I'm not voting for any loosening of labor laws that requires a 7/8th majority to change.
And, honestly, what Uber has been doing with its platform recently has been really worrying me. I get a push notification almost every single day now asking me to vote Yes on Prop 22. I'm worried for what the future holds if this sort of thing is permitted because of Citizens United.
Requiring 7/8ths to overrule the public vote should be the norm for any ballot measure.
Florida pulled their stunt where they override the public referendum on restoring felons voting rights, because they wanted to and they could. You might not like Prop 22, but imho if the public wants an amendment then their will should be sacrosanct.
No no no. The entire concept of ballot measures is insane since the electorate is not qualified to govern. The core concept of the Constitution is that the voters pick someone they trust and that person makes the decisions for them.
> The core concept of the Constitution is that the voters pick someone they trust and that person makes the decisions for them
Expanding on this, it traces from classical observations on the relative strengths and weaknesses of monarchy (modern: autocracy), oligarchy (modern: junta) and democracy (modern: mob rule to anarchy). It is why we have our three branches of government, and puts U.S.-China (and previously, U.S.-Soviet) competition on long-term rails.
I don't agree, Switzerland is a really well run country and politicians can't just overrule votes there. I'd go as far as to say that you don't have a proper democracy if the people can't overrule the will of politicians.
Switzerland is an ethnostate which doesn’t even grant citizenship to “foreigners” after a lifetime spent in the country. It works for them but would not be a suitable form for a country that was formed out of hodgepodge immigration.
The 7/8 provision only applies to changes made by the legislature -- if Prop 22 were to pass, voters could repeal or amend it with a simple majority vote on a future ballot initiative.
By default, laws enacted via ballot initiative in California can't be changed by the legislature at all without voter approval -- California has some of the strongest protections in the country for these (see https://ballotpedia.org/Legislative_alteration)
I have seen in other comments that it can be changed with a simple majority with another prop, but if the legislature want to override the prop they need a 7/8 super-majority.
It's not a big story because it's technically a leniency. There are other props on the same ballot which cannot be overturned by the legislature at all. Constitutionally (the CA constitution) the default is that a ballot measure cannot be overturned without another ballot measure.
I agree that the 7/8th's thing is ridiculous, and it is most of the reason why I have decided to vote against 22, but it's not particularly notable, this is just how ballot props work and it is why your presumptive answer to most CA ballot props should be no.
a ballot measure cannot be overturned without another ballot measure
If the Legislature wants to change a statute put in by initiative, they can provisionally. This generates a Legislative Statute proposition. Most of those pass without a lot of scrutiny. No voter signatures are needed.
it makes more sense in the frame of the original AB5 being passed with a massive margin, so a slightly higher margin was included to prevent an immediate reversal by the legislator.
So you're saying you'd prefer if Prop 22 didn't have that rule in which case even 8/8 of the legislature couldn't change it. 7/8 is generous since it means law makers can actually overturn this prop. Something that can't be done for other props (eg. see prop 16 which exists to repeal a previous prop).
The Uber Eats order I placed recently (in CA) felt more like a political campaign than a restaurant delivery service. It didn't exactly drive me further towards a Yes, no pun intended.
Yes, but did you read that huge HN thread about political activism in the workplace? Maybe this is just Ubers "mission", and if you are not on board, to hell!
Citizens United had to do with independent expenditures on "electioneering communications", defined as advocacy related to specific political candidates. Spending on issue advocacy was already unlimited. (Which is almost certainly the right decision - if issue advocacy were restricted, organizations like the EFF wouldn't be able to talk at all in the 60 days before an election.)
And, honestly, what Uber has been doing with its platform recently has been really worrying me. I get a push notification almost every single day now asking me to vote Yes on Prop 22. I'm worried for what the future holds if this sort of thing is permitted because of Citizens United.