Why California Must Require a Supermajority of Voters for Any Constitutional Change

California’s constitution stands as one of the strongest and most protective governing documents in the United States. It is a charter that enshrines broad individual rights, expansive privacy protections, and a deep respect for personal autonomy unmatched in many other states. Precisely because it is so strong, altering it should require far more than the political tides of a single election or the temporary dominance of one party in the Legislature. Yet today, the threshold for changing this extraordinary document remains alarmingly low.

Under California’s current rules, amending the state constitution requires two steps: first, a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to place a proposed amendment on the ballot; second, approval by a simple majority of voters. This means that just 50 percent plus one voter — in a low-turnout election, possibly representing less than a quarter of the state’s population — can change constitutional rights that affect 40 million Californians. No broad consensus is necessary. No bipartisan agreement is required. And no distinction exists between minor statutory tweaks and sweeping constitutional shifts that can reshape fundamental liberties.

That is not how a constitutional democracy should work.

The urgency of reform becomes even clearer in the wake of Proposition 50 and the legal battles now unfolding over California’s newly approved congressional maps. While litigation focuses on allegations of racial gerrymandering and partisan advantage, the deeper lesson is structural: when one party commands overwhelming dominance in the Legislature, it has the effective ability to steer constitutional amendments onto the ballot with limited input from the minority. Whether Democrats wield that power today or Republicans might wield it tomorrow, the ease of changing the constitution presents a long-term risk to stability, fairness, and individual rights.

Proposition 50 shows precisely why the bar must be higher. Although the measure passed with approximately 64.6% of votes cast, those “yes” votes represented only about 30.4% of all registered voters in California. In other words, nearly seven out of ten eligible voters did not affirmatively support the constitutional change, yet the amendment was adopted anyway. Nothing this significant should be able to pass when a minority of all eligible voters approves it. This is a warning that constitutional amendments are currently far too easy to enact.

This vulnerability becomes especially clear when examining two major rights issues Californians care deeply about: reproductive freedom and marriage equality.

In 2022, California voters passed Proposition 1, adding explicit constitutional protections for reproductive choice and contraception. Yet despite the breadth of support for those rights, they can be repealed by a simple majority. Any Legislature, at any time, could send a repeal measure to voters and — with just over half the vote — erase protections that millions of Californians consider essential. A constitutional right should not hang by a thread this thin.

Marriage equality reveals an even more striking weakness in the current system. California’s constitution still contains the text of Proposition 8, the 2008 amendment stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman. While the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision renders that language unenforceable, it remains embedded in the state constitution. If the Supreme Court were ever to narrow or overturn Obergefell, California would instantly revert to a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage unless voters acted to remove the existing language. And under current rules, reinstating or rejecting such rights could be decided by the slimmest majority of voters.

These examples are not warnings about any particular political party; they are warnings about the fragility created by a low threshold for constitutional change. Constitutions are supposed to be hard to amend precisely because they protect the public from political swings driven by short-term anger, hyper-partisanship, or shifting legislative control. A safeguard that requires only 50 percent plus one is no safeguard at all.

Many states recognize this and impose supermajority requirements for constitutional amendments. Florida requires 60 percent. Others require two-thirds. These thresholds ensure that changes to foundational law occur only when the public overwhelmingly agrees — not merely when one party or one election cycle leans a particular way.

California should adopt an even stronger and clearer standard: No change to the California Constitution should be allowed unless 66.7 percent of the state’s registered voters approve it. Not 66.7 percent of votes cast — but 66.7 percent of all registered voters. This is the threshold worthy of a constitution as robust as California’s. This standard would ensure that constitutional amendments reflect broad, durable consensus and cannot be manipulated by partisan strategy, low turnout, or the political passions of a single election year.

Republicans have the strongest structural incentive to champion this reform in 2026, especially as a legislative minority in a state where one-party dominance can translate into long-term control of the constitutional amendment process. But this proposal is not — and should not be — about partisan advantage. It protects Democrats, Republicans, independents, and every Californian who values stable rights and a stable constitutional order. A supermajority requirement would force both parties to build coalitions. It would elevate consensus over polarization. And it would ensure that fundamental rights can never be erased by a narrow slice of the electorate.

Now is the time to set that standard.

The 2026 election is the moment to fix this. A voter initiative requiring a two-thirds supermajority of registered voters for any constitutional amendment would preserve the strength of California’s foundational document, protect the rights Californians already enjoy, and guard against the whims of temporary political power. California’s constitution is one of the best in the nation. The process for amending it should be equally strong, equally protective, and equally committed to ensuring that only a true, unmistakable majority of Californians — not just those who show up in a given election — can change it.