BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2006
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 23, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 2006 (Hill) - As Introduced: February 17, 2010
As Proposed to Be Amended
SUBJECT : Governmental Linguistics: Religious Neutrality
KEY ISSUES :
1)Should the Legislature declare its intent that all documents
produced by state entities for public use employ neutral and
inclusive language when referring to religious institutions,
unless context or necessity requires otherwise?
2)Should the California Research Bureau be required to conduct a
study that surveys existing language usage relating to
religious institutions, identifies appropriate neutral and
inclusive alternatives to existing language, and considerS the
legal and fiscal ramifications of replacing existing language?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This non-controversial bill was suggested to the author by a
constituent who responded to the author's "There Ought to Be A
Law" contest. While filling out a Board of Equalization (BOE)
religious tax exemption form, the constituent, the Executive
Director of an interfaith network, noticed that the only choice
he was given - other than "other" - for identifying the
qualifying "religious purpose" was "church, or school of
church," even though his religious institution was not a
"church," nor presumably did the constituent members of his
interfaith network all attend "churches." Indeed, as the
Committee staff determined, the BOE's basic property tax
exemption form for religious exemptions (BOE-262-AH) is actually
entitled "Church Exemption," even though the exemption would
apply to synagogues, temples, mosques, meeting houses, and any
number of other places where religious groups might congregate
for religious purposes. The author contends that the use of
AB 2006
Page 2
such language, however innocent or unconscious, may suggest a
preference toward some religious groups and may be deemed
offensive to other religious or non-religious groups who do not
practice at churches. As originally introduced, this bill would
have directed all state agencies, departments, and offices when
writing any future documents intended for public use to phrase
all references to religious institutions in "neutral language."
Because of the uncertain legal and fiscal implications of such a
comprehensive undertaking, the author has decided to amend to
bill in Committee to make certain findings and declarations
relating to the underlying problem and to require the California
Research Bureau to conduct a study that would assess the extent
of the problem, identify appropriate alternative language, and
consider the fiscal and legal implications of changing existing
language. The analysis reflects these proposed amendments.
There is no known opposition to the bill.
SUMMARY : Makes legislative findings and declarations relating
to the failure of state agency documents to use neutral and
inclusive language when referring to religious institutions and
calls upon the California Research Bureau to conduct a study and
submit a report to the Legislature, as specified. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Finds and declares that all official state documents that are
intended for public use and that make reference to a religious
institution should use language that is appropriately neutral
and inclusive, unless the context or necessity requires
otherwise.
2)Finds and declares that existing state documents that refer to
religious institutions too often use words or phrases that
historically have been associated with a particular religious
faith, including, but not limited to, the use of words like
"church" when more neutral terms like "congregation" or "place
of worship" would be more appropriate depending upon the
context.
3)Finds and declares that the use of religiously biased language
in official state documents, however subtle or unintentional
such use may be, is inconsistent with our state's commitment
to religious diversity and inclusiveness and with our state
constitutional mandate to show no preference for one religious
faith over another.
AB 2006
Page 3
4)Requires the California Research Bureau to conduct a survey of
state agency documents that refer to religious institutions in
order to approximate the extent to which existing documents
employ language that suggests a particular religious faith or
sect when a more neutral and inclusive term would be
appropriate. In addition, the California Research Bureau
shall consult with experts in the appropriate fields to do all
of the following:
a) Identify appropriate neutral and inclusive words or
phrases that may be used as alternatives to existing
language and usages.
b) Identify the legal ramifications, if any, of replacing
existing terminology with neutral and inclusive
alternatives in state agency documents.
c) Identify the fiscal and budgetary ramifications of
requiring state government entities to ensure that all
future state agency documents contain appropriately neutral
and inclusive language.
5)Requires the California Research Bureau to submit a report to
the Chief Clerk of the Assembly, the Secretary of the Senate,
and the Judiciary Committees of the Assembly and Senate no
later than December 31, 2011.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires each department, commission, office, or other
administrative agency of state government to write each
document in plain, straight-forward language, avoiding
technical terms as much as possible, and using a coherent and
easily readable style. (Government Code Section 6219 (a).)
2)Defines a "state agency document" to mean any contract, form,
license, announcement, regulation, manual, memorandum, or any
other written communication that is necessary to carry out the
agency's responsibilities under law. (Government Section 6219
(b).)
3)Prohibits the Legislature from making any law respecting an
establishment of religion and guarantees the free exercise and
enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference.
