The district argued that the measure was "so drastic and far-reaching that it was 'a revision' of the state Constitution and not a mere amendment". 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; Proposition13, 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 Proposition8.
