On December 13, 2022 a panel of justices of the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco heard arguments in Castellanos v. State of California in the appeal of a 2021 Alameda Superior Court decision that declared Proposition 22 was unconstitutional.  Olson Remcho is co-counsel for the SEIU and other plaintiffs in this case. 

According to a December 12 article in Bloomberg Law, “The next battle in the long-running California war over who’s an employee and who’s an independent contractor will take place in a San Francisco courtroom with arguments on the constitutionality of a voter-approved, court-suspended initiative carving out gig workers from the state’s worker-friendly classification law. Uber Technologies Inc., Lyft Inc., DoorDash, and Instacart Inc. bankrolled the inititiave known as Proposition 22, spending more than $200 million to get it passed in November 2020.”  A ruling from the court is expected in 90 days with an appeal to the the California Supreme Court likely to follow.

In a major victory for California app-based drivers, rideshare consumers and labor unions in August 2021, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch ruled  that Proposition 22, which exempted companies like Uber, Lyft and Doordash from treating drivers as employees, was unconstitutional.  According to Judge Roesch’s ruling, Proposition 22 unconstitutionally “limits the power of a future legislature to define app-based drivers as workers subject to workers’ compensation law.” He concludes his order by stating “A prohibition on legislation authorizing collective bargaining by app-based drivers does not promote the right to work as an independent contractor, nor does it protect work flexibility, nor does it provide minimum workplace safety and pay standards for those workers.  It appears only to protect the economic interests of the network companies in having a divided, unionized workforce, which is not a stated goal of the legislation.”  (See California Judge Rules that Proposition 22 is Unconstitutional.) 

Selected media coverage:

Justice’s Quiz Prop 22 Defenders on Reach of Worker Classification Law, The Recorder, December 13, 2022. 

Gig Workers, Prop. 22 Backers Resume War Over Initiative’s Fate, Bloomberg Law, December 12, 2022.

As reported by The Recorder on December 9, 2022, Olson Remcho will be representing California Governor Gavin Newsom in two federal lawsuits challenging SF 1327 – the so-called bounty hunter gun law – after Attorney General Rob Bonta announced he would be withdrawing from the case.  

The statute, modeled after the law in Texas which created a private right of action to enforce the state’s abortion restrictions, allows individuals in California to sue those who make or sell illegal guns in the state.

If Texas is permitted to advance its chosen policy interests under precisely the same procedural mechanism, then so too should California.

The Olson Remcho team, led by Tom Willis, filed a motion to intervene in the case on behalf of the Governor, stating: “The governor believes that the legal viability of this duly enacted statute must be fully litigated and decided by the courts. If Texas is permitted to advance its chosen policy interests under precisely the same procedural mechanism, then so too should California.”

Governor Turns to Olson Remcho to Defend Bounty-Hunter Gun Law, The Recorder, December 9, 2022

Olson Remcho’s Richard Rios filed a complaint with California state officials on October 27 on behalf of the Service Employees International Union California (SEIU) alleging that a fast-food industry coalition is violating state election rules in its attempt to repeal the Fast Food Recovery Act (AB257). which was signed into law in September and will increase protections for fast food workers. (See California union alleges that fast-food effort to block new labor law is ‘willfully misleading voters’, Los Angeles Times, October 27, 2022.)

The complaint alleges that the coalition’s signature-gathering campaign, which seeks to qualify the referendum for the November 2024 ballot, is “willfully misleading voters” by hiring paid petition circulators who ask voters to sign the petition under the false pretense that the referendum will raise the minimum wage for fast food workers.  As Rios writes in the complaint, “The campaign literature, materials and other messaging clearly demonstrate an effort to persuade voters to sign a petition based on false and misleading information.”  

According to the SEIU, “The FAST Recovery Act is the culmination of years of worker organizing across the state that immigrants and people of color have led. AB 257 gives workers the power to tackle systemic economic and racial justice issues that have plagued the fast-food industry because they will be at the table crafting the solutions they want to see. By passing AB 257 – the FAST Recovery Act, California will create a sector council where workers, fast-food employers, and government officials work together to craft common-sense solutions to the issues that have long plagued the industry. Frontline workers are best-positioned to help propose and implement solutions to the daily problems they face on the job. The FAST Recovery Act brings workers to the table and gives them a chance to rewrite the rules so that rules keep them safe.”  (It’s the final push for a FAST Recovery, August 16, 2022.)

Olson Remcho’s Andrew Werbrock is counsel to the San Diego Democratic Party.  As reported by the Times of San Diego on October 14, Werbrock was successful in getting a local Political Action Committee to agree to stop sending deceptive mailers about Democratic candidates.  See East County PAC Agrees to Quit Sending Mailers Decried by Dems as Misleading.

Proposition 1, which is on the California ballot in November, would enshrine the right to abortion and contraception in the California Constitution.  Olson Remcho is serving as principal campaign counsel for the measure, which is officially known as the “Yes on Proposition 1, Supported by Health Care Organizations, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and Senator Toni Atkins Ballot Measure Committee.”  As campaign counsel for the ballot measure committee, the firm handles all political reporting requirements, along with other campaign matters. 

“The firm has been advising lawmakers and advocacy groups on a possible constitutional amendment since word first leaked earlier this year about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization,” said Lead Partner Emily Andrews. “In addition to serving as campaign counsel, we’re proud to be representing Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California on the matter.”  The firm also represents Governor Gavin Newsom, who is a strong supporter of Prop. 1.

The firm’s team on Prop. 1 includes Andrews, Karen Getman, Richard Rios, Rachael Rutkowski, and Aaron Silva.

