11 ms·

One wonders about the hubris of the folks who approved this part of Prop 22: After the effective date of this chapter, the Legislature may amend this c

One wonders about the hubris of the folks who approved this part of Prop 22: After the effective date of this chapter, the Legislature may amend this chapter by a statute passed in each house of the Legislature by rollcall vote entered into the journal, seven-eighths of the membership concurring, provided that the statute is consistent with, and furthers the purpose of, this chapter. Prop 22 was intended to be almost impossible to overturn, requiring a higher bar for amendment than even the state constitution, and only permitting the legislature to amend it if the amendment was "consistent with" Prop 22. Regardless of one's opinion about Prop 22 and AB5, this provision was undemocratic at its core because it deprived future citizens and their representatives of their ability to modify the law.

resonantjacket5 5y ago
Thats a bit misguided in interpreting the propositions. By default propositions cannot be override by the legislature, by adding the provision it was more amendable than normal.
- AaronFriel 5y ago
  Today I learned: https://ballotpedia.org/Legislative_alteration https://ballotpedia.org/Legislative_alteration It still seems like California's process is the least democratic. It allows voters of the past to institute laws that are much, much more difficult to change than other laws. The "Supermajority approval for ... years following" that North Dakota and Washington follow, or expiring the protection of the initiative from amendment automatically after some number of years seems appropriate.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - coliveira 5y ago
    The US political system is full of anti-democratic laws. California is not the first and, unfortunately, no the last state to have such laws.
    - thaumasiotes 5y ago
      If we're defining anti-democratic laws like this: > It allows voters of the past to institute laws that are much, much more difficult to change than other laws. then having a constitution is a pure exercise in anti-democracy. Are we calling that "unfortunate" now?
      - kergonath 5y ago
        Well, a constitution can be anti-democratic if it cannot be changed by the people. Loads of dictatorships and single-party oligarchies have undemocratic constitutions. In true democracies the constitution can be changed, and is regularly. So basically, being a democracy and having a constitution are orthogonal.
        thaumasiotes 5y ago
        That is the opposite position to "having a constitution is anti-democratic", which is the position taken by AaronFriel's comment. > Loads of dictatorships and single-party oligarchies have undemocratic constitutions. Ehh... my impression was that the bigger problem, from a standard American perspective, is that loads of dictatorships have constitutions which are everything American evangelical democracy dreams of, but which they aren't too concerned with adhering to.
        zajio1am 5y ago
        > Loads of dictatorships and single-party oligarchies have undemocratic constitutions. In many cases the issue is opposite. Many populist autocrats abuse democracies with constitution that can be changed too easily, so after one big win in election they can dismantle all checks and balances and independent institutions in the country.
  - azernik 5y ago
    They're more difficult to change only in that they have to go through the same process by which they were instituted - a ballot initiative. The difficulty of repealing awful past propositions like Prop 13 is down to public opinion, not procedural limitations.
    - hellbannedguy 5y ago
      Here we go again on Prop 13. If you lived through the madness, you would understand. (I can guarantee you were born after, I'm Mad as Hell!, by Howard Jarvis. Every year taxes went up. Every year politicians squandered away that money on pet projects. Middle class residents feared tax day. I saw my dad cry once, and yes it was when he opened that tax bill from the county. Prop 13 is the only real thing, in my lifetime, that truly helped the middleclass, and poor. Yes---things were generally better 30-40 years ago, but don't blame our messed up society on prop 13. Their are days where I feel we need to get rid of prop 13 for a few years, and let those that weren't born see what happens? I have never heard anyone who lived through that time criticize prop 13, with the exception of a college professor trying to reel in young students during a lecture, or an upcoming politician trying to get young voters. Instead of ragging on a prop that helps low/middleclass tax payers; I wish the young would go after how the wealthy around the world are buying up our homes. With a phone call, or email, and then have the gall to leave them vacant. To the young professional programmers. Let's be honest. You will be most likely shown the door around 50. If you happened to buy a house, you will eventually cherish prop 13.
      - pclmulqdq 5y ago
        In most places other than California, the problem of greedy politicians who raise taxes and spend the money on corruption and crap is to vote out the politicians. If you feel unsafe at tax time, your elected leaders should feel unsafe on election day. It's really telling that Californians instead passed a terrible market-distorting ballot measure (which incentives hedge funds to buy properties to avoid the tax being readjusted again and pushes up prices so that nobody other than a hedge fund could afford them). If you're worried about affordability of houses, prop 13 (combined with NIMBYism and restrictive zoning laws in cities) is one of the main reasons why they are unaffordable. It sounds like it didn't even register to Californians that maybe they should have voted for the other guy for a little while.
