How Mesa for Public Records saved the San Francisco Assessor-Recorder 128,000 staff hours.Read the case studyHow Mesa for Public Records saved the San Francisco Assessor-Recorder 128,000 staff hours.Read the case studyHow Mesa for Public Records saved the San Francisco Assessor-Recorder 128,000 staff hours.Read the case studyHow Mesa for Public Records saved the San Francisco Assessor-Recorder 128,000 staff hours.Read the case study

For councilmembers, supervisors, legislators, and their staff

Know what a bill changes before it moves.

Congress has the Congressional Research Service, while most councils and legislatures have a small staff. Mesa does that research for them and cites every finding to its source.

Explore Research

The work

What your office can hand to Mesa.

Redline a bill against current law

Mesa applies each amendment to the code as it reads today and shows every other section that cross-references the ones it changes.

Bill 26-14Relating to sidewalk dining

SECTION 2. Section 12.08.040 is amended to read: “A sidewalk dining permit is valid for [one year] two years from the date of issuance.”

Municipal CodeRedline

Sec. 12.08.040 Permit term

A sidewalk dining permit is valid for one yeartwo years from the date of issuance.

Referenced by

Sec. 12.08.070 Renewal

Requires annual renewal; now inconsistent

Sec. 3.36.020 Fee schedule

Annual permit fee assumes a one‑year term

Sec. 12.08.110 Revocation

No change needed

Bill 26-14 amends Section 12.08.040 to extend a sidewalk dining permit from one year to two years. Mesa applies the amendment as a redline and traces three sections that cite it: the renewal section and the fee schedule both assume a one-year term and need conforming changes, and the revocation section needs no change.

Catch problems before a bill moves

Mesa flags conflicts with other laws, stale cross-references, and provisions that reach further than the sponsor intended, each with a suggested fix.

How do peer cities regulate short-term rentals? A table compares four peer cities on five rules, each cell cited to the code section it came from. Westover: registration required (WMC 5.72.020), primary residence only (5.72.040), 90-night annual cap (5.72.050), $250 fee (5.72.060), $500 daily fine if unregistered (5.72.110). Rivermont: registration required (RMC 8.40.020), primary residence only (8.40.030), 120-night cap (8.40.045), $300 fee (8.40.070), $1,000 daily fine (8.40.120). Fairhaven: registration required (FMC 9.44.020), no primary-residence requirement (9.44.030), 90-night cap (9.44.040), $275 fee (9.44.080), $500 daily fine (9.44.150). Marbrook: registration required (MMC 5.36.010), primary residence only (5.36.030), 120-night cap (5.36.040), $1,100 fee (5.36.050), $750 daily fine (5.36.090). Two cells depart from the peers: Fairhaven has no residency rule, and Marbrook’s fee is four times the peer median.
Cities 1–2 of 4

See how other jurisdictions handled it

Name the peer cities or states, and Mesa lines up their approaches in one table, with every cell cited to its source.

Understand the operational impact

Mesa traces what a bill asks of the departments that carry it out, from new duties to the deadlines and reports it creates.

Draft the language and the memo

Mesa drafts ordinance or bill language and the research memo for the member, with citations throughout.

Clean up the code

Mesa reads an entire code provision by provision and lists every obsolete or superseded section, with the reason and citation for each.

New York State Assembly

New York State Assembly

Repealed in the New York State budget.

With Assemblymember Alex Bores, we used Mesa to review New York’s consolidated laws for provisions that were obsolete or open to abuse. Several were repealed in the state budget, including one that let the governor require foreign nationals to register their whereabouts.

Read the Times Union op-ed

Exhaustive search

Title 15, Transportation

Revised Ordinances

0

of 1,284 evaluated

ObsoleteConflictingBurdensome
One square per sectionEvaluatingEvery section evaluated
Flagged0Obsolete0Conflicting0Burdensome0
  • § 15.08.070ObsoleteHorse-drawn carriages on public streets
  • § 15.12.030ObsoleteAccident notice at a telegraph office
  • § 15.24.110ConflictingLoading-zone hours, Downtown district
  • § 15.36.050BurdensomeOversize-load permit filed in person
  • § 15.44.020ObsoletePenalty cites a repealed chapter
0 of 0 flagged sections shown
“Five years ago, this sort of research would have likely taken years. Mesa processed New York’s entire legal code in an afternoon.”

Alex Bores

New York State Assemblymember · Times Union, October 2025

Honolulu City Council

A Honolulu City Council member is using Mesa to clean up the city’s code, starting with transportation.

Honolulu City Council

How Mesa compares on legal research.

We asked Mesa and four other AI research tools to find every provision in the U.S. Code that defines a federal crime, a task with a known answer. Mesa found 99.8% of them.

Finding every federal criminal provision in the U.S. Code

Recall, best of three runs per system

Mesa

99.8%

Leading legal AI startup

63.0%

Claude Research

42.2%

Gemini Deep Research

14.4%

Westlaw AI Jurisdictional Surveys

7.2%

From “What Is the Law? A System for Statutory Research with Large Language Models” (ICAIL 2025). Each system was asked to identify every provision defining a criminal offense in the United States Code. Recall is measured against a validated superset of Count the Code, an independently compiled catalog of about 2,000 federal criminal provisions.

This work runs in Mesa’s Research workspace.

Explore Research

Bring a bill you’re working on.

In a thirty-minute demo, we’ll run it through Mesa with you and walk through what it finds.