Shouldn't state proposition constitutional ammendments ALSO require 2/3rds majority?

[cascadiance]

We get away from the constitution being protected from mob rule (as Mike Malloy was complaining about last night).

It seems that if the Congress is required to get a 2/3rds majority to pass a federal constitutional ammendment, that states like California should also demand at least some sort of super-majority to avoid our rights getting trashed. Maybe we should start a petition for that.

Though to do that:
1) We should ensure that the courts throw out prop 8 first on constitutional grounds, or have a chance with another prop to repeal it, so it won't take a 2/3rd's majority to repeal it later.
2) Probably should specify that the petition should pass by it's own super-majority measure to avoid looking like a hypocrite with it becoming part of the constitution with only a simple majority.

Secondly, since the religious right seems to use these kind of props to work around their political restrictions (since they aren't endorsing or slamming a political party or a person running), then perhaps that's where we should go after them.

How about another proposition that would require churches to lose their non-profit status if they campaign for or against state ballot initiatives. They could speak on issues, etc., but no more could they say "Yes on prop #" or "No on prop #" on signs planted in front of their church and expect to get away with paying no taxes.

Now they would argue that this prop would take away their rights to free speech, but in fact they are pushing props that also violate protections against discrimination too with props like 8.

[beyurslf]

1. The Constitution should not be ammended by Proposition at all.

It should require 2/3rds of both chambers of the Legislature and then a separate vote of the people requiring 2/3rds there. But it should only be started in the Legislature.

[cascadiance]

2. I was thinking of adding that as well (a legislature vote before or after such a proposition)

[last_texas_dem]

3. Seems like a good idea to me

Someone on here the other day made a good point: contrasting the fact that it takes a 2/3rd's majority in CA for the legislature to pass a budget, but that voters can pass constitutional amendments w/ 50%+1. I'm assuming things are the way that they are in CA for similar reasons to the way they are in TX w/ our overwhelming amount of constitutional amendments: Most people know that the system is flawed, but doubt that there would ever be enough unified support for the purpose of enabling widespread reforms of the state constitution (TX), the referendum process (CA), etc., so it just continues to be a mess.