5 ms·

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. > I

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
The original commenter said "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" I am talking about that being a disingenuous interpretation considering other propositions do not allow the legislature to to amend their measures at all.
comex 5y ago
That quote from the Post article completely mischaracterizes what the judge actually wrote (https://a.qoid.us/uv6f2a9c1458eb949d.pdf https://a.qoid.us/uv6f2a9c1458eb949d.pdf): > If Section 7465 had not been included, the Legislature could amend Proposition 22 by a simple majority vote according to each house's rules, followed by a popular referendum. With Section 7465 enacted, the Legislature can still amend Proposition 22 by a simple majority vote according to each house's rules, followed by a popular referendum. All Section 7465 provides is another way to amend the initiative statute, albeit one that is difficult to the point of near impossibility. > To the degree that Section 7465, subdivisions (a) and (b), attempt to apply conditions to amendments proceeding under Article II Section 10, subdivision (c)'s majority-vote-then-referendum procedure, they are unconstitutional. To avoid the constitutional conflict, the Court should narrowly construe the "seven-eighths majority" and "consistency" requirements only to the non-referendum procedures in Section 7465, subdivisions (a) and (b).
thaumasiotes 5y ago
> The judge that struck down Prop 22 listed its seven-eighths hurdle as one of the provisions that made Prop 22 unconstitutional. As comex notes, this is untrue. To the extent the judge considers the seven-eighths hurdle at all (which he does, but not in the significant part of the opinion), it is only to note that there's no problem with it.

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

The original commenter said "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" I am talking about that being a disingenuous interpretation considering other propositions do not allow the legislature to to amend their measures at all.

comex 5y ago

That quote from the Post article completely mischaracterizes what the judge actually wrote (https://a.qoid.us/uv6f2a9c1458eb949d.pdf https://a.qoid.us/uv6f2a9c1458eb949d.pdf): > If Section 7465 had not been included, the Legislature could amend Proposition 22 by a simple majority vote according to each house's rules, followed by a popular referendum. With Section 7465 enacted, the Legislature can still amend Proposition 22 by a simple majority vote according to each house's rules, followed by a popular referendum. All Section 7465 provides is another way to amend the initiative statute, albeit one that is difficult to the point of near impossibility. > To the degree that Section 7465, subdivisions (a) and (b), attempt to apply conditions to amendments proceeding under Article II Section 10, subdivision (c)'s majority-vote-then-referendum procedure, they are unconstitutional. To avoid the constitutional conflict, the Court should narrowly construe the "seven-eighths majority" and "consistency" requirements only to the non-referendum procedures in Section 7465, subdivisions (a) and (b).

thaumasiotes 5y ago

> The judge that struck down Prop 22 listed its seven-eighths hurdle as one of the provisions that made Prop 22 unconstitutional. As comex notes, this is untrue. To the extent the judge considers the seven-eighths hurdle at all (which he does, but not in the significant part of the opinion), it is only to note that there's no problem with it.