California Proposition 22, App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative (2020)

California Proposition 22
Election date November 3, 2020
Topic Business regulation and Labor and unions
Status a/ot Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens
List of California measuresCalifornia Proposition 13 (March)California Proposition 14California Proposition 15California Proposition 16California Proposition 17California Proposition 18California Proposition 19California Proposition 20California Proposition 21California Proposition 22California Proposition 23California Proposition 24California Proposition 25Submit

California Proposition 22, the App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative, was on the ballot in California as an initiated state statute on November 3, 2020. Proposition 22 was approved.

A "yes" vote supported this ballot initiative to define app-based transportation (rideshare) and delivery drivers as independent contractors and adopt labor and wage policies specific to app-based drivers and companies.

A "no" vote opposed this ballot initiative, meaning California Assembly Bill 5 (2019) could be used to decide whether app-based drivers are employees or independent contractors.

Election results

California Proposition 22
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		9,958,425	58.63%
No		7,027,820	41.37%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Reactions

The following is a list of reactions to the approval of Proposition 22:

• Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said, "Going forward, you'll see us more loudly advocate for new laws like Prop 22." Khosrowshahi added that Uber hoped to "work with governments across the U.S. and the world to make this a reality."

• DoorDash CEO Tony Xu said, "Now we're looking ahead and across the country, ready to champion new benefits structures that are portable, proportional and flexible."

• Anthony Foxx, former U.S. Secretary of Transportation (2013-2017) and Chief Policy Officer for Lyft, said, "I think Prop 22 has now created a structure for us to discuss with leaders in other states and Washington, potentially. We think that prop 22 has now created a model that can be replicated and can be scaled."

• Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor (1993-1997), said, "Prop 22 is great for employers, but it’s a huge loss for workers. This will encourage other companies to reclassify their work force as independent contractors, and once they do, over a century of labor protections vanishes overnight."

• Meredith Whittaker, a professor at New York University, and Veena Dubal, a law professor at University of California, Hastings, wrote, "To get Prop 22 passed, gig companies — which have yet to turn a profit — spent a historic $205 million on their campaign, effectively creating a political template for future anti-democratic, corporate law-making. ... This corrupt campaign worked. $200 million is a lot of money, but it’s a lot less than the long-term prospect of paying a living wage to workers and being responsible to consumers for safety and accessibility. Their gamble paid off, for now."

Aftermath

Castellanos v. California

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Did Proposition 22 (a) limit the legislature's constitutional power to extend compensation benefits, (b) include a definition of amendment that was too expansive, and (c) violate the single-subject rule?
Court: Alameda County Superior Court
Ruling: State appeals court reversed the superior court's ruling and found the proposition is constitutional; California Supreme Court upheld state appeal's court ruling
Plaintiff(s): Hector Castellanos, Joseph Delgado, Saori Okawa, Michael Robinson, Service Employees International Union California State Council, and Service Employees International Union	Defendant(s): State of California and California Labor Commissioner Lilia García-Brower

  Source: California Supreme Court

On January 12, 2021, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and four app-based drivers sued the state government in the California Supreme Court, seeking to have Proposition 22 declared unconstitutional and unenforceable.

Bob Schoonover, president of SEIU California, said, "Prop. 22 doesn't just fail our state rideshare drivers, it fails the basic test of following our state constitution. The law as written by Uber and Lyft denies drivers rights under the law in California and makes it nearly impossible for lawmakers to fix these problems."

Kathy Fairbanks, a spokesperson for the campaign behind Proposition 22, cited a statement from an app-based driver, which said, "Meritless lawsuits that seek to undermine the clear democratic will of the people do not stand up to scrutiny in the courts."

On February 3, 2021, the state Supreme Court rejected a direct review, meaning the lawsuit would need to be filed in a lower court first to continue. On February 11, the plaintiffs refiled the lawsuit in the Alameda County Superior Court.

On August 20, 2021, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch ruled that two sections of Proposition 22 were unconstitutional and that the measure as whole was unenforceable. Roesch ruled that Proposition 22 unconstitutionally limited the power of the legislature and that it violated the state's single-subject rule.

On December 13, 2022, the California First District Court of Appeal heard arguments in the appeal.

On March 13, 2023, the state appeals court reversed the lower court's ruling that found Proposition 22 to be unconstitutional. The appeals court upheld the law but severed a provision that required a seven-eighths majority vote of the state legislature to amend workers' rights to collective bargaining.

On June 28, 2023, the California Supreme Court announced it would take up the appeal.

On July 25, the California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 22 was constitutional.

Arguments

Petitioners made the following arguments in the litigation:

• Section 4 of Article XIV of the California Constitution "grants to the Legislature 'plenary power, unlimited by any provision of this Constitution' to establish and enforce a complete system of workers’ compensation." Proposition 22, according to the petitioners, removed app-based drivers from the state's system of workers’ compensation, and therefore limited the legislature's constitutional power to extend workers’ compensation benefits to app-based drivers.

• In California, the state Legislature cannot amend a voter-approved ballot initiative, unless the initiative itself allows for legislative changes, without asking voters to approve the changes. Section 2 of Article II of the California Constitution, according to the petitioners, provides that the state Supreme Court decides when legislation is an amendment to a voter-approved ballot initiative. Proposition 22 contained a provision that defined amendment to include (a) unequal regulatory burdens between app-based rideshare companies and others performing similar work and (b) laws that allow for organizations, such as unions, to represent app-based drivers in connection with their contractual relationships with companies. Petitioners argued that these provisions are too expansive and "impermissibly usurped this Court’s authority to 'say what the law is' by determining what constitutes an 'amendment'", and "impermissibly invaded the Legislature’s broad authority to legislate in areas not substantively addressed by the initiative."

• Section 8 of Article II of the California Constitution includes a single-subject rule, meaning that an initiative cannot embrace more than one subject. Petitioners argued that the provision of Proposition 22 on amendments were "not substantively addressed in the measure" and "grossly deceived the voters, who were not told they were voting to prevent the Legislature from granting the drivers collective bargaining rights, or to preclude the Legislature from providing incentives for companies to give app-based drivers more than the minimal wages and benefits provided by Proposition 22."

Overview

What were app-based drivers classified as for employment?

