 The district held that the measure was " so drastic and far @-@ reaching that it was ' a revision ' of the state Constitution and not a mere amendment " . Ultimately , the district was unsuccessful in its suit . In their ruling , the judges distinguished between " amendment " and " revision . " The court confirmed that an initiative cannot " revise " the constitution ; Proposition 13 , however , was an amendment to the California Constitution and not a " revision " . In 2009 , Amador Valley was cited by dissenting Justice Carlos R. Moreno in arguing the non @-@ constitutionality of California Proposition 8 . 
