This is one of those weird instances of flipped roles. Hippos are horrible for the natural environment in Colombia, but the locals actually love them because they bring in tourist dollars. Enough people want to see the hippos that the locals have set up tour companies around it. So the environmentalists want to kill the animals, and the local businesses are trying to protect the animals.
The ruling is that constitutional amendments, as defined by their state constitution, must define which laws are being requested to change or delete. So that means citizens can’t ADD rights to the constitution, only remove rights or remove a prohibition to a right. I would be surprised if any other ballot initiative had been ruled invalid for this reason in the past, since it seems so intentionally arbitrary.
That said, It feels like it would be easy to find the laws that need to be red-lined to make this valid.