This court ruling seems quite perplexing then, doesn't it?
[0] https://www.v-dem.net/data/the-v-dem-dataset/
[1] https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/switzerland-votes-on-c...
Most people vote for parties whose plans don't match what they say they'll accomplish, such as lower taxes or whatever else they believe will be good for them. A greater percentage of naturalised immigrants than those with local heritage voting for the one party wanting to stop immigration and abolish religious freedoms, that sort of thing.
If someone has a better study on this, I'd be much interested, but that a court (in applying fundamental rights made up by people whose elected job it is to care for a country) disagrees with the average person on the street is not surprising to me
First of all, "Swiss voters" didn't reject the law, a majority of Swiss voters did. That may sound like semantics but it means the group that brought this case was likely not or not entirely part of the group that rejected the law.
Secondly, this assumes anyone rejecting the law in question disagrees with this case or the ruling. That seems highly questionable.
The law had some flaws but was generally expected to be affirmed by the referendum as it had a majority support in opinion polls before the referendum. It looks like there were some climate activists who opposed it for being insufficient and there were some who argued it did not adequately protect people who had to commute by car (which might explain why it was supported less outside the metropolitan centers). But the biggest factor seems to have been a public campaign backed by industries opposed to it, spreading what HN likes to refer to as "FUD".