# 2020 California Proposition 22

Elections in California :
Federal governmentU.S. President
1852
1856
1860
1864
1868
1872
1876
1880
1884
1888
1892
1896
1900
1904
1908
1912
1916
1920
1924
1928
1932
1936
1940
1944
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
Dem
Rep
2000
Dem
Rep
2004
Dem
Rep
2008
Dem
Rep
2012
Dem
Rep
2016
Dem
Rep
2020
Dem
Rep
2024
Dem
Rep
U.S. Senate
1849
1850
1852 sp
1856
1857 sp
1860
1860 sp
1868
1872
1873
1873 sp
1878
1880
1885
1886 sp
1887
1891
1891 sp
1893
1895 sp
1897
1900 sp
1903
1905
1909
1911
1914
1916
1920
1922
1926
1928
1932
1934
1938
1940
1944
1946
1946 sp
1950
1952
1954 sp
1956
1958
1962
1964
1968
1970
1974
1976
1980
1982
1986
1988
1992
1992 sp
1994
1998
2000
2004
2006
2010
2012
2016
2018
2022
2022 sp
2024
2024 sp
2028
2030
U.S. House of Representatives
1849
1851
1852
1854
1856
1859
1861
1863
1864
1867
1868
1871
1872
1875
1876
1879
1880
1882
1884
1886
1888
1890
1892
1894
1896
1898
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
12th
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1987
5th sp
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2001
32nd sp
2002
2004
2005
5th sp
48th sp
2006
50th sp
2007
36th sp
2008
12th sp
2009
10th sp
32nd sp
2010
2011
36th sp
2012
2014
2016
2017
34th sp
2018
2020
25th sp
2022
22nd sp
2024
16th
20th sp
30th
45th
47th
2026 :
State governmentExecutive Governor
1849
1851
1853
1855
1857
1859
1861
1863
1867
1871
1875
1879
1882
1886
1890
1894
1898
1902
1906
1910
1914
1918
1922
1926
1930
1934
1938
1942
1946
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2003 (recall)
2006
2010
2014
2018
2021 (recall)
2022
2026
Lieutenant governor
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2026
Attorney general
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2026
Secretary of state
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Treasurer
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2026
Controller
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Insurance commissioner
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Superintendent
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Board of equalization
2018
2022
Legislature Senate
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Special
Assembly
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2021 (79th sp)
2022 (17th sp)
2024
Special
Judiciary Court of appeals
1994
1998
2002
2006
Elections by year
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2005
2006
2008
Feb
Jun
Nov
2009
2010
Jun
Nov
2012
Jun
Nov
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024 :
State propositions1910–1919
1911
4
7
8
1960–1969
1964
14
1970–1979
1978
6
8
13
1980–1989
1982
8
1986
64
65
1988
98
99
1990–1999
1994
187
1996
196
209
215
218
1998
6
10
227
2000–2009
2000
21
22
36
39
2003
53
54
2004
1A
55
56
57
58
59
60
60A
61
62
63
64
65
66
69
71
2005
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
2006
81
82
83
85
87
89
90
2008
91
92
93
94, 95, 96, and 97
98 and 99
1A
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2009
1A
1B
1C
1D
1E
1F
2010–2019
2010
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2012
29
30
32
34
37
38
39
2014
1
2
41
42
45
46
47
48
2016
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
2018
68
69
70
71
72
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2020–2029
2020
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2022
1
26
27
28
29
30
31
2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
32
33
34
35
36
Full list :
Los Angeles CountyLos Angeles County Board of supervisors
1980
1996
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Ballot measures
1980
A
2008
R
2012
B
J
2016
M
Elections
2020
2022
2024
Los Angeles Mayor
1896
1898
1900
1902
1904
1906
1909 (sp)
1909
1911
1913
1915
1917
1919
1921
1923
1925
1929
1933
1937
1938
1941
1945
1949
1953
1957
1961
1965
1969
1973
1977
1981
1985
1989
1993
1997
2001
2005
2009
2013
2017
2022
2026
City attorney
2009
Ballot measures
1986
U
2017
S
Elections
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019 (sp)
2020
2022
2023 (sp)
2024
Long Beach Mayor
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022 :
Orange CountyOrange County Board of supervisors
2018
2020
2022
2024
District attorney
2018
Anaheim Mayor
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Irvine Mayor
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Costa Mesa Municipal
1947
1953
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024 :
SacramentoMayor
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024 :
San Diego CountySan Diego County Board of supervisors
2020
San Diego Mayor
1887
1889
1891
1893
1895
1897
1899
1901
1903
1905
1907
1909
1911
1913
1915
1917
1919
1921
1923
1925
1927
1929
1931
1932
1935
1939
1943
1947
1951
1955
1959
1963
1967
1971
1975
1979
1983 (sp)
1984
1986 (sp)
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2005 (sp)
2008
2012
2013–14 (sp)
2016
2020
2024
2028
City attorney
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
City council
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Special :
San FranciscoMayor
1901
1903
1905
1907
1909
1911
1931
1935
1939
1943
1947
1951
1955
1959
1963
1967
1971
1975
1979
1983 (recall)
1983
1987
1991
1995
1999
2003
2007
2011
2015
2018 (sp)
2019
2024
District attorney
2019
2022 (recall)
2022 (sp)
2024
Board of supervisors
1977
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Board of education
2018
2022 (recall)
Ballot measures
2024
G
Elections
2004
Mar
Nov
2005
2006
Jun
Nov
2007
2008
Feb
Jun
Nov
2009
2010
Jun
Nov
2011
2012
Jun
Nov
2013
2022
Feb :
San JoseMayor
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2024 :
Other localities
Bakersfield
Mayoral elections:
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
Fresno
Mayoral elections:
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
Oakland
Mayoral elections:
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2024
2025
Riverside
Mayoral elections:
1997
2001
2005
2009
2012
2016
2020
2024
San Bernardino
Mayoral elections:
2005
2009
2014
2018
2022
Stockton
Mayoral elections:
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024 :
vte :
Proposition 22 was a ballot initiative in California that became law after the November 2020 state election, passing with 59% of the vote and granting app-based transportation and delivery companies an exception to Assembly Bill 5 by classifying their drivers as "independent contractors", rather than "employees". The law exempts employers from providing the full suite of mandated employee benefits (which include time-and-a-half for overtime, paid sick time, employer-provided health care, bargaining rights, and unemployment insurance) while instead giving drivers new protections:
* 120 percent of the local minimum wage for each hour a driver spends driving (with passenger or en route), but not for time spent waiting
* $0.30/mile for expenses for each mile driven with passenger or en route
* health insurance stipend for drivers who average more than 15 hours per week driving
* requiring the companies to pay medical costs and some lost income for drivers hurt while driving or waiting
* prohibiting workplace discrimination and requiring that companies develop sexual harassment policies, conduct criminal background checks, and mandate safety training for drivers.
The initiative became state law after passage in November 2020, was challenged in California state courts in 2021, and was upheld on appeal in 2023 and by the California Supreme Court in 2024.

