I have long supported Constitutional Revision. In the 1960's there was a Constitutional Revision Commission appointed by then Governor Albert Brewer. I introduced a revision bill when I was in the Legislature based on what the commission recommended. We came very close to passing it in the House but the leadership at the time opposed it. They convinced a good number of House members to oppose it and offered them something they wanted in return. All of that is a very interesting story which I won't go into here.
The main thing that needs to be done in revising the Constitution is to eliminate a lot of the Junk. For instance it makes no sense to me for all of the people of the state to have to vote on a Constitutional Amendment which only affects one county.
I favor the approach of revising the constitution article by article. It has already been done in a limited way in the case of the Judicial Article which passed when I was in the Legislature the first time and then of course approved by the voters.
The Judicial Article is not perfect but has worked well. The Legislature can do this on other articles but you must have leadership which is committed to it.