Thanks Russ!

I knew that didn't seem like typical "legalese."

So if you were collecting signatures at 4:00 on Friday and the office was still open you would still have to get it tot he office by 5:00 on Friday. The next business day restriction means nothing because there is a requirement that the office be closed for the entire 48 hour period. That's my reading, Russ; you're a lawyer what do you think?

I thought that was weird too ... it sounds very impractical to me.

Surely it would have been clearer to say 'within 2 business days', as well as more concise. Without a 'part of' or similar qualification, freeman's reading of the text appears to be the literal one.

danivon wrote:Surely it would have been clearer to say 'within 2 business days', as well as more concise. Without a 'part of' or similar qualification, freeman's reading of the text appears to be the literal one.

I don't think it is well-written.

However, it would be equally literal to rule that the "within 48 hours" does not have to overlap perfectly with the "closed for that 48-hour period." In other words, a petition filled out on Friday at 4 PM could not be turned in "within 48 hours" because the office is closed for 47 of "that 48 hour period."

I think that is the intent and I think a reasonable judge would rule that way too. If not, the "48-hour" reference is meaningless, which is not a reasonable understanding of intent.

freeman2 wrote:So if you were collecting signatures at 4:00 on Friday and the office was still open you would still have to get it tot he office by 5:00 on Friday. The next business day restriction means nothing because there is a requirement that the office be closed for the entire 48 hour period. That's my reading, Russ; you're a lawyer what do you think?

No, you have 48 hours so if you are collecting on at 4pm on friday. That means they ahve to be in by 4pm on Sunday. Since the office would be closed, you have until Monday. I would argue CoB Monday since it doesn't specify anything other then the next day.

As for the wording, two days is arguable different then 48 hours. If you collect a voter registration at 10am Monday, with the 48 hours would be by 10am Wednesday whereas 2 days could be CoB Wednesday.

Let's break down the statute and see if you and Steve are right that the statute can be read to avoid unreasonably harsh standards for registration The statute says the signatures "shall be promptly delivered to the division or the supervior within 48 hours hours after the applicant completes it." That's the first part, you gnerally only have 48 hours to turns in thos signatures, so let's look at the second part to see how far the exception extends. The second part says "or the next business day if the appropriate office is closed for that 48 hour period. The first part says you have 48 hours to turn in the signatures and then the second part allows you turn it in on the next business day if the officed is closed "for that 48 hour period." How you can construe "closed for that 48 hour period" as meaning anything other than that the office must be closed during the entire 48 hours that you have to turn in the signatures?. Therefore, if the office is open at all during the 48 hour period you cannot use the "next business day option" but are forced to revert back to the 48 hour rule. General rules of statutory interpretatoin require that a judge interpret a statute as is if the meaning is clear. The meaning is clear here

What's the point of hashing out the portion that was struck down?

On a personal note, when I do this, we just have the registration forms at the office and we give them out and encourage people to turn them on their own.

freeman2 wrote:General rules of statutory interpretatoin require that a judge interpret a statute as is if the meaning is clear. The meaning is clear here

Uh-huh.

So, Roe v. Wade: women "clearly" have a right to abortion?

Authorial intent is the key. Let's see, what would represent a normal "48 hour period" during which the office would be closed?

Saturday = 24 hours.
Sunday = 24 hours.

I've granted it was poorly written. However, its intent is hardly a mystery worth of Sherlock Holmes.

Sorry, Dr. Fate, in this particular instance it is an advantage to be a lawyer. Let me quote from a California case: "We turn first to the words of the statute themselves, recognizing that 'they generally provide the most reliable indicator of legislative intent.' . . . When the language of a statute is 'clear and unambiguous' and thus not reasonably susceptible of more than one meaning, ' " ' "there is no need for construction, and courts should not indulge in it." ' " ' . . . Here, the relevant statutory language is clear and unambiguous." (People v. Gardeley (1996) 14 Cal.4th 605, 621.)

In other words you don't look at intent when the words of the statute are susceptible of only one meaning.

Granted, I don' know Florida law but these kinds of concepts are pretty generally accepted I think.

steve

Authorial intent is the key

.

Which author?
The author of the Constitution?

Original intent presumes that there is a single, unified intent behind a text. In the case of the United States Constitution, the Philadelphia Convention was composed of over fifty men, who spent an entire summer compromising and arguing over provisions that were interpreted very differently the moment the Constitution's text became public.[5] It is far from clear, therefore, that those fifty-plus men had—i.e. agreed upon—a single original intent of the text, or if their purposes in drafting the Constitution were predicated on personal self interest.[1]

The author of the law? wikipedia

In the case of US Federal Law, law is made by majority vote in two chambers, and is then signed by the President. 536 people are therefore potentially involved in this process, and not one of them needs to share the same intentions as any other of them in order to play their part in ratifying the bill. They need only vote; their vote will count the same if they share the same intent as their colleagues, if they do not share the intent of their colleagues, and indeed, if they have no particular intention, and are voting solely because their party whip handed them a note saying "be on the Senate floor at 9:36pm and say 'Aye'." Their vote will count even if they are falling-down drunk or if they have not even read the bill under consideration.[6] All of which is to say that giving effect to the intent of the legislature not only presumes that there is a singular intent—no less dubious an assertion where statutes are concerned than where the Constitution is—but, worse yet, the very diversity of these bodies may permit a judge to corrupt his inquiry by finding a floor statement or committee report which suggests an intent that the Judge thinks would be a good result.

wikipedia
Authorial intent is subject to a variety of interpretations, and its impossible to determine "authorial intent" long after the authors have died... Or if there are hundreds of contributors to the final legal writing...
Moreover, if one holds true to the words of the original text - one cannot then also believe that that there were various interpretations of that text that could realistically be held at the same time. Either the origianl text had meaning or it was malleable according to the audiences belief in its intent. Both cannot be true.

Doctor Fate wrote:I've granted it was poorly written. However, its intent is hardly a mystery worth of Sherlock Holmes.

The people who interpret it will be bureaucrats at the election offices, and lawyers. Don't put it past them to be literal in the face of 'intent'.

Authorial intent in law is not actually as important as the actual words, and legal precedent.

Ray Jay wrote:

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:I'm currently collecting birth certificates so that my son's 8 year old's baseball team can plan in the local travel league (basically within one county in Mass.). No birth certificate, no play in League!

Why? Is it for proof of age (to stop ringers)?

How easy are you finding it?

It's proof of age ... there isn't a citizenship requirement. I've got 6 out of 15 so far. No doubt some people need an ultimatum which is basically that their son cannot play if they don't provide it. That will work and I expect to see 15 out of 15. We live in an area with a reasonably large immigrant population (primarily well educated Indians, Chinese, and Russians because of the quality local school system) , but I suspect everyone is legal. For me the salient point is that if people have to provide proof of i.d., for the most part they will. It is not as burdensome as critics make it out to be.

I got the last 4 today ... 15 out of 15.

By the way, this is not me ... while I'm sitting in the basement posting on the internet, the other Ray J is having a lot more fun.

http://blog.vh1.com/2009-01-13/for-the- ... he-ladies/