from the article:
This is a victory for federalism.
Article makes no sense
The article is perfectly clear. What do you find confusing - that some here have kicked up a storm cloud by trying to argue a definition of "federalism" rather than arguing that this is a return to the power of the state legislature as set forth in the US Constitution?
It's clear enough. The state legislature passed a resolution calling for a convention of the states to amend the constitution. Someone challenged this in court on the grounds that the State Constitution had other requirements that the state legislature failed to follow. A judge ruled that that challenge was invalid, thus affirming that the US constitution grant of powers to the state legislature is dispositive.
Now, I am not a big fan of amending the constitution which is working pretty well for us right now, but that it is a different matter.