"Then amend the constitution, if it is so 'trivial'"... I should probably clarify what I mean by "trivial" - I mean this relative to the usual process of amend

"Then amend the constitution, if it is so 'trivial'"... I should probably clarify what I mean by "trivial" - I mean this relative to the usual process of amending the constitution. In a purely political sense, it was not "trivial" for the pro prop-8 even to get a 52% majority on this issue from a political point of view - it took a tremendous amount of money and effort. What I mean is that the difference between getting prop 8 passed as a constitutional amendment and as a standard statute seems fairly "trivial" when you consider how profoundly different these types of legislation are... one is essentially beyond the reach of the courts. I've read something similar to what jorgeortiz85 wrote - that a true structural change in the constitution can't be enacted with the "%50 + 1" initiative process. But what I saw here was that prop 22 was passed by the voters, struck down by the courts as unconstitutional, and then resubmitted as an amendment. If it's not much harder to submit it as an amendment, then every initiative that could be deemed unconstitutional would just automatically be submitted as an amendment - and if the courts are lenient about allowing major changes to be submitted as amendments, then it would be "trivial" to use the "%50+1" majority to put minorities at a legal disadvantage, outside constitutional review. As for what it takes... shoot, I'm really pretty ignorant here. I think it's just a matter of getting more signatures... I think it's about 50% more, but I really don't know, and I'm not sure how to look this up... if anyone does know, please post!)