  - jonas21 5y ago
    > It still seems like California's process is the least democratic. Did you mean the most democratic? California's process means the legislature can't override the will of the people -- only the people can do that, through another ballot initiative. I'm not saying it's necessarily a good thing, but California ballot initiatives are about as close to direct democracy as you can get.
    - specialist 5y ago
      > Did you mean the most democratic? Insert sound of my head imploding. Even "democracy" is ambiguous. Representative vs direct vs participatory vs ... We have to consider more than just the voting method. Power relationships, structure of discourse, processes for modification, ad nauseum. My meager best effort at divining the core essence of "democracy" is "consent of the governed". Weak sauce, I know.
    - MichaelZuo 5y ago
      It seems like the parent has an understanding of the term quite different from the norm.
      - RuggedPineapple 5y ago
        How? That's been the understanding for hundreds of years and derives farther back then even our own country. It has its roots in English constitutional law and the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, one of the main tenets of which is that no previous act is allowed to bind the hands of a future parliament, to do so thwarts the democratic will of the people expressed by who they chose to elect.
        MichaelZuo 5y ago
        To clarify I mean this comment ‘It still seems like California's process is the least democratic.’ Which is a bizarre way of looking at referendums, as it would imply that referendums over the entire voting population are less legitimate than bills enacted by a representative body.
    - 5y ago
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    You mean “the most democratic”. It is direct democracy in rare instances to overrule the indirect democracy. The people speak and only the people can undo what they make.
  - pclmulqdq 5y ago
    The interesting question is whether voters can pass laws that are straight up unconstitutional. The courts are an important check on the power of legislators, but if they don't apply to the people, there may be some really interesting ballot initiatives in the future. CA's ballot initiative process is democracy taken too far. It is close the point where democracy becomes the tyranny of the mob.
    - arcbyte 5y ago
      It's a simple answer: they can't. The constitution lays out the process for accomplishing things that everyone "agrees" to by living under its jurisdiction. If you want to accomplish something unconstitutional, you can, you just have to first amend the constitution.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    The word 'democracy' has its origins in the Greek language. It combines two shorter words: 'demos' meaning whole citizen living within a particular city-state and 'kratos' meaning power or rule. It seems like a direct ballot initiative is no less democratic than an indirect representative making laws to govern the people. (I think it’s more, but it surely is not less.) You can say you don’t like a given initiative; it’s much harder to argue that the process is undemocratic.
- commoner 5y ago
  The standard is a two-thirds majority, so Proposition 22 (with a seven-eighths majority hurdle) was written to be much harder to amend than most California ballot measures. > If Proposition 22 passes, could it be changed later? > It would be very difficult. Proposition 22’s text carries language that aims to block further legislative action targeted at gig companies. > If passed, amending it would require a seven-eighths supermajority of the Legislature — a daunting hurdle. > In California, a law created by ballot measure can be changed only by another ballot measure, unless the original measure specifies otherwise. Because it’s a hassle to push through ballot measures, initiatives will frequently waive this protection and provide opportunity for the measure to be amended by the Legislature. > A two-thirds majority vote is a common benchmark initiatives use. A seven-eighths majority requirement is unheard of. https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2020-10-19/prop-22-explained https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2020-10-19...
  - resonantjacket5 5y ago
    Many other Californian ballot measures also have no waiver. Not saying prop 22 has no drawbacks, but there's no reason to make up fake reasons to criticize it.
    - foerbert 5y ago
      I'm not sure how this is a fake reason. "It's worse than most but not as bad as it could be" is not a bar that precludes criticism in my mind.
      - erik_seaberg 5y ago
        Most propositions are not trying to rein in a 3/4 majority after they already passed a bad bill the voters chose to undo.
      - thaumasiotes 5y ago
        It's a fake reason because it's not a flaw in the proposition. For Proposition 22 to be ruled unconstitutional based on its unusually-generous legislative amendment requirement, the ruling would have to state that the California proposition system itself is unconstitutional, because that system specifies a legislative amendment requirement that is much, much stricter.
- DannyBee 5y ago
  This mostly true as written, but confusing to most folks not into the esoterics of this, because it implies the legislature can do nothing. The legislature can't override it themselves, but they can submit it back to the voters: " (c) The Legislature may amend or repeal a referendum statute. The Legislature may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without the electors’ approval."
