Wiki source for ApproachingtheSummaryPastSummaries
======Summary Writing - Past Key Vote Summaries======----
====Past Summaries of the Same Bill====
Past summaries are a great resources for achieving consistency. This is most useful when a previous vote on the same legislation has already been summarized. For example, if we selected the House Passage of a bill, and we later select the Senate Conference Report Vote, you would undoubtedly look at the summary for the House Passage for guidance. Summaries for different versions of the same bill should be as consistent as possible. Meaning, if the language between the two bill texts is exactly the same, the language in your summary should be exactly the same as the summary of the previous vote. However, if there are any differences between the bill texts, the summary should be amended to reflect those differences. Here is an example: HB 3 from New Mexico during a special session in 2009. We selected both the House Passage and the Senate Passage with Amendment votes. This means there are two different versions of the bill text, and therefore possible differences between the two summaries. Here is the full bill summary for the House Passage vote:
~& //**Vote Smart's Synopsis**://
~&
~& //Vote to pass a bill that transfers $106.84 million from various state funds and other revenue sources to the General Fund and rescinds $1.22 million in unspent appropriations for fiscal year 2007-2008.//
~&//---//
~& //**Highlights**://
~&
~& //-Transfers $106.84 million from various funds and other revenue sources to the General Fund, including, but not limited to, the following transfers (Sec. 1):
~& —$60 million from the College Affordability Endowment Fund;
~& —$5 million from the cash balances of the Department of Higher Education's Special Program Fund;
~& —$3.5 million from the Workers' Compensation Administration Fund;
~& —$3 million from the Enhanced 911 Fund;
~& —$2.85 million from the Higher Education Performance Fund;
~& —$2.5 million from the Hazardous Waste Emergency Fund;
~& —$1.9 million from the Instructional Material Fund;
~& —$1.7 million from revenue generated by the Driver Safety Fee;
~& —$1.5 million from the Real Estate Commission Fund;
~& —$1.5 million from the Electronic Voting System Revolving Fund;
~& —$1.5 million from the Community Corrections Grant Program;
~& —$1.5 million from the Community Corrections Department Intensive Supervision Fund;
~& —$1.45 million from the Public Pre-Kindergarten Fund;
~& —$1.2 million from the revenue generated from the antitrust case and consumer protection settlements;
~& —$1.18 million from the Juvenile Community Corrections Grant Fund;
~& —$1.1 million from the Property Valuation Fund;
~& —$1 million from the New Mexico Medical Board Fund;
~& —$1 million from the Crime Laboratory Fund;
~& —$1 million from the Uninsured Employers' Fund; and
~& —$1 million from legislative cash balances.//
~&//---//
~& //-Rescinds the following unspent appropriations for fiscal year 2007-2008 (Sec. 2):
~& —$667,000 for the Department of Taxation and Revenue to begin replacement of the oil and natural gas accounting and reporting database with commercial off-the-shelf solutions; and
~& —$550,000 for the Department of Health to implement the Electronic Medical Records and Health Information Exchange.//
Here is the full summary for Senate Passage with Amendment:
~& //**Vote Smart's Synopsis**://
~&
~& //Vote to pass a bill that transfers $114.84 million from various state funds and other revenue sources to the General Fund and rescinds $1.22 million in unspent appropriations for fiscal year 2007-2008.//
~&//---//
~& //**Highlights**://
~&
~& //-Transfers $114.84 million from various funds and other revenue sources to the General Fund, including, but not limited to, the following transfers (Sec. 1):
~& —$68 million from the College Affordability Endowment Fund;
~& —$5 million from the cash balances of the Department of Higher Education's Special Program Fund;
~& —$3.5 million from the Workers' Compensation Administration Fund;
~& —$3 million from the Enhanced 911 Fund;
~& —$2.85 million from the Higher Education Performance Fund;
~& —$2.5 million from the Hazardous Waste Emergency Fund;
~& —$1.9 million from the Instructional Material Fund;
~& —$1.7 million from revenue generated by the Driver Safety Fee;
~& —$1.5 million from the Real Estate Commission Fund;
~& —$1.5 million from the Electronic Voting System Revolving Fund;
~& —$1.5 million from the Community Corrections Grant Program;
~& —$1.5 million from the Community Corrections Department Intensive Supervision Fund;
~& —$1.45 million from the Public Pre-Kindergarten Fund;
~& —$1.2 million from the revenue generated from the antitrust case and consumer protection settlements;