Proposition 22 considered app-based drivers to be independent contractors and not employees or agents. Therefore, the ballot measure overrode Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5), signed in September 2019, on the question of whether app-based drivers are employees or independent contractors.

The ballot initiative defined app-based drivers as workers who (a) provide delivery services on an on-demand basis through a business’s online-enabled application or platform or (b) use a personal vehicle to provide prearranged transportation services for compensation via a business’s online-enabled application or platform. Examples of companies that hired app-based drivers included Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash. The ballot measure did not affect how AB 5 was applied to other types of workers.

What is Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5)?

See also: California Assembly Bill 5 (2019)

AB 5 established a three-factor test to decide a worker's status as an independent contractor. The three-factor test requires that (1) the worker is free from the hiring company's control and direction in the performance of work; (2) the worker is doing work that is outside the company's usual course of business; and (3) the worker is engaged in an established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.

Responding to AB 5, Tony West, the chief legal officer for the ridesharing business Uber Technologies, stated, "Because we continue to believe drivers are properly classified as independent, and because we’ll continue to be responsive to what the vast majority of drivers tell us they want most—flexibility—drivers will not be automatically reclassified as employees. ... We expect we will continue to respond to claims of misclassification in arbitration and in court as necessary, just as we do now." Likewise, John Zimmer, president of Lyft, said, "We are focused on operating as we are."

On August 10, 2020, the Superior Court of San Francisco ruled that Uber and Lyft violated AB 5 and misclassified their workers. Attorney General Xavier Becerra responded, "The court has weighed in and agreed: Uber and Lyft need to put a stop to unlawful misclassification of their drivers while our litigation continues." Both Uber and Lyft stated that, unless the court's ruling was postponed, their companies could suspend app-based operations within California. On October 22, the California First District Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's ruling, requiring Uber and Lyft to implement changes within 30 days unless Proposition 22 is approved.

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding Proposition 22?

See also: Campaign finance

On August 30, 2019, three companies—DoorDash, Lyft, and Uber—each placed $30 million into campaign accounts to fund a ballot initiative campaign should the legislature pass AB 5 without compromising with the companies. "We remain focused on reaching a deal, and are confident about bringing this issue to the voters if necessary," said Lyft spokesperson Adrian Durbin. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed AB 5 on September 18 without an exemption for app-based drivers and employers. The ballot initiative was filed on October 29, 2019. Brandon Castillo, a spokesperson for the campaign supporting the initiative, stated, "We're going to spend what it takes to win. It's been widely reported that three of the companies already shifted $90 million, but we're still in the early phases. The bottom line is: We're committed to passing this." The companies Instacart (Maplebear, Inc.) and Postmates also joined the campaign.

Yes on Proposition 22 received $205.37 million, which was the most funds that an initiative campaign had ever received in California (not adjusted for inflation). Uber contributed $59.5 million, DoorDash contributed $52.1 million, Lyft provided $49.0 million, InstaCart provided $31.6 million, and Postmates provided $13.3 million.

The campaign No on Prop 22 received $18.88 million. SEIU Local 721, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the California Labor Federation, SEIU Local 1021, SEIU-UHW West, UFCW International Union, and UFCW Local 770—labor unions or union-affiliated committees—each contributed $1 million or more to No on Prop 22.

What else did the ballot measure change?

Since Proposition 22 considered app-based drivers to be independent contractors and not employees, state employment-related labor laws did not cover app-based drivers. Proposition 22 enacted labor and wage policies that are specific to app-based drivers and companies, including:

• payments for the difference between a worker's net earnings, excluding tips, and a net earnings floor based on 120% of the minimum wage applied to a driver's engaged time and 30 cents, adjusted for inflation after 2021, per engaged mile;

• limiting app-based drivers from working more than 12 hours during a 24-hour period, unless the driver has been logged off for an uninterrupted 6 hours;

• for drivers who average at least 25 hours per week of engaged time during a calendar quarter, require companies to provide healthcare subsidies equal to 82% the average California Covered (CC) premium for each month;

• for drivers who average between 15 and 25 hours per week of engaged time during a calendar quarter, require companies to provide healthcare subsidies equal to 41% the average CC premium for each month;

• require companies to provide or make available occupational accident insurance to cover at least $1 million in medical expenses and lost income resulting from injuries suffered while a driver was online (defined as when the driver is using the app and can receive service requests) but not engaged in personal activities;

• require the occupational accident insurance to provide disability payments of 66 percent of a driver's average weekly earnings during the previous four weeks before the injuries suffered (while the driver was online but not engaged in personal activities) for upwards of 104 weeks (about 2 years);

• require companies to provide or make available accidental death insurance for the benefit of a driver's spouse, children, or other dependents when the driver dies while using the app;

Proposition 22 defined a driver's engaged time as the time between accepting a service request and completing the request.

Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said, "What Prop. 22 is about is starting to move into the best of two worlds: you’ve got flexibility, you’re your own boss, you’re your own CEO, but you do have protections." In Rigging the Gig, researchers with the Partnership for Working Families (PWF) and National Employment Law Project (NELP) wrote, "the benefits contained in the initiative pale in comparison to what workers are entitled to under state law."

Proposition 22 also required the companies to: develop anti-discrimination and sexual harassment policies; develop training programs for drivers related to driving, traffic, accident avoidance, and recognizing and reporting sexual assault and misconduct; have zero-tolerance policies for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol; and require criminal background checks for drivers. The ballot initiative criminalized false impersonation of an app-based driver as a misdemeanor.

Amending Proposition 22 required a seven-eights (87.5%) vote in each chamber of the California State Legislature and the governor's signature, provided that the amendment is consistent with, and furthers the purpose of, Proposition 22. Changes that are not considered consistent with, and furthering the purpose of, Proposition 22 needed voter approval.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

Exempts App-Based Transportation and Delivery Companies from Providing Employee Benefits to Certain Drivers. Initiative Statute.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

“

Classifies drivers for app-based transportation (rideshare) and delivery companies as “independent contractors,” not “employees,” unless company: sets drivers’ hours, requires acceptance of specific ride and delivery requests, or restricts working for other companies. Independent contractors are not covered by various state employment laws—including minimum wage, overtime, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation. Instead, independent-contractor drivers would be entitled to other compensation—including minimum earnings, healthcare subsidies, and vehicle insurance. Restricts certain local regulation of app-based drivers. Criminalizes impersonation of drivers.

