States Right rule, defer to state constitution?

CalWatch:

A confusing 2017 California Supreme Court ruling about the threshold of approval for local ballot measures that are qualified for the ballot through citizen-led signature-gathering efforts – as opposed to being placed before voters by local officeholders – is causing major uncertainty in the Bay Area.In the case of California Cannabis Coalition v. the City of Upland, the state high court appeared to suggest that citizen-qualified tax or fee measures needed only a simple majority for approval, while others required two-thirds support. But the court did not offer a definitive statement. Many legal experts questioned how justices came up with a new interpretation of 1978’s Proposition 13 and 1996’s Proposition 218, which generally imposed a two-thirds requirement for voter approval of local taxes.

Here is your classic states rights internal conflict.

Who rules? One interpretation of states rights defers to legislatures passing bills.  But another form defers to  the state constitutions.  In this case, the US Supremes  would leave it up to the state Supremes simply because this is entirely within the state. The state has responsibility for interpreting its own constitution.

But what does it take to change a constitution? Can there be a constitution too restrictive that it violates states rights?  Yes, the US Supreme would not allow a state constitution that eliminates legislatures.  There is a point of intersection with no clear path.

In our case in California, the case demonstrates  why we need Anglo concepts of separation of powers. The Spanish solution to the ambiguities would be a strong monarch. The Anglo version is a bit of uncertainty, a struggle forward between the various powers. California, in their natural state, would put this all back on Gavin, Gavin would consult the unions.  But just after the Republic was founded, the Anglos inserted enough balance of powers to give our local Supreme a mental test.

In this particular case the issue is, does states rights imply majority rules?  If majority does not rule, then an implication is that a minority is ruling.  This touches on the fact that a state constitution without an elected legislature, is a violation. What kind of vote is needed for the people to exercise their states rights? Unsettled law.