(California Constitution Article I, Section 4.)
COMMENTS : This bill was suggested to the author by a
AB 2006
Page 4
constituent who responded to the author's "There Ought to Be a
Law" contest. While filling out a Board of Equalization (BOE)
tax exemption form, the constituent, the Executive Director of
an interfaith network, noticed that the only choice he was given
- other than "other" - for identifying the qualifying "religious
purpose" of his organization was "church, or church and school,"
even though his religious institution was not a "church," nor
presumably did the constituent members of his interfaith network
all attend "churches." Indeed, as the Committee staff
determined, the BOE's basic property tax exemption form for
religious exemptions (BOE-262-AH) is entitled " Church
Exemption," even though the exemption would apply to synagogues,
temples, mosques, meeting houses, and any number of other places
where religious groups might congregate for religious purposes.
While this may seem a trifling matter to some, the author
contends that the use of such language, however innocent or
unconscious, may suggest a preference toward some religious
groups and may be deemed offensive to other religious groups who
do not practice their faith at churches.
Matters of "Church" and State . The body of constitutional case
law that grapples with the extent to which the First Amendment's
"establishment" clause permits a state entity to show any
preference to one religion over another - or for that matter to
show any preference to religion over non-religion - is far too
complex to plunge into for the purposes of this analysis.
(Presumably, the legal and constitutional ramifications will be
addressed in the study and report required by this bill.) But
it is nonetheless revealing that this area of constitutional law
is often reflexively referred to as "church and state," thanks
to Thomas Jefferson's famous 1802 letter claiming that the First
Amendment was intended to erect "a wall of separation between
church and state." Whether Jefferson accurately described the
intent of the First Amendment has been a matter of intense
historical and constitutional debate, but his choice of the word
"church" belied a subtle and probably unconscious cultural bias.
More than 200 years later, it is this unconscious but
nonetheless culturally insensitive use of the word of "church"
that this bill seeks to address.
As originally introduced, this bill would have directed all
state agencies, departments, and offices when writing any future
documents to phrase all references to religious institutions in
"neutral language." However, because of the uncertain legal and
budgetary implications of such a comprehensive change - and due
AB 2006
Page 5
to a concern that merely requiring "neutral language" would not
provide agencies with sufficient guidance on how to proceed -
the author has agreed to amend to bill. As proposed to be
amended, this bill makes certain findings and declarations and
requires the California Research Bureau to conduct a study that
would determine the extent of the problem, identify appropriate
alternative language, and consider the fiscal and legal
implications of changing existing language. Specifically, the
bill declares that a legislative aspiration that state agency
documents use appropriately neutral and inclusive language and
makes legislative findings recognizing that existing state
agency documents sometimes fail to employ neutral and inclusive
language.
In addition, the bill requires the California Research Bureau
(CRB) to conduct a survey of state agency documents that refer
to religious institutions in order to approximate the extent to
which existing language suggests a particular religious faith
or sect when a more neutral and inclusive term would be
appropriate. In addition, this bill calls upon the CBR to
consult with experts in the appropriate fields to identify the
following: appropriate neutral and inclusive words or phrases
that may be used as alternatives to any existing language; the
legal ramifications, if any, of replacing existing terminology
with neutral and inclusive alternatives in state agency
documents; and the fiscal and budgetary ramifications of
requiring state government entities to ensure that all future
state agency documents contain appropriately neutral and
inclusive language. The bill requires that the CRB submit a
report of its findings to the Legislature and the appropriate
committees no later than December 31, 2011.
Constitutional versus Policy Considerations . This bill does not
raise a constitutional issue insofar as it seems unlikely that
the courts would find that the language in current state agency
documents constitutes an "establishment" or "endorsement" of
religion in violation of either the U.S. or California
constitutions. But even if the existing language is not
unconstitutional, the Legislature is still free to make official
state language more neutral and inclusive as a matter of policy.
In so doing, the Legislature may wish to consider the
thoughtful observation of former U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor on the dangers of government endorsing or
giving preference to one religion over another: "Endorsement
sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not
AB 2006
Page 6
full members of the political community, and an accompanying
message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of
the political community." While using the word "church" in a
state agency document may not rise to the level of "endorsement"
under our current constitutional jurisprudence, it may, albeit
more subtly and even unconsciously, send the kind of message
that Justice O'Connor disfavored.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Rabbi Jay Miller, Peninsula Clergy Network
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334