Direct democracy is part of California’s DNA and is deeply ingrained in our state Structure. For California voters, the Structure has lengthy given us the best to legislate instantly on the poll field.
Direct democracy was a Progressive-era reform promoted over a century in the past by former Gov. Hiram Johnson and designed as a public test on the affect of particular pursuits within the state Legislature. When the institution of the initiative, referendum and recall have been put earlier than voters in 1911, they handed with 76% of the vote. Right this moment, two-thirds of California voters nonetheless again direct democracy, in keeping with polling from the Public Coverage Institute of California.
The long-enshrined proper of the folks to legislate by initiative has been jealously guarded by our courts time and again. This proper is sacred, and it’s one motive I used to be heartened that the First District Court docket of Enchantment in March upheld the core parts of Proposition 22.
In 2020, California voters accepted Proposition 22 with 58% of the vote. The measure establishes a brand new check for figuring out whether or not app-based drivers, reminiscent of those that work with Uber, Lyft and DoorDash, are impartial contractors or staff, and it offers new advantages and office protections for drivers who work independently.
Given voters’ sturdy approval of Proposition 22 and now an appellate courtroom determination that utilized longstanding authorized precedent in upholding the measure, the dialog across the constitutionality of the measure must be over. The Court docket of Enchantment’s ruling is in keeping with a century’s value of case regulation concerning voters’ democratic rights, and the choice shouldn’t be disturbed.
Nonetheless, opponents of the measure have indicated that they could petition the California Supreme Court docket for assessment. Along with trying to undo the desire of the voters, a continued assault on Proposition 22 threatens to decrease the constitutional proper of initiative. Ought to the case go earlier than the Supreme Court docket, it’s within the curiosity of voters and California’s democracy for the measure to be upheld.
Over the previous half-century, the folks have used their initiative energy to make sweeping coverage choices by initiative statute. They’ve created the Coastal Fee, reined in shopper insurance coverage charges, mandated poisonous chemical warnings, elevated psychological well being funding, raised the minimal wage, reformed the prison justice system, strengthened gun management and decriminalized marijuana.
One other distinguished instance is Proposition 9, the Political Reform Act of 1974, the nation’s first complete political reform statute following the Watergate scandal. As a former chairman of the Truthful Political Practices Fee — the federal government ethics company created by Proposition 9 — I’m very acquainted with the Political Reform Act initiative and the various unsuccessful challenges to it.
In some ways, the objections which were raised in opposition to Proposition 22 resemble the objections that have been raised to Proposition 9 — and they need to even be unsuccessful. In each circumstances, the voices of the folks of California have been being ignored by highly effective particular pursuits. In each circumstances, the folks prevailed on the poll field.
For greater than a century, the state’s voters have had the best to legislate by initiative on an equal footing with the Legislature. And courts have repeatedly acknowledged the best as one they need to “jealously guard.”
Proposition 22 — and the tens of millions of Californians who voted for it — deserve no much less.
Daniel Schnur is a former chair of the California Truthful Political Practices Fee and an adjunct professor on the College of Southern California, UC Berkeley and Pepperdine College.