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    I'm confused by something in the judgment. (I) It's based on the idea of a conflict between (1) a constitutional grant of unlimited power to the legislature to "create and enforce a complete system of worker's compensation"; and (2) Proposition 22's specification that "an app-based driver is an independent contractor and not an employee or agent with respect to the app-based driver's relationship with a network company if [certain] conditions are met." (II) It states that independent contractors are not eligible for worker's compensation because, "as presently codified", California's worker's compensation law does not apply to independent contractors. (III) It then concludes that this language from Proposition 22 restricts the Legislature's constitutionally unlimited power "to determine what workers must be covered or not covered by the worker's compensation system". But up in step (II), there seems to be an explicit acknowledgement that the worker's compensation system could cover independent contractors if it wanted to. If the Legislature's unlimited power to create a worker's compensation system can be used to determine whether app-based drivers working as contractors are or aren't eligible for worker's compensation, how does restricting the Legislature's ability to determine whether app-based drivers are independent contractors or employees also restrict the Legislature's ability to determine whether they are covered by the worker's compensation system?
    - DannyBee 5y ago
      So your argument is about who could overrule who, but that is a secondary question. General rule of thumb, if the constitution says "x has complete the power to do y", and you aren't x, your attempt to do so is unconstitutional even if x could simply overrule you. At the federal level, you see this play out in things like the "dormant commerce clause" - States don't have the power to regulate interstate commerce. Sometimes they try in spaces where congress hasn't acted yet. Congress doesn't have to explicitly overrule them, they are simply unconstitutional in the first place. It's not your power to play with. You also see it play out in congress trying to regulate for the general welfare (a power reserved to states). In this case, if the constitution says "the legislature gets to decide who has workers comp", and they decided, and you attempt to adjust that, that's probably unconstitutional. The 100% normal thing that would happen is a court would sever it and say "to the degree the statute tries to adjust who gets workers comp, that part is null and void ". It's just that here, the statute explicitly says "if that provision is found unconstitutional, the whole statute should be struck down". So the court did. One side thing to keep in mind, because it often plays into these things later - when a court finds a statute unconstitutional, they are finding that it was always unconstitutional from day 0, not just moving forward. In such cases, it is considered "void ab initio" - it is like it never existed. So assuming this holds up, the next thing that will happen is a bunch of folks will then come and file cases about what they should have gotten in the intervening time period. (void ab initio in practice is becoming harder to manage, and arguably being moved away from, but ..)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
justinzollars 5y ago
60% of California voters approved this language.
- mewse 5y ago
  What percentage of California voters do you believe read that language?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    100% of them had the chance. If they didn’t read it and voted on it anyway, they should have to live with the consequences.
  - bpodgursky 5y ago
    What percentage of California voters do you believe care about the repeal mechanics of an initiative they are voting for? Seriously, it's completely implausible that 1/6 of the voters voting for an initiative would change their mind because it's hard for the legislature to override their vote later.
  - michaelt 5y ago
    To me it seems absurd to grant a person the power to pass laws, then to ignore those laws on the assumption the person didn't read them? I mean, that's the same as abolishing ballot initiatives. And abolishing ballot initiatives may well be a fine thing to do! But it needs a constitutional amendment to do it.
    - xwolfi 5y ago
      It seems therefore absurd to grant a person the power to pass laws. Democracy is a compromise, not a good or even a working system. To avoid a riot of the idiots, you tell them "ok so do it yourself then, here take it and vote yes or no". Ofc, they're still emotional idiots who vote to stick it to Uber without caring what is written. I would suggest we reduce people's decision to representative selection, and let the representatives work without too much hindrance. You must publish the law, but as a European, hearing my dad he didn't want to vote for the European Constitution because he didn't want muslim Turkish to become Europeans (which was what everyone resisting European construction pretended the law was about), it convinced me democracy is not a good system. I live in China now, I'm in paradise I guess :D
vmception 5y ago
Oh right because we had the nonbinary choice of voting on Prop B2 and Prop B3 and they all had track changes on /s Ya’ll kill me
ec109685 5y ago
Can’t future citizens pass another proposition with 51% voters approving it to modify Prop 22?
- masklinn 5y ago
  Yes.
- nulbyte 5y ago
  A majority is more than half, that is, more than 50%. Everything between 50% and 51% is also more than half. In a state as populus as California, that might actually matter.
  - crazygringo 5y ago
