Wow. People get confused when you start to explain Indiana's constitutional amendment process to them. It has to pass one legislature, then pass again unchanged through a separately elected legislature, then pass a popular election. It takes a while to change our constitution, but Hoosiers don't seem to like change much, eh?
But check out what's going on in Tennessee with their discrimination amendment. I won't try to explain it - I'll just clip from the article. Personally, I don't really see the point of Tennessee's method, while Indiana's at least seems somewhat thoughtful. Which way seems better to you?
In order for any constitutional amendment to be ratified, according to the Tennessee Division of Elections, "the amendment must get more 'yes' votes than 'no' votes; and the number of 'yes' votes must be a majority of the votes cast in the gubernatorial election."
In an attempt to further explain the rules, the Division of Elections states, "To determine the votes needed, all votes for all candidates for governor are added together. This number is divided by two or halved. The number of 'yes' votes must exceed that number."
OK, so here's the rub.
...A person who wants the amendment to pass could ignore the governor's race, but vote for the amendment, and thus would be considered as voting for the bill twice.