How have courts dealt with the issue of "our primary purpose is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the voters who passed the initiative measure"?

that the voters actually intended, and " 'our primary purpose is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the voters who passed the initiative measure.' " (People v. Briceno (2004) 34 Cal.4th 451, 459.)

"[T]he basic principle of statutory and constitutional construction . . . [generally] mandates that courts, in construing a measure, not undertake to rewrite its unambiguous language. [Citation.] That rule is not applied, however, when it appears clear that a word has been erroneously used, and a judicial correction will best carry out the intent of the adopting body. [Citation.] . . . Whether the use of [a particular word] is, in fact, a drafting error can only be determined by reference to the purpose of the section and the intent of the electorate in adopting it." (People v. Skinner (1985) 39 Cal.3d 765, 775-776.)