Court Opinion

ID: 9611974
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:01:59.447869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:56.578541
License: Public Domain

LAVENSKI R. SMITH, Justice, concurring. I concur in the result because of the patent inconsistencies between the ballot title, the popular name, and the text of the amendment. Its proponents concede the inconsistencies. If the drafters of the proposed amendment intend for it to mean differently than it reads, it is up to them to correct it. Neither precedent nor prudence authorize this court to edit a proposed constitutional amendment. Judges should not “edit” constitutional provisions either before or after they are made the law of the land. It is nevertheless unfortunate that any initiative of the people is not able to be voted upon by the people.