In addition to the abovementioned amendments, removed from the text of the Constitution, there appear to be other proposed amendments that may have failed of ratification. A number of unspecified amendments, involving technical, stylistic, and incidental changes, were submitted for approval by the electorate under Question 34. As to these, the Court stated:
The question of whether any amendment submitted for approval by Question No. 34 was in fact approved … depends on its effect upon substantive law. If the amendment is purely stylistic and technical in nature, and does not alter the sense, meaning or effect of any provision of the Constitution, it was approved by the electorate and has become a part of the revised Constitution. On the other hand, if the amendment alters the sense, meaning or effect of any provision of the Constitution, it was not ratified and is not effective to change the language of the Constitution. Obviously, we are not now in a position to make these line by line determinations.The revisor does not consider that the authority granted under Resolution No. 29 embraces the elimination of proposed amendments as having failed of ratification where the issue has not been adjudicated. Thus the text of the Constitution includes all the proposed amendments submitted for ratification under Question 34. As an aid to the readers, however, an attempt has been made to identify all such amendments – except those obviously purely technical and stylistic and clearly nonsubstantive (which have been ratified) – and explanatory notes have been appended thereto.
