4 ms·

Basically, through Uber’s greed in the proposition by writing in the provision about legislators not being able to overturn Prop 22, Uber et al ended up getting

Basically, through Uber’s greed in the proposition by writing in the provision about legislators not being able to overturn Prop 22, Uber et al ended up getting the whole Proposition cancelled vs if they'd just kept it for the contractor stuff. This is just the Superior Court’s ruling

nerfhammer 5y ago
the funny thing is that was a concession: normally legislators can't overturn California ballot propositions at all.
Dylan16807 5y ago
So I've been told that the default of a proposition is that the legislature can't overturn it at all, and the clause allowing a supermajority actually increases the legislature's power. Is that wrong?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > [...] the clause allowing a supermajority actually increases the legislature's power. > Is that wrong? Yes, because—and this is critical because it is the basis of the ruling here—the proposition purported to define additional legislation that did not change the proposition (and thus would not normally be restricted) as an “amendment” subject to its restriction, which as a non-germane provision is what was found to render the proposition invalid here.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    So if it had been worded differently, to make the relevant definitions part of the proposition, it would have been fine? Also it seems really weird to call that theoretical legislation "unrelated" when it would change how the proposition works.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > So if it had been worded differently, to make the relevant definitions part of the proposition, it would have been fine Maybe, maybe not. I haven't read the full analysis in the ruling, but it seems from the excerpts I’ve seen that the attempt to sweep workers comp rules into the amendment restrictions without them being part of the main body was found to be an attempt to do an end run around the single-subject rule, which means it would have been struck down either way. > Also it seems really weird to call that theoretical legislation "unrelated" when it would change how the proposition works. It wouldn't change how the proposition works. It would change how the businesses affected by the proposition work, but lots of unrelated laws would do that.
    - cortesoft 5y ago
      > So if it had been worded differently, to make the relevant definitions part of the proposition, it would have been fine? Courts don't usually answer this question. They leave that up to future court cases. It would be really hard for a court to answer that question in the affirmative (that a law is totally sound and will hold up to all further legal scrutiny). The court case is always about specific things (a lawsuit will be brought around specific clauses in the law, and all the arguments in the court are going to be focused on those clauses). The court isn't examining the law as a whole, only the specific claims of the lawsuit. There is no way the court is going to be able to know all the possible arguments about a law without having them argued in front of them.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  > So I've been told that the default of a proposition is that the legislature can't overturn it at all, and the clause allowing a supermajority actually increases the legislature's power. This isn't about a supermajority clause. No such clause is being discussed. What he took issue to is the part of the prop that said regardless of any future laws, app-drivers are never allowed not to be subject to any workman's comp laws. The judge ruled that this overbroad language unfairly limited future legislature's powers beyond the scope of the proposition and that such limitation didn't align with the listed reasoning for the proposition. Hence, that was a violation of the law and therefore the whole prop is out.
HWR_14 5y ago
> Basically, through Uber’s greed in the proposition by writing in the provision about legislators not being able to overturn Prop 22, That wasn't it nor was it referenced by the judge. The issue was the part of Prop 22 that says that app-drivers can never qualify for workman's comp, regardless of any future law passed. The California Constitution gives the legislature power to modify workman's comp laws to apply to whomever. Therefore, that part of the Prop cannot be a legal law, therefore the whole thing is out.
stefan_ 5y ago
My favorite part is that this was of course purportedly written for the benefit of their independent contractors. But then they couldn't resist and threw in something about collective bargaining in there that has nothing at all to do with the subject matter of the proposition at all. And that's killed it.

nerfhammer 5y ago

the funny thing is that was a concession: normally legislators can't overturn California ballot propositions at all.

Dylan16807 5y ago

So I've been told that the default of a proposition is that the legislature can't overturn it at all, and the clause allowing a supermajority actually increases the legislature's power. Is that wrong?

dragonwriter 5y ago
> [...] the clause allowing a supermajority actually increases the legislature's power. > Is that wrong? Yes, because—and this is critical because it is the basis of the ruling here—the proposition purported to define additional legislation that did not change the proposition (and thus would not normally be restricted) as an “amendment” subject to its restriction, which as a non-germane provision is what was found to render the proposition invalid here.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  So if it had been worded differently, to make the relevant definitions part of the proposition, it would have been fine? Also it seems really weird to call that theoretical legislation "unrelated" when it would change how the proposition works.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > So if it had been worded differently, to make the relevant definitions part of the proposition, it would have been fine Maybe, maybe not. I haven't read the full analysis in the ruling, but it seems from the excerpts I’ve seen that the attempt to sweep workers comp rules into the amendment restrictions without them being part of the main body was found to be an attempt to do an end run around the single-subject rule, which means it would have been struck down either way. > Also it seems really weird to call that theoretical legislation "unrelated" when it would change how the proposition works. It wouldn't change how the proposition works. It would change how the businesses affected by the proposition work, but lots of unrelated laws would do that.
  - cortesoft 5y ago
    > So if it had been worded differently, to make the relevant definitions part of the proposition, it would have been fine? Courts don't usually answer this question. They leave that up to future court cases. It would be really hard for a court to answer that question in the affirmative (that a law is totally sound and will hold up to all further legal scrutiny). The court case is always about specific things (a lawsuit will be brought around specific clauses in the law, and all the arguments in the court are going to be focused on those clauses). The court isn't examining the law as a whole, only the specific claims of the lawsuit. There is no way the court is going to be able to know all the possible arguments about a law without having them argued in front of them.
HWR_14 5y ago
> So I've been told that the default of a proposition is that the legislature can't overturn it at all, and the clause allowing a supermajority actually increases the legislature's power. This isn't about a supermajority clause. No such clause is being discussed. What he took issue to is the part of the prop that said regardless of any future laws, app-drivers are never allowed not to be subject to any workman's comp laws. The judge ruled that this overbroad language unfairly limited future legislature's powers beyond the scope of the proposition and that such limitation didn't align with the listed reasoning for the proposition. Hence, that was a violation of the law and therefore the whole prop is out.

HWR_14 5y ago

> Basically, through Uber’s greed in the proposition by writing in the provision about legislators not being able to overturn Prop 22, That wasn't it nor was it referenced by the judge. The issue was the part of Prop 22 that says that app-drivers can never qualify for workman's comp, regardless of any future law passed. The California Constitution gives the legislature power to modify workman's comp laws to apply to whomever. Therefore, that part of the Prop cannot be a legal law, therefore the whole thing is out.

stefan_ 5y ago

My favorite part is that this was of course purportedly written for the benefit of their independent contractors. But then they couldn't resist and threw in something about collective bargaining in there that has nothing at all to do with the subject matter of the proposition at all. And that's killed it.