> [...] the clause allowing a supermajority actually increases the legislature's power.
> Is that wrong?
Yes, because—and this is critical because it is the basis of the ruling here—the proposition purported to define additional legislation that did not change the proposition (and thus would not normally be restricted) as an “amendment” subject to its restriction, which as a non-germane provision is what was found to render the proposition invalid here.
> So if it had been worded differently, to make the relevant definitions part of the proposition, it would have been fine
Maybe, maybe not. I haven't read the full analysis in the ruling, but it seems from the excerpts I’ve seen that the attempt to sweep workers comp rules into the amendment restrictions without them being part of the main body was found to be an attempt to do an end run around the single-subject rule, which means it would have been struck down either way.
> Also it seems really weird to call that theoretical legislation "unrelated" when it would change how the proposition works.
It wouldn't change how the proposition works. It would change how the businesses affected by the proposition work, but lots of unrelated laws would do that.
> So if it had been worded differently, to make the relevant definitions part of the proposition, it would have been fine?
Courts don't usually answer this question. They leave that up to future court cases.
It would be really hard for a court to answer that question in the affirmative (that a law is totally sound and will hold up to all further legal scrutiny). The court case is always about specific things (a lawsuit will be brought around specific clauses in the law, and all the arguments in the court are going to be focused on those clauses). The court isn't examining the law as a whole, only the specific claims of the lawsuit. There is no way the court is going to be able to know all the possible arguments about a law without having them argued in front of them.
> Is that wrong?
Yes, because—and this is critical because it is the basis of the ruling here—the proposition purported to define additional legislation that did not change the proposition (and thus would not normally be restricted) as an “amendment” subject to its restriction, which as a non-germane provision is what was found to render the proposition invalid here.