A common refrain heard after a legislative session finishes and its work product (laws adopted) is reviewed is, “What were they thinking?” Sometimes this question is asked by someone challenging the wisdom of the law even though the language is clear on its face. And sometimes the question is asked because the law is unclear and ambiguous. When that is the case, the courts may, in interpreting a statute, look at the legislative intent.
When determining legislative intent, the courts look at transcripts of testimony given at public hearings on bills, as well as transcripts of the House and Senate debates. The problem with this approach is that many bills are rewritten in a legislative committee after the public hearing. The committee, in adopting a bill, can either file a substitute bill or adopt amendments to the bill, and report it out as amended, often after extensive debate. The legislature keeps transcripts of committee hearings but no transcripts of committee meetings. There have been many examples of bills being completely changed after a lengthy debate in the committee meeting on what the changes are intended to do. But that debate is not preserved in transcripts.
