I voted against Amendment 3. Why should we (the people) take more power away from ourselves and apportion it to the legislature. Yes, our constitutional amendments are often trvial in nature, but they do serve the will of the people. I think one of the great things about our state is that if the general public disagree with the professional politicians, we can overturn them. I would, however, vote for amendment 3 if there were a way for the public to modify STATUTES via referendum as opposed to modifying the state constitution. The legislature had a chance to do this last year. It was a move supported by Dems and opposed by Republicans. In my mind, the best way for the citizen initiative process to work is via statute, and not constitutional amendment. Since that isn't an option, I'll vote NO on 3. BTW, I voted against retaining all three liberal justices.
The admendment process has been usurped by large lobbying groups, pay for lawyers to write the text, pay to fight the challenges, pay for canvassers to get signatures, and pay for political advertizing.
It is not a citizen's initiative anymore. It is a way for activists to lobby without a politician involved.
A citizen group would have to really get a groundswell of support to get ANY thing past the judges, lawyers and then the negative ads from "profssional" activists.
SO IMHO, Yes on 3, and vote like a pirate! (R)
You are right. No on 3. In 08 we are going to have a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. I don't want to have to meet the 60% barrier. Majority should be enough. An mark my words, they want Amendment 3 to pass so we cannot pass the ban against gay marriage with just a majority vote.