Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Prop. 22 faces first legal challenge as SEIU, ride-hail drivers file suit

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 58 posts

Re: Prop. 22 faces first legal challenge as SEIU, ride-hail drivers file suit

#31

Post by lhorie »

techsupporter wrote: post #23
LatteLazy wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to the other reply, the supermajority clause can only be added to ballot propositions not legislation from the legislative (california doesn't have a Congress). And it's actually a good thing, without that clause it would be totally impossible for the legislative to amend or repeal the proposition.

> And it's actually a good thing, without that clause it would be totally impossible for the legislative to amend or repeal the proposition. This boggles my mind about initiatives in California. In other states with popular initiatives, the People pass laws on the same footing as the Legislature; they just do so through the ballot box. The elected Legislature still has the authority to modify those same laws (though…

> Why does a populist law get to stand more firm than one passed by the elected representatives of the people?

Isn't that exactly what you should expect from a democrat state though? (i.e. democracy = popular vote; republic = elected representatives)

Re: Prop. 22 faces first legal challenge as SEIU, ride-hail drivers file suit

#33

Post by dhnajsjdnd »

eplanit wrote: post #18
diebeforei485 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under AB5, a truck driver delivering orange juice is treated differently than a truck driver delivering milk. AB5 is trash. Either way, Article 11 of Prop 22 has a severability clause. If they take away the 7/8th supermajority clause, it shouldn't affect the rest of Prop 22. Edit: Looks like the California Supreme Court has denied their petition - https://techcrunch.com/2021/02/03/ca-supreme-court-denies-la...

A constitution that allows a 7/8ths supermajority clause is fertile ground for corrupt and insane laws like AB5. A party in Congress with a slight majority can pass a law that will be forever practically impossible to change. They effectively forced in a constitutional amendment. This is a clear example of how the unions really control California.

It’s worth mentioning that many props don’t allow the legislature to override them period, even with a unanimous vote. The 7/8ths rule, while unusual, is less extreme than not allowing any vote at all. It’s essentially an “oops we drafted the prop wrong and accidentally banned wages” get out of jail free card.

Re: Prop. 22 faces first legal challenge as SEIU, ride-hail drivers file suit

#34

Post by slg »

LatteLazy wrote: post #21
eplanit wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A constitution that allows a 7/8ths supermajority clause is fertile ground for corrupt and insane laws like AB5. A party in Congress with a slight majority can pass a law that will be forever practically impossible to change. They effectively forced in a constitutional amendment. This is a clear example of how the unions really control California.

In addition to the other reply, the supermajority clause can only be added to ballot propositions not legislation from the legislative (california doesn't have a Congress). And it's actually a good thing, without that clause it would be totally impossible for the legislative to amend or repeal the proposition.

>And it's actually a good thing, without that clause it would be totally impossible for the legislative to amend or repeal the proposition.

This is only partially true. Props are not amendable or repealable by default, but the 7/8 majority is a completely arbitrary and an unprecedentedly high burden to put on this. It is so high that it basically only exists so that people can argue that it is technically amendable or repealable while it being nearly impossible in practice. Prop 22 could have easily set a more reasonable cutoff like 2/3 even 3/4.

Re: Prop. 22 faces first legal challenge as SEIU, ride-hail drivers file suit

#35

Post by neilparikh »

djrogers wrote: post #6
Simulacra wrote: post #2

For those of us who are not familiar with California's proposition system, have there been others like this that have been successfully challenged in court?

The most famous ballot prop ever struck down was Prop 187, passed (overwhelmingly) in 1994 and struck down as unconstitutional.

Sort of OT, but it's interesting to consider that on the net, Prop 187 might have actually been a positive thing for non Americans: better benefits for immigrants will generally lead to further restrictions on immigration, since the cost per immigrant goes up (and people complain about "immigrants stealing American tax dollars").

Sure, having benefits is nice, but most illegal immigrants aren't coming to the US for the benefits, so if their options are "less are allowed, but the ones that are allowed get benefits", and "more are allowed, but no benefits", almost all non-Americans would chose the second (because America even without benefits would be a massive increase in their quality of life [0]).

[0] - Or it wouldn't be a increase in quality of life, in which they wouldn't come either way. I just have a hard time thinking of many people (compared to the size of the "always better" and "always worse" groups) whose quality of life in America without benefits would be worse relative to their home country, but better than their home country if given benefits (those that are normally given to Americans) in America.

Re: Prop. 22 faces first legal challenge as SEIU, ride-hail drivers file suit

#36

Post by gumby »

tannedNerd wrote: post #15
gumby wrote: post #9

I do very much hope they win, but I can't see their strategy working (by definition a constitutional change overrides legislative powers). But IANAL. If they do win it may positively affect certain other unreasonable constraints that won referenda.

- Why so we can go back to political carveouts of AB5? - Why are you ok with only these freelancers being allowed in California? "Recording arts, music, performing arts. landscape architecture, translation of documents, copy editing and illustrations, registered professional forestry real estate appraising ,home inspections , insurance underwriting inspections, auditing, and risk management and loss control, manufact…

I think AB5 was/is bad news as well but prop 22 shifted the calculus badly against people who have little control over their sources of income. I feel you are arguing from a false dichotomy.

Re: Prop. 22 faces first legal challenge as SEIU, ride-hail drivers file suit

#37

Post by Anon1096 »

slg wrote: post #34
LatteLazy wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to the other reply, the supermajority clause can only be added to ballot propositions not legislation from the legislative (california doesn't have a Congress). And it's actually a good thing, without that clause it would be totally impossible for the legislative to amend or repeal the proposition.