~& —$1.18 million from the Juvenile Community Corrections Grant Fund;
~& —$1.1 million from the Property Valuation Fund;
~& —$1 million from the New Mexico Medical Board Fund;
~& —$1 million from the Crime Laboratory Fund;
~& —$1 million from the Uninsured Employers' Fund; and
~& —$1 million from legislative cash balances.//
~&//---//
~& //-Rescinds the following unspent appropriations for fiscal year 2007-2008 (Sec. 2):
~& —$667,000 for the Department of Taxation and Revenue to begin replacement of the oil and natural gas accounting and reporting database with commercial off-the-shelf solutions; and
~& —$550,000 for the Department of Health to implement the Electronic Medical Records and Health Information Exchange.//
At first glance, they appear to be exactly the same. This is because they //are// almost exactly the same. Take a look at the first highlight of each paired together (bold added for emphasis):
House Passage Summary:
~& //-Transfers **$106.84 million** from various funds and other revenue sources to the General Fund including, but not limited to, the following transfers (Sec. 1):
~& —**$60 million** from the College Affordability Endowment Fund;
~& —$5 million from the cash balances of the Department of Higher Education's Special Program Fund;...//
Senate Passage Summary:
~& //-Transfers **$114.84 million** from various funds and other revenue sources to the General Fund, including, but not limited to, the following transfers (Sec. 1):
~& —**$68 million** from the College Affordability Endowment Fund;
~& —$5 million from the cash balances of the Department of Higher Education's Special Program Fund;...//
The only difference is one figure: the Senate Passage with Amendment summary transfers $68 million from this Fund, whereas the House transfers only $60 million, which in turn affected the totals ($114.84 million for the Senate Passage with Amendment and $106.84 million for the House Passage). Aside from that, the summaries are exactly the same.
==Past Summaries from the Same State==
Legislatures will often attempt to pass legislation in multiple sessions, over the course of several years. You may want to browse past votes that we have covered on our website. Here is an example: S 1186 from Idaho during the 2009 session. This is one of many highway financing bills to come out of this state. This is the final version of the summary:
~& //**Vote Smart's Synopsis**://
~&
~& //Vote to pass a bill that authorizes the Idaho Housing and Finance Association to issue up to $82 million in Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) bonds to finance highway transportation projects.//
~&//---//
~& //**Highlights**://
~&
~& //-Prohibits the Idaho Transportation Board and Transportation Department from adding new highway projects or increasing the size or scope of the projects approved for GARVEE bond financing (Sec. 3).//
~&//---//
~& //-Requires the new bonds be tax exempt, disbursed at prevailing market rates of interest, and issued on an "as needed" basis, as determined by the Idaho Transportation Board (Sec. 5).//
~&//---//
~& //-Specifies that it is the intent of the Legislature that the first priority of expenditures shall be for construction, followed by expenditures for right-of-way acquisition, followed by other necessary project-related costs (Sec. 6).//
~&//---//
~& //-Authorizes the Idaho Transportation Board to transfer up to $4 million from the State Highway Account to the GARVEE Debt Service Fund to pay the state's portion of the GARVEE bonds, as required by federal law (Sec. 8).//
~&//---//
~& //-Requires the Idaho Transportation Board to submit annual progress reports concerning current and pending construction projects to the Legislature by September 30 of each year (Sec. 9).//
Compare that summary with the final version of another highway financing bill from Idaho during the 2008 session (H 567):
~& //**Vote Smart's Synopsis**://
~&
~& //Vote to pass a bill that authorizes the Idaho Housing and Finance Association to issue up to $134 million in Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) bonds to finance specific highway transportation projects.//
~&//---//
~& //**Highlights**://
~&
~& //-Limits financing using bond revenue to the following projects (Sec. 2):
~& —US-95, SH-1 to Canadian Border;
~& —US-95, Garwood to Sagle;
~& —US-95, Worley to Setters;
~& —US-95, Thorn Creek to Moscow;
~& —US-95, Smoky Boulder to Hazard Creek;
~& —SH-16, Ext., South Emmett to Mesa with Connection to SH-55;
~& —SH-16, Ext., I-84 to South Emmett;
~& —I-84, Caldwell to Meridian;
~& —I-84, Orchard to Isaacs Canyon;
~& —US-93, Twin Falls alternate route and new Snake River crossing;
