7 ms·

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.
  - foerbert 5y ago
    There's a difference between what one might criticize and what criteria the judge is using to make their ruling. The response was specifically to the claim that that portion of the proposition should not be criticized for the inclusion of a 7/8ths vote for an amendment. Also, unusually generous? In that very same thread, it was mentioned many propositions include a provision for amendment with a 3/4ths vote. And this proposition also (unconstitutionally, apparently) limited how the whole thing could be amended. Unusually generous seems to be a far cry from a reasonable description. It was both harder to amend than many propositions, and included a novel attempt to restrict the ways in which it could be changed. Just because it could have been impossible to amend does not make it unusually generous.
    - thaumasiotes 5y ago
      > And this proposition also (unconstitutionally, apparently) limited how the whole thing could be amended. The judgment explicitly notes that there is no problem with the proposition limiting how the special amendment procedure written in to the proposition can be used. Rather, you appear to be thinking of the part of the ruling that overruled the part of the proposition defining the extension of collective bargaining rights to app-based drivers as constituting an "amendment" of the proposition.
  - vkou 5y ago
    If the California proposition system results in a passing referendum to torture Bill to death, does a court ruling that the referendum's result is unconstitutional also mean the proposition system is unconstitutional? No. Just like when Congress passes a law ruled unconstitutional, it doesn't mean that Congress's existence, or the manner in which it drafts law is unconstitutional. It just means that particular law gets to be overturned.
    - thaumasiotes 5y ago
      Let's compare what I wrote: > For Proposition 22 to be ruled unconstitutional based on its unusually-generous legislative amendment requirement with what you wrote: > does a court ruling that the referendum's result is unconstitutional Did you forget something? Ruling that prop 22 is unconstitutional based on a general feature of all propositions which prop 22 partially shares is ruling that the proposition system is unconstitutional. If you pass a bill of attainder against Bill as a proposition and it gets overruled because bills of attainder are illegal, that says nothing about other propositions. But if you pass a bill of attainder against Bill as a proposition and it gets overruled because propositions are illegal, that invalidates the entire proposition system.
      - vkou 5y ago
        Prop 22 does not share a general feature with all propositions, it is unique in the bar it sets for overturning it. At least, a judge seems to think so.
        thaumasiotes 5y ago
        Which judge? As has been repeatedly pointed out elsewhere in the thread, this judge, the one overruling Prop. 22, does not discuss the option to amend Prop. 22 by seven-eighths vote of the legislature except to note that there's no problem with it.
commoner 5y ago
I'm not making anything up. The judge that struck down Prop 22 listed its seven-eighths hurdle as one of the provisions that made Prop 22 unconstitutional. > In a ruling issued Friday, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch declared that Proposition 22 is “unenforceable,” arguing several sections of the measure are unconstitutional under California state law. They included a section that required a seven-eighths legislative supermajority to amend the measure, which defied the legislature’s amendment power under the state constitution, according to the judge. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/08/20/uber-lyft-prop-22-unconstitutional/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/08/20/uber-ly...
- cortesoft 5y ago
  I think people are being confused by this. My understanding is that it is not the specific supermajority requirement that is the issue, because as others say, propositions are already by default not able to be changed or overturned by the legislature (if they were, propositions would be pointless because any proposition the legislature wants to be law would have already been passed as a normal law, and any proposition the legislature doesn't want would be changed by the majority who didn't want the law.) The real issue is that the court is ruling that the clause is violating the single subject rule for propositions, and is restricting the legislature from making laws that are outside the scope of what the proposition says it is about. The 7/8th thing would be fine if they were just giving a way for the legislature to amend the actual proposition... instead, it is restricting the legislature from being able to make laws that are not affecting the direct stated single purpose of the proposition. The tool is fine, it is what the tool is being used on.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- stale2002 5y ago
  But do you understand, that by default, ballot initiatives cannot be overturned by the legislature?
- resonantjacket5 5y ago

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.
- foerbert 5y ago
  There's a difference between what one might criticize and what criteria the judge is using to make their ruling. The response was specifically to the claim that that portion of the proposition should not be criticized for the inclusion of a 7/8ths vote for an amendment. Also, unusually generous? In that very same thread, it was mentioned many propositions include a provision for amendment with a 3/4ths vote. And this proposition also (unconstitutionally, apparently) limited how the whole thing could be amended. Unusually generous seems to be a far cry from a reasonable description. It was both harder to amend than many propositions, and included a novel attempt to restrict the ways in which it could be changed. Just because it could have been impossible to amend does not make it unusually generous.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    > And this proposition also (unconstitutionally, apparently) limited how the whole thing could be amended. The judgment explicitly notes that there is no problem with the proposition limiting how the special amendment procedure written in to the proposition can be used. Rather, you appear to be thinking of the part of the ruling that overruled the part of the proposition defining the extension of collective bargaining rights to app-based drivers as constituting an "amendment" of the proposition.
- vkou 5y ago
  If the California proposition system results in a passing referendum to torture Bill to death, does a court ruling that the referendum's result is unconstitutional also mean the proposition system is unconstitutional? No. Just like when Congress passes a law ruled unconstitutional, it doesn't mean that Congress's existence, or the manner in which it drafts law is unconstitutional. It just means that particular law gets to be overturned.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    Let's compare what I wrote: > For Proposition 22 to be ruled unconstitutional based on its unusually-generous legislative amendment requirement with what you wrote: > does a court ruling that the referendum's result is unconstitutional Did you forget something? Ruling that prop 22 is unconstitutional based on a general feature of all propositions which prop 22 partially shares is ruling that the proposition system is unconstitutional. If you pass a bill of attainder against Bill as a proposition and it gets overruled because bills of attainder are illegal, that says nothing about other propositions. But if you pass a bill of attainder against Bill as a proposition and it gets overruled because propositions are illegal, that invalidates the entire proposition system.
    - vkou 5y ago
      Prop 22 does not share a general feature with all propositions, it is unique in the bar it sets for overturning it. At least, a judge seems to think so.
      - thaumasiotes 5y ago
        Which judge? As has been repeatedly pointed out elsewhere in the thread, this judge, the one overruling Prop. 22, does not discuss the option to amend Prop. 22 by seven-eighths vote of the legislature except to note that there's no problem with it.

commoner 5y ago

I'm not making anything up. The judge that struck down Prop 22 listed its seven-eighths hurdle as one of the provisions that made Prop 22 unconstitutional. > In a ruling issued Friday, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch declared that Proposition 22 is “unenforceable,” arguing several sections of the measure are unconstitutional under California state law. They included a section that required a seven-eighths legislative supermajority to amend the measure, which defied the legislature’s amendment power under the state constitution, according to the judge. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/08/20/uber-lyft-prop-22-unconstitutional/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/08/20/uber-ly...

cortesoft 5y ago
I think people are being confused by this. My understanding is that it is not the specific supermajority requirement that is the issue, because as others say, propositions are already by default not able to be changed or overturned by the legislature (if they were, propositions would be pointless because any proposition the legislature wants to be law would have already been passed as a normal law, and any proposition the legislature doesn't want would be changed by the majority who didn't want the law.) The real issue is that the court is ruling that the clause is violating the single subject rule for propositions, and is restricting the legislature from making laws that are outside the scope of what the proposition says it is about. The 7/8th thing would be fine if they were just giving a way for the legislature to amend the actual proposition... instead, it is restricting the legislature from being able to make laws that are not affecting the direct stated single purpose of the proposition. The tool is fine, it is what the tool is being used on.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
stale2002 5y ago
But do you understand, that by default, ballot initiatives cannot be overturned by the legislature?
resonantjacket5 5y ago