MA Court Approves Driver Classification Ballot Measure

MA voters to decide on classification this fall

Jun 27, 2024

On Thursday, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled that five proposed ballot petitions concerning app-based driver classification do not violate the state’s constitution. The ruling means that one of the industry-backed ballot petitions will be decided by Massachusetts voters this November.

“App-based workers have made clear their preferences to remain independent, and now Massachusetts voters will get a chance to have their say,” said Ruth Whittaker, Director of Civic Innovation Policy at Chamber of Progress. “The ballot measures would provide the state’s app-based drivers with added benefits, compensation, and protections while allowing them to retain the freedom and flexibility that they value.”

The SJC’s panel of seven judges heard oral arguments in May and held that the ballot petitions do not violate Massachusetts’ constitutional requirement that all elements of an initiative be related or mutually dependent. In April, Chamber of Progress filed an amicus brief underscoring that citizens are well-equipped to vote on worker classification. The brief also highlights how changes in worker classification could prevent app-based drivers from easily flipping between competing platforms and from opting in and out of work altogether. 

Worker classification is also at issue in a separate Massachusetts lawsuit. Last month, a case regarding the independent contractor status of Uber and Lyft drivers went to trial. The Suffolk County Superior Court is expected to rule on that case in the coming months. 


Chamber of Progress ( is a center-left tech industry policy coalition promoting technology’s progressive future. We work to ensure that all Americans benefit from technological leaps, and that the tech industry operates responsibly and fairly.

Our corporate partners do not have a vote on or veto over our positions. We do not speak for individual partner companies and remain true to our stated principles even when our partners disagree.