Welcome to the Wednesday, September 16, Brew. Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:

1. Proposition 22 becomes most expensive California ballot measure
2. The arguments in favor of and against mask requirements
3. Federal district court strikes down Pennsylvania governor’s executive orders in response to coronavirus

Note: We hope you can join us for today’s briefing on the competitiveness of state legislative elections. We'll discuss how we calculate our Competitiveness Index, highlight national trends, and discuss how competitiveness has changed over the past decade. The briefing starts at 11:00 am Central Time—click here to register!

Proposition 22 becomes most expensive California ballot measure

California Proposition 22—the App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative—has become the most expensive ballot measure contest to ever appear before voters in California. Based on campaign finance reports available on September 4, the total money raised by supporters and opponents is $186.2 million.

Proposition 22 would classify app-based transportation (rideshare) and delivery drivers as independent contractors and adopt labor and wage policies specific to app-based drivers and companies. The ballot measure was designed to override Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5), signed in September 2019. That bill created regulations regarding whether app-based drivers are classified as employees or independent contractors.

AB 5 established a three-factor test to determine whether a worker is an independent contractor. Those factors are:

• the worker is free from the hiring company's control and direction in the performance of work; 
• the worker is doing work that is outside the company's usual course of business; and 
• the worker is engaged in an established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.

Protect App-Based Drivers & Services, a coalition of drivers and businesses that supports Proposition 22, said "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."

Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D), legislative author of AB 5, opposes Proposition 22. She said AB5 is designed to require that app-based drivers have the same benefits as other California workers, including "earning the minimum wage for all hours worked, social security, normal reimbursements for their costs, overtime pay, and the right to organize.”

The Yes on Proposition 22 campaign has received $181.4 million through September 4 from five rideshare and app-based companies—Lyft, Uber, DoorDash, InstaCart, and Postmates. The campaign No on Prop 22 received $4.8 million through September 4. Two labor unions—the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and SEIU-UHW West—provided about 52% of the campaign's total funds.

Before Proposition 22, the campaigns for four veto referendums in 2008 against gaming compacts in California—Propositions 94, 95, 96, and 97—raised a combined total of $154,554,073 in contributions. The single most expensive ballot measure before this year was California Proposition 87, which had $150,770,683 in total contributions for and against the measure. Proposition 87 would have imposed a severance tax on oil production to fund alternative energy research and projects. It was defeated 55% to 45% in 2006.

Nationwide, the five most expensive ballot measures of 2020 are:

• California Proposition 22 ($186.2 million), 
• The Illinois Allow for Graduated Income Tax Amendment ($79.7 million), 
• California Proposition 21—Local Rent Control Initiative ($32.9 million), 
• Massachusetts Question 1—"Right to Repair Law" Vehicle Data Access Requirement Initiative ($31.3 million), and 
• California Proposition 15—Tax on Commercial and Industrial Properties for Education and Local Government Funding Initiative (2020) ($26.3 million).

Learn more

       

---

The arguments in favor of and against mask requirements

Discussions about policy responses to the coronavirus are happening at a fast pace. As part of our ongoing coverage Documenting America’s Path to Recovery, Ballotpedia has published a series of articles capturing the regular themes in support of and opposition to these policy responses.

Here’s how it works. First, we identify a topic area, (such as mask requirements or testing. Next, we gather and curate articles and commentary from public officials, think tanks, journalists, scientists, economists, and others. Finally, we organize that commentary into broad, thematic summaries of the arguments put forth.

Each week in the Brew we’ll select one of these topics and highlight our articles regarding those arguments. This week, we’re looking at mask requirements.

The arguments identified in favor of mask mandates are that masks: 

• reduce the airborne spread of coronavirus,
• are good for the economy, 
• are justified to promote public health, 
• should apply statewide, and 
• reduce the intensity of COVID-19 infection and sickness.

You can explore these arguments in more detail by clicking here.

The arguments identified in opposition to mask mandates are that mask requirements: 

• are not necessary to stop the spread of coronavirus, 
• give a false sense of security, 
• restrict freedom, 
• have harmful social consequences, 
• are unenforceable, and 
• present other health risks.

You can explore these arguments in more detail by clicking here.

And we invite and encourage you to share the debates happening in your local community by sending an email to [email protected].

Federal district court strikes down Pennsylvania governor’s executive orders in response to coronavirus

A federal district court judge ruled on September 14 that some of Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf’s (D) executive orders in response to the coronavirus pandemic are unconstitutional. Judge William Stickman IV, of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, struck down those orders in response to County of Butler v. Wolf. President Donald Trump (R) appointed Stickman to the court in 2019.

Several Pennsylvania counties, businesses, and elected officials challenged Wolf's restrictions on indoor and outdoor gatherings, the continued closure of non-life-sustaining businesses, and prolonged stay-at-home orders.

In his ruling, Stickman wrote "(1) that the congregate gathering limits … violate the right of assembly enshrined in the First Amendment; (2) that the stay-at-home and business closure components of defendants' orders violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) that the business closure components of defendants' orders violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Lyndsay Kensinger, Wolf’s press secretary, indicated that the governor would seek to stay the decision while seeking an appeal, adding that the "ruling does not impact any of the other mitigation orders currently in place including … mandatory telework, mandatory mask order, worker safety order, and the building safety order."

Ballotpedia has identified more than 900 lawsuits regarding state actions and policies in response to the coronavirus pandemic. A full list of the items we’re tracking can be found here.

Ballotpedia depends on the support of our readers.

The Lucy Burns Institute, publisher of Ballotpedia, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. All donations are tax deductible to the extent of the law. Donations to the Lucy Burns Institute or Ballotpedia do not support any candidates or campaigns.