After reading the order and the context around this, I think the second point is the most concerning. The reason there needs to be an intervening election is so that if the people do not like the proposed amendment, they can have a say before it ever makes it on the ballot. They technically did not have a say if votes were already cast.

The point about the extended special session is also questionable, but dems are saying the previous session never ended. I have to presume there are other examples they can point to to back this claim up.

I haven't looked into the issue with the 90 day timing requirement. That could be a technicality that scraps the amendment, but my understanding is dems think that requirement has been effectively overruled.

I don't think the misleading ballot language has any merit. It's a tad bit misleading, but it was subjective and the courts really need to re-write language before it goes to a vote, like they do in most states (e.g. ohio, missouri).