Prop 22 opponents ask state high court to overturn it

By limiting the Legislature's power to pass certain employment laws for gig drivers, the drafters of Proposition 22 were able to restrict those drivers' rights without explicitly writing out those restrictions, according to a lawsuit filed in the state Supreme Court.

This strategy was key to Proposition 22's popularity among California voters, the petition contends, claiming voters did not understand they were voting in November to limit the Legislature's authority.

However, Kathy Fairbanks of the Proposition 22 campaign, Protect App-Based Drivers And Services, provided a statement from Uber driver Jim Pyatt, who said in response to the lawsuit, "Voters across the political spectrum spoke loud and clear, passing Prop 22 in a landslide. Meritless lawsuits that seek to undermine the clear democratic will of the people do not stand up to scrutiny in the courts."

The petition claims the drafters' strategy offers "a roadmap for future abuse" in ballot measures, which could follow Proposition 22's footsteps in trying to restrict the power of legislators and the courts.

The emergency petition was filed Monday by SEIU, SEIU California State Council, and some rideshare drivers who opposed Proposition 22. Attorneys from Altshuler Berzon LLP, Olson Remcho LLP, and SEIU represent the plaintiffs.

Fairbanks said in a statement she did not know whether Proposition 22 backers Uber and Lyft would intervene in the lawsuit, which names state Labor Commissioner Lilia Garcia-Brower and the state of California as defendants.

Attorney General Xavier Becerra's office was reviewing the complaint, said a press officer.

Garcia-Brower's office did not respond to a request for comment.

Altshuler Berzon attorney Scott A. Kronland said in an interview, "The Constitution says that statutory initiatives can't be amended, except as provided in the initiative, but what constitutes an 'amendment' is something for the courts to decide."

The petition also alleges Proposition 22 illegally excluded drivers from the state workers' compensation program, and that the ballot initiative violates a provision in the state Constitution that requires ballot initiatives address only a single subject.

The state defendants in the case are involved in ongoing litigation against Uber and Lyft, which began prior to the ballot initiative's passage in November. Each case alleges the companies misclassified their drivers as independent contractors. People v. Uber Technologies Inc., CGC20584402 (S.F. Super. Ct., filed May 5, 2020). Lilia Garcia-Brower v. Uber Technologies, Inc., RG20070281 (Alameda Super. Ct., filed Aug. 5, 2020). Lilia Garcia-Brower v. Uber Lyft, Inc., RG20070283 (Alameda Super. Ct., filed Aug. 5, 2020).