Olson Remcho is campaign counsel for California’s Proposition 26 – the initiative on the November ballot that will allow in-person sports betting at tribal casinos and racetracks.  The firm’s work on the initiative began in 2019 with the drafting of the measure and has continued through several court battles leading up to this year’s election.

“We’ve been in court five times over the last three years on behalf of the backers of Prop 26 and been successful in all five actions,” said Lance Olson, who has led the firm’s work on the matter.  “In the midst of the first wave of COVID in 2020, the court granted our request to extend the time to gather signatures and rejected challenges to that decision.”  Even though the initiative did not qualify for the ballot in 2020, the stage was set for 2022.

“There were special interests lining up against the measure from the beginning, but we were able to defeat three suits in 2021 and 2022 brought by card rooms that challenged Prop 26 on single subject grounds,” added Olson. One of the card room actions, which was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, was dismissed after the court granted the firm’s anti SLAPP motion, agreeing that the case should have been filed in Sacramento Superior Court, not in Los Angeles. 

“We’re pleased that we’ve been able to ensure that Prop. 26 made it to the finish line,” concluded Olson.  “We’re hopeful that California voters will approve the measure and reject Prop 27 – the attempt by the online sports gaming industry to move into the state.”

With this year’s November election fast approaching, attorneys at Olson Remcho have been representing local governments on a wide range of election issues, including matters for Los Angeles County, the City of Redwood City, the City of Berkeley, and the City of Oakland. 

Partner Tom Willis, who advises a number of municipalities on redistricting, election law, conflicts of interest, and initiatives and referenda, notes that the gradual consolidation of what were previously off-year local elections into the every-two-year statewide cycle has led to a jam-packed ballot including numerous local and state races and initiatives. 

“It’s a hectic, but interesting time for election lawyers,” said Willis.  “The issues are all over the map from fairly straightforward issues like bringing city charters into compliance with current state law, such as California Voting Rights Act, to litigated matters like granting the vote in school board elections to non-citizens – a case we’re currently handling for the City of Oakland.”

In that case, an Alameda County Superior Court judge ruled on August 30, 2022 that a City of Oakland ballot measure that would allow the Oakland City Council to authorize non-citizens to vote in school board elections can be put before voters in November. 

In January 2022 the Oakland City Council voted to place a measure on this November’s ballot that would amend the Oakland Charter to allow the Council, by ordinance, to authorize non-citizens, who make up 14% of Oakland’s population, to vote in school board elections, giving them “representation in key decisions that impact their education and their lives.”  The City was sued to keep the measure off the ballot, with opponents arguing that such a measure would conflict with the state Constitution that declares, “A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote.”  A similar law in San Francisco was ruled unconstitutional by a state judge earlier this year; that decision is on appeal.

In his ruling, Judge Michael Markman stated, “There’s a strong presumption under California law that the constitutionality of ballot initiatives is determined after the election is over.” According to a San Francisco Chronicle article on the case,  Olson Remcho’s Karen Getman argued that “the right to speak on ballot measures is one of the most precious rights in our state.”  Getman told the Chronicle after the hearing, “We are very pleased that Judge Markman understood the importance of allowing the voters to decide on the measure in the first instance.”

An Alameda County Superior Court judge ruled on August 30, 2022 that a City of Oakland ballot measure that would allow the Oakland City Council to authorize non-citizens to vote in school board elections can be put before voters in November.  Olson Remcho represents longtime client City of Oakland on the matter.

In January 2022 the Oakland City Council voted to place a measure on this November’s ballot that would amend the Oakland Charter to allow the Council, by ordinance, to authorize non-citizens, who make up 14% of Oakland’s population, to vote in school board elections, giving them “representation in key decisions that impact their education and their lives.”  The City was sued to keep the measure off the ballot, with opponents arguing that such a measure would conflict with the state Constitution that declares, “A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote.”  A similar law in San Francisco was ruled unconstitutional by a state judge earlier this year; that decision is on appeal.

In his ruling, Judge Michael Markman stated, “There’s a strong presumption under California law that the constitutionality of ballot initiatives is determined after the election is over.” According to a San Francisco Chronicle article on the case,  Olson Remcho’s Karen Getman argued that “the right to speak on ballot measures is one of the most precious rights in our state.”  Getman told the Chronicle after the hearing, “We are very pleased that Judge Markman understood the importance of allowing the voters to decide on the measure in the first instance.”

Olson Remcho is very pleased and proud to report that Managing Partner Karen Getman has been named to Capitol Weekly’s Top 100 for 2022.  Olson Remcho’s Robin Johansen and Lance Olson were previously named to the Top 100 list.

According to Capitol Weekly, “Karen Getman is a political attorney whose clientele is a veritable Who’s Who of Democratic political power in California. She has deep knowledge of the arcane intricacies of political and campaign finance law, including the quagmire of regulations originating in the 1974 Political Reform Act, which created the state’s campaign finance “watchdog,” the California Fair Political Practices Commission. Named by Gov. Gray Davis as the first woman chair of the FPPC in 1999, she had been an attorney in the legendary Democratic political law firm founded by one of  her mentors, Joe Remcho, a prominent legal adviser to top Democratic politicians, who died tragically in a helicopter accident in 2003. She returned to the Remcho firm as a partner after a four-year term as FPPC chair – during which she toughened enforcement of campaign disclosure laws and worked to simplify some of the byzantine FPPC rules. In 2020, the Remcho firm merged with another powerhouse Democratic political law firm, with Getman as the first managing partner of Olson Remcho.”