that claim, but it is, as I reported, novel and interesting, and full of profound implications. It's worth noting, by the way, that the lawyer in the current case, William A. Norris, also was the lead lawyer in Amador Valley , so he knows something of this history, too. As to the notion that I ignored the complaint about the column, that's not just false but provably so. I filed this reply on our website, in which I addressed these issues , and I included this sentence in the follow-up column, which refers to Amador Valley , though not by name: "In 1978, the court declared the proposition an amendment, not a revision, but it did not address the two-thirds requirement in the Legislature, so that question remains open." Again, JackJack5 is free to read the case differently, but there's an open question, and this lawsuit is exploring it. It seems to me that's an important subject for Californians to think about; that's why I've made it the subject of two columns and intend to return to it again.