Tag: California

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall judiciary

The Ultimate Legislature

California, AB5, gig work, freelance driver

Proposition 22 was supported by 59 percent of California voters last November.

The statutory initiative partly reverses the destructive effects of AB5, a law that forced many California gig workers or freelancers to be treated as regular employees who must receive benefits — whether these gig workers like it or not.  

One notices at Ballotpedia that all the listed opponents of this measure were politicians, including our current Vice President (then Senator) Kamala Harris as well as socialist Bernie Sanders, while the diverse list of Prop 22’s supporters included: the California Chambers of Commerce along with the Black, CalAsian, and Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Crime Victims United of California, California Farm Bureau Federation, California NAACP State Conference, California Small Business Association, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

The benefits of the so-called gig economy are politically opposed and diversely appreciated. 

Unions funded the opposition, though far outspent by the prosperous app companies: Uber, Lyft, Doordash, etc. Those same unions, having failed to win over voters, then filed suit to block implementation of Prop 22.

‘The Court finds,” reads Judge Frank Roesch’s opinion, “that Section 7431 is unconstitutional because it limits the power of a future legislature to define app-based drivers as workers subject to workers’ compensation law.”

Simply. Not. So.

A statutory California initiative can only be changed via a vote of the people, whether that vote happens because the legislature places the change on the ballot or citizens do so through the initiative petition process. 

The voters are the ultimate legislature. 

Therefore, nothing prevents the elected California Legislature from providing a change to ultimately be decided by the people of California, i.e. the whole legislature, at the ballot box.

For good reason, the judge’s decision is being appealed.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall

Recall Legal Scholars?

Governor Gavin Newsom, California, recall

“For weeks, legal scholars have debated whether the recall election of [California] Gov. Gavin Newsom could be found unconstitutional,” The Los Angeles Times reports, “if Newsom failed to realize a ‘no recall’ majority of the ballots cast and was ousted by a candidate who received fewer votes than he did.”

By “failed to realize a ‘no recall’ majority,” writer Maura Dolan means — in normal lingo — that Newsom gets booted out of office by majority vote. But following that phrase with “ousted by a candidate who received fewer votes than he did” ignores precisely who just did the “ousting” or, if you prefer, “booting” — voters.

Her confusion was mightily assisted by University of California at Berkeley academics, Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and Professor Aaron S. Edlin, economist, arguing in The New York Times that the recall is “nonsensical and undemocratic.” Oh, and “unconstitutional,” too, because more votes could be cast to keep the incumbent than for the incumbent’s replacement. 

“Every voter should have an equal ability to influence the outcome of the election,” they contend.

A Golden State recall petition results in two separate elections: (1) the voters’ up-or-down decision on keeping or recalling the official in question, and (2) a second election for voters to choose among candidates running to replace that official should the recall succeed. 

Every Californian casting a ballot on these two separate issues indeed has an equal vote. The recall is automatically decided by majority, while the replacement could win with a plurality.

The equal protection angle has been raised unsuccessfully before. In fact, Chemerinsky acknowledged, according to the LA Times, “that courts could decide that the recall proposal itself amounted to a separate election from the second question on the replacement candidates.”

No duh.

The authors should be glad that recalling academics isn’t a thing — even so, they’re not as awful as Governor Newsom.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Blast from the past: This column addressed opposition to the 2003 recall of California Gov. Gray Davis.

PDF for printing

Photo by Gage Skidmore

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
incumbents initiative, referendum, and recall

Christmas in California?

California, Covid, corruption

“Gray Davis was never in a position to play Santa Claus,” said Steve Maviglio, press flack for the former California governor who was recalled by voters in 2003.

Maviglio was comparing Davis’ relative misfortune, back then — in not having a pandemic and the resulting economic stimulus — to today’s prospects for current Governor Gavin Newsom, who likewise faces a citizen-initiated recall. Yet, while 18 years ago Davis both cut budgets and raised taxes, Newsom has now discovered an extra $100 billion of spendable funds to let him off that hook. 

