Here’s the opinion in Dakotans for Health v. Johnson.

This is gratifying. Back in 2022, I filed an amicus brief in the California Court of Appeal with Professors Joey Fishkin and Franita Tolson, along with co-counsel Kathryn Eidmann and Mark Rosenbaum of Public Counsel. We did not take a position on the main question in the lawsuit: whether an initiative could mandate that California gig workers like Uber drivers could be treated as independent contractors for purposes of California workers’ compensation law. Instead, we focused only on the provision that would bar the California legislature from passing a law allowing gig workers to organize to engage in collective bargaining.

From our brief:

Amicus California Election Law Professors has reviewed the parties’ briefing and writes to address a single issue on which the parties disagree: whether a voter initiative legislating on one subject may constitutionally hamstring the ability of the California Legislature to pass legislation on a different but related subject.

If this court approves the “amendment” limitation on the Legislature’s lawmaking power contained in Proposition 22—a limitation that appears to be unprecedented in the history of California initiatives—it will work mischief and provide a roadmap for future initiatives to upset the delicate balance between legislative powers given to the People of the State of California and those given to the Legislature. It would allow a bait and switch in which voters pass an initiative on Subject A but the fine print will unconstitutionally prevent or limit the Legislature’s ability to legislate on Subject B. It will allow the trampling of political and civil rights without recourse to otherwise-permissible legislation. 

Thus, if this Court approves the structure of this initiative, we can expect something like an initiative cutting certain insurance rates but containing a limitation on “amendments” making it nearly impossible for the Legislature to impose penalties for unfair insurance practices, or an initiative creating affordable housing opportunities but containing a limitation on “amendments” preventing the Legislature from overriding zoning rules in California cities. 

In Proposition 22, California voters were told that initiative approval meant treating “gig workers” such as Uber drivers as independent contractors rather than employees for purposes such as workers’ compensation laws. But the substance of the initiative was silent on whether gig workers could have someone represent them collectively to do things like bargaining over working conditions. No provisions in the initiative limit collective bargaining and the initiative’s statement of purposes says absolutely nothing about collective bargaining rights. And yet deep in Proposition 22’s fine print (on the bottom of page 8 to the top of page 9 of a 10-page measure), in the guise of providing limitations on “amendments,” the measure bars the Legislature from enacting any law governing the collective bargaining rights of gig workers unless seven-eighths of the Legislature agrees, a nearly insurmountable margin for any controversial measure. 

If Proposition 22’s proponents wanted to bar entities from assisting gig workers in collective bargaining, they should have included a provision doing so in the substantive provisions of the initiative. Perhaps the proponents did not do so because a proposal to prevent collective action by gig workers could have been politically unpopular, making the measure less likely to pass. 

So proponents—leading ride-share and app companies who benefit financially from a non-organized workforce—tried instead to achieve the same aims indirectly by hamstringing the Legislature from passing collective bargaining legislation related to gig workers. They styled separate legislation on the topic of gig workers’ collective bargaining rights as an “amendment” to Proposition 22, and then subjected such an “amendment” to an onerous seven-eighths supermajority requirement. Such a structure in a voter initiative appears unprecedented among California initiatives. 

As explained below, the structure of Proposition 22 violates the separation of powers contained in the California Constitution. Although Article II, section 10(c) of the Constitution gives initiative proponents the ability to say that the Legislature may not offer amendments (or must meet supermajority requirements to offer amendments) on the same subject as that of the initiative—a requirement necessary to ensure that the Legislature does not pass laws nullifying provisions in voter-approved initiatives—the Constitution does not give initiative proponents the ability to say that the Legislature may not offer legislation (or must meet supermajority requirements to offer legislation) on a different but potentially related subject. 

This Court should hold that the portion of Proposition 22 requiring seven-eighths legislative approval for laws regulating the collective bargaining rights of gig workers is unconstitutional. Because the drafters of Proposition 22 engaged deliberately in a manipulation of the initiative process, this Court should hold invalid all of Proposition 22 despite its severability clause. Without such a strong remedy, there will be no penalty for trying this gambit again; the worst that will happen is that the offending “amendment” will be excised from the measure. At the very least, this Court should declare the portion of the measure limiting legislative power unconstitutional and unenforceable. 

A ruling against the “amendment” gambit contained in Proposition 22 will ensure that initiative proponents cannot limit legislative power through the back door. It will confirm that legislatures retain the authority to pass legislation on topics that are related to, but distinct from, those an initiative actually covers. In that way, it will maintain the proper balance between the People and the Legislature in passing legislation. 

