John,

Free Speech For People has filed an amicus brief in El Koussa v. Campbell in support of voters who have asked the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to block placement of five petitions on the November 2024 ballot that would exclude app-based drivers in Massachusetts from state benefits and protections. The confusing petitions were introduced by representatives of delivery and transportation companies, like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and Instacart, which for the second time in three years are attempting to strip their workers of valuable protections by misleading voters. These companies are willing to spend big to push these petitions onto the ballot and into law.

But, as Free Speech For People’s amicus brief explains, the petitions are unconstitutional. The Massachusetts Constitution requires that all petitions put before voters are coherent and contain only related provisions so voters can make a meaningful choice on election day. The delivery and transportation companies’ multiple, partially overlapping petitions do not satisfy this important limitation, known as the relatedness rule. Instead, the dense, complex petitions contain serious consequences that are not apparent to voters.

The petitions bury unrelated policy decisions in obscure language. Voters may believe that they are securing benefits for drivers by voting yes. In reality, the petitions strip app-based drivers of legal protections. The benefits offered in exchange are significantly more limited than those they will lose and would be offered to only a small fraction of drivers.

The relatedness rule was specifically designed to block powerful, deep-pocket entities from manipulating the ballot process to benefit their “selfish interests.” All four companies– Uber, Lyft, Instacart, and Doordash– are significantly owned by powerful foreign entities, and each has spent unprecedented amounts of money to influence the petition process– approximately $45 million total in the past three years. They have the means to push misleading petitions onto the ballot–but the Massachusetts Constitution intentionally prevents them from doing so.

The purpose of a ballot petition is to restore lawmaking power to the people. The drafters of the Massachusetts Constitution understood the dangers that deep-pocket corporations posed to the process, and built-in safeguards to protect voters from these kinds of misleading, money-backed petitions. Transportation and delivery companies should not be allowed to run roughshod over their workers, the Massachusetts Constitution, or voters in this state. Neither history nor law supports this.

You can read the full brief here.

Onward,

Amira Mattar, Counsel at Free Speech For People

DONATE

Paid for by Free Speech For People
[email protected]

Having trouble viewing this email? View it in your web browser

Unsubscribe or Manage Your Preferences