>And it's actually a good thing, without that clause it would be totally impossible for the legislative to amend or repeal the proposition. This is only partially true. Props are not amendable or repealable by default, but the 7/8 majority is a completely arbitrary and an unprecedentedly high burden to put on this. It is so high that it basically only exists so that people can argue that it is technically amendable o…

It's worth point out that AB5 passed 61-16 in the state house, a 79 percent yay vote. So with your proposed 3/4 supermajority it could still be overruled by the legislature. And of course this means 2/3 is even less of a hurdle.

source: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/11/california-passes-assembly-b...

Re: Prop. 22 faces first legal challenge as SEIU, ride-hail drivers file suit

#38

Post by supernova87a »

AB5/2257 were so ridiculous in practice, I couldn't bring myself to agree with the principle they stood for. And aside from that, if a party can sue over a proposition saying that it unconstitutionally hobbles the legislature from doing its job, doesn't that defeat the notion of propositions in general? That's the whole point of propositions.

The ABs had a list of exceptions a mile long, I suppose put there by the labor interests that wrote the bill. I didn't see why some of these contractors aren't equally exploited and subject to the whim of big evil corporations. What did it matter then, to carve out one more exception for Lyft/Uber drivers to join this list?

A commercial fisherman is less worthy of being protected than a Lyft or Uber driver? You've got to be kidding me.

---------------

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

Exempted fields:

Professional services that include:

(A) Marketing,

(B) Administrator of human resources

(C) Travel agent services

(D) Graphic design.

(E) Grant writer.

(F) (i) Fine artist.

(G) Services provided by an enrolled agent

(H) Payment processing agent through an independent sales organization.

(i) Still photographer, photojournalist, videographer, or photo editor

(ii) Digital content aggregator

(J) Freelance writer, translator, editor, copy editor, illustrator, or newspaper cartoonist

(K) Content contributor, advisor, producer, narrator, or cartographer

(L) Licensed esthetician, licensed electrologist, licensed manicurist, licensed barber, or licensed cosmetologist

(N) Appraiser

(O) Registered professional foresters

(1) A real estate licensee

(2) A home inspector

(3) A repossession agency

(A) Recording artists

(B) Songwriters, lyricists, composers, and proofers.

(C) Managers of recording artists.

(D) Record producers and directors.

(E) Musical engineers and mixers engaged in the creation of sound recordings.

(F) Musicians engaged in the creation of sound recordings, subject to the below.

(G) Vocalists

(H) Photographers working on recording photo shoots, album covers, and other press and publicity purposes.

(I) Independent radio promoters.

(J) Any other individual engaged to render any creative, production, marketing, or independent music publicist services related primarily to the creation, marketing, promotion, or distribution of sound recordings or musical compositions.

(A) Film and television unit production crew

(B) Publicists who are not independent music publicists.

(a) A person or organization who is licensed by the Department of Insurance

(b) A physician and surgeon, dentist, podiatrist, psychologist, or veterinarian

(c) lawyer, architect, landscape architect, engineer, private investigator, or accountant.

(d) A securities broker-dealer or investment adviser

(e) A direct sales salesperson

(f) A manufactured housing salesperson

(g) A commercial fisher working on an American vessel.

(h) A newspaper distributor

(i) An... international exchange visitor

(j) A competition judge

Re: Prop. 22 faces first legal challenge as SEIU, ride-hail drivers file suit

#39

Post by eldavido »

techsupporter wrote: post #23
LatteLazy wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to the other reply, the supermajority clause can only be added to ballot propositions not legislation from the legislative (california doesn't have a Congress). And it's actually a good thing, without that clause it would be totally impossible for the legislative to amend or repeal the proposition.

> And it's actually a good thing, without that clause it would be totally impossible for the legislative to amend or repeal the proposition. This boggles my mind about initiatives in California. In other states with popular initiatives, the People pass laws on the same footing as the Legislature; they just do so through the ballot box. The elected Legislature still has the authority to modify those same laws (though…

I think the whole initiative process is horrible. But.

Your answer is right there in the declaration of independence: "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". Rather than going through the legislative process, the idea is that some things should be decided by the people directly.

The original intent of ballot initiatives (propositions) was to try to nullify special interest power over the legislature. If you think AB5 was special-interest legislation (it very clearly was) this might be the exact intended use of the ballot initiative process. For the popular vote to nullify what the special interest-controlled legislature wanted. And it worked.

An entirely separate question is what kind of questions should be decided by direct democracy in the first place. I think California goes too far in this regard, but I don't think the right answer is "none". Regardless of one's political beliefs, I think something on the scale of Brexit was put to the electorate in a direct vote, and probably with reason.

Re: Prop. 22 faces first legal challenge as SEIU, ride-hail drivers file suit

#40

Post by renewiltord »

techsupporter wrote: post #23
LatteLazy wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to the other reply, the supermajority clause can only be added to ballot propositions not legislation from the legislative (california doesn't have a Congress). And it's actually a good thing, without that clause it would be totally impossible for the legislative to amend or repeal the proposition.

> And it's actually a good thing, without that clause it would be totally impossible for the legislative to amend or repeal the proposition. This boggles my mind about initiatives in California. In other states with popular initiatives, the People pass laws on the same footing as the Legislature; they just do so through the ballot box. The elected Legislature still has the authority to modify those same laws (though…

> Why does a populist law get to stand more firm than one passed by the elected representatives of the people?

Because the people only vote once in two years and the reps vote all the time. Because the people need to collect 50k signatures and usually more and the reps need zero. This is obvious.

Post reply on HN