”

Fiscal impact

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

Minor increases in state income taxes paid by risdeshare and delivery company drivers and investors.

”

Full text

The full text of the ballot initiative is below:

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 16, and the FRE is -8.0. The word count for the ballot title is 13, and the estimated reading time is 3 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 18, and the FRE is -11. The word count for the ballot summary is 87, and the estimated reading time is 23 seconds.

Support

Yes on 22 - Save App-based Jobs & Services led the campaign in support of the ballot initiative.

Supporters

Save App-Based Jobs & Services provided a list of supporters, which is available here.

Political Parties

• Republican Party of California

Corporations

• DoorDash
• Instacart
• Lyft
• Postmates
• Uber

Unions

• California Peace Officers Association
• California Police Chiefs Association
• California State Sheriffs' Association

Organizations

• CalAsian Chamber of Commerce
• California Black Chamber of Commerce
• California Chamber of Commerce
• California Farm Bureau Federation
• California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
• California NAACP State Conference
• California Small Business Association
• California State National Action Network
• California Taxpayers Association
• Crime Victims United of California
• Mothers Against Drunk Driving
• National Black Chamber of Commerce
• National Taxpayers Union

Arguments

• Tecoy Porter, president of the National Action Network, Sacramento Chapter: "App-based driving is under threat. That’s why we need this ballot measure to pass, to end the uncertainty and make sure people maintain the ability to earn money on their terms, when their schedules allow, even after this pandemic has passed."
• Protect App-Based Drivers & Services: "If rideshare and delivery drivers are forced to be classified as employees with set shifts, it could significantly limit the availability and affordability of these on-demand services that benefit consumers, small businesses and our economy. In addition, current law for independent contractors denies companies the ability to provide many workplace protections, such as guaranteed hourly earnings and benefits. State law also makes it difficult for rideshare and delivery service companies to implement many customer and public safety protections."
• Dara Khosrowshahi, CEO of Uber: "Why not just treat drivers as employees? Some of our critics argue that doing so would make drivers’ problems vanish overnight. It may seem like a reasonable assumption, but it’s one that I think ignores a stark reality: Uber would only have full-time jobs for a small fraction of our current drivers and only be able to operate in many fewer cities than today. Rides would be more expensive, which would significantly reduce the number of rides people could take and, in turn, the number of drivers needed to provide those trips. Uber would not be as widely available to riders, and drivers would lose the flexibility they have today if they became employees."
• Helen Witty, president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving: "The best way to prevent drunk driving is to simply never drink and drive. Prop 22 will preserve rideshare services that help keep drunk and drug-impaired drivers off of our roads by providing a safe, reliable, convenient and affordable alternative to driving. Fewer rideshare drivers in California could mean more people choosing to get behind the wheel when they’re under the influence, rolling back the substantial gains that have been made over the past 10 years, in part due to the growth of ridesharing."
• Robert Guttierez, president of the California Taxpayers Association: "By approving Proposition 22, voters will protect app-based drivers’ independence to choose when, where and how long to work, enabling hundreds of thousands of drivers to supplement lost income and wages. Prop 22 provides more transportation and delivery options for consumers – while at the same time improving California’s economy. During this historic recession, it is more important than ever that voters focus on protecting jobs and rebuilding the economy."

Official arguments

The following is the argument in support of Proposition 22 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:

Official Voter Information Guide: PROBLEM: DRASTIC NEW LEGISLATION THREATENS TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL FOR APP-BASED DRIVERS TO WORK AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS Sacramento politicians recently passed legislation that threatens to eliminate the ability of Californians to choose work as independent contractors providing app-based rideshare, food and grocery delivery services. By a 4:1 margin, independent surveys show app-based drivers overwhelmingly prefer to work as independent contractors, not employees. These drivers have other jobs, family obligations or health issues and need flexibility to continue this work and supplemental income to support their families. PROHIBITING INDEPENDENT CONTRACT WORK FOR APP-BASED DRIVERS WOULD ELIMINATE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS "Eliminating drivers' ability to work as independent contractors will end the flexibility the vast majority of drivers need, severely damaging the proven on-demand model that quickly matches customers with drivers. The result will be much longer wait times, significantly higher consumer prices, and the permanent shutdown of services in many areas—eliminating hundreds of thousands of jobs."—William Hamm, former nonpartisan State Legislative Analyst SOLUTION: YES ON PROP. 22 PROTECTS THE ABILITY OF DRIVERS TO WORK AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS & PROVIDES NEW BENEFITS YES ON 22: 1. PROTECTS the choice of app-based drivers to work as independent contractors—SAVING CALIFORNIA JOBS when millions are struggling financially. 2. IMPROVES app-based work by requiring companies to provide new benefits, including: guaranteed minimum earnings • funding for health benefits • medical and disability coverage for on-the-job injuries • additional protections against harassment and discrimination. 3. CREATES EXPANDED PUBLIC SAFETY PROTECTIONS, including: requiring ongoing background checks and safety courses • zero tolerance for drug and alcohol offenses • criminal penalty for impersonating a driver. YES ON 22: BY A 4:1 MARGIN APP-BASED DRIVERS WANT TO BE INDEPENDENT More than 80% of drivers work less than 20 hours a week, have other jobs or responsibilities and can't work set shifts as employees: • Parents who work while kids are in school; • Family members who work odd hours so they can care for aging parents or other loved ones; • Working families, retirees and students who need supplemental income. "I'm a disabled veteran and am going back to school to prepare for a new career. I strongly support Prop. 22 because it protects the flexibility I need to work around my medical appointments and my education."—Matthew Emerson, Navy Veteran & Food Delivery Driver "I'm a mother of five with a full-time job. I need flexible, independent work a few hours a week to supplement my income. Otherwise my family wouldn't survive financially." —Brenda Vela, Mother & Rideshare Driver YES ON PROP. 22 KEEPS RIDESHARE & FOOD DELIVERY SERVICES AVAILABLE, AFFORDABLE & SAFE Prop. 22 preserves delivery services that millions now rely on to bring groceries, medications and warm meals to homes, and rideshare that improves mobility and keeps drunk drivers off our roads. YES ON 22: SUPPORTED BY DRIVERS, SMALL BUSINESSES, SOCIAL JUSTICE ADVOCATES, PUBLIC SAFETY LEADERS & OTHERS Supported by an overwhelming majority of app-based drivers • California Small Business Association • California State NAACP • California Peace Officers’ Association • National Hispanic Council on Aging • California Senior Advocates League • 100+ other organizations. www.VoteYesProp22.com BETTY JO TOCCOLI, President California Small Business Association JIM PYATT, President Independent Drivers Alliance of California MINNIE HADLEY-HEMPSTEAD, President NAACP Los Angeles

Opposition

No on Prop 22 led the campaign in opposition to the ballot initiative.

