> 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.
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.