3 ms·
I appreciate the example, but that's way too broad and abstract compared to what I'm talking about. "Specifically, the bill expands voter registration (e.g., a
by shockeychap 6y ago
I appreciate the example, but that's way too broad and abstract compared to what I'm talking about.
"Specifically, the bill expands voter registration (e.g., automatic and same-day registration) and voting access (e.g., vote-by-mail and early voting). It also limits removing voters from voter rolls."
"The bill addresses ethics in all three branches of government, including by requiring a code of conduct for Supreme Court Justices, prohibiting Members of the House from serving on the board of a for-profit entity, and establishing additional conflict-of-interest and ethics provisions for federal employees and the White House."
What does any of that mean specifically? Expands voter registration and access how? Imposes what limits on removing voters from voter rolls? What's in the code of conduct for Supreme Court Justices? And on and on and on.
There has to be middle ground between a useless and abstract summary - that sounds more like a commercial than a true summary - and the bill itself with several pages of preamble just to define well-understood terms.
- Thrymr 6y agoThe more specific the summary, the more likely it is to be incorrect in some strict sense. Then if all of it becomes law, the courts have to interpret which part is right.
- shockeychap 6y agoSo, by that logic, a summary must be so vague as to be meaningless, lest it risk being incorrect by the strictest of standards. We can do better. It would be very easy to establish a broad “good-faith” standard for a legislative summary while also specifying it’s use for “informational purposes only.”