Since you called this out as an example, and since I believe you are guilty of what you decry, I feel the need to comment.

I assume you are talking about California's proposition 16, and while I can't claim any expertise in Constitutional Law, I can read. Prop 16 would have removed the following from California Constitution:” The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public jobs, schools, and contracting.”

That language was put into the Constitution because government shouldn't be favoring one group of people over another. 50 years ago, this was how the political right worked to discriminate against minorities. Getting that language into the California constitution was a huge win for the political left back in the day.

However, now, since the political left in California believes they have sufficient clout to tilt things in their favor, they want to undo the protections they fought for years ago.

I'm reminded of the last line from Animal Farm by George Orwell. “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

With that stated, perhaps you can expand on your statement as to why voting no on Proposition 16 "demonstrates a complete and utter lack of basic, yet decidedly complex, Constitutional law. " Pardon my ignorance, but I don't see it.