Bill Overview
Title: Readable Legislation Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires every bill or joint resolution that amends an existing section of an act to set forth the entire section, showing proposed changes to that section by appropriate typographical device. This eliminates the current practice of revising or amending a section of an act by mere reference to it.
Sponsors: Rep. Mooney, Alexander X. [R-WV-2]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in or affected by the legislative drafting and review process
Estimated Size: 1000000
- This act affects how legislation is drafted and presented, specifically requiring that the entirety of any amended section be shown with changes clearly marked.
- This will primarily impact legislative drafters, lawmakers, and legal professionals who must author, amend, or review legislative documents.
- It will also have relevance to lobbyists, policy analysts, and advocacy groups who track legislative changes.
- Educators and students studying law and policy might also be affected, as it modifies a key aspect of how legislative changes are conveyed.
Reasoning
- The policy targets a niche group primarily involved in the legislative drafting process. Therefore, its direct impact on the general population is limited.
- The policy aims to increase transparency and clarity in legislative documents, which benefits professionals who frequently engage with these documents.
- Given the technical nature of the impact, professionals like legislative aides, lawmakers, and lobbyists are likely to experience improvements in efficiency and job satisfaction.
- Some indirect impacts might diffuse through educational contexts, as students and academic staff update curricula and teaching materials to incorporate changes.
- The policy's impact is contingent on job roles and frequency of engagement with legislative documents, so many outside the direct drafting and review sectors may see little to no change.
- Budget considerations suggest that the policy's implementation cost is likely focused on training, software adjustments for legislative websites, and educational material updates.
Simulated Interviews
legislative aide (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy will make my job easier because I constantly have to navigate through amended laws for the senator I work for.
- The policy will require some adjustment initially, but overall it could streamline our drafting process.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
law professor (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- From an educational perspective, this policy could help clarify complex legislative processes for students.
- It will be important to incorporate these new presentation standards in our curriculum, which could be a good teaching opportunity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
lobbyist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having policies presented clearly with marked changes will help me track and explain impacts more efficiently to my clients.
- This change could reduce the complexity and misinterpretation in my field.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
software developer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't directly impact my work, but it may increase demand for software tools that aid legislative professionals.
- The clarity improvements might indirectly benefit end-users who work in legislative spaces.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
law student (Boston, MA)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved clarity in legislative documentation will aid my studies and advocacy efforts.
- Our coursework might include changes due to the policy, which could enhance our understanding.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
policy analyst (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I often have to interpret complex amendments for our reports, so this change seems beneficial.
- I'm optimistic that clearer presentation will reduce miscommunication with stakeholders.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
state legislator (Austin, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy aligns with my goals for transparency and could enhance trust in legislative processes.
- It might require some initial adjustment in our drafting practices but is worthwhile.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
legal consultant (Denver, CO)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It may streamline the process for analyzing changes, potentially lowering consultation time and costs.
- The clarity is expected to improve strategy formulation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
public affairs director (Seattle, WA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This Act seems beneficial for community projects that need clear articulation of new policy changes.
- A better understanding of legislative amendments could aid in smoother project approvals and implementation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
journalist (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The clarity from this Act could potentially aid in delivering more accurate information to our readers.
- It should allow quicker turnaround times for analysis and reporting on legislative changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $7000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 2: $7000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 3: $7000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 5: $7000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 10: $7000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 100: $7000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring compliance with the new formatting requirements across all legislative drafting bodies.
- Potential need for ongoing training and support for legislative staff.
- Impacts on the speed and efficiency at which bills and resolutions are drafted, debated, and potentially passed.