California Voters Show an Independent Streak

A measure to keep Uber/Lyft drivers as contractors passed, while measures on affirmative action, rent control, and property taxes failed or are failing.

By
64

California may have voted for Joe Biden by about 30 points, but other election results were a decidedly mixed bag for the famously blue state. Four ballot measures—which California uses more often and for bigger issues than any other state—that would have enacted long-desired progressive priorities have failed or appear likely to lose.

Proposition 22, the measure that has attracted the most national attention, is also California’s most expensive ever, with more than $200 million of total spending. Officially titled the “App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative,” it was a direct response by  rideshare-based companies to Assembly Bill 5,  passed to force companies to hire workers as employees rather than as contractors or freelancers. After it went through several rounds of carve-outs and exceptions, it ended up mainly as a dagger aimed at companies like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash. Reclassifying drivers as employees with benefits rather than contractors would have massively increased labor costs—so much so that the two companies threatened to end operations in California before a court granted a stay in August.

So Proposition 22 emerged as the tech industry’s response. It classifies “app-based drivers” as contractors while entitling them to limited benefits, and it makes the rule modifiable only by a 7/8th vote of the legislature. It is currently winning easily, 59 percent to 41 percent, with 84 percent of the votes counted. The yes campaign raised $180 million, mostly from the three companies mentioned above. 

But Kenneth P. Miller, a professor at Claremont McKenna College who studies California politics and history, told The Dispatch that he was skeptical about the influence of all that spending. “People like Uber and Lyft, and this was going to the carotid artery of the whole gig economy.” Miller noted that the “yes” side’s messaging focused less on the threat to Lyft and Uber and more on the appeal of flexible “new economy” jobs to many workers. 

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
64
By
Comments (64)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. anonvet

    This isn't really news, though. I've lived in CA for nearly 40 years and it never ceases to amaze me how the rest of the country fails to understand this state. Prop 13, anyone? Or 187? Just look at a red/blue county map of CA. It's no different than a red/blue national map. Just because the CA Republican Party decided to commit suicide doesn't mean the entire population smokes pot in Santa Cruz or Santa Monica playing hacky sack all day....

    Collapse
  2. Matt C

    I'd like to make two points:

    1. Of course the 'Uber' measure passed. I don't care how liberal a state is, when you tell them Uber/Lyft are likely to leave the state or have to drastically increase prices, and you may have to go back to using old fashioned taxis, no state would actually vote for that in a referendum.

    2. The reason it is even an issue is that Cali is also a victim of our nations poor electoral systems, that causes a highly progressive legislature in a 'blue', but not far left, populace. Cali's elected officials are well to the left of the median voter, and elections are determined by an upper income very high propensity urban progressive voter base that dominates Dem primaries. Likewise, Republicans are controlled by their base so they consistently send out candidates too conservative to have any chance, when a moderate Republican would have a very good shot at times. This is another example of ranked voting helping a lot, particularly in Cali where they already have jungle primaries. A truly representative government in Cali would result in pragmatically liberal governance, rather than utopian progressivism.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Nick H

    The potential downside to Prop 22 winning is that it wasn't a complete repudiation of AB 5, but just forced additional exemptions. AB5 may have been a dagger aimed at Uber and Lyft, but it did a lot of collateral damage to other contractors and freelancers. Now without the threat of Uber and Lyft leaving the state, there's little pressure on California to fix the rest of the problems AB 5 caused.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      David Chen

      Prop 22 turned an awful law the hurts everyone into a competitive moat. It is the epitome of regulatory capture, which is why I voted against it even though I want AB5 gone.

      Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    This is only going to come as a surprise to people who live inside the Fox News bubble. Those people are told 24/7 that the Democrats are the same as AOC, bla bla bla.

    The reality is that millions of former Republican voters are voting Democrat now (and vice-versa), and Democrats represent the American center.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    rlritt

    As a Democrat in CA I'd like to comment on these props. RE: App drivers. I voted NO because I remember when I was in college I could walk into a restaurant and get a job on the spot because the pay was a dollar an hour plus tips. The tips were way more than minimum wage. On Prop 16 it stated employers could take race and ethnicity into account when hiring. While that sounds nice-- a business who wants diversity can hire accordingly, --- there was nothing to prevent a business that wanted only whites to also hire accordingly. And finally I saw forcing dialysis clinics to hire doctors, which seems to be on the ballot every election, a ploy to get dialysis available in hospitals only. This would be a cash cow for private hospitals, but a terrible inconvenience to patients. So not necessarily a liberal/conservative clash. You are right, these props are very poorly written.

