A federal appeals court overturned a Michigan amendment banning affirmative action. Their reasoning, paraphrased in the Washington Post, is as follows:
In an 8-7 decision, the court said the 2006 amendment to the Michigan Constitution is illegal because it presents an extraordinary burden to opponents who would have to mount their own long, expensive campaign through the ballot box to protect affirmative action.
By this reasoning, wouldn't any amendment or even any legislation be unconstitutional because of the same "burden?"
Forget for the moment your partisan views on affirmative action or any other legal issue. If you are on the losing side of any legislative change, you can argue, quite compellingly, that you are now faced with an "extraordinary burden" in your attempt to reverse a legitimate decision made by voters, and as such, the legislation is therefor unconstitutional.
Was Scott Walker's initial election "illegal" because of the "extraordinary burden" it placed on those wishing to recall him? Are the recent gains made by gay marriage advocates or pot smokers unconstitutional by that standard?