Annotated Evaluative Bibliographies: on “Legislative Drafting” Topic

Ackerman, Alice B 1997, Drafting Legislative Intent Statement, The Legislative Lawyer, Vol.11 No.1, Winter 1997, pp.1-4. This article mentions clearly 5 guidelines in making legislative intent statements. Drafters should identify carefully the policy of the use of these statements by checking the manual, memoranda, or unwritten procedures for how such statements should be written, then clearly understand the purpose of the statement. The next step is recognizing how the statements are valued in any statutory construction act relevant to the state. Lastly, the drafter should be acquainted with court decisions in the state concerning to legislative intent statements. I obviously agree with the writer’s hope that these guidelines will be valuable for legislative drafters, of course after they adjust to the principle rules of their own state law system.

Campbell, Lisbeth 1996, Legal Drafting Styles: Fuzzy or Fussy?, Murdoch University Journal of Law, Vol.3, No.2, July, pp. 1-7. This article states lucid differences between “fuzzy” and “fussy” law drafting styles. Campbell explains the detailed distinctions of both styles, particularly in a judicial approach of statutory constructions, which are based on two different traditions (civil law and common law). Campbell argues that there are distinctive judicial attitudes, political expectations and legal procedures, which are being a reason behind the divergences. The advantages and disadvantages of both drafting systems are described clearly and smoothly. The author refers to other sources for every single point; therefore this is very helpful for readers who want to do profound research on the same topic. Campbell also presents such interesting discussion on the drafting style transition by considering the accuracy of purpose of law making. There are some possibilities and requirements to alter drafting styles appropriately.

Payne, Jery 2005, The Drafting Critique, The Legislative Lawyer, Vol. XVII, Issue.2, pp. 2-3. The writer criticizes people who contradict between “clarity” and “accuracy” in drafting (between fuzzy and fussy styles, between common and civil law). Payne supports his argument with his own experiences. He believes that realistic dilemmas are almost illusive. There is no guarantee that using long sentences will make a draft more accurate. The extra words create extra chances for misapprehension. On the other hand, drafter cannot always make a simple sentence for a multifaceted problem. Drafters should not sacrifice clarity to get accuracy. A certain level of accuracy is important, but it is almost impossible to obtain perfect precision. Even though his notions look ambiguous, I think he tries to balance among the different ideas. Drafting law is like making an art, while the art of writing is finding the most favorable number of words to communicate as much accuracy as possible to the reader. Writing law briefly can be also grateful in appearance. He reminds us that the main purpose of drafting is to communicate a rule effectively; we can choose the appropriate way to accomplish this goal.

Stark, Jack 2005, Drafting Errors, The Legislative Lawyer, Vol. XVIII, Issue.2, pp. 3-6. Stark presents some drafting errors, which annoy legislative drafters. He suggests several tactics to overcome the mistakes. Previously, he mentions two propositions from different schools of law about the problem and the solution, which he himself absolutely disagrees, then he demonstrates several reasons for his negative response. In fact, his strategies are not always suitable for every case. In the conclusion, the author fairly states that there are other strategies to diminish the drafting mistakes. He believes that drafters can find them then learn how to revise and avoid them.