You are obfuscating. The distinction that matters is if there is an intent to threaten people into compliance with a policy position of yours by creating a piec

You are obfuscating. The distinction that matters is if there is an intent to threaten people into compliance with a policy position of yours by creating a piece of legislation you know to be unconstitutional or not. It seems pretty clear to me that this was indeed the attempt. > The Women on Boards law, also known by its bill number, SB826, called for penalties ranging from $100,000 fines for failing to report board compositions to the California secretary of state’s office to $300,000 for multiple failures to have the required number of women board members. > The Secretary of State’s office said 26% of publicly traded companies headquartered in California reported meeting the quota of women board members last year, according to a March report. As you are probably aware, it is a common legal strategy to avoid setting a precedent for some dubious legal claim you know you would lose in court but that is an effective way to coerce others. This works for patent trolls for similar reasons why it likely worked for the state of California (because a lot of times a rational actor would rather comply rather than incur the often greater costs of fighting even if a win seems near certain). It's also quite different from passing some dubious law which plainly states that it does not currently apply and why, as a symbolic act to some constituency. For what it's worth, from memory I don't think all anti-abortion legislation has been mainly symbolic like this, I think there were also cases where legislators tried to coerce people with laws they full well knew would be ruled unconstitutional.