Many current laws in Massachusetts may still hold some relevance, yet a significant number appear to be vestiges of a bygone era. While these statutes may not be enforced anymore—or could potentially be unenforceable—they still occupy space in the legal system, wasting valuable resources. It is time for Massachusetts to streamline its legal framework by eliminating outdated, unnecessary, or redundant language that has amassed over the last 250 years, and this process could be significantly enhanced through artificial intelligence.
Massachusetts has already begun the journey toward legal modernization. During Charlie Baker's tenure as governor, over 1,700 executive branch regulations underwent review, leading to the revision or removal of 67 percent of them. The implementation of the Negating Archaic Statutes Targeting Young Women Act resulted in the repeal of antiquated laws related to abortion, adultery, and contraception. More recently, Governor Maura Healey enacted legislation aimed at replacing derogatory terms within state laws concerning individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
While these initiatives are commendable, they often have limited scope and can be time-consuming. Fortunately, new strategies are emerging.
Several states are beginning to leverage AI technologies to sift through their legal codes. For instance, Governor Kathy Hochul from New York recently signed an executive order utilizing AI to identify outdated laws, such as those mandating telegrams or requiring forms in triplicate. State agencies in New York will examine the AI-generated findings to determine necessary legal amendments. Virginia and Ohio have also initiated similar programs. It would be beneficial for Massachusetts to adopt this approach as well.
AI technology excels in rapidly analyzing expansive amounts of text. Instead of merely searching for specific words or phrases tied to outdated laws, AI tools can identify sections that resonate with broader themes. For instance, an AI could highlight regulations involving obsolete filing procedures.
Beth Simone Noveck, a professor at Northeastern University and former chief AI strategist for New Jersey, described AI's capability to sift through thousands of documents, effectively pinpointing regulatory inefficiencies.
As a result, officials receive a curated list of outdated or inefficient regulations, enabling them to decide whether to eliminate, revise, or retain each one.
Beyond unveiling humorous or odd regulations hidden within Massachusetts statutes, this legal cleanup could deliver substantial improvements in government efficiency and the economy.
According to a recent report from the Stanford RegLab, the Massachusetts government currently mandates over 800 reports to be generated regularly, with many having no set end date. Some of these reports include an annual assessment of trade with Ireland (no other countries are similarly scrutinized), documentation about coal mining in a state that hasn’t had a coal mine operational for over a century, and inspections of nuclear reactors that don’t exist in Massachusetts.
While certain reports may hold importance, many are outdated or redundant, and some could be consolidated. Reducing unnecessary reporting enables officials to focus on tasks that genuinely matter.
“These obsolete regulations represent low-hanging fruit and act as a bottleneck,” explained Derek Ouyang, a research director at the Stanford RegLab.
The costs associated with outdated regulations can be considerable. Businesses waste time on needless paperwork, state employees channel effort into enforcing laws that have lost their relevance, and residents endure unnecessary delays. Virginia’s previous regulatory overhaul project illustrates the potential benefits; after a three-year undertaking, more than 25 percent of its regulations were eliminated, saving Virginians over $1 billion and reducing the cost of new home construction by $24,000 while expediting the permitting processes for many agencies.
Often, governments prioritize the creation of new laws without adequately addressing existing ones.
“We keep adding laws and never remove any,” Noveck noted.
However, investing effort into identifying regulations for removal can yield clear advantages.
