But you don’t, what you’d need to get through the state legislatures of Texas and Mississippi in this case would have been a repeal of the sodomy laws, in which case the main enemy is legislative inertia and, provided it is possible in the state legislatures, getting around state senators filibustering and/or governors refusing to sign such a bill. I mean had Indiana still had a sodomy law on the books I don’t think a governor Mike Pence would have signed legislation designed to repeal it.
Absent binding state referenda on these matters it seems like you would need to line up a perfect set of dominoes in the recalcitrant states from the legislature all the way to the governor’s office.
If they were that much out of favour why not appeal to the Texas state legislature to repeal them, preferably with a re-enfranchisement clause for men who have a criminal record solely because of an old sodomy conviction? Clearly there must have been some combination of just enough legislative opposition or an unmovable governor as to make that route seem impossible. Which it still seems to be as recently as 2016
To borrow the words of your current president “so sad”.
But I guess the only reason why it is not repealed more then a decade after Lawrence is exactly because some people are hoping on a repeal of Lawrence, which would make these Texas laws constitutional again.
Edit: Seems like Texas in particular is already gone far enough that the voters are little more than window dressing and you’d need the Texas equivalent of a constitutional convention as well as sweeping aside its Republican and Democratic machines to even begin to clean it up and bring it up to date for the 21st century.
That would seem to depend on if Trump or Pence get to replace Ginsberg and/or Breyer too, as a hard-line conservative in the mold of Thomas or Gorsuch who seem to have considerably less judicial restraint would allow a conservative majority even without Chief Justice Roberts signing on.