    Collapse
    1. Doctor Mist

      I don’t understand your point about prop 22 (app drivers). Are you saying that they should not have the jobs they want because they can always get jobs in restaurants?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        rlritt

        No, what I meant is that some people want a job the they can do when they need extra or fast money without a big commitment on their or the employers part.

        Collapse
        1. Doctor Mist

          Then why your objection to 22? App-based driver jobs seem like great examples of that.

          Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Mudskipper

    "... for the famously blue state."

    California has never been as progressive as it is in conservatives' imagination. It plays the role of progressive punching bag in conservative mythos, in which all manner of things are assumed true about the state that aren't.

    Collapse
    1. Matt

      I agree because California is a big place. Conservatives (and liberals) tend to cherry pick examples and then blanket a group or geographic area with that stereotype. San Francisco, for example, is nuts. It's legal to steal there, which is why 7 Walgreens have closed in the past couple years. Technically theft less than $950 is a misdemeanor, but the DA in SF won't prosecute. In San Francisco, if a shop owner attempts to prevent theft, there is a good chance they will face prosecution for assault. A few miles south of San Francisco, if you steal something and it's your first offense, you could face up to 3 months prison. So it varies county by county.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      David Chen

      The government is set up in a way that elects a Dem supermajority, so they do get to push through a lot of crazy crap.

      Collapse
      1. Daniel

        Are you accusing California Democrats of gerrymandering? They can't, redistricting in California is done by a neutral commission. Democrats earn their supermajority, like it or not.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          David Chen

          Even if you don't gerrymander, if you have 51:49 in every district, you will end up with 100% democrats even if the state is 49% republicans. If the Democrats earn their supermajority, then why did so many of the proposition positions that they supported fail?

          Collapse
          1. Daniel

            That is the definition of gerry-mandering. Drawing districts in such that your party consistently gets significantly more control of the legislature in a way that is not consistent with actual support or sensible district boundaries.

            Presumably, they've failed bc California voters didn't like them.

            Now, maybe the democrats have a supermajority even though many californian voters didn't like their propositions because the other party has become an unnacceptable option, what with their abject surrender to Trump.

            Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Mudskipper

        How is the government set up to elect a Dem supermajority?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          David Chen

          "The Democratic Party currently holds veto-proof supermajorities in both houses of the California State Legislature.[3] The Assembly consists of 61 Democrats and 18 Republicans, with one vacancy, while the Senate is composed of 29 Democrats and 11 Republicans." - Wikipedia

          So unless only ~25% of the population is Republican, Democrats are over-represented. Officially about 24% are registered Republicans, 43% Dem, with 28% NPP, but people are distributed in a way where Democrats win by default in most areas.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Mudskipper

            Are you saying that California government has deliberately disadvantaged Republicans in some way? For example, through gerrymandering or making it harder for people in the Republican demographics to register or to vote?

            Collapse
          2. Daniel Rabiner

            We have a non-partisan commission to make up districts. So Democrats are properly represented in the state. Look at the recent elections. Trump will win about 30% of votes. And getting 63-68% of legislative seats at the State level when you get such a high percentage of votes is representative. This isn't Wisconsin where Democrats won more state-wide votes in 2018 and only received 40% of the seats.

            Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Bill Nelson

    “Proposition 16’s supporters, however, point to voters being confused by the law’s language as the main reason for the loss.”
    Ah, so the people want it, they just aren’t bright enough to know they want it. Neat.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      David Chen

      I feel like that line gets trotted out a lot by the left.

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Paul Reichardt

    I expected Prop 16 to pass and it’s interesting to me that it didn’t, from a political-cultural viewpoint.
    It didn’t quite seem as ambitious as its detractors claimed it was—it was to overturn the “affirmative action” ban (Prop 209) from the mid 90’s—but nothing in it seemed to me to run contrary to later Supreme Court rulings that banned outright (reverse) racial discrimination or race-quotas and the like but allowed race to be used holistically as one factor among many in, for example, college admissions. But Californians decisively wrinkled their noses at it nonetheless.

