Ridesharing preemption conflicts between state and local governments
This article does not receive scheduled updates. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia. Contact our team to suggest an update.
Ballotpedia's coverage of state and local preemption conflicts  |
Coronavirus • Energy infrastructure Firearms • GMO Labor • LGBT • Marijuana Plastic bags Police department budgets Ridesharing Sanctuary jurisdictions • Soda taxes |
| Other storylines: Sharing economy Municipal partisanship |
Last updated: November 21, 2022
Ballotpedia covers preemption conflicts between state and local governments in several policy areas.[1] Preemption occurs when law at a higher level of government is used to overrule authority at a lower level.[2] This page summarizes preemption conflicts over ridesharing policy. To learn more about other preemption conflicts, click here.
The emergence of companies such as Lyft and Uber has generated discussion about regulations for the ridesharing industry. Advocates of rideshare regulations have expressed safety concerns for rideshare passengers and proposed regulations such as fingerprint-based background checks. Some rideshare companies, citing the effects of such regulations on prices and their ability to compete, have left or said they would leave cities that enact them. State legislatures have debated enacting uniform rideshare regulations to preempt local ordinances.[3][4]
| Ridesharing preemption conflicts summaries | ||
|---|---|---|
| Year | State | Summary |
| 2020 | California | California voters approved Proposition 22, a ballot measure that preempts local regulation of ridesharing services. |
| 2017 | Florida | The Florida State Legislature approved legislation that would prohibit local governments from regulating requirements for rideshare employees. |
| 2017 | New York | The New York State Legislature passed a budget allowing and regulating rideshare company operations outside of New York City. |
| 2017 | Texas | The state passed a bill regulating rideshare company operations, preempting existing regulations in cities like Austin, Corpus Christi, and Houston. |
2020
California: Voters approve Proposition 22, preempting local ridesharing regulation (invalidated)
On November 3, 2020, voters in California approved Proposition 22, a ballot measure establishing a regulatory framework for the employment classification of app-based transportation and delivery companies. On August 20, 2021, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch invalidated the proposition, ruling that it was unconstitutional because it "limits the power of a future legislature to define app-based drivers as workers subject to workers’ compensation law" and "defines unrelated legislation as an 'amendment' and is not germane to Proposition 22's stated 'theme, purpose, or subject.'" The state of California and the Protect App-based Drivers & Services Coalition filed notices of appeal in September.[5]
The ballot summary was as follows:[6]
| “ |
|
” |
The text of the law listed the following areas of preemption:[8]
| “ | In light of the cross-jurisdictional nature of the rideshare services and delivery services, and in addition to the other requirements and standards
established by this chapter, the state hereby occupies the field in the following areas:
|
” |
Geoff Vetter, the spokesman for Yes on Prop. 22, said in support of the preemption: "Given the cross-jurisdictional nature of the service it would be impossible to allow all 58 counties and 480+ cities to establish separate requirements. Prop. 22 establishes uniform statewide standards for app-based driver scheduling, benefits."[9] In a report by The Partnership for Working Families, the organization expressed its opposition to the local preemption, saying: "As should be apparent by this aggressive and near complete preemption, the provision is intended simply to stymie local policy innovation and protections."[10]
2017
Florida: State legislation preempts local ridesharing fees
The Florida State Legislature approved legislation in April 2017 prohibiting local governments from applying fees or requiring business permits for drivers with ridesharing companies. State requirements for rideshare employees included background checks and insurance covering up to $1 million for bodily injury and property damage. The state also required rideshare companies to implement nondiscrimination policies and zero-tolerance policies for drug and alcohol use.[11]
Megan Sirjane-Samples of the Florida League of Cities told local media that "under this legislation, cities and counties would have zero authority to regulate or address concerns with transportation network companies."[11] Javi Correoso of Uber Florida said that the state's approach to ridesharing meant that "Floridians and tourists will have access to a safe, reliable and affordable transportation option."[11]
New York: Ridesharing companies allowed to operate outside of New York City
New York City made an arrangement with rideshare companies in 2001 that allowed them to operate under existing laws for taxis and other for-hire transportation. The state budget approved by the New York State Legislature in April 2017 paved the way for rideshare operations elsewhere in the state. The new state provisions, which did not affect New York City's arrangement, required rideshare companies to conduct criminal background checks, set a minimum age of 19 for drivers, and mandate liability and supplementary insurance for each vehicle.[12]
