> The thing that irks me about this is that I thought ballot initiatives like prop 22 were supposed to give constituents a direct voice, especially considering CA is basically a one-party state.
The issue with Prop 22 is in how it was set up.
- The state constitution gives the legislature the duty to set up a worker’s comp system.
- Prop 22 was voted on as a piece of legislation that denied the legislature the ability to set up a worker’s comp system, so the superior court denied it as unjustly limiting the legislature’s ability to function.
- The worker’s comp rules in Prop 22 were not severable from the rest of the proposition, so the entire thing was struck down.
There are two types of ballot initiatives in CA: ones that act with the effect of legislation, and ones that act with the effect of a state constitutional amendment. The threshold for the latter is higher than the former. The proponents of Prop 22 wanted the force of a constitutional amendment (changing how the legislature can create a worker’s comp system), but at the lower ballot threshold.
The issue with Prop 22 is in how it was set up.
- The state constitution gives the legislature the duty to set up a worker’s comp system.
- Prop 22 was voted on as a piece of legislation that denied the legislature the ability to set up a worker’s comp system, so the superior court denied it as unjustly limiting the legislature’s ability to function.
- The worker’s comp rules in Prop 22 were not severable from the rest of the proposition, so the entire thing was struck down.
There are two types of ballot initiatives in CA: ones that act with the effect of legislation, and ones that act with the effect of a state constitutional amendment. The threshold for the latter is higher than the former. The proponents of Prop 22 wanted the force of a constitutional amendment (changing how the legislature can create a worker’s comp system), but at the lower ballot threshold.