[conspire] Ballot Analysis and the 7/8 Clause

[Rick Moen]

I wrote:

> Quite.  And here, I must give public kudos to the SF Chronicle editorial
> writers.  Whoever that was, he/she/they wrote with integrity and
> diligence, calling out the 7/8 clause as a serious flaw even while
> encouraging Chronicle readers to vote for Prop. 22 anyway.

However... 

There was important background I'd missed through inattention.  I caught
up on my oversight, prior to the election, and amended my ballot guide,
but hadn't taken time to double back to the thread here, until now.
Quoting the California Constitution, Article II, Section 10(c):

  The Legislature may amend or repeal a referendum statute. The
  Legislature may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute
  that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the
  initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without the electors’
  approval.

https://ballotpedia.org/Article_II,_California_Constitution#Section_10

This is given effect in statute law in section 9034(c) of the Election
Code:

  9034: (a) The proponents of a proposed initiative measure shall submit
  a certification, signed under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of
  State immediately upon the collection of 25 percent of the number of
  signatures needed to qualify the initiative measure for the ballot.

  [RM: snip clause (b), about how the Legislature then has to take
  the proposed voter initiative statute seriously, and...]

  (c) This section shall not be construed as authority for the
  Legislature to alter the initiative measure or prevent it from
  appearing on the ballot.

So, basically, that 7/8 clause in Prop. 22's Article 9 doesn't take away
powers from the Legislature, it _gives_ the Legislature a limitedpower
it would otherwise lack.  The same is also true of the part of Prop. 14
that permits certain amendments to the embryonic stem-cell research
agency's governing statute if the Legislature has a 70% supermajority in
both houses.


The _larger_ lesson, in my opinion, is that we California voters should
always question whether proposed initiative statutes are strictly
necessary, i.e., 'Why was this punted to the voters?  Did it need to
be?  Why isn't this being decided in the Legislature and/or the courts?'

Because any such statute ties the hands of our elected state
legislators.  In my view, that power should be reserved for instances
where the Legislature has utterly failed or for some reason cannot act,
and should be used very sparingly.  Appeals to the voters to intervene
should IMO be treated with skepticism -- as the advantage of doing an
end-run around _correct_ decisions of the Legislature and the courts 
by suckering the voters should be obvious.  (And IMO was just perfectly 
illustrated by this 'gig economy' special carve-out.)