Here is the order:
<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21046832-castellanos-order" rel="nofollow">https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21046832-castellanos...</a><p>Things to know:<p>1. This was a referendum <i>statute</i> and not a referendum amendment.<p>2. referendum statutes can't normally be amended by the legislature directly, but they can submit it back to the voters by normal majority vote on the legislation/etc. The referendums can, if they want, add ways for the legislature to amend it without going back to the voters.<p>3. With that in mind, here are the issues:<p>A. Prop22 inartfully tries to say it can only be amended by 7/8th vote of the legislature. That would, normally, be unconstitutional- the constitution requires allowing the majority vote + submit back to voters. To avoid this, the court has (IMHO, correctly) interpreted this to be just be a way to amend the statute without going back to the voters, rather than the only way to amend it at all.
It also tries to change the publication rules for any possible amendments (which is also not allowed to do to the majority vote path, and so this is severed and only applies to the 7/8th path)<p>B. California has a single subject rule on ballot amendments.
This statute has a stated subject/purpose (too long to quote). That purpose/subject does not include collective bargaining, even a little. It does not talk, in any part of the statute, about collective bargaining.<p>At the very end, after just about all meaningful text it attempts to limit collective bargaining it in a super-odd way. It says anything dealing with collective bargaining is considered an amendment to the statue and is explicitly subject it to the 7/8th rule to pass it
. By defining anything related to collective bargaining as an amendment, it causes itself to run afoul of the single subject rule - it's entirely unrelated to anything in the statute.<p>It also can't subject it <i>only</i> to the 7/8th rule as it attempts to do, but as above, that would normally be reinterpreted by the court to say "7/8th rule or submitting back to voters".<p>The court severed this provision, which seems right.<p>C. Even if the above issue didn't exist, the actual constitution (remember, this is not an amendment) provides that the Legislature shall have the power to create worker's compensation laws “unlimited by any provision of this Constitution”. So, the statute's attempt to limit workers comp also fails. The statute, for some reason, also says this provision may not be severed, so if it is held unconstitutional, like here, the entire statute is struck down.<p>On appeal, B will be argued about to death because the single subject rule is easily twistable. But since it is severable, i think a court will sever it in the end.<p>C will have a flat yes/no ruling - either it's usurping power the legislature has (without being an amendment) or it's not.
On its face, it's hard to see how you can successfully argue it's not. The wording in the california constitution is pretty strong.
The superior court takes the reasonable position that an amendment-by-ballot could change workers comp because it can overrule the constitutional provision, but that an statute-by-ballot cannot.
It would take some mental gymnastics to uphold this part.