Opponents

No on Prop 22 provided a list of opponents, which is available here.

Officials

• U.S. Senator Kamala D. Harris (D)
• Vermont U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Independent)
• Massachusetts U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D)
• U.S. Representative Barbara Lee (Nonpartisan)
• State Senator Maria Elena Durazo (D)
• State Senator Nancy Skinner (D)
• State Senator Scott Wiener (D)
• Assemblyperson Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher (D)
• Speaker of the State Assembly Anthony Rendon (D)
• State Assemblyperson Buffy Wicks (D)
• Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs (Nonpartisan)
• State Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara (D)
• State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond (D)
• State Controller Betty Yee (D)

Former Officials

• Former Vice President Joe Biden (D)
• Former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich

Political Parties

• California Democratic Party

Unions

• American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
• California Labor Federation
• California Professional Firefighters
• California State Council of Laborers
• California Teachers Association
• SEIU California State Council
• State Building and Construction Trades Council of California
• Transport Workers Union of America
• Unite HERE
• United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council

Organizations

• ACLU of Southern California
• California Alliance for Retired Americans
• California League of Conservation Voters
• Democracy for America
• Gig Workers Rising

Arguments

• Asm. Lorena Gonzalez (D-80), legislative author of AB 5: "These billion-dollar corporations still refuse to offer their workers what every other employee in California is entitled to: earning the minimum wage for all hours worked, social security, normal reimbursements for their costs, overtime pay, and the right to organize."
• Art Pulaski, chief officer of the California Labor Federation: "This measure is another brazen attempt by some of the richest corporations in California to avoid playing by the same rules as all other law-abiding companies in our state. ... These CEOs spin this ballot measure as a benefit to workers, but their corporate Hail Mary falls short. It steals protections and pay their employees are entitled to under current law."
• Rebecca Smith, the director of the Work Structures Portfolio at the National Employment Law Project: "These companies have lost in the legislative process, they’ve lost in court. Now this is a last-ditch but well-funded effort to permanently take control of all terms and conditions of employment of their workers. If it’s successful, corporations in any industry would know that with enough cash and enough spin, you can buy your way to deregulation."
• Chris Melody Fields Figueredo, executive director of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center: "The people who are suffering the most right now, in the middle of a pandemic and a racial reckoning, are the ones who are going to lose the most if this initiative passes."
• U.S. Representative Barbara Lee (D-13): “I truly believe that the Prop 22 campaign will go down in history, not just for the audacious amount of money these companies are spending in their attempt to buy their own law — that’s $185 million and counting — but also because these app companies have now joined the ranks of Big Tobacco and Big Polluters, who present one image, and that's writing their checks — these feel-good checks — and placing ads featuring people of color, even as their actions show another. They're pursuing policies that do their worst damage in our communities, communities of color, that are struggling the most.”
• Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs (D): “Prop 22 embodies the opposite of racial equity as it would leave Black and brown drivers with no sick pay, no workers’ compensation and no unemployment insurance because the app companies wrote the initiative to take these benefits away.”

Official arguments

The following is the argument in opposition to Proposition 22 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:

Official Voter Information Guide: Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash paid to put Proposition 22 on the November ballot. They hired lawyers to write this misleading initiative and paid political operatives millions to collect the voter signatures needed. Why? To create a special exemption for themselves that will legally deny their driver's basic rights and protections at work like paid sick leave; workers' compensation, or unemployment benefits. Prop. 22 ONLY applies to Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and other app-based delivery and transportation companies. Their goal is PROFIT. Only THESE companies would profit from this special exemption. Current law requires Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash to provide their drivers with a minimum wage, healthcare, paid sick leave, unemployment, and workers' compensation coverage, just like every other California business. The Attorney General recently sued them for breaking the law and for relentlessly avoiding responsibility to their drivers for years. With your vote, you can help make them stop! Vote NO on Prop. 22. Why vote NO on Proposition 22? Prop. 22 creates a special exemption that eliminates basic workplace benefits and replaces them with a new LOWER "earnings guarantee" and "healthcare subsidy" payments designed to save the companies money. Prop. 22 contains deceptive wording to cynically try to convince us they are strengthening driver protections. The truth is, Uber and Lyft are ALREADY required to perform background checks, and the new provisions would ELIMINATE required sexual harassment training and the obligations on Uber and Lyft to investigate customers’ and drivers’ sexual harassment claims. The bottom line: Prop. 22 is all about money. It's not about helping the drivers you meet if you use these apps. The outbreak of COVID-19 further exposed these companies' refusal to treat their drivers fairly. The New York Times editorial board recently wrote that these companies "have failed to enforce consistent safety measures during the pandemic, including providing sufficient numbers of masks or guidance on social distancing, while pushing workers to fulfill an ever greater number of orders to keep up with the rising demand for food deliveries." These drivers, 78% of whom are people of color, are ESSENTIAL. They've helped California through the pandemic, and they deserve better. We believe app drivers, many Latino, Black, or from other communities of color, SHOULD have sick leave, healthcare, unemployment benefits, AND flexibility in their scheduling. So don't let Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash confuse the issue. They claim this is about "flexibility" for "part-time" drivers. However, current law in no way limits driver flexibility. In fact, a University of California study found that a majority of drivers are not part-time, and over 70 percent of drivers for Uber and Lyft work 30 or more hours per week. Don't take our word. Read for yourself at transform.ucsc.edu/on-demand-and-on-the-edge. Prop. 22 was written by Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash for Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash, NOT their drivers. That's why tens of thousands of drivers have joined us to urge a NO vote. Don't let Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash write their own special law. Vote No on Proposition 22. NOonCAProp22.com ALVARO BOLAINEZ, Uber Driver NOURBESE FLINT, Executive Director Black Women for Wellness Action Project ART PULASKI, Executive Secretary-Treasurer California Labor Federation

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

Protect App-Based Drivers And Services was organized as a political action committee (PAC) to support the ballot initiative. Protect App-Based Drivers And Services, along with allied committees, had raised $205.37 million.