~& —SH-75, Timmerman to Ketchum;
~& —US-20, St. Anthony to Ashton; and
~& —US-30, ""McCammon"" to Soda Springs.//
~&//---//
~& //-Prohibits the Idaho Transportation Board and Transportation Department from adding new highway projects or increasing the size or scope of the projects approved for GARVEE bond financing (Sec. 3).//
~&//---//
~& //-Requires the new bonds be tax exempt, disbursed at prevailing market rates of interest, and issued on an "as needed" basis as determined by the Idaho Transportation Board (Sec. 5).//
~&//---//
~& //-Specifies that it is the intent of the Legislature that the first priority of expenditures shall be for construction, followed by expenditures for right-of-way acquisition, followed by other necessary project-related costs (Sec. 6).//
~&//---//
~& //-Authorizes the Idaho Transportation Board to transfer up to $3.3 million from the State Highway Account to the GARVEE Service Fund to pay the state's portion of the GARVEE, as required by federal law (Sec. 8).//
~&//---//
~& //-Requires the Idaho Transportation Board to submit annual progress reports concerning current and pending construction projects to the Legislature by September 30 (Sec. 9).//
Notice that some of the highlights and the wording are exactly the same as S 1186. Of course there are differences between the two bills, and that is reflected in the summaries of each. The most notable difference is that H 567 actually specifies the projects that may be funded using bond revenue; S 1186 does not list any specific highway project. The amount of money specified is also different: the total amount of authorized in H 567 is $134 million, whereas the total amount authorized in S 1186 is only $82 million. The amount transferred from the State Highway Account to the GARVEE Service Fund is also different: $3.3 million in H 567 and $4 million in S 1186. If you disregard those differences, the two summaries are identical in terms of both language and format.
==Past Summaries from Other States==
Issues frequently transcend state borders, and legislatures across the country will take up similar or even the same legislation. If you encounter this, you should attempt to duplicate what information is applicable to the summary that you are writing. Here is an example SB 5599 from Washington during the 2009 session. This proposal was introduced in conjuncture with a number of other states to start awarding their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote in a presidential election. This is the final version of the summary:
~& //**Vote Smart's Synopsis**://
~&
~& //Vote to pass a bill that includes the state of Washington in an agreement among various states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote in a presidential election.//
~&//---//
~& //**Highlights**://
~&
~& //-Requires the chief election official of each state to appoint electors in association with the national popular vote winner (Sec. 2).//
~&//---//
~& //-Specifies that this bill will be effective once the number of states that have passed the agreement in the same form cumulatively posses a majority of the electoral votes (Sec. 2).//
~&//---//
~& //-Authorizes any state to withdraw from the agreement, provided that if the state withdraws within 6 months of a presidential election, the withdrawal shall not be effective until after the election (Sec. 2).//
~&//---//
~& //-Terminates the agreement if the electoral college is abolished (Sec. 2).//
The fact that other states were taking up this same proposal suggests that summaries from other states ought to be modeled after each other. One of those states was Colorado, where it was introduced as HB 1299. This is what the final summary looks like:
~& //**Vote Smart's Synopsis**://
~&
~& //Vote to pass a bill that includes the state of Colorado in an agreement among various states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote in a presidential election.//
~&//---//
~& //**Highlights**://
~&
~& //-Requires the chief election official of each state to appoint electors in association with the national popular vote winner (Sec. 1).//
~&//---//
~& //-Specifies that this bill will be effective once the number of states that have passed the agreement in the same form cumulatively posses a majority of the electoral votes (Sec. 1).//
~&//---//
~& //-Authorizes any state to withdraw from the agreement, provided that if the state withdraws within 6 months of a presidential election, the withdrawal shall not be effective until after the election (Sec. 1).//
~&//---//
~& //-Terminates the agreement if the electoral college is abolished (Sec. 1). //
As you can see, the summaries are almost identical. The only differences are the names of the states and the citations.