Rideshare supporters like the Capital Ride Sharing Coalition and New Yorkers for Ridesharing said Uber, Lyft, and other rideshare companies could complement other forms of transportation. "Ride-sharing is not meant to replace taxi and livery service," the Capital Ride Sharing Coalition's Joe Bonilla said, adding, "They shouldn't look at this as the end of their way of life. This might very well provide them an opportunity to improve their service. If you look in New York City, taxi cabs can be requested through Uber and Lyft by the app. So there's certainly some technological improvements that they can see as well."[12] New Yorkers for Ridesharing's website said, "Tech-based ridesharing platforms can fill important gaps for residents where public transportation is limited or unreliable and serve as a flexible source of income for cash-strapped New Yorkers."[13]
Groups such as the Upstate Transportation Association advocated against expanding ridesharing in the state, citing concerns about lower fares and the potential for driverless fleets. "It doesn't do anything for the local economy to have driverless cars," Association president John Tomassi said. "I'm sure there's a little bit of job creation, but nothing that will match the number of jobs lost."[14]
Texas: State preempts local ridesharing regulations
Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed a bill on May 29, 2017, requiring ridesharing companies to operate under licenses issued by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. The bill, HB 100, preempted existing rideshare regulations in cities such as Austin, Corpus Christi, and Houston.[15]
Houston passed an ordinance in 2014 requiring fingerprint identification for drivers.[16] Corpus Christi implemented a fingerprinting requirement in 2016, and voters in Austin upheld a similar requirement the same year.[17][18] Uber, which stopped operating in Austin and Houston in response to their fingerprint requirements, and Lyft, which had ceased operations in all three cities, returned to the cities following passage of the state law.[19][20][21]
Two Texas state legislators introduced other bills to preempt local rideshare regulations in November 2016. SB 113, which was introduced by state Sen. Don Huffines (R), would have prohibited local rideshare ordinances. SB 176, which was proposed by state Sen. Charles Schwertner (R), would have set statewide rideshare fees and background check policies.[22] Both bills died in committee in March 2017.[23][24]
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ Ballotpedia selects preemption conflict coverage areas based on the prevalence of conflicts within a policy area and the relevance of the conflicts to national political discussions. To recommend a new preemption conflict coverage area, email [email protected].
- ↑ Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, "Preemption," accessed June 8, 2021
- ↑ Business Insider, "What happened to Austin, Texas, when Uber and Lyft left town," June 12, 2016
- ↑ Quartz, "Uber and Lyft abandoned Austin, but it could be a blessing in disguise for ride-sharing apps," June 7, 2016
- ↑ Bloomberg Law, "Prop. 22 Backers Appeal Ruling Striking California Gig Work Law (1)," September 22, 2021
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedsos - ↑ 7.0 7.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Text of Proposed Laws," accessed May 26, 2021
- ↑ KQED, "Prop. 22 Explained: Why Gig Companies Are Spending Huge Money on an Unprecedented Measure," October 26, 2020
- ↑ The Partnership for Working Families, "Rigging the Gig," accessed May 26, 2021
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 The Pulse, "Florida governor will sign bill standardizing Uber, Lyft rules," April 24, 2017
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 WAMC, "Ride-sharing becomes legal statewide under new New York state budget," April 11, 2017
- ↑ New Yorkers for Ridesharing, "About," accessed June 16, 2017
- ↑ CNN, "The backlash against self-driving cars officially begins," January 10, 2017
- ↑ The Dallas Morning News, "Texas enacts statewide regulations for Uber, Lyft," May 29, 2017
- ↑ Click2Houston, "Uber, city of Houston reach agreement over driver background checks," November 16, 2016
- ↑ Corpus Christi Caller-Times, "Uber leaves Corpus Christi, Texas, after city council stays strong on fingerprint regulations," March 10, 2016
- ↑ KXAN, "Prop 1 fails, marking defeat for Uber and Lyft in Austin," May 7, 2016
- ↑ CorpusChristi.com, "Lyft is back in Corpus Christi; Uber coming soon," May 30, 2017
- ↑ The Texas Tribune, "Uber, Lyft returning to Austin on Monday," May 25, 2017
- ↑ KHOU11, "Lyft to relaunch in Houston Wednesday at 2 p.m." May 30, 2017
- ↑ Austin Inno, "Texas could drive out Austin's ridesharing regs with 2 bills," November 15, 2016
- ↑ Texas Legislature Online, "Bill: SB 113," accessed March 7, 2018
- ↑ [http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=85R&Bill=SB176 Texas Legislature Online, "Bill: SB 176," accessed March 7, 2018]
| ||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