California’s whopping budget surplus of $75.7 billion? Just the beginning. Democrats in Congress wanted to help with even more tax dollars, voting to drop-ship Golden State pols another $26 billion as part of the stimulus bill . . . which every Republican opposed, calling it at the time a move to “supply the Governor of California with a special slush fund.”

“Newsom wants to hand out cash before California recall election,” Politico headlined its story on Monday, informing that the embattled governor was quick to “tell Californians he wants to give them cash and pay some of their utility bills and back rent,” and noting specifically: “Checks would arrive in voters’ mailboxes not long before ballots do this fall.”

One key part of Newsom’s $100 billion “California Comeback Plan” is to give $600 “to some two-thirds of state residents in households making up to $75,000, along with $500 to families with dependents.”*

“It’s very significant,” offered former Gov. Davis, arguing “the future looks brighter as evidenced by the checks the public will soon receive.” 

Whose future, precisely? Not Californians, really. Newsom’s.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* “Unlike the federal stimulus aid, undocumented immigrants and their families will be eligible to receive a state tax rebate,” The Sacramento Bee explained. “In fact, undocumented immigrants with dependent children will be eligible for $1,000 for family checks, double what other California families will receive, in order to make up for the lack of support at the federal level, according to Finance Director Keely Bosler.” [Emphasis added.] Must they document that they are undocumented?

PDF for printing

Photo by Rob Growler / Photo by Gage Skidmore

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall

Pols Don’t Like Recalls

California State Senator Josh Newman has, for now, withdrawn a bill to let elected officials facing a recall see the names of petition signers so that they may be asked if they really mean it.

The Democrat complains that critics call his bill “an attack on not just the recall but on them and their constitutional rights. It wasn’t a good context to have a conversation.” 

So unfair!

The willingness of defenders of petition rights to speak up does sound pretty inconvenient for foes of this popular democratic check on power.

Perhaps we’re supposed to believe that under Newman’s legislation, the interviews would go like this: “Did you mean to sign the petition to recall me?” “I did.” “Just checking. Bye.”

Obviously, the targeted official’s opportunity and authority to quiz petition signers would enable his team to intimidate existing and prospective signers. The aim? Try to prevent a question with enough valid signatures from reaching the ballot.

Years ago, in other states, opposition campaigns sent retired FBI agents to knock on doors. Legal, but very intimidating. Which is why California does not make the names public.

The legislation would not have applied to the current petition drive to recall California Governor Gavin Newsom, an effort going splendidly with more than 1.5 million signers. But Newman’s bill was clearly motivated by the success of this campaign. 

Or perhaps it’s residual animosity toward the recall process . . . from Sen. Newman himself, having been recalled by voters in 2018. (He came back to win election once again in 2020.)

Of course, signing a petition in itself says “I want this question on the ballot.” If a petition signer changes his mind, there is a process to retract it. No bullying follow-up needed.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Photo by Gage Skidmore

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Common Sense

The Price of Freelancing Is Eternal Vigilance

California, freelance, work, regulations

Californian voters have largely reversed an assault on “gig” workers in that state by passing Proposition 22.

Prop 22 is a response to Assembly Bill 5, enacted in California in 2019. The idea was to reclassify many freelancers so that companies could no longer treat them as independent contractors. Instead, to keep giving them work, companies would have to convert erstwhile freelancers to regular employees.

Doing so would mean paying additional costs. Instead, many companies simply stopped working with California-based freelancers. Freelancers of all ideological stripes protested the new law.

Rideshare firms Uber and Lyft were a major target of the legislation. Cabbies who work with them are contractors, not employees. Because of AB5, Uber and Lyft have been on the verge of leaving California — meaning a “victory” only for unions and others who hate market competition. 

Now these firms, and many freelancers, can apparently keep operating in the state.

Mission accomplished?

Not so fast. A national version of AB5 sits in Congress, lying in wait. It has been endorsed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 215 Democratic co-sponsors, and Joe Biden, who may or may not be the next president of these not-so-United States. (Recounts are being conducted and allegations of election fraud are being investigated.)