## Background

In 2019, Assembly Bill 5 was passed, and it was designed by lawmakers to require companies to classify ride-hail drivers and other gig-economy workers as "employees". It requires companies to classify all workers as employees unless companies can prove that the workers: are not directed or controlled by the company during their work time, and their work is not the company's "core" business, and the worker has their own business doing that type of work.$^{:1}$ Lyft and Uber refused to comply with this law, and stated a desire to keep drivers classified as independent contractors.
In August 2020, the California court ordered Uber and Lyft to comply with the law within a 10-day deadline.$^{:1}$ The companies said they would shut down their operation in California if drivers had to become employees. On August 20, the deadline day, the companies asked for an extension. The court granted an extension until November 4, 2020, on the condition that Uber and Lyft CEOs provide a sworn testimony by October 4 confirming their plan to comply with AB 5. The companies indicated they would no longer shut down. The ride-hail companies, joined by DoorDash and Instacart, supported Proposition 22 for the November 3, 2020, ballot election, which was held one day prior to the extended AB 5 deadline on November 4.
In an opinion piece in The New York Times, Uber's CEO Dara Khosrowshahi advocated for the legal creation of a third employment classification between the current mutually exclusive classes of "employee" and "independent contractor", claiming it was necessary to allow gig workers to have the flexibility and freedom to fit work into their schedules, while also allowing companies to provide some benefits for them without being forced into the full requirements associated with "employee" classification. According to Khosrowshahi, the employee classification does not allow schedules chosen by the employee, or under 40 hour schedules like the "independent contractor" classification does. He also called for benefits funds, which would pay workers extra cash for each hour worked, that they could use for the benefits they want, (like health insurance or paid time off), while allowing them to work for multiple different companies, all of which would give them cash for this benefit fund based on the hours worked for each company.

### Driver earnings

In July 2020, before Prop 22 passed, the California Legislative Analyst's Office stated in an analysis of the Proposition: "Most drivers work part time and many drivers only work for a short time or only drive occasionally." and "Most drivers probably make between $11 and $16 per hour, after accounting for waiting time and driving expenses."

