1. The rights of the people to earn a living and pursue a common calling shall not be infringed.
2. Laws and regulations restricting entry into a profession shall not be valid unless the Legislature, local governments, and other governmental lawmaking and regulation-making entities who enact such regulations provide, at the time of passage, evidence of the necessity of each provision. Generalized justifications, such as public health and safety, are not adequate justification on their own, but must be accompanied by evidence that a problem exists or is likely to occur, that the restriction is necessary to address the problem, and that the public has had the opportunity to suggest less restrictive means and that less restrictive means have been considered. This subsection shall not apply to restrictions in force at the time this amendment is approved by voters, but does apply to modifications of such pre-existing restrictions.
3. This section does not restrict government contracting and employment, except that government may not artificially constrain the private market to circumvent the restrictions of subsections (a) or (b), nor does this section restrict government monopolies granted to public utilities.

[Alternative wording of subsection (a): "The right of the people to earn a living in pursuit of a common calling shall not be infringed."]

[Comment: The purpose of this proposal is to restrict the government's ability to place barriers to the entry of a regulated profession, which may be motivated by protectionism (especially when regulation is overseen by a board of active market participants in that profession) or to artificially constrain the number of people in a particular profession. The 'right to earn a living' and 'right to pursue a common calling' are not terms to be construed literally, but are terms of art (like 'due process' or 'privileges and immunities', which are used in the U.S. Constitution). They basically have the same meaning but since both phrases are commonly encountered, I decided to include both in the proposal text rather than one but not the other. The reason for using these terms of art instead of a more literal term is because they have a meaning that has been established in case law and, additionally, I couldn't think of a concise way of phrasing the proposal text as a right of the people rather than just a restriction on government (eg. "Laws restricting entry to a profession must satisfy strict scrutiny"). The purpose of this statute is to make occupational licensing laws (which restrict entry into a profession) subject to the strict scrutiny standard of judicial review (ie. it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest).

Here's some sources of background academic information on the right to earn a living / right to pursue a common calling:

1. Timothy Sandefur, "The Right to Earn a Living", 6 Chap. L. Rev. 207 (2003), http://www.chapmanlawreview.com/archives/999

2. Alexandra L. Klein, "The Freedom to Pursue a Common Calling: Applying Intermediate Scrutiny to Occupational Licensing Statutes", 73 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 411 (2016), http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol73/iss1/8

3. Patel v. Texas Dept. of Licensing and Regulation, 469 S.W.3d 69, 80-92 (Tex. 2015)(decision of Texas Supreme Court deciding that right to earn a living was protected against burdensome occupational licensing scheme under Texas Constitution), available at https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7017811002225614343 ; Id. at 92-123 (Willett, J., concurring)(same).

Here's background information about how occupational licensing thwarts innovation, entrepreneurship, and opportunity:

1. Institute for Justice, "License to Work: A National Study of Burdens from Occupational Licensing", http://ij.org/report/license-to-work/ (overview webpage), http://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/licensetowork1.pdf (PDF of report)

2. The White House, "Occupational Licensing: A Framework for Policymakers" (2015), available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/licensing_report_final_nonembargo.pdf

3. Little Hoover Commission, "Jobs for Californians: Strategies to Ease Occupational Licensing Barriers [Report #234]" (October 2016), http://www.lhc.ca.gov/sites/lhc.ca.gov/files/Reports/234/Report234.pdf (Report PDF), http://www.lhc.ca.gov/report/jobs-californians-strategies-ease-occupational-licensing-barriers (overview webpage)

Art. I, Sect. 2 already includes the right to be "rewarded for industry" as a "basic right" of the people, but I cannot find any case law interpreting this statute except for De Ayala v. Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., 543 So.2d. 204 (Fla. 1989), which decided that workers compensation could not be denied when the recipients were not U.S. residents because it was the worker who earned that benefit and it would be a violation of the right to be rewarded for industry to deprive a benefit because of the residence of the worker's heirs. In the absence of any further case law or even academic articles discussing the meaning of that right, it may or may not cover the subject of this proposal.

Like other constitutional rights, this section only applies to government and does not apply to the private sector. The restrictions only apply to occupational licensing generally and not to particular jobs, which is addressed in subsection (c) by excepting government contracting and employment. However, it would apply where, as an example of what the caveat in subsection (c) addresses, the government places restrictions on the private market at the same time as it issues a contract for services, eg. the government decides that the provision of taxi services is a public service and simultaneously bans taxis from operating in their jurisdiction and issues a government contract to a particular company to provide taxi services in the jurisdiction.]