    "51%" is frequently used as shorthand for the technically correct but awkward term "50%+1". Generally whenever you see it the intended meaning is clear and not worth arguing about unless you're actually writing a legal or specifications document or similar.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > "51%" is frequently used as shorthand for the technically correct but awkward term "50%+1". 50%+1 is only correct about half of the time as the threshold, since votes cast is constrained to integers but not specifically even ones; ⌊50%+1⌋ is correct; as would be >50%, as, instead of trying to impress with (false, for both the 51% and 50%+1 options) precision, would be the both technically accurate and simple “a majority”, or, if the intent to is to emphasize the lack of a higher threshold, “a simple majority”.
    - jeff_tyrrill 5y ago
      > "51%" is frequently used as shorthand for the technically correct but awkward term "50%+1". This is technically incorrect. If you have a board of 9 people, it will result in the wrong rule: It will mean that 6 votes are required for majority instead of the correct 5. The technically correct definition of majority is "more than half". It's disappointing to see the grandparent stating this correctly downvoted in the gray. Source: Worked extensively on board and elections procedures for a nonprofit. Also [1] (expand question #4) warns explicitly against using the incorrect "50% plus 1" definition, and clarifies that the definition is "more than half". [1] https://robertsrules.com/frequently-asked-questions/ https://robertsrules.com/frequently-asked-questions/
glitchc 5y ago
Sounds it was written by a bunch of corporate lawyers well-versed in writing contracts and NDAs. Now if they only knew a bit about constitutional law…
option 5y ago
prop 22 should have just canceled AB5 but looks like corp lawyers drafting its text got too greedy.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Prop 22 was intended to be almost impossible to overturn, requiring a higher bar for amendment than even the state constitution. No, the legislature can't amend the State Constitution or initiative statutes at all normally, only the voters can. Prop 22 offered a lower bar by allowing the legislature to amend it at all (but, per the decision, overreached when it tried to expansively define what constituted an amendment in the first place to include potential future laws which did not amend the proposition.)
HWR_14 5y ago
This isn't what the judge refereed to at all when calling it unconstitutional. The California Constitution gives broad authority for workman's comp. laws to the legislature. Prop 22 said that no law can make drivers qualify for workman's comp. That's unconstitutional, because it's a law that limits what the legislature is allowed to do under the constitution. Hence, the whole thing falls apart.
eplanit 5y ago
Prop 22 is a poorly designed solution to an even worse AB5. I don't even use Uber or Lyft, but I feel for their drivers whose whole purpose of joining those businesses was because it allowed them independence. These companies should put the screws to California if they're forced to comply, and charge lots more here than in free states. It might hurt their business in CA, but that's the case anyway (by design per the legislature's goal). Maybe just pull out altogether, and only serve free states.
yonran 5y ago
Interestingly, it is the Left faction of San Francisco politics that have been slipping clauses like that (allowing legislative amendments, but requiring an estimated percentage that would overcome the current opponents and requiring amendments to “further the purpose” of the act) into local initiatives recently. June 2018 Proposition F (free lawyer to tenants facing eviction, which is a policy that both sides supported), allowed the BoS to amend “if the amendment serves to further the purpose of this Initiative” https://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/pdf/elections/June5_2018.pdf#page=141 https://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/pdf/elections/June5_2018.... Then in November 2018 Proposition C (double the gross receipts tax to fund homelessness, which is a policy that only the Left minority at the time supported and the Mayor opposed), allowed the BoS to amend “by a two-thirds vote but only to further the Findings and intent” https://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/pdf/elections/november6-2018.pdf#page=112 https://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/pdf/elections/november6-... In Nov 2019 Proposition F (increase disclosure requirements political ads, supported by the Left faction of the BoS) similarly had a nonstandard amendment procedure calculated to include the Left faction’s estimated percentage https://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/pdf/elections/November5_2019.pdf#page=108 https://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/pdf/elections/November5_... The failed rent control enabling California initiatives (Proposition 10 Nov 2018 https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2018/general/pdf/topl.pdf#page=83 https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2018/general/pdf/topl.pdf#page=83, Proposition 21 Nov 2020 https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2020/general/pdf/topl.pdf#page=29 https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2020/general/pdf/topl.pdf#page=29) as well as a millionaire’s tax to fund mental health (Proposition 2 Nov 2018 https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2018/general/pdf/topl.pdf#page=13 https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2018/general/pdf/topl.pdf#page=13) also contained 2/3 supermajority amendmendability. So basically the authors of Proposition 22 took this clause that the Left has been evolving in San Francisco anti-business initiatives and copied it to their pro-business California initiative (changing the supermajority requirement to 87.5% to overcome the 73% who supported AB5), and this clause is contributing to the downfall of their own initiative. Ironic!

