trend has been to include more details in the clauses, but their basic format has essentially been the same for over a century. During that time, the clauses have been interpreted and applied without much controversy.

Yet, after an internal review, the staff of the Office of Legislative Legal Services and the Joint Budget Committee believed that the appropriation clauses could be improved. The existing clauses, although functional, are difficult to understand. Specifically, the legislative staff thought the appropriation clauses should be rewritten to remove unnecessary language, which could be codified; to increase legal accuracy; and to improve readability. The changes, however, are not intended to affect the meaning of the appropriation clauses or how the State Controller allows a department to spend its money.

To ensure that the new format would not change the status quo, legislative staff vetted the clauses with the Executive Branch – the State Controller’s Office, the Office of State Planning and Budgeting, and all of the departments. Their feedback was very positive, and they did not identify any serious obstacles to adopting the proposed format, though legislative staff did incorporate several changes based on the departments’ suggestions. The legislative staff then presented the proposed new format for appropriation clauses to the Joint Budget Committee for approval. The Committee approved the use of the new format beginning with the 2015 legislative session.

Here is a typical, simple appropriation clause written in the new format:

       SECTION _. Appropriation. For the 2015-16 state fiscal year, $73,972 is appropriated to the department of public health and environment for use by the prevention services division. This appropriation is from the general fund and is based on an assumption that the division will require an additional 0.9 FTE. To implement this act, the division may use this appropriation for the suicide prevention program.

Rather than writing the appropriation clause as a single, lengthy sentence as was previously the case, this new format for an appropriation clause employs a three sentence structure. The first sentence describes the fiscal year, the amount of the appropriation, and the department, including the division that will use the appropriation. So, with a cursory review, a reader will know the essential information about the appropriation.

The second sentence identifies the source of the appropriation. If the source is a cash fund, the sentence will include the statutory citation for the fund, but that is unnecessary for the general fund. Also, rather than “appropriating” an FTE, it describes the associated FTE consistent with the definition of “FTE” in §24-75-112 (1) (d) (V), C.R.S., which applies to the Long Bill and complies with Colorado case law.

The third sentence specifically identifies how the department, or in this case the division, is permitted to use the appropriation. In many instances, this last sentence will include additional details about a program or a subdivision within the Long Bill so that the specified use corresponds to a Long Bill appropriation.

A key feature of the new format is what is excluded from the appropriation clause. Three phrases previously included in a clause – “In addition to any other appropriation”, “not otherwise appropriated”, and “or so much thereof as may be necessary” – are omitted from this new version. Instead these phrases are codified in Senate Bill 15-098, which the Governor signed into law on February 25, 2015. So the phrases will still apply to, but not clutter, each clause.

Legislative staff has created variations on this new standard format, including an appropriation clause that contains multiple purposes and a clause that directly syncs with an appropriation or series of appropriations made in the Long Bill. It is likely that a majority of appropriation clauses will be variations of the new three-sentence standard format or one of these other two clauses.

Without changing the meaning of appropriation clauses, legislative staff believes that appropriation clauses are now much easier to read. Hopefully you agree.

by Richard Sweetman and Rebecca Hausmann

You want your bill to take effect on January 1, 2015, but your bill drafter says it’s not possible. Why not?

Because the General Assembly convenes on January 7, 2015, the earliest any bill can be introduced is January 7, 2015. The earliest it could pass both houses of the General Assembly is January 9, 2015. And you can’t make a law travel back in time to apply to dates that occurred before the law was even passed!

Or can you?

Retroactivity and Retrospectivity

Section 11 of article II of the Colorado constitution provides that “No ex post facto law, nor law impairing the obligation of contracts, or retrospective in its operation, or making any irrevocable grant of special privileges, franchises or immunities, shall be passed by the general assembly.” [emphasis added]

However, in Colorado, the courts observe a distinction between retroactive application of law and retrospective application of law. Although the retroactive application of a statute is generally disfavored by the common law and by section 2-4-202, C.R.S., (“A statute is presumed to be prospective in its operation.”), the retroactive application of a civil statute is not necessarily unconstitutional. Retroactively applied civil legislation is unconstitutional only if it is also retrospectively applied. Ficarra v. Dep’t of Regulatory Agencies, Div. of Ins., 849 P.2d 6, 11 (Colo. 1993).

A statute is retrospective if it takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws or creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in respect to transactions or considerations already past. In re Estate of DeWitt, 54 P.3d 849, 854 (Colo. 2002).

The Colorado Supreme Court’s retrospectivity analysis consists of two inquiries. First, the court will consider the “vested right” prong of retrospectivity. Second, if a vested right is not implicated, the court will consider the “new obligation, new duty, or new disability” prong of retrospectivity.

A couple of recent court cases provide examples of how a bill’s effective date can affect a court’s retrospectivity analysis.