## Projected Effects
### Number of drivers

Uber said that 90% of their 1.2 million drivers nationwide work less than 40 hours per week, with 80% working less than 20 hours per week, and that if they were required to classify drivers as employees, they would terminate 80% of their drivers because their nationwide business can only support 250,000 full-time jobs.$^{:1}$

### Fares

A study released by Uber found that if rideshare companies were required to comply with AB5, it would increase fares to rideshare consumers by 25-100%, depending on the market.$^{:1}$$^{:1}$

## Reception
### Support

Lyft, Uber, DoorDash, Instacart, and Postmates contributed over $205 million into campaigns supporting Prop 22, making it the most expensive ballot measure in California's history. This included major funding for the Yes on Prop 22 campaign, and promoting the proposed legislation directly to customers when using their app. Beyond in-app messaging, this investment manifested itself in billboards, digital, print, and radio ads, as well as dozens of lobbyists and voter mailers. Several critiques have been made claiming that these initiatives carried messages that were misleading to persuade voters, with many advertisements informing voters that a "no" outcome for the proposition would put drivers' occupations in jeopardy, among other messages.
Some of the companies also forced their workers to support and promote the legislation: Uber sent its drivers in-app messages forcing them to click on either "Yes on Prop 22" or "OK", Instacart ordered its workers to place pro-Prop 22 stickers in customers' shopping bags, and DoorDash forced delivery drivers to use bags saying "Yes on 22".

#### Title litigation

The ballot title, written by Attorney General Xavier Becerra, is "Exempts App-Based Transportation and Delivery Companies from Providing Employee Benefits to Certain Drivers. Initiative Statute". The Yes on Prop 22 campaign challenged this description as non-neutral in court, but their arguments were rejected by a Sacramento Superior Court judge.

### Opposition

The No on Prop 22 campaign was funded by the California Labor Federation, with support from UC Berkeley Labor Center. The campaign received around $19 million in support, mostly from labor groups. Driver groups Rideshare Drivers United, Gig Workers Rising, We Drive Progress, and Mobile Workers United, spoke out against Prop 22. Editorial boards from The New York Times and Los Angeles Times also called on voters to reject Prop 22.
The proposition would add protections specific to app-based workers, different from other independent contractors, but these protections would only apply during the time the worker is "engaged" in fulfilling a specific request and not while the worker is logged in to the app and available to fulfill a request.

## Polls

| Poll source | Date(s) administered | Sample size | Margin of error | For Proposition 22 | Against Proposition 22 | Undecided |
| Redfield & Wilton Strategies | October 27–30, 2020 | 5,000 (RV) | ± 1.39% | 62% | 28% | 9% |
| UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies | October 16–21, 2020 | 5,352 (LV) | ± 2% | 46% | 42% | 12% |
| Ipsos/Spectrum News | October 7–15, 2020 | 1,400 (A) | ± 3% | 62% | 23% | 15% |
| SurveyUSA | September 26–28, 2020 | 588 (LV) | ± 5.4% | 45% | 31% | 25% |
| Redfield & Wilton Strategies | September 19–21, 2020 | 1,915 (LV) | ± 2.19% | 53% | 27% | 20% |
| UC Berkeley/Los Angeles Times | September 9–15, 2020 | 5,900 (LV) | ± 2% | 39% | 36% | 25% |
| Redfield & Wilton Strategies | August 9, 2020 | 2,000 (RV) | ± 2.19% | 41% | 26% | 34% |
Notes:
* ↑ Key: A – all adults RV – registered voters LV – likely voters

## Result

Proposition 22 :
| Choice | Votes | % |
| Yes | 9,958,425 | 58.63 |
| No | 7,027,820 | 41.37 |
| Valid votes | 16,985,325 | 95.50 |
| Total votes | 17,785,151 | 100.00 |
| Registered voters/turnout | 22,047,448 | 80.67 |
| Source: |||
Proposition 22 results (excluding invalid votes) :
| Yes 9,958,425 (58.6%) | No 7,027,820 (41.4%) |
| ▲ 50% ||

## Ability to amend

All laws created in California by ballot measure are protected from being changed by the state legislature; they can only be changed by another ballot measure. Many ballot initiatives waive this protection, and explicitly state a percentage majority by which they allow the legislature to change the law; commonly, a 2/3 majority is specified. Prop 22 instead designated a 7/8 majority as being required to change it, although this provision as would have applied to collective bargaining was removed by an appeals court ruling in March 2023.

