What is the test for a statute to be held void for uncertainty?

There is a "'strong presumption that legislative enactments "must be upheld unless their unconstitutionality clearly, positively, and unmistakably appears. [Citations.] . . ."' [Citation.]" (Williams v. Garcetti (1993) 5 Cal.4th 561, 568.) A statute will not be "'"held void for uncertainty if any reasonable and practical construction can be given to its language"' [Citation.]" (Ibid.) "Some imprecision in statutory language is allowable and a statute is not unconstitutionally vague if there is some matter of degree in the definition of a statutory term or the words used do not have a universally recognized meaning. Instead, a statute will be deemed sufficiently precise if its meaning can be fairly ascertained by references to similar statutes or other judicial determinations, or to the common law or the dictionary, or if the words have a common and generally accepted meaning. [Citation.]" (In re Mariah T. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 428, 435.)

B. A reasonable and practical construction can be given to the RHO language