While utilizing past summaries can be helpful, you will find that some past summaries in different states will be dramatically different, even though they are addressing the same issue. When you encounter this, it is best not to rely on that summary for assistance. Here is an example: HB 71 from Illinois from the 2009 session. This bill tackles the issue of text messaging while driving, of which we have seen a surge in recent years throughout the country. This is the final version of the summary:
~& //**Vote Smart's Synopsis**://
~&
~& //Vote to pass a bill that prohibits the use of an electronic communication device to compose, send, or read electronic messages while operating a motor vehicle.//
~&//---//
~& //**Highlights**://
~&
~& //-Exempts the following individuals from the prohibition (Sec. 5):
~& —Law enforcement officers while performing official duties;
~& —Operators of emergency vehicles while performing official duties;
~& —Individuals using the electronic communication device for the sole purpose of reporting an emergency situation and continued communication with emergency personnel;
~& —Individuals using the electronic communication device in a hands-free or voice-activated mode; and
~& —Individuals driving a commercial motor vehicle reading a message displayed on a permanently installed communication device designed for a commercial motor vehicle, provided the screen does not exceed 10 inches tall by 10 inches wide.//
~&//---//
~& //-Classifies a violation as an offense against traffic regulations governing the movement of vehicles (Sec. 1).//
This summary appears to be relatively straightforward. If you were writing a summary of a bill from Utah that also prohibits text messaging while driving, you might assume that this summary would be a suitable template. However, take a look at the final summary for HB 290 from Utah during the 2009 session:
~& //**Vote Smart's Synopsis**://
~&
~& //Vote to concur with Senate amendments and pass a bill that prohibits the use of a handheld wireless communication device to send text messages or emails while driving, and classifies the offense as a class C misdemeanor or a class B misdemeanor if aggravated circumstances exist.//
~&//---//
~& //**Highlights**://
~&
~& //-Classifies the offense as a Class B misdemeanor if the individual inflicts serious bodily injury as a proximate result of sending a text message or email while driving, or if the individual has a prior conviction within the past three years for sending a text message or email while driving (Sec. 1).//
~&//---//
~& //-Classifies the offense as a third degree felony if an individual is driving in a negligent manner while sending a text message or email and causes the death of another individual (Sec. 1).//
~&//---//
~& //-Defines "negligence" as a failure to exercise a degree of care that a "reasonable and prudent" individual would exercise under the same or similar circumstances (Sec. 1).//
~&//---//
~& //-Classifies the offense as a second degree felony if an individual is driving in a criminally negligent manner while sending a text message or email and causes the death of another individual (Sec. 1).//
~&//---//
~& //-Defines "criminal negligence" as circumstances surrounding an individual's conduct or the result of the individual's conduct in which that individual ought to be aware of a "substantial and unjustifiable" risk that the circumstances exist or will occur, such that a failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary individual would exercise (Sec. 1).//
~&//---//
~& //-Authorizes judges to suspend an individual's driver's license for a period of 3 months upon conviction for sending a text massage or email while driving (Sec. 1).//
~&//---//
~& //-Specifies that the bill does not prohibit an individual from using a handheld wireless communication device while driving if the individual is doing 1 of the following (Sec. 1):
~& —Using the device during a medical emergency;
~& —Reporting a safety hazard or requesting assistance related to a safety hazard;
~& —Reporting criminal activity or requesting assistance related to criminal activity;
~& —Providing roadside or medical assistance; or
~& —A law enforcement officer or emergency service personnel acting in accordance with the requirements of their employment.//
~&//---//
~& //-Specifies that a handheld wireless communication device includes a wireless telephone, personal digital assistant, pager, and text messaging device (Sec. 1).//
~&//---//
~& //-This is a substitute bill sponsored by Sen. Lyle Hillyard.//
Though the overall topic of the bills was the same, in substance the bills were quite different. In this situation, the Illinois summary would not be helpful when summarizing the Utah bill.
