8 ms·

The assumption of most of the comments here is that bad writing is a matter of incompetence, but in the case of public policy I think Hanlon's Razor no longer a

The assumption of most of the comments here is that bad writing is a matter of incompetence, but in the case of public policy I think Hanlon's Razor no longer applies. Given what we know about Texas politics and American ballot measures in general, it's quite possible that the ambiguity was introduced deliberately to give big landowners (or rather their lawyers) extra wiggle room. If that's true then the only communications for which the public were the intended audience are the advertisements, which I'm sure bore no resemblance to the text of the law.

hackingthenews 4y ago
Hanlon's razor never applies when politics or money is involved. Best to just suspend your judgement instead of giving politicians the benefit of the doubt.
- Siira 4y ago
  It never applies when there are benefits to be had that don’t need rocket science. The concept itself was probably introduced in bad faith.
maxerickson 4y ago
Looking at Texas school funding laws, I expect the complexity is aimed at Charter Schools. I didn't look into the details, but schools with poor attendance can have their "excess" local revenues claimed by the state (state law specifies what excess means). Charter schools don't have local funding (and can play games to pick their students). The measure above appears to be for adjusting a relief measure for the elderly and disabled downwards when their obligation is reduced (which if it only reduces the relief, could reduce it to 0 over time).
tunesmith 4y ago
I haven't researched it heavily, but wasn't that also true for the 2nd amendment? I doubt all the folks that ratified it agreed on its meaning.
- giantg2 4y ago
  That might be true of all the early amendments, given that they aren't painstakingly defined like modern laws. It might also be that they did agree (the ones who voted for it) and it's lost to history (federalist and antifederalist papers have some background, as do the similar state level constitutional provisions about arms, the press, etc).
- rayiner 4y ago
  That’s true in general. There was a lot of disagreement over the scope of things like the Commerce Clause, Necessary and Proper Clause, etc. I don’t think that’s true of the Second Amendment specifically. It was written by a bunch of men who had just used guns they had lying around their farms to form militias and overthrow their government. I don’t think it’s a great mystery what they meant when they wrote the Second Amendment. Insofar as the prefatory clause causes one to stumble, it was a common construct at the time tk have a “why” or explanatory clause prefacing an operative clause: https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NYULawReview-73-3-Volokh.pdf https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NYUL.... You read it exactly like you would read the following: “Free political debate being necessary to the functioning of a free state, the freedom of speech shall not be abridged.”
  - dctoedt 4y ago
    > a bunch of men who had just used guns they had lying around their farms to form militias and overthrow their government. That pretty seriously overstates the case: The American Revolution started out that way, but as time went on, the Continental Army acquired serious artillery and became reasonably professional — thanks largely to Henry Knox; Baron von Steuben; and the Marquis de La Fayette — and the decisive factor at Yorktown was the intervention of a French naval squadron and expeditionary force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Army https://www.historynet.com/arming-revolution-continental-army-get-cannons/ https://www.historynet.com/arming-revolution-continental-arm...
    - mannykannot 4y ago
giantg2 4y ago
It's not even the writing - it can be blatant misinterpretation. There's precedential opinion that states that you can't ignore the letter of the law to pursue it's spirt. Yet there's a law that has "reasonable care" in it, but the precedential opinion on that is that it's a strict liability offense because 'applying reasonable care would frustrate enforcing the legislature's intent'... The judges don't care. They're not impartial. They want the state to win more often than not. I mean, who pays their salary and what looks better than being part of law and order? It can also be intentional deception. Look at the recent PA vote on retirement age of judges removing the language that provided voters info on the current age limit.
- adastra22 4y ago
  A great example is Measure A which was passed in the last election a few months back in Santa Clara county: > Shall the measure amending the Santa Clara Valley Water District Ordinance 11-01 to limit Board members to four successive four-year terms be adopted? Term limits? Heck yes! Voters agreed: term limits are A GOOD THING. Measure A passed! What wasn't mentioned AT ALL, anywhere in the question put to the voters, is that Santa Clara Valley Water District board members are already limited to 2 terms in office. This was extending term limits from 2 consecutive to 4 consecutive terms. It was getting rid of/weakening term limits. A blatant misrepresentation on the ballot. Who wrote the text of Measure A? Why the Santa Clara Valley Water District board members who wanted their terms extended, of course.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    Interesting. Here in Washington, an "easy" fix for that is that the initiatives get a column for the "Yes" side and a column for the "no" side, in our voting booklets that we get in the mail with the ballots. But IIRC CA is still in person voting, right?
    - adastra22 4y ago
      Yeah the voting booklet has the same design here, and the "No" side called them out on it. But who reads that? (Other than me and you, obviously.) The ballot itself had only the text which I quoted.
wolverine876 4y ago
> bad writing is a matter of incompetence Effective, clear expression needs training, practice and attention. Homo sapiens write as we do because in only 5,000 years we haven't evolved to write naturally and must labor at it. Clear writing also needs clear thought, obviously. "Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable reason why so few engage in it."
- eru 4y ago
  Our talking isn't necessarily all that much clearer, and we've been doing it for much longer than writing. (Though to be fair, almost all talking used to be done in an interactive setting, where you can ask clarification questions.)
- lupire 4y ago
  Oh course, but lawyers do train and practice and pay attention. That's their main job.
ouid 4y ago
Hanlon's razor is a boundary condition. No one knows how to play the game at the start. Humans get better at shit.
vorpalhex 4y ago
It's just complicated, not evil. This amendment reduces some property taxes for people who are widows of service members AND elderly or disabled. Not exactly big money interests.

hackingthenews 4y ago

Hanlon's razor never applies when politics or money is involved. Best to just suspend your judgement instead of giving politicians the benefit of the doubt.