    Perhaps it’s as the writer says and no one really knew the details so voted “no” by default. But “No on Prop 16” signs were everywhere—especially in the South Bay city where I work which has a heavily Asian and Indian immigrant base of upwardly-mobile tech workers (plenty of campaign signs for local offices with Mandarin on them, for instance)—so I suspect there’s more to it.

    Collapse
    1. Peter


      Well prop 16 was added late and it really was t messaged well. A lot of the other ballots were added months and months ahead of time. They also pulled way more attention too.

      I voted for it but knew it would not pass though. Glad it saw some large support though. I would support the outcome either way though.

      I honestly dont think its as controversial as folks make it seem.

      Collapse
      1. Daniel

        People tend to read up on these things the day they vote.

        It is controversial and really hits home when your children happen to have grandparents born in an Asian country.

        Collapse
        1. Brilliantly Oblivious

          I’ve heard prop 16 referred to as the second Chinese exclusion act.

          Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      David Chen

      Since 209, the share of whites getting admitted went down, hispanics doubled, asians increased a little, and blacks largely stayed the same. I don't know how that's not a success for increased minority admittance without getting into race quotas.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Paul Reichardt

        Is that your personal argument against affirmative action (I understand your point) or is that what you believe to be one of the primary reasons why the majority of generally-progressive CA voters rejected Prop 16?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          David Chen

          I don't see how AA can be implemented without either soft or hard racial quotas. If the evidence is clear that a certain population is underperforming academically, diverting more resources towards them does not involve AA. But if by the time they apply and their merits simply do not compare, how can you can justify admitting them without having a racial quota in mind? College slots are zero-sum games so every seat diverted will be taken from someone else. If asians and hispanics currently make up most admittance, they will inevitably be the ones to lose. All my asian friends know that they and their kids are graded on a much harder curve. At least with SAT's and such, that curve can still be somewhat quantifiable (you simply need X points higher) instead of nebulous reasons like 'low courage and personality' as revealed in the Harvard admittance lawsuit.

          Collapse
          1. David R

            Though we could probably use three or four more UCs and another half dozen or so Cal States ...

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Paul Reichardt

            The discrimination showed in the Harvard case was indeed shocking.

            Collapse
          3. Avatar photo
            Aylene Wright

            Seems to me that the 1970s era model of "affirmative action" that focused on the group now called "biPOCs" is just not a good fit for the diverse demographics of 2020 California. African Americans are actually represented in CA colleges at a rate very close to their actual percentage of the population. Asian Americans are *overrepresented*. If the only true "equality" is for every institution to have different groups at the exact same ratios as the general population, and anything else is proof of "systemic racism", then we basically wind up justifying active discrimination against Asian Americans in the name of not discriminating.

            BTW I continue to be dismayed at TD coverage on Prop 16 that has been "we really have no idea why it failed when Cali is so Blue" & relies on Polisci professors talking ABOUT the opponents. No sign anyone at TD actually made an attempt to talk directly TO the opponents to ask their reasons for not supporting it. Ward Connerly himself (who spearheaded the original referendum that Prop 16 meant to overturn) was very active in the Vote No campaign. Why not try to get a statement from him or a surrogate? Did TD try to talk to them (or other No groups) and not get a reply? "Turns out a lot of progressives are hypocrites who want their kids to get into UC colleges" is hardly an example of engaging with the best possible argument for a position as TD's mission statement implies it will do.

            Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Bill Nelson

      What does it mean to use race holistically?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Paul Reichardt

        Well, for example, as in UT admissions Fisher case where the SCOTUS decision upheld the constutionality of the universities admissions policies:

        “Three-quarters of the students UT-Austin admits each year are supposed to be automatically admitted. The rest are selected through a “holistic review,” and that portion is the group for which affirmative action applies.”

        https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/23/us-supreme-court-rules-fisher-case-involving-ut-au/

        It sometimes means “Winfred Dexter the Third is a pothead with a criminal record and has crap grades, but his weathy business executive father will buy us a library if we let him in, so looking at his application more holistically we find him to be an acceptable candidate.” Gifted athletes to big-time SEC schools are another beneficiary of ‘holistic’ admissions. Whether it comports with one’s idea of the ideal meritocracy or not, college admissions boards routinely do all kinds of social engineering and exception-making for noble and less than noble reasons.

