I found a spelling error (moneys) in Amendment 1 and "the year 2000" in Amendment 3. Amendments 2 and 3 are redundant: I kept reading the same words over and over.

 

The idea of a constitutional amendment only being in effect 20 years is ridiculous. It looks like they are trying to put a raising taxes issue in the wrong document. Not a bad idea for a law, but terrible as part of the state Constitution IMO.

 

So if Amendment 3 is approved, voters will decide whether or not to let a to-be-disqualified judge remain qualified for retention? That is what it looks like to me. I don't know if that is good or bad.

---