The California Supreme Court ruled that the amendment imposed a lifetime ban, and upheld its constitutionality. The Ninth Circuit said that the wording of the ban was ambiguous. It could have meant a lifetime ban. It also might have limited only the number of consecutive terms. That is, a legislator could be elected to additional terms after sitting out a term.
Voters have a fundamental right to elect their chosen candidates to office.
Proposition 140 burdens the exercise of that right by telling voters that they may not vote for candidates who have already served the specified number of terms. That burden requires a court to assess carefully the adoption process, to ensure that it does not erroneously infringe the voters' rights. In this case, the ballot materials prepared by the State, and the arguments by the measure's proponents, did not tell voters that Proposition 140 imposed a lifetime ban. That made its adoption unconstitutional. There was also another proposition on the same ballot that would have expressly adopted limits only on consecutive terms.