I wonder that. Time and time again, the voters of California have voted for some common sense measure designed to protect the rights and liberties that are threatened by liberal policies, and had them overturned by activist courts.
There is no Constitutional reason that Californians should be forced to subsidize the health care and education of illegals who should be deported. There is no Constitutional reason that Californians should have to allow gay "marriage" to be made legal. Yet activist judges have said otherwise.
OTOH, the people of CA seem rather schizophrenic in their voting patterns. While voting for common-sense propositions (and passing them by overwhelming majorities), they turn around and vote for the most whacky liberal politicians on the ballot. Although I wonder if that isn't so much a reflection of the voters' will, as it is a reflection that there are huge political pay-offs for vote fraud in favor of candidates, while vote-fraud in favor of an unpopular proposition doesn't really have a pay-off (especially when corrupt judges will overturn the will of the people anyway).
Which is a clearer indicator of right vs. wrong: the will of the people or the will of the government? There seems to be a general divide based on that.