In its ruling, the Court first considered whether the case was moot. The constitutional amendment that the appellants had opposed had been defeated by the time the case came to the Court's attention. The Court used the scrutiny described in "Weinstein v. Bradford" in its determination that the case was not, in fact, moot. The Court's rationale was twofold: first, the interval between the amendment's proposal and its referendum was too short for complete judicial review to have occurred; and second, the Court found that there was a reasonable expectation that the appellants would be adversely affected by the statute again.