If we end up with a President Biden, he may well push for a national version of AB5. Especially if the Democrats get at least 50 U.S. Senators after runoffs in Georgia are decided.

Stay vigilant. Protect our right to work.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom national politics & policies

Sue the Governors!

Trevor Burfitt

Expect a tsunami of lawsuits against state and local governments. The lockdowns, mask mandates, and other putative ‘mitigation efforts’ to combat the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 demand a deluge.

The latest is Burfitt v. Newsom, filed in Kern County’s Superior Court of the State of California.

“The legal complaint,” explains Matthew Vadum in The Epoch Times, “seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for the constitutional violations it alleges have been committed by [Governor Gavin] Newsom and his officials, stating that the ‘lockdown was originally supposed to be only a temporary emergency measure. However, nearly seven months later it appears that, absent judicial intervention, there will never be a “reopening” to normal, pre-COVID activity, despite incontestable facts — including California’s own data . . . showing that the lockdown is no longer warranted and is causing far more harm than good.’”

The plaintiff is Father Trevor Burfitt, who simply seeks to carry on the established rites of the Roman Catholic Church. 

Though churchgoers and other observant religious people are increasingly defiant, politicians are generally following New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s lead. Cuomo says* his edicts apply regardless of religious affiliation: “the community must agree to the rules. If you do not agree to enforce the rules, then we will close the institutions down.”

But Cuomo’s “must” is actually iffy:

  1. The states of emergency do not pass the smell test, as the medical infrastructure the lockdowns initially were touted to defend are actually under scant stress.
  2. The basic right at issue here is beyond ecumenical, it is the freedom to peaceably assemble, which too many governors have attacked, though
  3. they have indeed been hardest on religious gatherings, despite being lenient with big box retailers, liquor stores and marijuana dispensaries and completely tolerant of ‘mostly peaceful protests.’

The biggest If, though, is what would happen were the litigation to fail. 

Citizen political action must join the litigation wave.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Mark Tapscott quotes Cuomo’s bracing statement in The Epoch Times, “Silicon Valley Pastor Fights $220,000 in Fines by California Officials for Holding Church Services.”

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
too much government

How Quickly Can California Be Destroyed?

Gavin Newsom, California, fires

It’s hard to destroy a state. Or rather, the advanced industrial economy of a state.

Mud slides, eco-policy-abetted wildfires, exploding taxes and spending and regulations, riots, pandemics — such things go only so far. After the latest holocausts and catastrophes abate (if they do), survivors can still soldier on. Mow the lawn, say hello to neighbors, hop in the car to get to work, and so forth.

Is there a solution? Yes! Pile on the calamities thicker, faster, harder. While people are still reeling from one natural disaster or lunatic policy decision, slug them again!

California Governor Gavin Newsom is taking this lesson to heart, bless him. He has signed an order banning production of emission-emitting cars and light trucks by 2035, in hopes of eliminating “sales of internal combustion engines.”

He also wants lawmakers to get cracking on banning fracking. No point helping to produce abundant means of combustion if you’re outlawing combustion.

Alas, though Newsom’s heart is in the right place, he’s still somewhat pandering to friends of civilization and transportation. If gas be so wicked, turn off the spigot ipso pronto. Well, maybe in a month or two to give people a chance to practice their walking. Then shutter all carbon-emitting factories that make all the cars, including electric cars.

If the key to life is paying fealty to environmentalist pieties immunized from cogent analysis, we must end industry ASAP. Stopping plastic straws and internal combustion isn’t enough.

Sock it to ’em!

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

Leave California

California, gig economy, freelancing, contractor

Should Uber and Lyft abandon California? 

At issue is the anti-freelancer statute AB 5, passed last year in the Golden State, which outlaws independent contractors in many industries.

Including the wildly successful ride-sharing business.

Horrified, threatened, Uber and Lyft have declared their willingness to suspend operations in California if they are forced to reclassify independent contractors as employees. 

You see, wage and salary contracts are heavily regulated already, and switching from independent contractors to employees means drivers would be entitled to expensive benefits. 