resonantjacket5 5y ago

Thats a bit misguided in interpreting the propositions. By default propositions cannot be override by the legislature, by adding the provision it was more amendable than normal.

AaronFriel 5y ago
Today I learned: https://ballotpedia.org/Legislative_alteration https://ballotpedia.org/Legislative_alteration It still seems like California's process is the least democratic. It allows voters of the past to institute laws that are much, much more difficult to change than other laws. The "Supermajority approval for ... years following" that North Dakota and Washington follow, or expiring the protection of the initiative from amendment automatically after some number of years seems appropriate.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- coliveira 5y ago
  The US political system is full of anti-democratic laws. California is not the first and, unfortunately, no the last state to have such laws.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    If we're defining anti-democratic laws like this: > It allows voters of the past to institute laws that are much, much more difficult to change than other laws. then having a constitution is a pure exercise in anti-democracy. Are we calling that "unfortunate" now?
    - kergonath 5y ago
      Well, a constitution can be anti-democratic if it cannot be changed by the people. Loads of dictatorships and single-party oligarchies have undemocratic constitutions. In true democracies the constitution can be changed, and is regularly. So basically, being a democracy and having a constitution are orthogonal.
      - thaumasiotes 5y ago
        That is the opposite position to "having a constitution is anti-democratic", which is the position taken by AaronFriel's comment. > Loads of dictatorships and single-party oligarchies have undemocratic constitutions. Ehh... my impression was that the bigger problem, from a standard American perspective, is that loads of dictatorships have constitutions which are everything American evangelical democracy dreams of, but which they aren't too concerned with adhering to.
      - zajio1am 5y ago
        > Loads of dictatorships and single-party oligarchies have undemocratic constitutions. In many cases the issue is opposite. Many populist autocrats abuse democracies with constitution that can be changed too easily, so after one big win in election they can dismantle all checks and balances and independent institutions in the country.
- azernik 5y ago
  They're more difficult to change only in that they have to go through the same process by which they were instituted - a ballot initiative. The difficulty of repealing awful past propositions like Prop 13 is down to public opinion, not procedural limitations.
  - hellbannedguy 5y ago
    Here we go again on Prop 13. If you lived through the madness, you would understand. (I can guarantee you were born after, I'm Mad as Hell!, by Howard Jarvis. Every year taxes went up. Every year politicians squandered away that money on pet projects. Middle class residents feared tax day. I saw my dad cry once, and yes it was when he opened that tax bill from the county. Prop 13 is the only real thing, in my lifetime, that truly helped the middleclass, and poor. Yes---things were generally better 30-40 years ago, but don't blame our messed up society on prop 13. Their are days where I feel we need to get rid of prop 13 for a few years, and let those that weren't born see what happens? I have never heard anyone who lived through that time criticize prop 13, with the exception of a college professor trying to reel in young students during a lecture, or an upcoming politician trying to get young voters. Instead of ragging on a prop that helps low/middleclass tax payers; I wish the young would go after how the wealthy around the world are buying up our homes. With a phone call, or email, and then have the gall to leave them vacant. To the young professional programmers. Let's be honest. You will be most likely shown the door around 50. If you happened to buy a house, you will eventually cherish prop 13.
    - pclmulqdq 5y ago
      In most places other than California, the problem of greedy politicians who raise taxes and spend the money on corruption and crap is to vote out the politicians. If you feel unsafe at tax time, your elected leaders should feel unsafe on election day. It's really telling that Californians instead passed a terrible market-distorting ballot measure (which incentives hedge funds to buy properties to avoid the tax being readjusted again and pushes up prices so that nobody other than a hedge fund could afford them). If you're worried about affordability of houses, prop 13 (combined with NIMBYism and restrictive zoning laws in cities) is one of the main reasons why they are unaffordable. It sounds like it didn't even register to Californians that maybe they should have voted for the other guy for a little while.
- jonas21 5y ago
  > It still seems like California's process is the least democratic. Did you mean the most democratic? California's process means the legislature can't override the will of the people -- only the people can do that, through another ballot initiative. I'm not saying it's necessarily a good thing, but California ballot initiatives are about as close to direct democracy as you can get.
  - specialist 5y ago
    > Did you mean the most democratic? Insert sound of my head imploding. Even "democracy" is ambiguous. Representative vs direct vs participatory vs ... We have to consider more than just the voting method. Power relationships, structure of discourse, processes for modification, ad nauseum. My meager best effort at divining the core essence of "democracy" is "consent of the governed". Weak sauce, I know.
  - MichaelZuo 5y ago
    It seems like the parent has an understanding of the term quite different from the norm.
    - RuggedPineapple 5y ago
      How? That's been the understanding for hundreds of years and derives farther back then even our own country. It has its roots in English constitutional law and the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, one of the main tenets of which is that no previous act is allowed to bind the hands of a future parliament, to do so thwarts the democratic will of the people expressed by who they chose to elect.
      - MichaelZuo 5y ago
        To clarify I mean this comment ‘It still seems like California's process is the least democratic.’ Which is a bizarre way of looking at referendums, as it would imply that referendums over the entire voting population are less legitimate than bills enacted by a representative body.
  - 5y ago
- renewiltord 5y ago
  You mean “the most democratic”. It is direct democracy in rare instances to overrule the indirect democracy. The people speak and only the people can undo what they make.
- pclmulqdq 5y ago
  The interesting question is whether voters can pass laws that are straight up unconstitutional. The courts are an important check on the power of legislators, but if they don't apply to the people, there may be some really interesting ballot initiatives in the future. CA's ballot initiative process is democracy taken too far. It is close the point where democracy becomes the tyranny of the mob.
  - arcbyte 5y ago
    It's a simple answer: they can't. The constitution lays out the process for accomplishing things that everyone "agrees" to by living under its jurisdiction. If you want to accomplish something unconstitutional, you can, you just have to first amend the constitution.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  The word 'democracy' has its origins in the Greek language. It combines two shorter words: 'demos' meaning whole citizen living within a particular city-state and 'kratos' meaning power or rule. It seems like a direct ballot initiative is no less democratic than an indirect representative making laws to govern the people. (I think it’s more, but it surely is not less.) You can say you don’t like a given initiative; it’s much harder to argue that the process is undemocratic.
commoner 5y ago
The standard is a two-thirds majority, so Proposition 22 (with a seven-eighths majority hurdle) was written to be much harder to amend than most California ballot measures. > If Proposition 22 passes, could it be changed later? > It would be very difficult. Proposition 22’s text carries language that aims to block further legislative action targeted at gig companies. > If passed, amending it would require a seven-eighths supermajority of the Legislature — a daunting hurdle. > In California, a law created by ballot measure can be changed only by another ballot measure, unless the original measure specifies otherwise. Because it’s a hassle to push through ballot measures, initiatives will frequently waive this protection and provide opportunity for the measure to be amended by the Legislature. > A two-thirds majority vote is a common benchmark initiatives use. A seven-eighths majority requirement is unheard of. https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2020-10-19/prop-22-explained https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2020-10-19...
- resonantjacket5 5y ago
  Many other Californian ballot measures also have no waiver. Not saying prop 22 has no drawbacks, but there's no reason to make up fake reasons to criticize it.
  - foerbert 5y ago
    I'm not sure how this is a fake reason. "It's worse than most but not as bad as it could be" is not a bar that precludes criticism in my mind.
    - erik_seaberg 5y ago
      Most propositions are not trying to rein in a 3/4 majority after they already passed a bad bill the voters chose to undo.
    - thaumasiotes 5y ago
      It's a fake reason because it's not a flaw in the proposition. For Proposition 22 to be ruled unconstitutional based on its unusually-generous legislative amendment requirement, the ruling would have to state that the California proposition system itself is unconstitutional, because that system specifies a legislative amendment requirement that is much, much stricter.
DannyBee 5y ago
This mostly true as written, but confusing to most folks not into the esoterics of this, because it implies the legislature can do nothing. The legislature can't override it themselves, but they can submit it back to the voters: " (c) The Legislature may amend or repeal a referendum statute. The Legislature may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without the electors’ approval."
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  I'm confused by something in the judgment. (I) It's based on the idea of a conflict between (1) a constitutional grant of unlimited power to the legislature to "create and enforce a complete system of worker's compensation"; and (2) Proposition 22's specification that "an app-based driver is an independent contractor and not an employee or agent with respect to the app-based driver's relationship with a network company if [certain] conditions are met." (II) It states that independent contractors are not eligible for worker's compensation because, "as presently codified", California's worker's compensation law does not apply to independent contractors. (III) It then concludes that this language from Proposition 22 restricts the Legislature's constitutionally unlimited power "to determine what workers must be covered or not covered by the worker's compensation system". But up in step (II), there seems to be an explicit acknowledgement that the worker's compensation system could cover independent contractors if it wanted to. If the Legislature's unlimited power to create a worker's compensation system can be used to determine whether app-based drivers working as contractors are or aren't eligible for worker's compensation, how does restricting the Legislature's ability to determine whether app-based drivers are independent contractors or employees also restrict the Legislature's ability to determine whether they are covered by the worker's compensation system?
  - DannyBee 5y ago
    So your argument is about who could overrule who, but that is a secondary question. General rule of thumb, if the constitution says "x has complete the power to do y", and you aren't x, your attempt to do so is unconstitutional even if x could simply overrule you. At the federal level, you see this play out in things like the "dormant commerce clause" - States don't have the power to regulate interstate commerce. Sometimes they try in spaces where congress hasn't acted yet. Congress doesn't have to explicitly overrule them, they are simply unconstitutional in the first place. It's not your power to play with. You also see it play out in congress trying to regulate for the general welfare (a power reserved to states). In this case, if the constitution says "the legislature gets to decide who has workers comp", and they decided, and you attempt to adjust that, that's probably unconstitutional. The 100% normal thing that would happen is a court would sever it and say "to the degree the statute tries to adjust who gets workers comp, that part is null and void ". It's just that here, the statute explicitly says "if that provision is found unconstitutional, the whole statute should be struck down". So the court did. One side thing to keep in mind, because it often plays into these things later - when a court finds a statute unconstitutional, they are finding that it was always unconstitutional from day 0, not just moving forward. In such cases, it is considered "void ab initio" - it is like it never existed. So assuming this holds up, the next thing that will happen is a bunch of folks will then come and file cases about what they should have gotten in the intervening time period. (void ab initio in practice is becoming harder to manage, and arguably being moved away from, but ..)

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

justinzollars 5y ago

60% of California voters approved this language.

mewse 5y ago
What percentage of California voters do you believe read that language?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  100% of them had the chance. If they didn’t read it and voted on it anyway, they should have to live with the consequences.
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  What percentage of California voters do you believe care about the repeal mechanics of an initiative they are voting for? Seriously, it's completely implausible that 1/6 of the voters voting for an initiative would change their mind because it's hard for the legislature to override their vote later.
- michaelt 5y ago
  To me it seems absurd to grant a person the power to pass laws, then to ignore those laws on the assumption the person didn't read them? I mean, that's the same as abolishing ballot initiatives. And abolishing ballot initiatives may well be a fine thing to do! But it needs a constitutional amendment to do it.
  - xwolfi 5y ago
    It seems therefore absurd to grant a person the power to pass laws. Democracy is a compromise, not a good or even a working system. To avoid a riot of the idiots, you tell them "ok so do it yourself then, here take it and vote yes or no". Ofc, they're still emotional idiots who vote to stick it to Uber without caring what is written. I would suggest we reduce people's decision to representative selection, and let the representatives work without too much hindrance. You must publish the law, but as a European, hearing my dad he didn't want to vote for the European Constitution because he didn't want muslim Turkish to become Europeans (which was what everyone resisting European construction pretended the law was about), it convinced me democracy is not a good system. I live in China now, I'm in paradise I guess :D

vmception 5y ago

Oh right because we had the nonbinary choice of voting on Prop B2 and Prop B3 and they all had track changes on /s Ya’ll kill me

ec109685 5y ago

Can’t future citizens pass another proposition with 51% voters approving it to modify Prop 22?

