The best part about Prop 22 is it reveals who reads their props before expressing an opinion on them. It's a litmus test for who speaks in an uninformed manner.
Here is the only reference to seven-eighths in Prop 22:
> After the effective date of this chapter, the Legislature may amend this chapter by a statute passed in each house of the Legislature by rollcall vote entered into the journal, seven-eighths of the membership concurring, provided that the statute is consistent with, and furthers the purpose of, this chapter
Seven-eighths to overturn, eh? Now where did you go get that?
Now secondarily, one might ask if someone "disappointed with the public" is sufficiently informed about ballot propositions in the first place. For instance, if you're a California voter and you can't answer "If a ballot proposition is passed through voter referendum, what majority of the legislature can overrule it?", then can you really be considered an informed voter?
Or, more directly, you are clearly expressing discontent with California voters while being the problem since you are clearly uninformed about Prop 22 and about how ballot props work (and perhaps about why they have to work that way).
That’s the only place that literal text appears, but there are several other references to it (“subdivision (a)”) —
> (3) Any statute that prohibits app-based drivers from performing a particular rideshare service or delivery service while allowing other individuals or entities to perform the same rideshare service or delivery service, or otherwise imposes unequal regulatory burdens upon app-based drivers based on their classifcation status, constitutes an amendment of this chapter and must be enacted in compliance with the procedures governing amendments consistent with the purposes of this chapter as set forth in subdivisions (a) and (b).
> (4) Any statute that authorizes any entity or organization to represent the interests of app-based drivers in connection with drivers’ contractual relationships with network companies, or drivers’ compensation, benefts, or working conditions, constitutes an amendment of this chapter and must be enacted in compliance with the procedures governing amendments consistent with the purposes of this chapter as set forth in subdivisions (a) and (b).
> (d) Any statute that imposes additional misdemeanor or felony penalties in order to provide greater protection against criminal activity for app-based drivers and individuals using rideshare services or delivery services may be enacted by the Legislature by rollcall vote entered into the journal, a majority of the membership of each house concurring, without complying with subdivisions (a) and (b).
The point is, if you point to the 7/8 clause as an attack against the prop 22 by saying that it's incredibly hard to modify, you've just revealed that you're an uninformed voter. Ballot measures normally can't be modified by the legislature at all.
So it's quite ironic that someone against prop 22 is claiming everyone for it is uninformed while referencing said clause.
> Ballot measures normally can't be modified by the legislature at all.
We all know this. The point is that the alternative is one that can be overturned more reasonably. "Ah, but you see this one is slightly easier to modify" is crap, IMO. The choices weren't only "literally no way" or "7/8ths".
Right, those pieces are there for good reason, but aren't really relevant to the discriminator question: "Can seven-eighths of legislators overturn this proposition?"
And the secondary discriminator question: "If a ballot proposition is passed through voter referendum, what majority of the legislature can overrule it?"
Answers:
1. N 7/8guf znwbevgl va gur yrtvfyngher pnaabg ercrny guvf zrnfher.
2. Va trareny, va Pnyvsbeavn, ab znwbevgl va gur yrtvfyngher pna bireehyr n onyybg cebcbfvgvba jvgubhg ibgre nccebiny.
If you get either of those wrong, the uninformed voter is you.
> The best part about Prop 22 is it reveals who reads their props before expressing an opinion on them.
Well, thanks for exposing that your heuristic is broken-- because the only place I've seen it brough up is from reading it myself.
(If you saw it discussed elsewhere you may well have seen /me/ writing about it).
The 7/8th's threshold is an insult-- it exists for the only purpose of telling an effective lie about the legislatures ability to amend these exclusions.
A substantial amendment to the Business and Professional code could defacto overturn it.
That isn't the only way the props effects could be effectively bypassed, they could be bypassed by other updates to california law, e.g. to unionize app workers, changes to laws governing working conditions for drivers, etc. All such changes are potentially pre-empted by prop22's language.
Prop22 arguably creates a fairly broad automatic veto for Uber/et. al. against any California law that could be argued to impede the rideshare business. For example, there is a clear argument post prop22 that a law which prohibited registered sex offenders from being rideshare app drivers would now require a 7/8th's vote.
Uber has repeatability shown itself more than willing to exploit loopholes in an unethical manner and we've now granted them a fairly generalized shield against loophole closing.
Ultimately the courts may not be willing to follow such a broad effect, but the recipe for a lot of time and money to be wasted litigating it is coded right into the proposition.
Here is the only reference to seven-eighths in Prop 22:
> After the effective date of this chapter, the Legislature may amend this chapter by a statute passed in each house of the Legislature by rollcall vote entered into the journal, seven-eighths of the membership concurring, provided that the statute is consistent with, and furthers the purpose of, this chapter
Seven-eighths to overturn, eh? Now where did you go get that?
Now secondarily, one might ask if someone "disappointed with the public" is sufficiently informed about ballot propositions in the first place. For instance, if you're a California voter and you can't answer "If a ballot proposition is passed through voter referendum, what majority of the legislature can overrule it?", then can you really be considered an informed voter?
Or, more directly, you are clearly expressing discontent with California voters while being the problem since you are clearly uninformed about Prop 22 and about how ballot props work (and perhaps about why they have to work that way).