Ginsburg's Argument Revisions Regarding The Arizona Constitution

In assessing the value of the differences between the original text presented regarding the Arizona Constitution and the relevant provision which states simply that “the people have the power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution through the process of initiative and referendum,” the main revisions which offer stark contrasts to the original version as presented by Justice Ginsburg are the omissions of the “coordinate nature” language regarding the electorate of Arizona and the placement of the practice of initiative under the article of the state constitution “concerning the Legislative Department,”. The language excluded in this instance from the state constitution loosens the protection the document provides for the assertion …show more content…
To think that the performance of different functions under different provisions of the constitution is comparable to the undertaking of a complete change in identity from provision to provision is effectively compared by Roberts to a car which, although engaging in both acts of transportation and storage, retains its identity as a car. Further, in the Smiley case referred to by the majority, Roberts points out that the court held that The Legislature was a phrase which possess and always has possessed a well understood meaning. Hildenbrant, cited by the Majority, also did nothing as grandiose as supplanting the legislative body as had been done in Arizona. While the precedent may recognize the legal exercise of a state’s people’s power to enact initiatives, it in no way provides for the constitutionality of the one at hand; if that were to be the case, it would presuppose that “the people” could mean “the Legislature” in the U.S.