        My point was that in the climate of 2020, I would not have expected the majority of California voters to find it as objectionable for a UC to give a break to some kid from South Central LA with a 3.9 GPA but below admission-class average SAT scores as they did in the mid-90’s. I find this nugget of information about the body politic interesting.

        Collapse
        1. Brilliantly Oblivious

          My hometown high school which is 64% African American has a 5% pass rate on the state math competency test. How many, even with a 3.9 grade point average would be able to complete a 4 year college education? BTW- that 5% rate in a highly progressive college town is a testament to failed programs.

          Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Bill Nelson

          So holistic means what ever you want it to mean. No crystals involved.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Paul Reichardt

            Maybe crystals or maybe smoke-filled rooms, for all I know.

            But think about the standard college admissions essay—what would be the proper formulaic, non-holistic way to evaluate those most fairly? I don’t really see one, outside of subtracting marks for incorrect grammar or spelling. The reader just uses it to get an impression of the character of the applicant—maybe its a story about activity in the 4H club, working for a charity, or time spent abroad and all the experiences learned. That strikes me as an unavoidably subjective process but it’s a critical and non-controversial part of the evaluations.

            Collapse
  9. Very Old Grumpy Guy

    I think this was just one of the many ballot initiatives that show that a Blue state can make use of Red solutions and vice versa. Consider: 1) Florida's increase in the minimum wage 2) Arizona's material increase in the state income tax rate for high earners to fund education 3) Mississippi voted yes on medical marijuana and reforming election process to allow popular vote winners. I see hope that voters are looking for solutions, rather than just to "stick it" to the other party...

    Collapse
    1. Matt C

      I agree with your general point, though as studies overwhelmingly show, a statewide $15 minimum wage in a large state with many vastly different socioeconomic communities is destined to end in failure, and will disproportionately hurt the poorest communities.

      If more liberal cities want to do it, go ahead (even if I disagree). But don't push it on the rest of the state as well, where lower incomes are much more common.

      Collapse
      1. Very Old Grumpy Guy

        I hear you. But, my understanding was that these were state wide votes. I am not opining on the efficacy of the specific solutions that were ratified. I am merely noting that voters are trying to find solutions to problems they have identified, irrespective if the thrust of the "solution" is Red or Blue. In other words, voters are more pragmatic than the politicians.

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Rajeev

      I think it is easier to vote rationally for an issue when it effects you directly. Whether it's voting for a Republican governor in the northeast that are helping their states thrive (Baker, Sununu, etc.), a Democratic governor in the South (Bel Edwards, Cooper, etc.) or local ballot initiatives, there is a bigger incentive to abandon tribalism because voting for issues along party can often have direct consequences you don't want to deal with.

      With the contractor law in California, I was always amazed at how virtually everyone I know that has ever driven Uber or Lyft doesn't want a change like that. They like the flexibility and understand what they are getting and what they are not. It's mostly those external to the business that have a problem with it. We saw how when local governments interfered with restaurant fees associated with the delivery services it sometimes backfired in unintended ways. Allowing the delivery companies to create their own agreements with small business restaurants was a better idea in that case.

      Collapse
    3. Counterpoint

      Was going to point this out - the reality is the bulk of the American people are not that polarized. It's our leadership and the online partisan warriors that are extremely polarized.

      Most people are sensible, and Floridians share a lot of commonality with Californians on policy even as their voting patterns are markedly different.

      Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      rlritt

      Here, here!

      Collapse
    5. Avatar photo
      Bill Nelson

      In Arizona the tax increase for education sticks it to small business. In AZ we have a high number of individual owned small businesses whose revenue counts as the owners personal income. And at the end of the day, there will be no improvement in education results.
      Propositions in AZ amend the constitution and cannot be fixed by the legislature.

      Collapse
      1. Very Old Grumpy Guy

        One could argue about the specific solution chosen. However, it seemed clear Arizona needed better funded schools. Personally, a 3.5% hike on a top rate of 4.5% seems very high. However, I do not live in Arizona and would defer to the good people of the state on their judgment.

        Collapse