Some of the rules of usage that I've adopted reflect my political views. I make no apology for that, as I'd rather see political disputes resolved by good rhetoric than by brute force. But I don't always choose my language on a partisan basis. Consider this rule of usage: Ascribe statutes not to "legislators" or "Congress" but to "lawmakers."
I've adopted "lawmakers" for reasons of policy rather than politics. I reason that, at least so far as U.S. federal and state government goes, legislatures are almost never the sole source of statutes. Instead, the head of the executive branch—the president of the U.S. or the governor of the state—must also typically sign an act for it to become law.
Most legislators do no more than vote for a bill, so it hardly seems unfair to include the executive among a statute's makers. In the rare instance where the legislature acts without the executive's assistance, as when Congress passes a law over the president's veto, we can easily say as much. Moreover, we probably should note the extraordinary origins of such a statute.
In most cases, however, we can and should credit a statute's origin to "lawmakers" rather than merely to the legislative branch. Why leave the executive branch out? It deserves at least as much of the praise or blame for a statute as the legislative branch does.