## Post passage
### Wage effects

A highly contentious literature exists on the topic, with estimates for earnings after Prop-22 (in 2021) ranging from $34.46 per hour to $6.20 per hour.
The $34.46 figure comes from a UCR School of Business Center for Economic Forecasting and Development study paid for by the app companies (Protect App-Based Drivers + Services Coalition - DoorDash, Instacart, Lyft, and Uber) who also supplied one year's worth of their data covering fourth quarter 2020 to third quarter 2021. This included 1.37 million drivers who performed at least one ride or delivery during the period, totalling $4.3 billion in driver earnings. The $34.46 per hour number includes tips, but only covers "engaged" time, (time spent driving to a pickup or time driving with a customer/delivery, but not time spent waiting) and did not deduct automobile expenses. It varies by region, with large coastal cities providing higher earnings for drivers than rural regions, with (including tips) San Francisco drivers making $39.83/hr, and Bakersfield drivers making $30.22/hr.
The $6.20 per hour figure comes from a study paid for by union groups opposed to the proposition (Rideshare Drivers United) which used data from 21 drivers who voluntarily used a special app to collect their data, yielding information on 3,020 trips between November and December 2021. They found $26.30 per hour in gross earnings before deducting automobile expenses and the costs of employee benefits which workers would receive if they were employees, which reduced their calculated effective net pay to $6.20 per hour.

### Driver flexibility

Proposition 22 has allowed drivers to continue to have flexibile schedules as independent contractors.

### Driver benefits

As Uber indicates on their website, the driver must be the primary policyholder order to qualify for the healthcare stipend. It specified that those who have Medicare and Medicaid plans or other insurance paid by employers are not eligible for this benefit. Some have argued that since only "active time" is counted toward the 15 hours / week minimum, with time on different platforms being counted separately, drivers are less likely to be eligible for these benefits. According to polling conducted by Tulchin Research, 86% of surveyed drivers are ineligible for Prop 22 Healthcare Stipend and those eligible are largely unaware of how to do sign up, receiving little information from app-based companies.

### Litigation

A lawsuit was filed against the state in January 2021 by the Service Employees International Union over the successful passage of Proposition 22. The lawsuit states that Proposition 22 violates the Constitution of California, as it interferes with workers' access to the state's workers' compensation program and that it "limits the power of elected officials to govern".
On August 20, 2021, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch ruled Proposition 22 unconstitutional because it was not limited to a single subject and because it included a seven-eighths requirement for the legislature to be able to change the initiative which infringed on the legislature's power to set workplace standards. He thereby ruled the entire ballot measure unenforceable. However, the initiative will stay in force while interest groups representing mobile application-based service platforms appeal the ruling.
On March 13, 2023, a three judge panel of the California Courts of Appeal (First Appellate District) reversed the lower district court's judgement of 2021, finding that of the three arguments presented, none of them violated the California Constitution. The court stated that Proposition 22 did not violate the Legislature's ability to enact laws (in combination with a voter initiative), did not violate the requirement that an initiative cover "a single subject", and did not violate the Constitutional separation of powers. The court did sever the proposition's requirement that a seven-eights majority of the legislature was necessary to make changes to worker's options for collective bargaining.
In June 2023, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal to Proposition 22 and determine its constitutionality under the California constitution. In July 2024, the court unanimously upheld the proposition, saying that the state's constitution does not prevent voters from passing initiatives relating to workers' compensation.

## Impact outside California

Proposition 22 passing has led rideshare companies to pursue legislation and ballot measures about classifying drivers in other states. Rideshare companies have also increased lobbying efforts in Washington, DC to keep drivers as independent contractors at the federal level.

### Massachusetts

In Massachusetts, Uber and Lyft led a bid to introduce a ballot measure that would maintain their drivers' status as independent contractors. The initiative was blocked from reaching the ballot by the state's Supreme Judicial Court in June 2022, which ruled that a provision in the measure which appeared to shield the companies from legal liability for accidents or crime was a "substantively distinct policy decision", while the state's constitution requires all parts of a ballot measure be related.

### Washington

In April 2022, Washington state legislators passed, and the governor signed a bill specifying that ride-share drivers are independent contractors, while also giving them new protections and benefits. The law requires that drivers receive a minimum amount per mile ($1.17), per minute ($0.34), and per ride ($3), as well as giving them one hour of paid sick leave per 40 hours worked. It also created a way for drivers to dispute "deactivations", (essentially terminations or firings) which are when the app company stops allowing them to find passengers through the app.