Which would upset the gig economy business model.

A model Democrats hate. This assault on independent contractors is something that Democratic presidential candidate Joseph Biden wants to impose nationwide. 

The Democrat-controlled U.S. House passed such legislation in February.

For now, a court order has given the companies a temporary reprieve from another court’s order mandating compliance. 

Maybe the dueling decrees will end well for the ride-sharing companies, allowing them to function. Maybe not. There’s also a citizen initiative in the mix. Proposition 22 on the fall ballot would substantially modify AB5 to make it possible for at least some freelancers to do their jobs in the state of nearly 40 million people.

On the other hand, should California officials succeed in imposing their mandate on the ride-sharing firms, Uber and Lyft should follow through on their threat and leave.

The consequences of such attacks on the market should be made as plain as possible as rapidly as possible so that as many people as possible can make the connection between cause and effect.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
tax policy too much government

California Schemin’

California, Democrats, taxes,

Is California a failed state? It has an electric grid problem. And a vagrancy problem. Both of which stem from the bizarre ideological blind spots of a political class “benefiting” from the state’s high legislator/citizen ratio, which insulates politicians from feedback.

Driving them power mad.

And one form of madness flowers in political greed, hubris and overreach.

“A pack of Democratic lawmakers in California are proposing a wealth tax for the state’s richest citizens, forcing them to pay more essentially just for owning a lot of stuff,” writes Scott Shackford at Reason. “They also, amazingly, want the tax to follow Californians who flee the state in response, attempting to make them continue paying taxes on wealth that’s not even in the state.”

Rob Bonta, Oakland’s Democrat in the Assembly, says the Golden State needs more gold, and he has made a startling observation. Wait for it. “Rich people have money,” Shackford summarizes, and Bonta wants to take it. To expand services.

But surely service expansion is not only not the only option, it is often the worst option. 

Take the state’s rolling blackouts. Was that caused by not enough or really bad legislation? President Trump points his finger at the Democratic-controlled Assembly: “In California, Democrats have intentionally implemented rolling blackouts — forcing Americans in the dark. Democrats are unable to keep up with energy demand,” the president tweeted on Tuesday. But the New York Post identifies as a cause not “intentionally implemented” blackouts, but “inadequate transmission and an over-reliance on renewable energy and issues with natural gas plants during high heat.”

Bad policy. Not too few “services.”

And the proposal to tax the richest Californians — or former Californians — to pay for more disastrous programs? 

Hubris and greed.

Not Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
too much government

Unnatural Disaster

California, gig, economy, regulations, freelancing, labor, employment,

Just get rid of it.

The “it” is AB-5, the absurd new law attacking California freelancers. 

And those articulating the good riddance are the “151 Ph.D. Economists and Political Scientists in California” who have signed an open letter to California Governor Gavin Newsom and the state legislature.

The lawmakers who last year foisted the measure on Californians pretended that they were doing gig workers a big favor by making it impossible, in many cases, for companies to hire them for regular short-term jobs.

After the legislation passed, many independent contractors quickly lost work — lots of work. For example, Rev, which produces transcripts and captions, said goodbye to all of its freelancers based in California. Many other companies — reluctant to be prosecuted for the crime of engaging in voluntary economic relationships between consenting adults — also ended relationships with freelancers.

Apparently, the anti-gig lawmakers did not realize that losing one’s means of paying for food and rent is not that helpful. 

Tornadoes, hurricanes, and pandemics have a way of highlighting the importance of the economic and other institutions that make human survival and civilization possible. 

AB-5 is like a natural disaster in its effects . . . but not natural.

“By prohibiting the use of independent contractor drivers, health care professionals, and workers in other critical areas,” the open letter explains, “AB-5 is doing substantial, and avoidable, harm to the very people who now have the fewest resources and the worst alternatives available to them.” 

The solution is “suspend AB-5.” 

It was always the solution, the obvious solution. 

But now it is even more obvious.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

California, gig, economy, regulations, freelancing, labor, employment,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts