The challenge won’t be fraud or any such thing. It is likely to be that the matter cannot be properly decided by majority vote and should never have been allowed to voting. The gays tried to keep this from ever making it to the ballot this tme by arguing that marriage was a basic constitutional right not susceptible to democratic processes. The court refused to buy that argument to halt the proposition process but that doesn’t mean a court won’t see it their way in the future. We should expect lots of challenges regardless of how far the margin of approval is in November. Unfortunately.
That has to be the most convoluted argument I’ve ever heard. Is there even anything in California case law that supports that argument?
On the federal level, it seems clear to me that even something as fundamental as the freedom of speech could be removed if done through the amendment process.
To make my point perfectly clear, it’s always been my understanding that the entire point of a process that changes a constitution is to, well, make changes to a constitution. Through the federal Amendment process, it’d be perfectly OK to get rid of the judicial branch, declare that all people shall wear pink on Fridays, etc.
The ONLY way that I could see the California Supreme Court reasonably overturning this state constitutional change would be to declare it in violation of the federal Constitution. Of course, that would immediately result in an appeal to the SCOTUS, but it’s the only argument that even makes sense to me. (Of course, I don’t agree with it, but at least it’s something that doesn’t come from the Twilight Zone like the argument you say they are going to push.)