5 ms·

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

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was loudly and explicitly opposed by the unions "who control California" and who supported the original AB5 law that it superseded.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)
    - Xixi 6y ago
      Direct democracy = popular vote, representative democracy = elected representatives. China, Russia, USA, France and Switzerland are all republics: two are dictatorships, two are representative democracies, and one is a direct democracy. Canada, UK, Japan and Belgium are all constitutional monarchies, and all of them are considered democratic. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are monarchies, but certainly not democratic. Democracy is a scale, probably better used as an adjective: the more democratic, the more power is wielded by the people.
    - 6y ago
- slg 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 is only partially true. Props are not amendable or repealable by default, but the 7/8 majority is a completely arbitrary and an unprecedentedly high burden to put on this. It is so high that it basically only exists so that people can argue that it is technically amendable or repealable while it being nearly impossible in practice. Prop 22 could have easily set a more reasonable cutoff like 2/3 even 3/4.
  - Anon1096 6y ago
    It's worth point out that AB5 passed 61-16 in the state house, a 79 percent yay vote. So with your proposed 3/4 supermajority it could still be overruled by the legislature. And of course this means 2/3 is even less of a hurdle. source: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/11/california-passes-assembly-bill-5-for-gig-workers.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/11/california-passes-assembly-b...
    - slg 6y ago
      AB5 versus Prop 22 is not a binary choice. It is possible to work on compromises between the two and not everyone who voted for one would inherently be against the other and vice versa. Also in the legislative world there is a huge difference between 61-16 and what would be a 68-9 requirement to meet a 7/8 cutoff. The goal for these cutoffs should be to make it difficult to achieve, not practically impossible.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    > but the 7/8 majority is a completely arbitrary and an unprecedentedly high burden to put on this. No, it's not an unprecedentedly high burden. You just admitted that the default burden is much higher!
    - slg 6y ago
      Sure, if you want to be pedantic. However the specific 7/8 number was unprecedentedly high compared to numbers used in previous propositions to the extent that it probably shouldn't have even been included in a honest piece of legislation.
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

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)
  - Xixi 6y ago
    Direct democracy = popular vote, representative democracy = elected representatives. China, Russia, USA, France and Switzerland are all republics: two are dictatorships, two are representative democracies, and one is a direct democracy. Canada, UK, Japan and Belgium are all constitutional monarchies, and all of them are considered democratic. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are monarchies, but certainly not democratic. Democracy is a scale, probably better used as an adjective: the more democratic, the more power is wielded by the people.
  - 6y ago
slg 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 is only partially true. Props are not amendable or repealable by default, but the 7/8 majority is a completely arbitrary and an unprecedentedly high burden to put on this. It is so high that it basically only exists so that people can argue that it is technically amendable or repealable while it being nearly impossible in practice. Prop 22 could have easily set a more reasonable cutoff like 2/3 even 3/4.
- Anon1096 6y ago
  It's worth point out that AB5 passed 61-16 in the state house, a 79 percent yay vote. So with your proposed 3/4 supermajority it could still be overruled by the legislature. And of course this means 2/3 is even less of a hurdle. source: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/11/california-passes-assembly-bill-5-for-gig-workers.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/11/california-passes-assembly-b...
  - slg 6y ago
    AB5 versus Prop 22 is not a binary choice. It is possible to work on compromises between the two and not everyone who voted for one would inherently be against the other and vice versa. Also in the legislative world there is a huge difference between 61-16 and what would be a 68-9 requirement to meet a 7/8 cutoff. The goal for these cutoffs should be to make it difficult to achieve, not practically impossible.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > but the 7/8 majority is a completely arbitrary and an unprecedentedly high burden to put on this. No, it's not an unprecedentedly high burden. You just admitted that the default burden is much higher!
  - slg 6y ago
    Sure, if you want to be pedantic. However the specific 7/8 number was unprecedentedly high compared to numbers used in previous propositions to the extent that it probably shouldn't have even been included in a honest piece of legislation.

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