Iowa House Bill HF567

Iowa 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/2/23
• Engrossed: 3/9/23
• Enrolled: 5/3/23
• Passed: 5/3/23

Caption

A bill for an act relating to nonsubstantive Code corrections, and including effective date and retroactive applicability provisions. (Formerly HSB 159.) Contingent effective date. Applicability date: 01/01/2022, 01/01/2023.

Impact

The implementation of HF567 is anticipated to bolster legal clarity by removing ambiguities inherent in the state's existing laws. The focus on nonsubstantive corrections means that while the bill does not introduce new substantive changes or policies, it serves to ensure that all legal documentation is accurate, aligned, and free from errors, which can be critical for legal practitioners, lawmakers, and citizens relying on clear laws.

Summary

House File 567 (HF567) pertains to nonsubstantive corrections within the state code, which aims to streamline the legal text present in the state's statutes. The bill includes provisions for effective dates and outlines retroactive applicability, making it crucial in maintaining the coherence and clarity of statutory law. This type of legislation is common as it helps to correct errors, inconsistencies, and outdated language without altering the substance of the law.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HF567 has been largely supportive, as it promotes the efficiency of legal frameworks without imposing new regulations or restrictions. Lawmakers across the aisle have generally agreed that maintaining the integrity and amendatory clarity of the code is essential for ongoing governance. As such, the sentiment reflects a bipartisan acknowledgment of the importance of procedural legal accuracy.

Contention

Despite its straightforward aim, discussions around HF567 may reflect broader concerns regarding legislative processes and the potential for misunderstandings around what constitutes a nonsubstantive change. However, the voting history shows a strong bipartisan support with a significant majority (96 yeas, 0 nays) on the day it was voted on, indicating that the bill faced minimal contention, suggesting a consensus on its necessity.