What shaped up as another bruising ballot battle between union and business coalitions over worker pay, benefits and obligations has fizzled with Proposition 11.

The measure was funded by the companies which provide the private ambulance services which provide the majority of such services in the state. These companies, led by American Medical Response, were responding to the fallout from a 2016 California Supreme Court ruling which held that private security guards couldn’t be compelled to remain on call during their breaks.

This led some paramedics and emergency medical technicians (EMTs) to sue in state court, arguing that they were also covered by this ruling and shouldn’t be compelled to remain on call during their breaks. Private ambulance firms noted that traditionally in California, all first responders – public or private – have been on call during breaks.

These firms warned state lawmakers that having to add ambulances and paramedics and EMTs so they can provide minimum service during break times could cost up to $100 million a year – costs that would be passed on to taxpayers by local governments which rely on private ambulances and on to residents via increases in their health insurance rates.

But after the Legislature decided not to step in, private ambulance firms paid millions of dollars to signature gatherers to gain a spot on the ballot for what became Proposition 11. It would write into state law the obligation that private first responders must be on call during breaks and limit the liabilities faced by ambulance companies for lawsuits filed before the ballot initiative was launched late last year.

No one filed ballot argument against measure

The response from the California labor establishment has been surprisingly passive. While some have written opinion pieces with sharp criticism of Proposition 11 – calling it bad for public safety, an abuse of the initiative process and a corporate power play – none of these arguments were put directly before the large number of state voters who for generations have relied on the official state voters guide in making up their minds on ballot propositions. Prepared by the Secretary of State’s Office, the guide for Nov. 6 elections notes that no one – not a labor group or a paramedic or someone with an ax to grind about private ambulance firms – submitted an argument opposing Proposition 11 or provided a website or additional information on why it should be opposed (pictured).

This is unusual in California direct democracy. But when it comes to a seemingly high-stakes battle involving union members and big business, it appears to have no modern precedent.

Proponents of the measure say Proposition 11 might not be popular with union rank-and-file members because it includes concessions that haven’t gotten much attention from the media. It would require ambulance providers to provide ambulance staffers with a range of mental-health services, including up to 10 paid visits a year to clinics or hospitals.

But the main theory in political circles is that in a year in which the U.S. Supreme Court has said public employees can decline to pay dues to their unions, a fight against a well-funded, widely endorsed ballot measure that preserves the status quo for the union members if affects isn’t a high priority.

Proposition 11, the 2008 initiative voters passed, created the Citizens Redistricting Commission to apportion state legislative and congressional districts. It was modified slightly by Proposition 20 in 2010.

The reforms occurred after numerous gerrymandering abuses when the Legislature drew districts to benefit incumbents. Rep. Loretta Sanchez, R-Garden Grove, in 2002 described how it worked for the redistricting after the 2000 U.S. Census. She told the Orange County Register she and other legislators paid $20,000 to Michael Berman, the redistricting consultant to the majority Democrats in the California Legislature who drew up the districts. She called it an “incumbent protection plan.”

According to the Los Angeles Times, on Monday the court heard arguments in a suit “that Arizona’s Republican-controlled Legislature has brought. The legislators want the justices to rule that only elected state lawmakers, not voters or an independent citizens commission, may draw the boundaries of districts for members of the U.S. House of Representatives.”

At issue are the words of the Constitution, “the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”

Defenders of the redistricting reforms insist an initiative is a kind of legislative act by the people.

But those bringing the lawsuit insist there’s nothing in there about taking a vote of the people. Although the Founding Fathers probably didn’t intend for the severe gerrymandering that has occurred in recent years.

Another factor is the “one man one vote” Supreme Court rulings of 50 years ago, such as the 1962 Baker v. Carr case, disallowed districts not strictly apportioned by population. Before that, legislatures could make districts along geographic lines, with some districts more populous than others.

The court is expected to decide the Arizona case before June. That means it could affect the 2016 election, with the Legislature itself redrawing the districts.