----
[[CategoryKeyVotes Key Votes Homepage]] | [[UTInternTraining Training Guide]] | [[SummaryWritingGuide Summary Writing Guide]] | [[VoteEnteringGuide Vote Entering Guide]] | [[CongressGuide Congress Guide]] | [[StatusUpdateGuide Status Update Guide]] | [[WebCheckGuide Web Check Guide]]
====Past Summaries of the Same Bill====
Past summaries are a great resources for achieving consistency. This is most useful when a previous vote on the same legislation has already been summarized. For example, if we selected the House Passage of a bill, and we later select the Senate Conference Report Vote, you would undoubtedly look at the summary for the House Passage for guidance. Summaries for different versions of the same bill should be as consistent as possible. Meaning, if the language between the two bill texts is exactly the same, the language in your summary should be exactly the same as the summary of the previous vote. However, if there are any differences between the bill texts, the summary should be amended to reflect those differences. Here is an example: HB 3 from New Mexico during a special session in 2009. We selected both the House Passage and the Senate Passage with Amendment votes. This means there are two different versions of the bill text, and therefore possible differences between the two summaries. Here is the full bill summary for the House Passage vote:
~& //**Vote Smart's Synopsis**://
~&
~& //Vote to pass a bill that transfers $106.84 million from various state funds and other revenue sources to the General Fund and rescinds $1.22 million in unspent appropriations for fiscal year 2007-2008.//
~&//---//
~& //**Highlights**://
~&
~& //-Transfers $106.84 million from various funds and other revenue sources to the General Fund, including, but not limited to, the following transfers (Sec. 1):
~& —$60 million from the College Affordability Endowment Fund;
~& —$5 million from the cash balances of the Department of Higher Education's Special Program Fund;
~& —$3.5 million from the Workers' Compensation Administration Fund;
~& —$3 million from the Enhanced 911 Fund;
~& —$2.85 million from the Higher Education Performance Fund;
~& —$2.5 million from the Hazardous Waste Emergency Fund;
~& —$1.9 million from the Instructional Material Fund;
~& —$1.7 million from revenue generated by the Driver Safety Fee;
~& —$1.5 million from the Real Estate Commission Fund;
~& —$1.5 million from the Electronic Voting System Revolving Fund;
~& —$1.5 million from the Community Corrections Grant Program;
~& —$1.5 million from the Community Corrections Department Intensive Supervision Fund;
~& —$1.45 million from the Public Pre-Kindergarten Fund;
~& —$1.2 million from the revenue generated from the antitrust case and consumer protection settlements;
~& —$1.18 million from the Juvenile Community Corrections Grant Fund;
~& —$1.1 million from the Property Valuation Fund;
~& —$1 million from the New Mexico Medical Board Fund;
~& —$1 million from the Crime Laboratory Fund;
~& —$1 million from the Uninsured Employers' Fund; and
~& —$1 million from legislative cash balances.//
~&//---//
~& //-Rescinds the following unspent appropriations for fiscal year 2007-2008 (Sec. 2):
~& —$667,000 for the Department of Taxation and Revenue to begin replacement of the oil and natural gas accounting and reporting database with commercial off-the-shelf solutions; and
~& —$550,000 for the Department of Health to implement the Electronic Medical Records and Health Information Exchange.//
Here is the full summary for Senate Passage with Amendment:
~& //**Vote Smart's Synopsis**://
~&
~& //Vote to pass a bill that transfers $114.84 million from various state funds and other revenue sources to the General Fund and rescinds $1.22 million in unspent appropriations for fiscal year 2007-2008.//
~&//---//
~& //**Highlights**://
~&
~& //-Transfers $114.84 million from various funds and other revenue sources to the General Fund, including, but not limited to, the following transfers (Sec. 1):
~& —$68 million from the College Affordability Endowment Fund;
~& —$5 million from the cash balances of the Department of Higher Education's Special Program Fund;
~& —$3.5 million from the Workers' Compensation Administration Fund;
~& —$3 million from the Enhanced 911 Fund;
~& —$2.85 million from the Higher Education Performance Fund;
~& —$2.5 million from the Hazardous Waste Emergency Fund;
~& —$1.9 million from the Instructional Material Fund;
~& —$1.7 million from revenue generated by the Driver Safety Fee;
~& —$1.5 million from the Real Estate Commission Fund;
~& —$1.5 million from the Electronic Voting System Revolving Fund;
~& —$1.5 million from the Community Corrections Grant Program;
~& —$1.5 million from the Community Corrections Department Intensive Supervision Fund;