No on Prop 22 and No on 22 were organized as a political action committees (PACs) to oppose the ballot initiative. The PACs had raised $18.88 million.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$192,751,158.52	$12,618,090.66	$205,369,249.18	$191,604,688.54	$204,222,779.20
Oppose	$17,011,408.63	$1,872,359.76	$18,883,768.39	$16,969,817.83	$18,842,177.59
Total	$209,762,567.15	$14,490,450.42	$224,253,017.57	$208,574,506.37	$223,064,956.79

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the initiative.

Committees in support of Proposition 22
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Yes on 22 - Save App-based Jobs & Services	$192,750,002.00	$12,615,281.05	$205,365,283.05	$191,604,130.42	$204,219,411.47
Californians for Innovation and Opportunity	$0.00	$2,809.61	$2,809.61	$0.00	$2,809.61
Let Us Work, Assemblyman Kevin Kiley's Ballot Measure Committee to Repeal AB 5 and Restore the Right to Earn a Living	$1,025.00	$0.00	$1,025.00	$315.63	$315.63
Californians to Protect Worker Independence and Consumer Choice	$131.52	$0.00	$131.52	$242.49	$242.49
Total	$192,751,158.52	$12,618,090.66	$205,369,249.18	$191,604,688.54	$204,222,779.20

Donors

The following were the top five donors who contributed to the support committees.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Uber Technologies, Inc.	$51,250,000.00	$8,282,466.24	$59,532,466.24
DoorDash, Inc.	$51,250,000.00	$820,515.82	$52,070,515.82
Lyft, Inc.	$47,500,000.00	$1,462,682.46	$48,962,682.46
Maplebear Inc., DBA InstaCart	$31,250,000.00	$345,580.28	$31,595,580.28
Postmates Inc.	$11,500,000.00	$1,831,768.85	$13,331,768.85

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the initiative.

Committees in opposition to Proposition 22
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
No on Prop 22	$17,011,319.74	$1,871,409.76	$18,882,729.50	$16,969,817.83	$18,841,227.59
No on 22, a Coalition of Economic and Social Justice Nonprofits Dedicated to Workers' Rights	$88.89	$950.00	$1,038.89	$0.00	$950.00
Total	$17,011,408.63	$1,872,359.76	$18,883,768.39	$16,969,817.83	$18,842,177.59

Donors

The following were the top five donors who contributed to the opposition committees.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Service Employees International Union Local 721 CTW, CLC Issues & Initiatives	$400,000.00	$1,127,367.55	$1,527,367.55
Service Employees International Union Local 1021	$1,074,467.00	$0.00	$1,074,467.00
International Brotherhood of Teamsters	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00
SEIU-UHW West	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00
United Food & Commercial Workers Local 770	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00
United Food and Commercial Workers International Union CLC	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00

Media editorials

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the ballot initiative. If you are aware of a media editorial board position that is not listed below, please email the editorial link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support

• The Orange County Register Editorial Board: "AB5’s backers, primarily labor unions and their advocates in the Capitol, are upset that big technology companies can essentially bypass the state’s inflexible labor rules — the product of a bygone era, when the factory floor and office cubicles were the dominant workplaces. Supporters are trying to use government to hold back inexorable economic changes. … Because of the law’s deleterious effect on many industries, including our own, this editorial board has called for the total repeal of AB5. We don’t like legislating by exemption. Nevertheless, the more exemptions to this legislative monstrosity, the better. Real jobs and services are at risk."
• The Bakersfield Californian Editorial Board: "Proposition 22 on the Nov. 3 ballot is intended to protect thousands of California’s on-demand drivers, their customers, much-needed jobs and the state’s economy. It is the latest battle in a war between independent contractors and labor union advocates over California’s “gig economy. We urge Californians to vote Yes on Proposition 22, which carves out yet another exemption in a poorly crafted state law that went into effect in January. The law reclassified many freelance workers – from translators to golf caddies to journalists – as “employees” and threatens to erase their job opportunities."
• San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: "Proposition 22 is a battle between two determined and equally unappealing combatants. Proponents consist of the gig economy companies — Uber, Lyft, DoorDash among them — that are pouring $180 million into a campaign to dictate how they would be regulated on workplace issues. Opponents are the labor unions and the politicians they control, who refused to come up with a reasonable compromise in Sacramento. It’s hubris versus hubris, with voters left to make a binary choice in what should be a nuanced policy that would allow the ride-hail and delivery companies to keep rolling in a way that would increase driver pay and protections while acknowledging that their business does not fit within the realm of traditional employment. As imperfect as it may be in many regards, Prop. 22 at least makes an attempt at striking that balance — and will keep the app-based, ride-hail and delivery services operating in California."
• The Press Democrat Editorial Board: "Approving Proposition 22 would send a clear signal to Sacramento that Californians want ride shares and other app-based services to stay, and they want people to have the option of setting their own hours around other jobs, school or family obligations. Call it moonlighting or a side hustle or entrepreneurship, millions of Californians have found a new source of income in the gig economy. Don’t take it away from them. The Press Democrat recommends a yes vote on Proposition 22."
• Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Board: "To be sure, some of the gig companies, especially Uber, have been disrupters who have tried to run roughshod over the rules. Unfortunately, the unions are fixated on that in their campaign against Prop. 22 — and they take it to silly extremes by attacking the companies for wanting to turn profits. For the record, Uber has never made a profit. But seeking to do so is hardly a sin provided they fairly compensate their drivers. And that’s exactly what they would legally be bound to do if Prop. 22 passes. Vote yes."
• The Desert Sun Editorial Board: "Voters should not be forced to play regulator in what really is a high-stakes tilt between tech firms and labor interests. We believe approval of Proposition 22 will send the strong signal that lawmakers erroneously and harmfully overreached with AB 5, hopefully sending them back to the drawing board. Vote yes on Proposition 22."
• San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board: "A majority of the Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom still fail to grasp the fact that these jobs are of a different nature than the binary standard set in state law of regular employees and independent contractors. [...] Voters should let these workers be free to decide whether or not their jobs are good enough — not have the decision imposed on them. [...] State and federal lawmakers should respond to the gig revolution not by smothering it but by doing a better job of ensuring all workers have a decent safety net. The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board recommends a yes vote on Proposition 22."

