That quote from the Post article completely mischaracterizes what the judge actually wrote (https://a.qoid.us/uv6f2a9c1458eb949d.pdf https://a.qoid.us/uv6f2a9c1

That quote from the Post article completely mischaracterizes what the judge actually wrote (https://a.qoid.us/uv6f2a9c1458eb949d.pdf https://a.qoid.us/uv6f2a9c1458eb949d.pdf): > If Section 7465 had not been included, the Legislature could amend Proposition 22 by a simple majority vote according to each house's rules, followed by a popular referendum. With Section 7465 enacted, the Legislature can still amend Proposition 22 by a simple majority vote according to each house's rules, followed by a popular referendum. All Section 7465 provides is another way to amend the initiative statute, albeit one that is difficult to the point of near impossibility. > To the degree that Section 7465, subdivisions (a) and (b), attempt to apply conditions to amendments proceeding under Article II Section 10, subdivision (c)'s majority-vote-then-referendum procedure, they are unconstitutional. To avoid the constitutional conflict, the Court should narrowly construe the "seven-eighths majority" and "consistency" requirements only to the non-referendum procedures in Section 7465, subdivisions (a) and (b).