You might consider that the citizens of Austin voted on the measure that passed.
This wasn't Austin City Council against Uber and Lyft. It was the citizens of Austin voting for provisions Uber and Lyft needed to comply with (and choose not to).
Only 17.3% of the voters turned out. Hardly the will of the people, just the ones who cared enough to vote, or were literate enough to understand what day of the week the vote was, or had a way to get to the voting station.
Shall the City Code be amended to repeal City Ordinance No. 20151217-075 relating to Transportation Network Companies; and replace with an ordinance that would repeal and prohibit required fingerprinting, repeal the requirement to identify the vehicle with a distinctive emblem, repeal the prohibition against loading and unloading passengers in a travel lane, and require other regulations for Transportation Network Companies?
Then there are two boxes below that. Next to one it says “For the Ordinance” and on the other, “Against the Ordinance.”
The writer points out that it's not clear which ordinance the boxes are referring to, or what the net effect of your vote. Usually, on ballots I've seen over the decades, there's a summary phrase on the ballot like "if you vote YES, you are supporting gay marriage" or something like that, nice and clear.
If a clear phrasing had been provided, I wonder whether it still would have gone that way.
"For the Ordinance" would be against the repeal - wouldn't it? So if you wanted to say "Yes, I want to repeal" and saw a positive answer it would be very easy to support not repealing the ordinance by saying you were "for it". Or is it to approve a new ordinance to repeal the existing ordinance?
Shall the City Code be amended to repeal City Ordinance No. 20151217-075 relating to Transportation Network Companies; and replace with an ordinance that would repeal and prohibit required fingerprinting, repeal the requirement to identify the vehicle with a distinctive emblem, repeal the prohibition against loading and unloading passengers in a travel lane, and require other regulations for Transportation Network Companies?
Then there are two boxes below that. Next to one it says “For the Ordinance” and on the other, “Against the Ordinance.”
That is extremely interesting, thank you for posting that.
Which is about 7% more than usually turn out for May elections, and about the same as chose the currently sitting governor. Please don't suggest it wasn't a valid election.
As to confusing ballot language, I've never seen anyone write any clearer language that passes legal muster. It has to talk about two ordinances, one to be repealed and one to replace it, and the major points of difference between them. Go ahead, give it a shot.
You said "the citizens" when in fact it was less than 20% of the voters. Technically you are correct, but really, this vote was hardly representative of the citizenry.
Then there's the whole vague wording thing as explained above. For all we know, half of the voters didn't understand the ballot question. I'm not so sure I would have voted correctly either. What a fiasco.
I actually saw articles on mainstream news sites saying Uber/Lyft had threatened to leave if the vote passed. I'm sure plenty of people's votes weren't what they intended.
This wasn't Austin City Council against Uber and Lyft. It was the citizens of Austin voting for provisions Uber and Lyft needed to comply with (and choose not to).