Letters to the Editor: With Prop. 22, Californians let Uber and Lyft buy a law
To the editor: I woke up on Nov. 4 with a hangover of election uncertainty and disappointment. One thing is clear: On Nov. 3, Californians let Uber and Lyft buy a law.
I believe in the ballot initiative system in theory and was proud to volunteer for the campaigns to pass two animal protection laws, Proposition 2 in 2009 and Proposition 12 in 2018. Twenty-three million dollars total were spent on both of those initiatives along with the work of thousands of volunteers.
In contrast, Uber, Lyft and other supporters of Proposition spent $204 million on one law.
No matter your opinions on Proposition 22, we should all write and call our legislators to stop companies from paying to exempt themselves from our laws. Also, everyone can agree that companies ought to have less money to flood our mailboxes, social media feeds and airwaves with constant ads.
Katie Arth, Los Angeles
To the editor: It astounds me that anyone would choose to vote in favor of Proposition 22, no matter the policy it sought to implement.
Buried in the initiative is this language: “After the effective date of this chapter, the Legislature may amend this chapter by a statute passed in each house of the Legislature by rollcall vote entered into the journal, seven-eighths of the membership concurring, provided that the statute is consistent with, and furthers the purpose of, this chapter.”
This proposition is effectively for eternity. No law, regardless of how carefully crafted it was, will never need adjustment. That should have been the topic of articles on Proposition 22.
Robert Diller, Pasadena
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.