The population of the state simultaneously wanted the death penalty and to follow the Constitution. One role that the population of the state gave to judges is to referee these conflicting desires.
Not only did Californians vote to reinstate the death penalty, they then voted to impeach the justices of the State Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, who actively blocked its use after it became law again. So I don't think there is much argument that the courts were just implementing the will of the people.
> they then voted to impeach the justices of the State Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, who actively blocked its use after it became law again
nobody was impeached. It was a normal judicial retention election.
The people didn't want contradictory things, they wanted the death penalty, and they wanted the courts to implement it. The court wasn't caught in the middle, it was just composed of judges with opinions out of alignment with the general population.
Think of a constitution as guardrails about democracies, the constitution nails a couple of very basic rules down hard and leaves room for interpretation and variation. It's a good principle, the constitution guarantees long term stability and the 'basics', the parliaments/congresses/whatever the local variation is called deal with day-to-day variance.
So 'the people' will want both, depending on whether they have the long or the short term view and those two views can and do contradict at times.
People want the constitution in the way they want to interpret it, and they want judges who believe what they believe. There is no contradiction. It is naive to think of judges as some sort of objective arbiter, they are effectively political appointees sent to push an agenda.