Opposition

• Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "One of the key innovations of app-based companies is their ability to match whatever workers are available to the customers seeking services, enabling individual workers to come and go on their own schedule. The challenge for the state is to preserve that innovation while guarding against the exploitation of those who rely on app platforms for their livelihoods. And it’s a balance that must be struck broadly, not just for companies that lawmakers or voters favor. Proposition 22 doesn’t meet that challenge."
• San Mateo Daily Journal Editorial Board: "[AB 5] caught up a large segment of freelance workers while focusing on the large companies. This proposition could have addressed all the legislative shortfalls, but instead focused solely on one segment. While the legislation is flawed, some remedies have been made in the most recent legislative session, and this proposition is too narrowly focused."
• New York Times Editorial Board: "What happens in the battle over Prop 22 will cast a long shadow. Yes, there will be financial consequences for businesses driven by gig workers, but California is not the only state considering legislation to secure benefits for app-dependent drivers and delivery people. The year’s election and the ensuing legislative sessions could mean meaningful standards put in place for gig workers around both minimum wages and benefits. They could also result in protection from the market power amassed by a few industry players. ... It seems that these companies would sooner destroy their own businesses than grant workers the dignity of comprehensive benefits, guaranteed wages or unemployment insurance. Rejecting Prop 22 is a chance finally to ensure gig workers the protections all workers deserve."
• The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: "AB 5 was certainly not perfect. It was an obvious play to the state’s powerful unions by a Democratic-majority Legislature. Lawmakers have already had to clean up aspects of the law that harm legitimate freelance workers. More fixes may be necessary. But Prop. 22 simply represents special-interest politics at their worst. The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board recommends a no vote."

Polls

See also: 2020 ballot measure polls

California Proposition 22, App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative (2020)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Berkeley IGS Poll (likely voters) 10/16/2020 - 10/21/2020	46.0%	42.0%	12.0%	+/-2.0	5,352
SurveyUSA (likely voters) 9/26/2020 - 9/28/2020	45.0%	31.0%	25.0%	+/-5.4	588
Berkeley IGS Poll (likely voters) 9/9/2020 - 9/15/2020	39.0%	36.0%	25.0%	+/-2.0	5,942
AVERAGES	43.33%	36.33%	20.67%	+/-3.13	3,960.67
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Comparison of most expensive ballot measures

See also: What were the most expensive ballot measures in California?

Based on available reports on Cal-Access, which provides information on campaign finance from 1999 to present, the most expensive ballot measures in California were Proposition 26 and Proposition 27—measures related to in-person and mobile sports betting on the ballot in 2022. The campaigns surrounding the measures reported $463.3 million.

Before Propositions 26 and 27, campaigns surrounding Proposition 22, a 2020 measure related to app-based drivers and labor regulations, raised a combined total of $224.2 million.

The following table illustrates the top nine most expensive ballot measures in California since 1999.

Top nine most expensive California ballot measures since 1999
Measure	Year	Total	Support	Opposition	Outcome
Propositions 26 and 27	2022	$463,378,417	$301,387,802	$161,990,615	d
Proposition 22	2020	$224,253,017	$205,369,249	$18,883,768	a
Proposition 33	2024	$175,776,441	$50,713,045	$125,063,395	d
Propositions 94, 95, 96, and 97	2008	$154,554,073	$115,063,876	$39,490,197	a
Proposition 87	2006	$150,770,683	$58,130,783	$92,639,900	d
Proposition 15	2020	$144,006,081	$69,208,909	$74,735,622	d
Proposition 8	2018	$130,426,208	$18,943,228	$111,482,980	d
Proposition 61	2016	$128,276,770	$19,170,610	$109,106,160	d
Proposition 21	2020	$124,424,014	$40,852,357	$83,571,657	d
Proposition 79	2005	$121,826,243	$40,516,352	$81,309,891	d

Assembly Bill 5 (2019)

See also: California Assembly Bill 5 (2019)

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5) on September 18, 2019. AB 5 passed the California State Senate in a vote of 29 to 11 on September 10. Senate Democrats supported the legislation, and Senate Republicans opposed the legislation. AB 5 passed the California State Assembly in a vote of 61 to 16 on September 11. Sixty Assembly Democrats, along with one Republican, voted for AB 5. Fifteen Assembly Republicans, along with one Democrat, voted against AB 5.

Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5), like Dynamex, created the presumption that a worker is an employee, rather than an independent contractor, unless the hiring business can prove each part (A, B, and C) of the ABC test. AB 5 used the same language as Dynamex to define the ABC test. In AB 5, the exact language of the ABC test is as follows:

“

(A) The person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact. (B) The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business. (C) The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.

”

In Dynamex, the ABC test was used to decide whether a worker was entitled to benefits and regulations found in the California Wage Orders. AB 5 also established that the ABC test applied to additional laws, along with the California Wage Orders, found in the California Labor Code and California Unemployment Insurance Code.

Olson v. California

See also: Olson v. California

Lydia Olson et al. v. State of California is a case before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California that addresses whether Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5) violates the rights of Postmates, Inc., and Uber Technologies, Inc., along with two individuals (Lydia Olson and Miguel Perez) who were named as app-based workers, under the U.S. Constitution and California Constitution. Plaintiffs described AB 5 as "an irrational and unconstitutional statute designed to target and stifle workers and companies in the on-demand economy."

The State of California and Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D), who is responsible for enforcing AB 5, were named as the defendants in the case. Attorney General Xavier Becerra stated, "At heart, Plaintiffs question the wisdom and effectiveness of AB 5, but that is a legislative policy determination, not viable grounds for a constitutional challenge."

The legal complaint was filed on December 30, 2019. Plaintiffs asked for an injunction on AB 5, pending the court's final judgment. On February 10, 2020, Judge Dolly Gee rejected the request for an injunction on AB 5 while the case is ongoing.