Impermissible Retroactivity

On March 27, 2006, the General Assembly enacted the “Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act,” which imposes restrictions on smoking in public places. The Act had an effective date of July 1, 2006. In Coalition for Equal Rights, Inc. v. Owens, 458 F. Supp. 2d 1251, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77914 (D. Colo. 2006), the U.S. District court in Denver ruled that section 25-14-204 (2), C.R.S., was impermissible ex post facto legislation because a cigar-tobacco bar owner who legally expanded a business between December 31, 2005, and July 1, 2006, would become subject to penalties as of July 1, 2006, for the pre-enactment expansion. Section 25-14-204 (2), C.R.S., states in part:

A cigar-tobacco bar shall not expand its size or change its location from the size and location in which it existed as of December 31, 2005.

The court stated that “on its face, this language criminalizes activity, expansion of a cigar-tobacco bar, that occurred prior to enactment, when it was still legal.”

Permissible Retroactivity

But, the fact that a law applies to a past action does not, in and of itself, make it impermissibly retroactive. In Meyerstein v. City of Aspen, 282 P.3d 456 (Colo. App. 2011), the Colorado Court of Appeals addressed the question of retroactive applicability. Section 38-12-301, C.R.S., which prohibits rent control by counties and municipalities, was amended effective September 1, 2010, by HB10-1017. The “effective date – applicability clause” of the act indicated that the changes applied to agreements entered into “before, on, or after September 1, 2010.” [emphasis added]

Before the 2010 amendment, section 38-12-301, C.R.S., simply stated:

38-12-301. Control of rents by counties and municipalities prohibited – legislative declaration. The general assembly finds and declares that the imposition of rent control on private residential housing units is a matter of statewide concern; therefore, no county or municipality may enact any ordinance or resolution which would control rents on private residential property.

The 2010 amendment clarified the restriction in that section by adding subsection (2):

(2) For purposes of subsection (1) of this section, an ordinance or resolution that would control rent on either private residential property or a private residential housing unit shall not include:

(a) A voluntary agreement between a county or municipality and a permit applicant or property owner to limit rent on the property or unit or that is otherwise designed to provide affordable housing stock; or

(b) The placement on the title to the unit of a deed restriction that limits rent on the property or unit or that is otherwise designed to provide affordable housing stock pursuant to a voluntary agreement between a county or municipality and a permit applicant or property owner to place the deed restriction on the title.

The Meyerstein court found that the 2010 changes to section 38-12-301, C.R.S., were meant to clarify the existing law, not change it, and therefore the retroactive application of the new language under the circumstances of the case did not violate the constitutional prohibition against retrospective legislation.

To reach its decision, the court first noted the General Assembly’s explicitly stated intent that the new subsection (2) be applied retroactively. Meyerstein, at 465. The court also noted that in a prior case (Town of Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture, L.L.C., 3 P.3d 30 (Colo. 2000)) the Colorado Supreme Court had concluded that the unamended statute was ambiguous — particularly as to whether the statute could be read to extend beyond just ordinances and resolutions to deed restrictions. Id. Finally, the court considered the legislative history of the 2010 bill, especially comments by the sponsor, Senator Betty Boyd, indicating that the bill was intended to “clarify” the scope of the existing provision. Id., at 466.

Next, applying the two-prong approach described in DeWitt, the court stated that the statutory change did not deprive the plaintiff of any vested right and did not produce any change in the plaintiff’s position. Id., at 466. The plaintiff had purchased property that was subject to a deed restriction limiting tenants and rents, and application of the new rent control statute did not change that fact. Id., at 466.

Legislative Time Travel

So in the rules of the legislative universe, it is technically possible to make a law travel back in time to apply to dates and actions that occurred before the law was passed. That is, it is possible for an enacted law to apply retroactively. However, for this to happen, the General Assembly must be absolutely clear about its intent, and the retroactive application of the law must pass strict judicial tests to ensure its constitutionality.

by Kristen Forrestal and Julie Pelegrin

When a legislator crafts a bill, most of the drafting choices center on the substantive policies that the legislator is proposing. However, there are a few nonsubstantive, but important, questions that a drafter is likely to ask the bill sponsor. This article is intended to help bill sponsors decide the answers to some of these questions by explaining the outcomes of various options. (more…)

by Jery Payne

Imagine you are judging a court case. The Wildlife Commission held a hearing to award a grant for an endangered species. Both the Whooping Crane Association and the Black-Footed Ferret Foundation applied. The commission gave the grant to the ferret folks, but it didn’t have a legally required quorum. The crane crew sues to make the ferret folks repay the grant. (more…)

by Kate Meyer

Bill drafting is the most visible function that the Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS) performs, yet the actual process of getting a bill from idea to introduction is a lot more complicated than many people realize. How does the drafting process work (i.e., why does it take so long)? (more…)