~& —$1.45 million from the Public Pre-Kindergarten Fund;
~& —$1.2 million from the revenue generated from the antitrust case and consumer protection settlements;
~& —$1.18 million from the Juvenile Community Corrections Grant Fund;
~& —$1.1 million from the Property Valuation Fund;
~& —$1 million from the New Mexico Medical Board Fund;
~& —$1 million from the Crime Laboratory Fund;
~& —$1 million from the Uninsured Employers' Fund; and
~& —$1 million from legislative cash balances.//
~&//---//
~& //-Rescinds the following unspent appropriations for fiscal year 2007-2008 (Sec. 2):
~& —$667,000 for the Department of Taxation and Revenue to begin replacement of the oil and natural gas accounting and reporting database with commercial off-the-shelf solutions; and
~& —$550,000 for the Department of Health to implement the Electronic Medical Records and Health Information Exchange.//
At first glance, they appear to be exactly the same. This is because they //are// almost exactly the same. Take a look at the first highlight of each paired together (bold added for emphasis):
House Passage Summary:
~& //-Transfers **$106.84 million** from various funds and other revenue sources to the General Fund including, but not limited to, the following transfers (Sec. 1):
~& —**$60 million** from the College Affordability Endowment Fund;
~& —$5 million from the cash balances of the Department of Higher Education's Special Program Fund;...//
Senate Passage Summary:
~& //-Transfers **$114.84 million** from various funds and other revenue sources to the General Fund, including, but not limited to, the following transfers (Sec. 1):
~& —**$68 million** from the College Affordability Endowment Fund;
~& —$5 million from the cash balances of the Department of Higher Education's Special Program Fund;...//
The only difference is one figure: the Senate Passage with Amendment summary transfers $68 million from this Fund, whereas the House transfers only $60 million, which in turn affected the totals ($114.84 million for the Senate Passage with Amendment and $106.84 million for the House Passage). Aside from that, the summaries are exactly the same.
==Past Summaries from the Same State==
Legislatures will often attempt to pass legislation in multiple sessions, over the course of several years. You may want to browse past votes that we have covered on our website. Here is an example: S 1186 from Idaho during the 2009 session. This is one of many highway financing bills to come out of this state. This is the final version of the summary:
~& //**Vote Smart's Synopsis**://
~&
~& //Vote to pass a bill that authorizes the Idaho Housing and Finance Association to issue up to $82 million in Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) bonds to finance highway transportation projects.//
~&//---//
~& //**Highlights**://
~&
~& //-Prohibits the Idaho Transportation Board and Transportation Department from adding new highway projects or increasing the size or scope of the projects approved for GARVEE bond financing (Sec. 3).//
~&//---//
~& //-Requires the new bonds be tax exempt, disbursed at prevailing market rates of interest, and issued on an "as needed" basis, as determined by the Idaho Transportation Board (Sec. 5).//
~&//---//
~& //-Specifies that it is the intent of the Legislature that the first priority of expenditures shall be for construction, followed by expenditures for right-of-way acquisition, followed by other necessary project-related costs (Sec. 6).//
~&//---//
~& //-Authorizes the Idaho Transportation Board to transfer up to $4 million from the State Highway Account to the GARVEE Debt Service Fund to pay the state's portion of the GARVEE bonds, as required by federal law (Sec. 8).//
~&//---//
~& //-Requires the Idaho Transportation Board to submit annual progress reports concerning current and pending construction projects to the Legislature by September 30 of each year (Sec. 9).//
Compare that summary with the final version of another highway financing bill from Idaho during the 2008 session (H 567):
~& //**Vote Smart's Synopsis**://
~&
~& //Vote to pass a bill that authorizes the Idaho Housing and Finance Association to issue up to $134 million in Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) bonds to finance specific highway transportation projects.//
~&//---//
~& //**Highlights**://
~&
~& //-Limits financing using bond revenue to the following projects (Sec. 2):
~& —US-95, SH-1 to Canadian Border;
~& —US-95, Garwood to Sagle;
~& —US-95, Worley to Setters;
~& —US-95, Thorn Creek to Moscow;
~& —US-95, Smoky Boulder to Hazard Creek;
~& —SH-16, Ext., South Emmett to Mesa with Connection to SH-55;
~& —SH-16, Ext., I-84 to South Emmett;
~& —I-84, Caldwell to Meridian;
~& —I-84, Orchard to Isaacs Canyon;