California v. Uber and Lyft

See also: California v. Uber and Lyft

People of the State of California v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and Lyft, Inc. is a case before the California First District Court of Appeal that addresses whether Uber Technologies, Inc. and Lyft, Inc. misclassified their workers as independent contractors instead of employees. The case began in the Superior Court of San Francisco.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer, San Diego City Attorney Mara Elliott, and San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera initiated the case against Uber and Lyft on May 5, 2020. Plaintiffs wrote, "The time has come for Uber’s and Lyft’s massive, unlawful employee misclassification schemes to end. The People bring this action to ensure that Uber and Lyft ridehailing drivers—the lifeblood of these companies—receive the full compensation, protections, and benefits they are guaranteed under law, to restore a level playing field for competing businesses, and to preserve jobs and hard-won worker protections for all Californians."

On August 10, 2020, Judge Ethan Schulman granted an injunction in favor of California, stating that, "It also flies in the face of economic reality and common sense. ... To state the obvious, drivers are central, not tangential, to Uber and Lyft’s entire ride-hailing business."

On August 20, the California First District Court of Appeal stayed Judge Schulman's injunction from taking effect. Instead, the Court of Appeal gave Uber and Lyft until August 25 to file written consents to expedited procedures. Uber and Lyft had until September 4, 2020, to file opening briefs, as well as sworn statements from their CEOs confirming that the companies have developed implementation plans should the Court of Appeal uphold the injunction and should voters reject Proposition 22. The Court of Appeal scheduled oral arguments for October 13, 2020.

On October 22, 2020, First District Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's order, stating that Uber and Lyft had 30 days to reclassify drivers as employees. A spokesperson for Uber responded, "Today’s ruling means that if the voters don’t say Yes on Proposition 22, rideshare drivers will be prevented from continuing to work as independent contractors, putting hundreds of thousands of Californians out of work and likely shutting down ridesharing throughout much of the state."

Statements on Uber and Lyft suspending rideshare services

Both Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi and Lyft President John Zimmer said that their companies could suspend rideshare operations in California. Lawyers for Uber wrote that a shutdown could last for several months to more than a year. Judge Schulman gave Uber and Lyft until August 20, 2020, to be in compliance with the injunction. On August 20, the California First District Court of Appeal stayed Judge Schulman's decision.

• Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said, "We think we comply by the laws, but if the judge and the court find that we’re not and don’t give us a stay to get to November, then we’ll have to essentially shut down Uber until November when the voters decide. It would be really unfortunate, at a historical time of unemployment in California." Khosrowshahi told Vox, "Hopefully, in November, Proposition 22, we will get voters to vote along." Uber, in the filing of an appeal, stated that "the consequences to drivers and the public from the impending shutdown will be catastrophic."

• Lyft President John Zimmer said that Lyft "cannot comply with the injunction at a flip of the switch" and would be "forced to suspend rideshare operations in California." Zimmer also said, "Fortunately, California voters can make their voices heard by voting yes on Prop. 22 in November."

• Asm. Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher (D-80), the lead legislative sponsor of AB 5, responded on Twitter, "What if [Amazon] threatened to stop doing business in California if we didn’t allow them to pay their warehouse workers less than minimum wage [and] exempt them from paying unemployment, etc. What if it was your employer? That’s the precedent [Uber] is trying to create."

Austin, Texas, Proposition 1 (2016)

See also: Austin, Texas, Proposition 1, Transportation Network (Rideshare) Requirements Initiative (May 2016)

On December 18, 2015, the Austin City Council passed an ordinance to regulate transportation network companies (TNCs), also known as rideshare companies. The ordinance was designed to require rideshare drivers to receive fingerprint-based background checks. The campaign Ridesharing Works for Austin was launched to repeal and replace the ordinance with Proposition 1. Uber and Lyft funded Ridesharing Works for Austin, which received $10.32 million from the rideshare companies. Uber provided $7.64 million, and Lyft provided $2.67 million. Ben Wear, a reporter for the Austin American-Statesman, wrote that Proposition 1 had "the most expensive campaign in city history."

Proposition 1 would have repealed the ordinance and instead required rideshare companies to conduct background checks on drivers through third parties. Under Proposition 1, the background checks did not need to be fingerprint-based. Proposition 1 would have repealed other requirements, including a requirement that the company's emblem be displayed on driver's vehicles and a ban on stopping, parking, and loading or unloading passengers in a travel lane or at a designated bus stop.

After Proposition 1 was defeated on May 7, 2016, Uber and Lyft suspended rideshare operations in Austin, Texas. Both Uber and Lyft stated that their companies had about 10,000 drivers in Austin, Texas, prior to the suspension.

Uber and Lyft resumed rideshare operations in Austin on May 29, 2017, after Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed a law that preempted Austin's ordinance. Gov. Abbott said, "This is freedom for every Texan — especially those who live in the Austin area — to be able to choose the provider of their choice as it concerns transportation."

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in California

Process in California

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. Petitions are allowed to circulate for 180 days from the date the attorney general prepares the petition language. Signatures need to be certified at least 131 days before the general election. As the verification process can take multiple months, the secretary of state provides suggested deadlines for ballot initiatives.

The requirements to get initiated state statutes certified for the 2020 ballot:

• Signatures: 623,212 valid signatures were required.
• Deadline: The deadline for signature verification was June 25, 2020. However, the process of verifying signatures can take multiple months. The recommended deadlines were March 3, 2020, for an initiative requiring a full check of signatures and April 21, 2020, for an initiative requiring a random sample of signatures.

Signatures are first filed with local election officials, who determine the total number of signatures submitted. If the total number is equal to at least 100 percent of the required signatures, then local election officials perform a random check of signatures submitted in their counties. If the random sample estimates that more than 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, the initiative is eligible for the ballot. If the random sample estimates that between 95 and 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, a full check of signatures is done to determine the total number of valid signatures. If less than 95 percent are estimated to be valid, the initiative does not make the ballot.

Stages of this initiative

On October 29, 2019, three persons—Davis White of Uber, Brian McGuigan of Lyft, and Keith Yandell of DoorDash—filed the ballot initiative. Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) released petition language for the initiative on January 2, 2020, which allowed proponents to begin collecting signatures. The deadline to file signatures was June 30, 2020.

On January 30, 2020, proponents announced that the number of collected signatures surpassed the 25-percent threshold (155,803 signatures) to require legislative hearings on the ballot initiative. In 2014, Senate Bill 1253 was enacted into law, which required the legislature to assign ballot initiatives that meet the 25-percent threshold to committees to hold joint public hearings on the initiatives not later than 131 days before the election.

