State officials were sued this week after changing the official title and summary language for a ballot initiative — a common legal fight due to the way California prepares voting materials.
Proposition 39 would require Californians to show a government-issued ID when casting a ballot in person, or provide the last four digits of an ID number when voting by mail. It would also give election officials new reporting requirements tied to voter citizenship.
But Republican San Diego Assembly member Carl DeMaio, a leading supporter of Prop 39, thinks Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta changed the initiative's language earlier this month to “rig” the process.
“So that voters are confused and are prejudiced against voting for the initiative,” DeMaio told KCRA 3.
In California, a proponent submits an initiative for the Attorney General’s Office to draft a title and summary before collecting signatures to qualify for the ballot. If they’re successful, the attorney general can alter that language before voting information materials are finalized.
Bonta’s office initially stated Prop 39 "Establishes additional voter identification and citizenship verification requirements." Earlier this month, they changed that language to "Prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification."
A pro-voter ID group filed suit Monday, arguing the description of the proposition “is not a true and impartial statement of the measure's purpose." They’re asking the court to order new language ahead of an Aug. 10 deadline to finalize materials for a voter information guide.
The Attorney General’s Office is reviewing the petition.
“We take our duty to prepare a title and summary and ballot label seriously, and we are confident the court will agree we have faithfully executed that duty here,” the office said in a statement.
The Sacramento Bee reported Wednesday that Democratic state legislative leaders also filed their own suit against different Prop 39 language in the draft voter guide: supporters’ argument in favor of the initiative.
UC San Diego political scientist Thad Kousser said California invites lawsuits over ballot titles and summaries by having a partisan elected official write ballot language.
“The proponents are saying ‘Hey, the attorney general is in the other party. They don’t like my policy,’” he said.
Political science studies have suggested the way an initiative is phrased can impact whether voters support it.
“So these court battles, there are high stakes to them,” Kousser said.
Still, the courts appear hesitant to mandate changes.
In a high-profile example from 2017, Republicans challenged then-Democratic Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s language for an initiative to repeal California’s gas tax (which funds road repairs). A judge initially agreed and ordered the text rewritten. An appeals court later overturned the ruling on the grounds that state law gives the attorney general “considerable latitude” to draft initiative language, SF Gate reported.
Some states charge nonpartisan officials or boards with drafting initiative language, while others allow proponents to write their own titles and summaries.
Republicans have unsuccessfully tried to change how California ballot language is written. For example, having the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office draft titles and summaries.
“Like any government reform, when you have a group that has the voting majority in the legislature and potentially benefits from the policy, they’re much less likely to reform that,” Kousser said. “Maybe it’ll take an initiative to reform that aspect of the initiative process in California.”
