Opinion ID: 2521540
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Representative's affidavit concerning legislative intent must be disregarded.

Text: The Appellants offered the affidavit of a member of the House of Representatives as support for their interpretation of the statute. However, the accepted rule in most jurisdictions is that the beliefs of one legislator do not establish that the legislature intended something other than its express declaration. The policy behind this rule is well stated in the Oregon case, Salem Keizer Ass'n of Classified Employees v. Salem Keizer School Dist. 24J, 186 Or.App. 19, 61 P.3d 970 (203): First, post-enactment statements of legislators are not part of the record of the Legislative Assembly that are considered the contemporaneous history that is appropriate for courts to consult. See, e.g., Epstein v. Resor, 296 F.Supp. 214, 216 (N.D.Ca.1969), aff'd, 421 F.2d 930 (9th Cir. 1970) (post-enactment statements of legislators entitled to little or no weight because they are not a part of the records of the legislative body); McGee v. Stone, 522 A.2d 211, 216 (R.I.1987) (Postenactment statements of legislators relating to legislative intent, however, are not part of the legislative history of the original enactment.). Second, a post-enactment statement of an individual legislator represents the views or, perhaps more accurately, the recollectionsof a single participant in the legislative process. Even when the statements of individual legislators are offered during the enactment process, they are commonly viewed cautiously as evidence of the intentions of the entire assembly. See, e.g., Davis v. O'Brien, 320 Or. 729, 745, 891 P.2d 1307 (1995) (isolated statements made in committee are not necessarily indicative of the intent of the entire legislature). Courts are all the more loath to determine the intentions of the institution as a whole on the basis of isolated statements that are generated after enactment, without any evidence that the other members of the legislative body even were aware of them, much less that they agreed with them. See, e.g., Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102, 132, 95 S.Ct. 335, 42 L.Ed.2d 320 (1974) (post-enactment statements of legislators represent only the personal views of these legislators, since the statements were [made] after the passage of the act.) Id. at 975. The Court will not consider the affidavit presented by the Appellants.