It's totally not clear to me why finding that the amendment was motivated by bigotry would invalidate it. I assume it has something to do with the distinction between an "amendment" and a "revision"? (The former can be passed by ballot initiative in California and the latter can't.) But I don't see why the motivation, rather than the content, of a proposal can make the difference between whether it's an amendment or a revision; and the article doesn't really explain why the judge thinks it should matter.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-10-05 11:48 pm (UTC)