What is the test for a constitutional amendment to the California Constitution that prohibits certain types of sexual activity?

With this standard in mind, we next consider whether it is possible to ascertain the amendment's proper meaning and application by objective standards. Although a statute does not meet constitutional standards of specificity, a court may not hold the amendment " 'void for uncertainty if any reasonable and practical construction can be given its language.' [Citation.] If by fair and reasonable interpretation we can construe [the amendment] to sustain its validity, we must adopt such interpretation [citations]...." (Pryor v. Municipal Court (1979) 25 Cal.3d 238, 253, 158 Cal.Rptr. 330, 599 P.2d 636.)

"A statute will be upheld if its terms may be made reasonably certain by reference to the common law [citations] or to its legislative history or purpose. [Citations.] A statute will likewise be upheld, despite the [1 Cal.App.4th 416] fact that the acts it prohibits are defined in vague terms, if it requires an adequately defined specific intent. [Citation.] A court, however, may not create a standard [citations], and a specific intent defined in the same vague terms as those defining the prohibited acts does not make a statute acceptably definite." (People v. McCaughan, supra, 49 Cal.2d at p. 414, 317 P.2d 974.)