People vote for unconstitutional stuff all the time.

If the constitution says don't do something, and people vote for legislation to do it, then the constitution has to be the controlling document or else it doesn't mean anything.

There have to be some limits to that. If there's a democratic vote of the people called, and 50+1% of the people who bother to vote decide to reintroduce slavery (beyond the current loophole in the 13th Amendment regarding criminal sentences that allows e.g. mandatory prison labor), I'm glad that any judge in the country would strike that down.

In California we the people can amend the constitution. But Prop 22 didn’t do it correctly. The gig company’s are free to put a constitutional amendment in front of the people for a vote if they want.

Also in CA judges are elected by the people.

> The fact that judges can override a democratic vote of the people is disgusting.

The rule that allows judges to determine if a measure presented to the people met the rules for such votes, and the rule for the votes that judges apply, were, themselves, adopted by a democratic vote of the people.

I find this to be a weak reading of the judicial system.

Laws are not last in, first out; previous laws need to be taken into context when new laws are created, no matter how they are created. The fact that this law was created by popular vote has no bearing on its validity or standing in court.

So you think any majority opinion should be able to become law?

A judge can overrule the "will of the people". The people can overrule a judge by by selecting a new judge or by an amendment to the constitution. Those take more work in order for them to not be subject to the vagaries of the current political winds.

The people ostensibly have a say in what judges serve in their courts, though. The only reason that Uber and Lyft were able to ram Prop 22 through is that they have a lot of money.

Prop 8 says otherwise.

One of the basic points of courts is to override majority rules.

checks and balances my anonymous friend.

Maybe. But Uber and Lyft were effectively also blackmailing a huge chunk of the population at the time.

Uber and Lyft were threatening to simply shut down if this proposition lost. A LOT of people at the time only had Uber/Lyft as their income. That was going to be catastrophic.

Trump was still President so people had little prospect of unemployment benefits. We had no vaccines and no known timeline. Lockdowns were still in effect at various levels of strength.

If you had this vote again, now, I'm not sure it would pass.

(I could also go into how Uber and Lyft were spamming the hell out of my email and phone. That should have gotten a whopping fine from the FEC.)