The promulgation of model laws—exemplary statutes that states can voluntarily choose to adopt—is a prominent strategy that reformers in public health agencies, the legal academy, and non governmental organizations use to improve US public health law and make it more uniform. This article applies the science and technology studies literature on standardization to the process of model lawmaking to analyze how developers negotiate between alternative forms of expertise and utilize different drafting processes to secure the techno-political legitimacy of their model statutes. Drawing on archival records and interviews with thirty-four experts involved in the development of four model public health laws produced between 1999 and 2007, I show how developers work to satisfy multiple, and, at times, competing, audiences. I observe that developers leveraged forms of legal expertise to secure their model laws’ technical legitimacy and emphasized their objectivity, representativeness, and flexibility to promote their political legitimacy. Comparing the four model laws across several indicia of legitimacy, I find that the developers experienced varying degrees of success. This study contributes to the socio legal scholarship on model laws by revealing how they are able to achieve legitimacy, albeit fragmented, even in the context of scientific uncertainty.

中文翻译：

---

标准化紧急状态：示范公共卫生立法的碎片化合法性

颁布示范法（各州可以自愿选择采用的示范性法规）是公共卫生机构、法学院和非政府组织的改革者用来改进美国公共卫生法并使其更加统一的一项重要战略。本文将有关标准化的科学技术研究文献应用于示范立法的过程，以分析开发人员如何在替代专业知识形式之间进行协商，并利用不同的起草过程来确保其示范法规的技术政治合法性。根据档案记录和对参与制定 1999 年至 2007 年期间制定的四项示范公共卫生法的 34 位专家的采访，我展示了开发人员如何努力满足多个，有时是相互竞争的受众。我观察到开发人员利用各种形式的法律专业知识来确保其示范法的技术合法性，并强调其客观性、代表性和灵活性以促进其政治合法性。通过比较几个合法性标志的四个示范法，我发现开发人员经历了不同程度的成功。这项研究通过揭示示范法如何能够实现合法性（尽管是零散的，即使在科学不确定的背景下），为示范法的社会法律学术做出了贡献。