Saturday
May
25
2013
12:30 am
Weather
  Home
  Local News
  State / National / World
  Sports
  Opinion / Letters
  Business
  Arts / Entertainment
  Lifestyle
  Obituaries
  Calendar
  Submit Event
  Comics / Games
  DJ Designers
  Archives
  Advertise With Us
  About Us
 

The print edition in its entirety. Click here to see it.

Our latest San Mateo and Burlingame Food & Dining Guide is out... Click here!

Click here for locations of where to find Daily Journal news racks.

OP-ED: The value of legislation
January 12, 2013, 05:00 AM

The first day for California lawmakers to introduce bills in the new two-year session was Dec. 3, the day they took their oaths. The Legislature then immediately recessed for the holidays and did not reconvene until this week, but through December the desk remained open for bills to be submitted, and there are now hundreds that will be scheduled for hearing, examined by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, or quietly killed by Assembly or Senate leadership.

There are, of course, always some new challenges that require new policies. But lawmakers spend too much time pushing unnecessary or counterproductive legislation that is introduced to curry favor with special interests or to respond to a sensational headline. One of the worthy goals of Proposition 31, which was defeated in November, was to encourage the Legislature to spend more of its time on oversight of the state bureaucracy and less time churning out bills.

But no simple line can be drawn ahead of time between carefully crafted policy updates and gratuitous legislative responses to the latest viral outrage. Take, for example, the lawmakers who responded immediately to Wednesday’s ruling by California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal that a man impersonating a woman’s boyfriend could not be convicted of rape.

This was a case of alleged rape by stealth, with a man in darkness having sex with a woman who apparently thought he was her boyfriend, until the light of day revealed him to be someone else. Except it was not rape, the court ruled, because California laws crafted more than a century ago deemed such an act of impersonation to be rape only when committed upon a married woman, not a single woman.

It’s easy to imagine a lawmaker thundering, "There ought to be a law,” introducing a bill and hoping to ride a wave of public support. In this case, though, it’s no mere publicity stunt. There’s a role for lawmakers here. There ought to be a law that protects people from this kind of invasion, punishes perpetrators and updates a 19th century approach that somehow slipped through the cracks.

Much of the legislative session just now beginning in earnest will, let’s hope, be devoted to fixing the state’s dysfunction and improving life for all Californians, and not simply cranking the bill mill. But some bills are needed, and even if too many seem geared toward headlines rather than good policy, there are times, like this one, when the two goals come together.


Print this Page Print this Page |  Bookmark and Share
<< Back
 
  


 
  RSS feed RSS
Daily Journal Quick Poll
 
How long should the Federal Reserve continue its quantitative easing programs?

Until unemployment is below 7 percent
Until some time in 2014
Until after the 2014 elections
Now
It should never have started
 
 

 
  
 
  
 
 
©2013 Daily Journal - San Mateo County’s homepage