The problem with the 180 day PA deadline is that the Plaintiffs hadn't been injured yet. If they (or anyone) had gone to court "timely", then the court would have just said (pick one) "no standing:, "prospective injury" "not ripe" (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Ripeness+(law)) ...
Practically speaking, the current result is "if no one timely objects, we get away with amending the [State] Constitution without bothering to follow the prescribed process to do so" and "failure of anyone to object in 180 days ratifies our violation of the [State] Constitution"...
That is not an acceptable result.
I would argue that if it was an unconstitutional law (because it conflicts with or adds to, the State Constitution without the proper procedural steps taken to do so) then it is void ab initio, meaning it is invalid from its inception, having no force or effect, and not legally valid AT ANY POINT IN TIME. (So the deadline has no effect either.) I hope the SCOTUS will take that position.
The problem with the 180 day PA deadline is that the Plaintiffs hadn't been injured yet. If they (or anyone) had gone to court "timely", then the court would have just said (pick one) "no standing:, "prospective injury" "not ripe" (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Ripeness+(law)) ...
Practically speaking, the current result is "if no one timely objects, we get away with amending the [State] Constitution without bothering to follow the prescribed process to do so" and "failure of anyone to object in 180 days ratifies our violation of the [State] Constitution"...
That is not an acceptable result.
I would argue that if it was an unconstitutional law (because it conflicts with or adds to, the State Constitution without the proper procedural steps taken to do so) then it is void ab initio, meaning it is invalid from its inception, having no force or effect, and not legally valid AT ANY POINT IN TIME. (So the deadline has no effect either.) I hope the SCOTUS will take that position.