masklinn 5y ago
Yes.
nulbyte 5y ago
A majority is more than half, that is, more than 50%. Everything between 50% and 51% is also more than half. In a state as populus as California, that might actually matter.
- crazygringo 5y ago
  "51%" is frequently used as shorthand for the technically correct but awkward term "50%+1". Generally whenever you see it the intended meaning is clear and not worth arguing about unless you're actually writing a legal or specifications document or similar.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > "51%" is frequently used as shorthand for the technically correct but awkward term "50%+1". 50%+1 is only correct about half of the time as the threshold, since votes cast is constrained to integers but not specifically even ones; ⌊50%+1⌋ is correct; as would be >50%, as, instead of trying to impress with (false, for both the 51% and 50%+1 options) precision, would be the both technically accurate and simple “a majority”, or, if the intent to is to emphasize the lack of a higher threshold, “a simple majority”.
  - jeff_tyrrill 5y ago
    > "51%" is frequently used as shorthand for the technically correct but awkward term "50%+1". This is technically incorrect. If you have a board of 9 people, it will result in the wrong rule: It will mean that 6 votes are required for majority instead of the correct 5. The technically correct definition of majority is "more than half". It's disappointing to see the grandparent stating this correctly downvoted in the gray. Source: Worked extensively on board and elections procedures for a nonprofit. Also [1] (expand question #4) warns explicitly against using the incorrect "50% plus 1" definition, and clarifies that the definition is "more than half". [1] https://robertsrules.com/frequently-asked-questions/ https://robertsrules.com/frequently-asked-questions/

glitchc 5y ago

Sounds it was written by a bunch of corporate lawyers well-versed in writing contracts and NDAs. Now if they only knew a bit about constitutional law…

option 5y ago

prop 22 should have just canceled AB5 but looks like corp lawyers drafting its text got too greedy.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Prop 22 was intended to be almost impossible to overturn, requiring a higher bar for amendment than even the state constitution. No, the legislature can't amend the State Constitution or initiative statutes at all normally, only the voters can. Prop 22 offered a lower bar by allowing the legislature to amend it at all (but, per the decision, overreached when it tried to expansively define what constituted an amendment in the first place to include potential future laws which did not amend the proposition.)

HWR_14 5y ago

This isn't what the judge refereed to at all when calling it unconstitutional. The California Constitution gives broad authority for workman's comp. laws to the legislature. Prop 22 said that no law can make drivers qualify for workman's comp. That's unconstitutional, because it's a law that limits what the legislature is allowed to do under the constitution. Hence, the whole thing falls apart.

eplanit 5y ago

Prop 22 is a poorly designed solution to an even worse AB5. I don't even use Uber or Lyft, but I feel for their drivers whose whole purpose of joining those businesses was because it allowed them independence. These companies should put the screws to California if they're forced to comply, and charge lots more here than in free states. It might hurt their business in CA, but that's the case anyway (by design per the legislature's goal). Maybe just pull out altogether, and only serve free states.

yonran 5y ago

Interestingly, it is the Left faction of San Francisco politics that have been slipping clauses like that (allowing legislative amendments, but requiring an estimated percentage that would overcome the current opponents and requiring amendments to “further the purpose” of the act) into local initiatives recently. June 2018 Proposition F (free lawyer to tenants facing eviction, which is a policy that both sides supported), allowed the BoS to amend “if the amendment serves to further the purpose of this Initiative” https://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/pdf/elections/June5_2018.pdf#page=141 https://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/pdf/elections/June5_2018.... Then in November 2018 Proposition C (double the gross receipts tax to fund homelessness, which is a policy that only the Left minority at the time supported and the Mayor opposed), allowed the BoS to amend “by a two-thirds vote but only to further the Findings and intent” https://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/pdf/elections/november6-2018.pdf#page=112 https://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/pdf/elections/november6-... In Nov 2019 Proposition F (increase disclosure requirements political ads, supported by the Left faction of the BoS) similarly had a nonstandard amendment procedure calculated to include the Left faction’s estimated percentage https://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/pdf/elections/November5_2019.pdf#page=108 https://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/pdf/elections/November5_... The failed rent control enabling California initiatives (Proposition 10 Nov 2018 https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2018/general/pdf/topl.pdf#page=83 https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2018/general/pdf/topl.pdf#page=83, Proposition 21 Nov 2020 https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2020/general/pdf/topl.pdf#page=29 https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2020/general/pdf/topl.pdf#page=29) as well as a millionaire’s tax to fund mental health (Proposition 2 Nov 2018 https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2018/general/pdf/topl.pdf#page=13 https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2018/general/pdf/topl.pdf#page=13) also contained 2/3 supermajority amendmendability. So basically the authors of Proposition 22 took this clause that the Left has been evolving in San Francisco anti-business initiatives and copied it to their pro-business California initiative (changing the supermajority requirement to 87.5% to overcome the 73% who supported AB5), and this clause is contributing to the downfall of their own initiative. Ironic!