Don't statutory ballots require a majority, while constitutional ballots call for a supermajority? This was a close fight. The decision may not have been, ex ante, as unreasonable as you suggest.
The fight isn't the issue I referenced, not fully. A statute cannot change the constitution and alter voting requirements of the legislature. That is what this attempted. As you mentioned, a different threshold is required in order to pass an amendment or a statute.
The author wanted the benefits of an amendment but to pass it by meeting the requirements for a statute.
Nope. Constitutional amendments proposed by voters require simple majority to pass, 50% + 1. That is, imho, the single largest flaw in California's initiative process (which I'm otherwise generally a fan of).