~& —US-93, Twin Falls alternate route and new Snake River crossing;
~& —SH-75, Timmerman to Ketchum;
~& —US-20, St. Anthony to Ashton; and
~& —US-30, ""McCammon"" to Soda Springs.//
~&//---//
~& //-Prohibits the Idaho Transportation Board and Transportation Department from adding new highway projects or increasing the size or scope of the projects approved for GARVEE bond financing (Sec. 3).//
~&//---//
~& //-Requires the new bonds be tax exempt, disbursed at prevailing market rates of interest, and issued on an "as needed" basis as determined by the Idaho Transportation Board (Sec. 5).//
~&//---//
~& //-Specifies that it is the intent of the Legislature that the first priority of expenditures shall be for construction, followed by expenditures for right-of-way acquisition, followed by other necessary project-related costs (Sec. 6).//
~&//---//
~& //-Authorizes the Idaho Transportation Board to transfer up to $3.3 million from the State Highway Account to the GARVEE Service Fund to pay the state's portion of the GARVEE, as required by federal law (Sec. 8).//
~&//---//
~& //-Requires the Idaho Transportation Board to submit annual progress reports concerning current and pending construction projects to the Legislature by September 30 (Sec. 9).//
Notice that some of the highlights and the wording are exactly the same as S 1186. Of course there are differences between the two bills, and that is reflected in the summaries of each. The most notable difference is that H 567 actually specifies the projects that may be funded using bond revenue; S 1186 does not list any specific highway project. The amount of money specified is also different: the total amount of authorized in H 567 is $134 million, whereas the total amount authorized in S 1186 is only $82 million. The amount transferred from the State Highway Account to the GARVEE Service Fund is also different: $3.3 million in H 567 and $4 million in S 1186. If you disregard those differences, the two summaries are identical in terms of both language and format.
==Past Summaries from Other States==
Issues frequently transcend state borders, and legislatures across the country will take up similar or even the same legislation. If you encounter this, you should attempt to duplicate what information is applicable to the summary that you are writing. Here is an example SB 5599 from Washington during the 2009 session. This proposal was introduced in conjuncture with a number of other states to start awarding their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote in a presidential election. This is the final version of the summary:
~& //**Vote Smart's Synopsis**://
~&
~& //Vote to pass a bill that includes the state of Washington in an agreement among various states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote in a presidential election.//
~&//---//
~& //**Highlights**://
~&
~& //-Requires the chief election official of each state to appoint electors in association with the national popular vote winner (Sec. 2).//
~&//---//
~& //-Specifies that this bill will be effective once the number of states that have passed the agreement in the same form cumulatively posses a majority of the electoral votes (Sec. 2).//
~&//---//
~& //-Authorizes any state to withdraw from the agreement, provided that if the state withdraws within 6 months of a presidential election, the withdrawal shall not be effective until after the election (Sec. 2).//
~&//---//
~& //-Terminates the agreement if the electoral college is abolished (Sec. 2).//
The fact that other states were taking up this same proposal suggests that summaries from other states ought to be modeled after each other. One of those states was Colorado, where it was introduced as HB 1299. This is what the final summary looks like:
~& //**Vote Smart's Synopsis**://
~&
~& //Vote to pass a bill that includes the state of Colorado in an agreement among various states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote in a presidential election.//
~&//---//
~& //**Highlights**://
~&
~& //-Requires the chief election official of each state to appoint electors in association with the national popular vote winner (Sec. 1).//
~&//---//
~& //-Specifies that this bill will be effective once the number of states that have passed the agreement in the same form cumulatively posses a majority of the electoral votes (Sec. 1).//
~&//---//
~& //-Authorizes any state to withdraw from the agreement, provided that if the state withdraws within 6 months of a presidential election, the withdrawal shall not be effective until after the election (Sec. 1).//
~&//---//
~& //-Terminates the agreement if the electoral college is abolished (Sec. 1). //
As you can see, the summaries are almost identical. The only differences are the names of the states and the citations.
