Only if you limit yourself to a surface level reading of those two facts and don't think about them. First of all, "Swiss voters" didn't reject the law, a majo

Only if you limit yourself to a surface level reading of those two facts and don't think about them. First of all, "Swiss voters" didn't reject the law, a majority of Swiss voters did. That may sound like semantics but it means the group that brought this case was likely not or not entirely part of the group that rejected the law. Secondly, this assumes anyone rejecting the law in question disagrees with this case or the ruling. That seems highly questionable. The law had some flaws but was generally expected to be affirmed by the referendum as it had a majority support in opinion polls before the referendum. It looks like there were some climate activists who opposed it for being insufficient and there were some who argued it did not adequately protect people who had to commute by car (which might explain why it was supported less outside the metropolitan centers). But the biggest factor seems to have been a public campaign backed by industries opposed to it, spreading what HN likes to refer to as "FUD".