4 ms·

Under AB5, a truck driver delivering orange juice is treated differently than a truck driver delivering milk. AB5 is trash. Either way, Article 11 of Prop 22 h

Under AB5, a truck driver delivering orange juice is treated differently than a truck driver delivering milk. AB5 is trash. Either way, Article 11 of Prop 22 has a severability clause. If they take away the 7/8th supermajority clause, it shouldn't affect the rest of Prop 22. Edit: Looks like the California Supreme Court has denied their petition - https://techcrunch.com/2021/02/03/ca-supreme-court-denies-lawsuit-challenging-prop-22s-constitutionality/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/02/03/ca-supreme-court-denies-la...

eplanit 6y ago
A constitution that allows a 7/8ths supermajority clause is fertile ground for corrupt and insane laws like AB5. A party in Congress with a slight majority can pass a law that will be forever practically impossible to change. They effectively forced in a constitutional amendment. This is a clear example of how the unions really control California.
- mikeyouse 6y ago
  Sorry to interrupt your soapbox, but the law passed with the 7/8 supermajority clause was Prop 22 - which was loudly and explicitly opposed by the unions "who control California" and who supported the original AB5 law that it superseded.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  In addition to the other reply, the supermajority clause can only be added to ballot propositions not legislation from the legislative (california doesn't have a Congress). And it's actually a good thing, without that clause it would be totally impossible for the legislative to amend or repeal the proposition.
  - techsupporter 6y ago
    > And it's actually a good thing, without that clause it would be totally impossible for the legislative to amend or repeal the proposition. This boggles my mind about initiatives in California. In other states with popular initiatives, the People pass laws on the same footing as the Legislature; they just do so through the ballot box. The elected Legislature still has the authority to modify those same laws (though most states require a "cooling off" period of a year or two before a passed initiative can be modified, and even then a supermajority in the Legislature can still do it). A popular initiative being sacrosanct and inviolable absent a second initiative seems wrong to me. Why does a populist law get to stand more firm than one passed by the elected representatives of the people?
    - secabeen 6y ago
      > A popular initiative being sacrosanct and inviolable absent a second initiative seems wrong to me. Why does a populist law get to stand more firm than one passed by the elected representatives of the people? I expect you know the answer to this. Just look at what happened with the restoration of voting rights to felons in Florida: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement_in_Florida https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement_in_F... 65% of Floridian voters chose to restore voting rights to felons; the Florida legislature chose to add additional restrictions to that restoration that were not in the original proposition, effectively preventing the restoration that Floridians had chosen.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      The problem is that California very frequently gets into situations where there's a legislative supermajority on the opposite side of the issue from the general public. Just this cycle, AB5 passed the Assembly with 76%, and ACA 5 (the subject of Prop 16) passed with 81%. If the legislature were allowed to repeal ballot propositions, they'd do it in a heartbeat, and the will of the voters would not end up being expressed.
    - lhorie 6y ago
      > Why does a populist law get to stand more firm than one passed by the elected representatives of the people? Isn't that exactly what you should expect from a democrat state though? (i.e. democracy = popular vote; republic = elected representatives)
- dhnajsjdnd 6y ago
  It’s worth mentioning that many props don’t allow the legislature to override them period, even with a unanimous vote. The 7/8ths rule, while unusual, is less extreme than not allowing any vote at all. It’s essentially an “oops we drafted the prop wrong and accidentally banned wages” get out of jail free card.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Based on reading HN, maybe 1 in 10 commentators here know what the 7/8th clause was, but this is truly the most magical misinterpretation I have seen. Here are some fun incorrect varieties: * Prop 22 needs 7/8 of legislators to vote against to repeal * Prop 22 needs 7/8 of Californian voters to vote against to repeal * Prop 22 needs 7/8 of Californians to modify And now, this profound version * Californian legislators can pass laws that require 7/8 majorities to repeal and AB5 is one of them

eplanit 6y ago

A constitution that allows a 7/8ths supermajority clause is fertile ground for corrupt and insane laws like AB5. A party in Congress with a slight majority can pass a law that will be forever practically impossible to change. They effectively forced in a constitutional amendment. This is a clear example of how the unions really control California.

mikeyouse 6y ago
Sorry to interrupt your soapbox, but the law passed with the 7/8 supermajority clause was Prop 22 - which was loudly and explicitly opposed by the unions "who control California" and who supported the original AB5 law that it superseded.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
LatteLazy 6y ago
In addition to the other reply, the supermajority clause can only be added to ballot propositions not legislation from the legislative (california doesn't have a Congress). And it's actually a good thing, without that clause it would be totally impossible for the legislative to amend or repeal the proposition.
- techsupporter 6y ago
  > And it's actually a good thing, without that clause it would be totally impossible for the legislative to amend or repeal the proposition. This boggles my mind about initiatives in California. In other states with popular initiatives, the People pass laws on the same footing as the Legislature; they just do so through the ballot box. The elected Legislature still has the authority to modify those same laws (though most states require a "cooling off" period of a year or two before a passed initiative can be modified, and even then a supermajority in the Legislature can still do it). A popular initiative being sacrosanct and inviolable absent a second initiative seems wrong to me. Why does a populist law get to stand more firm than one passed by the elected representatives of the people?
  - secabeen 6y ago
    > A popular initiative being sacrosanct and inviolable absent a second initiative seems wrong to me. Why does a populist law get to stand more firm than one passed by the elected representatives of the people? I expect you know the answer to this. Just look at what happened with the restoration of voting rights to felons in Florida: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement_in_Florida https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement_in_F... 65% of Floridian voters chose to restore voting rights to felons; the Florida legislature chose to add additional restrictions to that restoration that were not in the original proposition, effectively preventing the restoration that Floridians had chosen.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    The problem is that California very frequently gets into situations where there's a legislative supermajority on the opposite side of the issue from the general public. Just this cycle, AB5 passed the Assembly with 76%, and ACA 5 (the subject of Prop 16) passed with 81%. If the legislature were allowed to repeal ballot propositions, they'd do it in a heartbeat, and the will of the voters would not end up being expressed.
  - lhorie 6y ago
    > Why does a populist law get to stand more firm than one passed by the elected representatives of the people? Isn't that exactly what you should expect from a democrat state though? (i.e. democracy = popular vote; republic = elected representatives)
dhnajsjdnd 6y ago
It’s worth mentioning that many props don’t allow the legislature to override them period, even with a unanimous vote. The 7/8ths rule, while unusual, is less extreme than not allowing any vote at all. It’s essentially an “oops we drafted the prop wrong and accidentally banned wages” get out of jail free card.
renewiltord 6y ago
Based on reading HN, maybe 1 in 10 commentators here know what the 7/8th clause was, but this is truly the most magical misinterpretation I have seen. Here are some fun incorrect varieties: * Prop 22 needs 7/8 of legislators to vote against to repeal * Prop 22 needs 7/8 of Californian voters to vote against to repeal * Prop 22 needs 7/8 of Californians to modify And now, this profound version * Californian legislators can pass laws that require 7/8 majorities to repeal and AB5 is one of them