11 ms·

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.

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.