Rally Support for Plain Language Law

Support the U.S. Plain Language Act

A proposed law requiring the US federal government to use plain language on certain forms and documents is stuck in a Senate committee, due to the opposition of the legal staff of Utah Senator Robert Bennett.

The Plain Language in Government Communications Act of 2008 (S-2291) requires some federal government agencies to write some documents in plain language in the future. It calls for using plain language when writing new government documents about:

• Government requirements
• Government programs
• Obtaining government benefits
• Obtaining government services

This is not a pie-in-the-sky idea. It is needed to ensure that government documentation uniformly meets legal expectations. Remember this 1998 case?

Walters v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Certain government forms were so difficult to read that they violated due process requirements of "notice" of legal consequences. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that those facing INS charges of document fraud did not get due process. The forms used by INS did not "simply and plainly communicate" the possibility of deportation. The court ordered INS to redo the forms and not to deport anyone based on the inadequate forms

There is a FAQ about the proposed law at plainlanguagelaw.com.

Here are three ways Americans can help move this law forward:

1. Send a letter to Senator Bennett supporting the bill. The letter can be brief. Mail the letter to Hon. Bob Bennett, 431 Dirksen Building, Washington, DC 20510-4403. If you can, please also fax it to the attention of Shawn Gunnarson at (202) 228-1168.

2. If you live in California, call Senator Feinstein's office. She chairs the Rules Committee. As chair of the Rules Committee, she can intervene. If you are not in California, her D.C. office is (202) 224-3841.

3. Contact these Republican cosponsors, if you live in their states. Call the D.C. office and ask them to get Bennett to move on it.
• Susan Collins, Maine (202) 224-2523
• Thad Cochran, Missouri 202-224-5054
• George Voinovich, Ohio (202) 224-3353

The Rule to Follow Even If It does Not Apply!

General Rules and Regulations
promulgated under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Rule 13a-19 -- Plain English Presentation of Specified Information

---

1. Any information included or incorporated by reference in a report filed under section 13(a) of the Act that is required to be disclosed pursuant to Item 402, 403, 404 or 407 of Regulation S-B or Item 402, 403, 404 or 407 of Regulation S-K must be presented in a clear, concise and understandable manner. You must prepare the disclosure using the following standards:
   
   
   1. Present information in clear, concise sections, paragraphs and sentences;
      
      
   2. Use short sentences;
      
      
   3. Use definite, concrete, everyday words;
      
      
   4. Use the active voice;
      
      
   5. Avoid multiple negatives;
      
      
   6. Use descriptive headings and subheadings;
      
      
   7. Use a tabular presentation or bullet lists for complex material, wherever possible;
      
      
   8. Avoid legal jargon and highly technical business and other terminology;
      
      
   9. Avoid frequent reliance on glossaries or defined terms as the primary means of explaining information. Define terms in a glossary or other section of the document only if the meaning is unclear from the context. Use a glossary only if it facilitates understanding of the disclosure; and
      
      
   10. In designing the presentation of the information you may include pictures, logos, charts, graphs and other design elements so long as the design is not misleading and the required information is clear. You are encouraged to use tables, schedules, charts and graphic illustrations that present relevant data in an understandable manner, so long as such presentations are consistent with applicable disclosure requirements and consistent with other information in the document. You must draw graphs and charts to scale. Any information you provide must not be misleading.
       
       

---

Note to Rule 240.13a-20.

In drafting the disclosure to comply with this section, you should avoid the following:

1. Legalistic or overly complex presentations that make the substance of the disclosure difficult to understand;
   
   
2. Vague "boilerplate" explanations that are imprecise and readily subject to different interpretations;
   
   
3. Complex information copied directly from legal documents without any clear and concise explanation of the provision(s); and
   
   
4. Disclosure repeated in different sections of the document that increases the size of the document but does not enhance the quality of the information.

---

Regulatory History

71 FR 53158, 53261, Sept. 8, 2006.

Plain Language measure sets guidelines for tax, college aid and other forms

THonline.com
Braley bill would reduce government legalese

By MARY RAE BRAGG TH staff writer

Dubuque's congressman, Rep. Bruce Braley, introduced a bill last week that would require the federal government to communicate in easy-to-understand language.

"Anyone who's done their own taxes knows the headache of trying to understand pages and pages of confusing forms and instructions," Braley said. "There is no reason why the federal government can't write these forms and other public documents in a way we can all understand."

The Plain Language in Government Communications Act, HR 3584, sets guidelines for documents like tax returns, college aid applications and forms from the Department of Veteran Affairs. The bill's guidelines instruct document authors to use short, simple words; use "you" and other pronouns when speaking to the reader; use short sentences and paragraphs; and avoid legal, foreign and technical jargon.

The bill, which has two Democratic and two Republican cosponsors, was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, one of the committees Braley serves on.

According to a report appearing on www.plainlanguage.gov, "Plain talk" can result in higher revenue for the government instituting it.

An official in Washington state says their Department of Revenue estimates it has collected about $5 million in additional revenue since rewriting one explanatory tax collection letter in 2003.