On February 27, 2020, the campaign Protect App-Based Drivers and Services announced that 1 million signatures had been collected during a seven-week period. On March 27, the campaign began filing a total of 987,813 signatures for the ballot initiative. At least 623,212 (63.09 percent) of the signatures needed to be valid.

On May 22, 2020, the office of Secretary of State Alex Padilla announced that a random sample of signatures projected that 77.50 percent were valid. Therefore, the ballot initiative qualified to appear on the ballot at the general election.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired National Petition Management, Inc. to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $6,461,617.23 was spent to collect the 623,212 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $10.37.

White v. Padilla

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Is the ballot title for Proposition 22 false, misleading, and prejudice?
Court: California Third District Court of Appeal (Appealed from the Sacramento County Superior Court)
Ruling: Sacramento County Superior Court ruled in favor of Padilla and Becerra, stating that the ballot title is not false, misleading, or inaccurate.
Plaintiff(s): Davis White	Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Attorney General Xavier Becerra

  Source: California Third District Court of Appeal

On July 29, 2020, Davis White, Uber's Director of California Public Affairs, sued Secretary of State Alex Padilla in the Sacramento County Superior Court. White argued that the ballot language for Proposition 22, as drafted by Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D), was false, misleading, and prejudice. White stated, "Only after very publicly taking sides against Proposition 22 has the Attorney General sought to perpetrate a falsehood that Proposition 22 is an entirely different measure which instead 'exempts appbased transportation and delivery companies from providing employee benefits.' This new posture overflows with well-documented bias and prejudice, misrepresents the actual text of the initiative, and is politically designed to defeat Proposition 22." White asked the court to replace the ballot title with the title that was used on petitions or amend the ballot title.

Judge Laurie Earl ruled in favor of Padilla and Becerra, writing, "Read as a whole, this is not false, misleading, or inaccurate, and the use of the word ‘exempt’ in the ballot title does not make it so."

On August 6, 2020, the campaign announced that White appealed the superior court's ruling to the California Third District Court of Appeal.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in California

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in California.

How to cast a vote in California

The information below covers regular voting policies in the state. Information may have not applied to the election on November 3, 2020, because of temporary changes in response to coronavirus. Click here to read about changes made for the 2020 elections. Poll times All polls in California are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Pacific Time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote. Registration Check your voter registration status here. To vote in California, an individual must be a U.S. citizen and California resident. A voter must be at least 18 years of age on Election Day. Pre-registration is available at 16 years of age. Pre-registered voters are automatically registered to vote when they turn 18. Automatic registration California automatically registers eligible individuals to vote when they complete a driver's license, identification (ID) card, or change of address transaction through the Department of Motor Vehicles. Learn more by visiting this website. Online registration See also: Online voter registration California has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website. Same-day registration California allows same-day voter registration. Californians must be registered to vote at least 15 days before Election Day. If the registration deadline has passed for an upcoming election, voters may visit a location designated by their county elections official during the 14 days prior to, and including Election Day to conditionally register to vote and vote a provisional ballot, which are counted once county election officials have completed the voter registration verification process. The state refers to this process as Same Day Voter Registration. Residency requirements To register to vote in California, you must be a resident of the state. State law does not specify a length of time for which you must have been a resident to be eligible. Verification of citizenship See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States California's constitution requires that voters be U.S. citizens. When registering to vote, proof of citizenship is not required. Individuals who become U.S. citizens less than 15 days before an election must bring proof of citizenship to their county elections office to register to vote in that election. An individual applying to register to vote must attest that they are a U.S. citizen under penalty of perjury. As of November 2024, two jurisdictions in California had authorized noncitizen residents to vote for local board of education positions through local ballot measures. Only one of those jurisdictions, San Francisco, had implemented that law. Noncitizens voting for board of education positions must register to vote using a separate application from the state voter registration application. All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters. Verifying your registration The secretary of state's My Voter Status website allows residents to check their voter registration status online. Voter ID requirements California does not require voters to present identification before casting a ballot in most cases. However, some voters may be asked to show a form of identification when voting if they are voting for the first time after registering to vote by mail and did not provide a driver license number, California identification number, or the last four digits of their social security number. On September 29, 2024, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed SB 1174 into law prohibiting any jurisdiction in the state from adopting a local law that requires voters to present ID before voting. The following list of accepted ID was current as of October 2024. Click here for the California Secretary of State page to ensure you have the most current information. “ Current and valid photo identification provided by a third party in the ordinary course of business that includes the name and photograph of the individual presenting it. Examples of photo identification include, but are not limited to, the following documents: driver's license or identification card of any state; passport; employee identification card; identification card provided by a commercial establishment; credit or debit card; military identification card; student identification card; health club identification card; insurance plan identification card; or public housing identification card. Any of the following documents, provided that the document includes the name and address of the individual presenting it, and is dated since the date of the last general election…: utility bill; bank statement; government check; government paycheck; document issued by a governmental agency; sample ballot or other official elections document issued by a governmental, agency dated for the election in which the individual is providing it as proof, of residency or identity; voter notification card issued by a governmental agency; public housing identification card issued by a governmental agency; lease or rental statement or agreement issued by a governmental agency; student identification card issued by a governmental agency; tuition statement or bill issued by a governmental agency; insurance plan card or drug discount card issued by a governmental agency; discharge certificates, pardons, or other official documents issued to the individual by a governmental agency in connection with the resolution of a criminal case, indictment, sentence, or other matter; public transportation authority senior citizen and disabled discount cards issued by a governmental agency; identification documents issued by governmental disability agencies; identification documents issued by government homeless shelters and other government temporary or transitional facilities; drug prescription issued by a government doctor or other governmental health care provider; (R) property tax statement issued by a governmental agency; vehicle registration issued by a governmental agency; or vehicle certificate of ownership issued by a governmental agency. ”

See also

2020 measures

• 2020 ballot measures
• Business regulation on the ballot
• Labor and unions on the ballot

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

Information

• Petition #19-0026
• Official Voter Information Guide

Support

• Yes on 22 - Save App-based Jobs & Services
• Yes on 22 - Save App-based Jobs & Services Facebook
• Yes on 22 - Save App-based Jobs & Services Twitter

Opposition

• No on Prop 22
• No on Prop 22 Facebook
• No on Prop 22 Twitter