Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWaters
Change the state constitutions such that judges are more easily recalled, as an example.
In Texas, the supreme court is by election.
|
So I read a brief synopsis of what the arguments are.
A revision changes an existing provision and must first be approved by a two thirds majority of the legislature. I think this is the requirement for one of the two procedures in Nevada.
An amendment simply occurs by majority vote, after enough signatures are collected.
We have the initiative and referendum process in Nevada, and if i thought long enough I'd remember the distinction, but I believe it's similar to California's.
But what is a revision? If a vague provision is interpreted to apply, and an addition is made which states the will of the people, namely to add a provision identifying who gets the benefits of marriage, that sounds like an addition. Previously I don't believe California had marriage specific rights in its Constitution.
The whole distinction seems inane.
The purpose is that majority rule might be used to oppress a minority. The distinctions seem vague and difficult to apply.
As Levin pointed out, the opponents never claimed in their marketing it was a mere revision but rather it was a major addition and change.