Siira 4y ago
It never applies when there are benefits to be had that don’t need rocket science. The concept itself was probably introduced in bad faith.

maxerickson 4y ago

Looking at Texas school funding laws, I expect the complexity is aimed at Charter Schools. I didn't look into the details, but schools with poor attendance can have their "excess" local revenues claimed by the state (state law specifies what excess means). Charter schools don't have local funding (and can play games to pick their students). The measure above appears to be for adjusting a relief measure for the elderly and disabled downwards when their obligation is reduced (which if it only reduces the relief, could reduce it to 0 over time).

tunesmith 4y ago

I haven't researched it heavily, but wasn't that also true for the 2nd amendment? I doubt all the folks that ratified it agreed on its meaning.

giantg2 4y ago
That might be true of all the early amendments, given that they aren't painstakingly defined like modern laws. It might also be that they did agree (the ones who voted for it) and it's lost to history (federalist and antifederalist papers have some background, as do the similar state level constitutional provisions about arms, the press, etc).
rayiner 4y ago
That’s true in general. There was a lot of disagreement over the scope of things like the Commerce Clause, Necessary and Proper Clause, etc. I don’t think that’s true of the Second Amendment specifically. It was written by a bunch of men who had just used guns they had lying around their farms to form militias and overthrow their government. I don’t think it’s a great mystery what they meant when they wrote the Second Amendment. Insofar as the prefatory clause causes one to stumble, it was a common construct at the time tk have a “why” or explanatory clause prefacing an operative clause: https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NYULawReview-73-3-Volokh.pdf https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NYUL.... You read it exactly like you would read the following: “Free political debate being necessary to the functioning of a free state, the freedom of speech shall not be abridged.”
- dctoedt 4y ago
  > a bunch of men who had just used guns they had lying around their farms to form militias and overthrow their government. That pretty seriously overstates the case: The American Revolution started out that way, but as time went on, the Continental Army acquired serious artillery and became reasonably professional — thanks largely to Henry Knox; Baron von Steuben; and the Marquis de La Fayette — and the decisive factor at Yorktown was the intervention of a French naval squadron and expeditionary force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Army https://www.historynet.com/arming-revolution-continental-army-get-cannons/ https://www.historynet.com/arming-revolution-continental-arm...
  - mannykannot 4y ago

giantg2 4y ago

It's not even the writing - it can be blatant misinterpretation. There's precedential opinion that states that you can't ignore the letter of the law to pursue it's spirt. Yet there's a law that has "reasonable care" in it, but the precedential opinion on that is that it's a strict liability offense because 'applying reasonable care would frustrate enforcing the legislature's intent'... The judges don't care. They're not impartial. They want the state to win more often than not. I mean, who pays their salary and what looks better than being part of law and order? It can also be intentional deception. Look at the recent PA vote on retirement age of judges removing the language that provided voters info on the current age limit.

adastra22 4y ago
A great example is Measure A which was passed in the last election a few months back in Santa Clara county: > Shall the measure amending the Santa Clara Valley Water District Ordinance 11-01 to limit Board members to four successive four-year terms be adopted? Term limits? Heck yes! Voters agreed: term limits are A GOOD THING. Measure A passed! What wasn't mentioned AT ALL, anywhere in the question put to the voters, is that Santa Clara Valley Water District board members are already limited to 2 terms in office. This was extending term limits from 2 consecutive to 4 consecutive terms. It was getting rid of/weakening term limits. A blatant misrepresentation on the ballot. Who wrote the text of Measure A? Why the Santa Clara Valley Water District board members who wanted their terms extended, of course.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  Interesting. Here in Washington, an "easy" fix for that is that the initiatives get a column for the "Yes" side and a column for the "no" side, in our voting booklets that we get in the mail with the ballots. But IIRC CA is still in person voting, right?
  - adastra22 4y ago
    Yeah the voting booklet has the same design here, and the "No" side called them out on it. But who reads that? (Other than me and you, obviously.) The ballot itself had only the text which I quoted.

wolverine876 4y ago

> bad writing is a matter of incompetence Effective, clear expression needs training, practice and attention. Homo sapiens write as we do because in only 5,000 years we haven't evolved to write naturally and must labor at it. Clear writing also needs clear thought, obviously. "Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable reason why so few engage in it."

eru 4y ago
Our talking isn't necessarily all that much clearer, and we've been doing it for much longer than writing. (Though to be fair, almost all talking used to be done in an interactive setting, where you can ask clarification questions.)
lupire 4y ago
Oh course, but lawyers do train and practice and pay attention. That's their main job.

ouid 4y ago

Hanlon's razor is a boundary condition. No one knows how to play the game at the start. Humans get better at shit.

vorpalhex 4y ago

It's just complicated, not evil. This amendment reduces some property taxes for people who are widows of service members AND elderly or disabled. Not exactly big money interests.