While utilizing past summaries can be helpful, you will find that some past summaries in different states will be dramatically different, even though they are addressing the same issue. When you encounter this, it is best not to rely on that summary for assistance. Here is an example: HB 71 from Illinois from the 2009 session. This bill tackles the issue of text messaging while driving, of which we have seen a surge in recent years throughout the country. This is the final version of the summary:
~& //**Vote Smart's Synopsis**://
~&
~& //Vote to pass a bill that prohibits the use of an electronic communication device to compose, send, or read electronic messages while operating a motor vehicle.//
~&//---//
~& //**Highlights**://
~&
~& //-Exempts the following individuals from the prohibition (Sec. 5):
~& —Law enforcement officers while performing official duties;
~& —Operators of emergency vehicles while performing official duties;
~& —Individuals using the electronic communication device for the sole purpose of reporting an emergency situation and continued communication with emergency personnel;
~& —Individuals using the electronic communication device in a hands-free or voice-activated mode; and
~& —Individuals driving a commercial motor vehicle reading a message displayed on a permanently installed communication device designed for a commercial motor vehicle, provided the screen does not exceed 10 inches tall by 10 inches wide.//
~&//---//
~& //-Classifies a violation as an offense against traffic regulations governing the movement of vehicles (Sec. 1).//
This summary appears to be relatively straightforward. If you were writing a summary of a bill from Utah that also prohibits text messaging while driving, you might assume that this summary would be a suitable template. However, take a look at the final summary for HB 290 from Utah during the 2009 session:
~& //**Vote Smart's Synopsis**://
~&
~& //Vote to concur with Senate amendments and pass a bill that prohibits the use of a handheld wireless communication device to send text messages or emails while driving, and classifies the offense as a class C misdemeanor or a class B misdemeanor if aggravated circumstances exist.//
~&//---//
~& //**Highlights**://
~&
~& //-Classifies the offense as a Class B misdemeanor if the individual inflicts serious bodily injury as a proximate result of sending a text message or email while driving, or if the individual has a prior conviction within the past three years for sending a text message or email while driving (Sec. 1).//
~&//---//
~& //-Classifies the offense as a third degree felony if an individual is driving in a negligent manner while sending a text message or email and causes the death of another individual (Sec. 1).//
~&//---//
~& //-Defines "negligence" as a failure to exercise a degree of care that a "reasonable and prudent" individual would exercise under the same or similar circumstances (Sec. 1).//
~&//---//
~& //-Classifies the offense as a second degree felony if an individual is driving in a criminally negligent manner while sending a text message or email and causes the death of another individual (Sec. 1).//
~&//---//
~& //-Defines "criminal negligence" as circumstances surrounding an individual's conduct or the result of the individual's conduct in which that individual ought to be aware of a "substantial and unjustifiable" risk that the circumstances exist or will occur, such that a failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary individual would exercise (Sec. 1).//
~&//---//
~& //-Authorizes judges to suspend an individual's driver's license for a period of 3 months upon conviction for sending a text massage or email while driving (Sec. 1).//
~&//---//
~& //-Specifies that the bill does not prohibit an individual from using a handheld wireless communication device while driving if the individual is doing 1 of the following (Sec. 1):
~& —Using the device during a medical emergency;
~& —Reporting a safety hazard or requesting assistance related to a safety hazard;
~& —Reporting criminal activity or requesting assistance related to criminal activity;
~& —Providing roadside or medical assistance; or
~& —A law enforcement officer or emergency service personnel acting in accordance with the requirements of their employment.//
~&//---//
~& //-Specifies that a handheld wireless communication device includes a wireless telephone, personal digital assistant, pager, and text messaging device (Sec. 1).//
~&//---//
~& //-This is a substitute bill sponsored by Sen. Lyle Hillyard.//
Though the overall topic of the bills was the same, in substance the bills were quite different. In this situation, the Illinois summary would not be helpful when summarizing the Utah bill.
----
[[CategoryKeyVotes Key Votes Homepage]] | [[UTInternTraining Training Guide]] | [[SummaryWritingGuide Summary Writing Guide]] | [[VoteEnteringGuide Vote Entering Guide]] | [[CongressGuide Congress Guide]] | [[StatusUpdateGuide Status Update Guide]] | [[WebCheckGuide Web Check Guide]]