The appeals court agreed with us, and the Prop. 22 proponents did not appeal from this aspect of the intermediate court’s ruling. When the case went to the California Supreme Court, the court upheld the basic part of the initiative, but did not disturb this ruling of the Court of Appeal.

And how, we can see the fruits of this argument, via the Los Angeles Times:

Gov. Gavin Newsom and California lawmakers on Friday announced a landmark deal with Uber and Lyft to allow hundreds of thousands of rideshare drivers to unionize and bargain collectively while still being classified as independent contractors.

The compromise between labor unions and the Silicon Valley companies, backed by Newsom, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate Pro Tem Mike McGuire, would advance a collective bargaining bill through the Legislature along with a bill backed by Uber and Lyft that would significantly reduce the companies’ insurance requirements.

The deal is a major development in the years-long tussle between organized labor and Silicon Valley over rights for independent contractors…..

The deal marks a new chapter in nearly a decade of tension between technology companies and state lawmakers over the employment status of the tens of thousands of Californians who do gig work for app-based companies.

“This moment has been a long fight for over a decade in the making,” said Tia Orr, the executive director of SEIU California.

After the California Legislature in 2019 rewrote employment law in 2019, clarifying and limiting when businesses can classify workers as independent contractors, Uber and Lyft went to the ballot in California to exempt their drivers.

When California voters passed Proposition 22, the ballot measure funded by Uber and Lyft, in 2020, drivers were classified as independent contractors and, under federal law, do not have the right to organize. Prop. 22 also explicitly barred drivers from collectively bargaining over their compensation, benefits and working conditions.

But SEIU California argued that court decisions over Prop. 22 left an opening for the state Legislature to create a process for drivers to unionize.

Earlier this year, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) and Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) introduced the collective bargaining bill, AB 1340, which Uber and Lyft initially opposed.

The bill allows drivers to negotiate their pay and other terms of their agreements with the companies and exempts workers from the state and federal antitrust laws that normally prohibit collective action by independent contractors.

Under federal law, employees in the U.S. can unionize by holding an election or reaching a voluntary agreement with their employers for a specific union to represent them.

The process for California Uber and Lyft drivers would be somewhat different. The bill says drivers can select a bargaining representative by collecting signatures from at least 10% of active drivers, then petitioning the state’s Public Employment Relations Board for a certification…..

Florida Politics:

In a victory for immigrants and advocacy groups, a federal judge has provisionally blocked enforcement of a Florida elections law that prohibited noncitizens from collecting signatures for citizen-led ballot initiatives.

U.S. District Judge Mark Walker, in a 28-page ruling, temporarily struck down part of a controversial measure Republicans pushed to passage this year (HB 1205) that empowered state officials to enforce citizenship requirements on ballot initiative collectors.

Walker’s decision, a preliminary injunction order, stops Florida’s 20 State Attorneys from prosecuting Smart & Safe Florida, the organization behind last year’s failed Amendment 3 effort to legalize recreational cannabis, and its non-resident petition circulators.

Essentially, Smart & Safe’s hundreds of non-resident workers can resume collecting signatures for its current cannabis legalization ballot initiative without fear of criminal charges.

The Thursday ruling also blocked enforcement of the citizenship ban against Washington-based nonprofit Poder Latinx, the organization’s noncitizen members and two lawful permanent residents, Yivian Lopez Garcia and Humberto Orjuela Prieto….

David Ettinger:

This afternoon, the Supreme Court denied the original writ petition — filed Monday (see here) — by four Republican state legislators seeking to prevent the super-majority Democratic Legislature from enacting bills that would allow for the temporary redrawing of the state’s congressional districts.

But that is likely not the final word on the topic. I don’t read the denial as a decision on the petition’s merits.

The court’s denial order in the case — Strickland v. Weber — says, “Petitioners have failed to meet their burden of establishing a basis for relief at this time under California Constitution article IV, section 8.”

The key words, I believe, are “at this time.” The petition sought to prevent voting on redistricting bills, alleging action on the bills violate article IV, section 8(a), which generally prohibits action on legislation “until the 31st day after the bill is introduced.” But, when the petition was filed, and when the court denied the petition, the Legislature hadn’t voted on the bills. Those votes are expected tomorrow (Thursday).

If, as seems likely, the Legislature enacts the bills and Governor Gavin Newsom signs them, petitioners will then have a stronger argument that they have “[met] their burden of establishing a basis for relief . . . under California Constitution article IV, section 8.” But, until then, the lack of definitive positive action on the bills probably, in the justices’ eyes, renders premature a claim of a section 8 violation….