{"id":408857,"date":"2026-07-23T02:06:18","date_gmt":"2026-07-23T02:06:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/408857\/"},"modified":"2026-07-23T02:06:18","modified_gmt":"2026-07-23T02:06:18","slug":"california-ag-rob-bonta-rigs-language-in-voter-id-initiative","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/408857\/","title":{"rendered":"California AG Rob Bonta rigs language in Voter ID initiative"},"content":{"rendered":"

California Attorney General Rob Bonta used the power of his office Tuesday to put a political thumb on the scale against Proposition 39<\/a>.<\/p>\n

He did it by dramatically rewriting the official title and summary of the voter ID initiative<\/a> after Californians had already qualified it for the November ballot.<\/p>\n

When supporters of Prop. 39 began collecting signatures last year<\/a>, Bonta gave the initiative a straightforward official title:<\/p>\n

“ESTABLISHES ADDITIONAL VOTER IDENTIFICATION AND CITIZENSHIP VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.”<\/p>\n

\"California<\/p>\n

California Attorney General Rob Bonta used the power of his office Tuesday to put a political thumb on the scale against Proposition 39. REUTERS<\/p>\n

\"He<\/p>\n

He did it by dramatically rewriting the official title and summary of the voter ID initiative after Californians had already qualified it for the November ballot. Bloomberg via Getty Images<\/p>\n

More than 1.3 million Californians signed petitions carrying that description.<\/p>\n

But when the state’s draft voter guide went on public display Tuesday, they saw something very different.<\/p>\n

Here’s the new title:<\/p>\n

“PROHIBITS CITIZENS FROM VOTING UNLESS THEY PRESENT GOVERNMENT-ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.”<\/p>\n

\"But<\/p>\n

But when the state’s draft voter guide went on public display Tuesday, they saw something very different. REUTERS<\/p>\n

The revised summary likewise emphasizes that mail ballots will be “invalidated” without required identifying information and that in-person voting will be “prohibited” without government-issued identification.<\/p>\n

Nothing about the initiative changed. Bonta’s description of it did.<\/p>\n

Assemblyman Carl DeMaio, one of Prop. 39’s proponents and a leader of the Yes campaign, caught the switch and sounded the alarm.<\/p>\n

Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters<\/p>\n

California Post News: Facebook<\/a>, Instagram<\/a>, TikTok<\/a>, X<\/a>, YouTube<\/a>, WhatsApp<\/a>, LinkedIn<\/a>
California Post Sports Facebook<\/a>, Instagram<\/a>, TikTok<\/a>, YouTube<\/a>, X<\/a>
California Post Opinion<\/a>
California Post Newsletters: Sign up here!<\/a>
California Post App: Download here!<\/a>
Home delivery: Sign up here!<\/a>Page Six Hollywood<\/a>: <\/a>Sign up here!<\/a><\/p>\n

“When Rob Bonta didn’t think we could get the signatures on Prop. 39, he provided a relatively fair ballot title,” DeMaio said. But after voters forced it onto the ballot, DeMaio charged, Bonta changed it to “a biased and dishonest one.”<\/p>\n

And the original language wasn’t something DeMaio wrote. It was Bonta’s own official description of the initiative.<\/p>\n

A biased and dishonest one. Written by the state’s top law enforcement officer. About an election law.<\/p>\n

We don’t have to look very far back to see how differently Bonta treats ballot measures his political allies support.<\/p>\n

\"A<\/p>\n

A biased and dishonest one. Written by the state’s top law enforcement officer. About an election law. Bloomberg via Getty Images<\/p>\n

Last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative Democrats put Proposition 50 on the ballot to replace California’s independently drawn congressional districts with maps designed by the Democratic-controlled Legislature.<\/p>\n

Bonta’s official title didn’t just tell voters what the measure did. It told them why Democrats said they were doing it:<\/p>\n

“AUTHORIZES TEMPORARY CHANGES TO CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT MAPS IN RESPONSE TO TEXAS’ PARTISAN REDISTRICTING.”<\/p>\n

His official summary began the same way: “In response to Texas’ mid-decade partisan congressional redistricting\u2026”<\/p>\n

Texas did it first.<\/p>\n

That was the central political argument Newsom and Democrats made for Prop. 50. Bonta put it right into the state’s official description of the measure.<\/p>\n

Compare that with “PROHIBITS CITIZENS FROM VOTING.”<\/p>\n

Read those two titles side by side. Ask yourself who wrote them to inform voters \u2014 and who wrote one to scare them.<\/p>\n

I called veteran California election-law attorney Tom Hiltachk to get his take.<\/p>\n

\"That<\/p>\n

That was the central political argument Newsom and Democrats made for Prop. 50. Bonta put it right into the state’s official description of the measure. Olga \u2013 stock.adobe.com<\/p>\n

“The complete re-write of the previously issued title and summary required to be printed on the petitions used to qualify an initiative is highly unusual,” Hiltachk told me.<\/p>\n

“In this case, the extent of the changes made indicates that the attorney general was persuaded by opponents of voter ID to re-write the description to gain political advantage, most likely based on extensive public opinion research.”<\/p>\n

Here’s the maddening part. Bonta can change the language.<\/p>\n

Hiltachk confirmed that California law allows the attorney general to issue a different title and summary after an initiative qualifies.<\/p>\n

But the law also requires the attorney general to provide a “true and impartial statement” and says the title and summary shall neither be an argument nor be likely to create prejudice for or against a measure.<\/p>\n

By any reasonable measure, this rewrite fails that test.<\/p>\n

There is a bigger problem here.<\/p>\n

\"But<\/p>\n

But the law also requires the attorney general to provide a “true and impartial statement” and says the title and summary shall neither be an argument nor be likely to create prejudice for or against a measure. Bloomberg via Getty Images<\/p>\n

Democrats hold every statewide constitutional office in California and commanding majorities in both houses of the Legislature. And a Democratic attorney general has enormous discretion over the words millions of voters see when deciding the fate of measures his political allies want to pass \u2014 or defeat.<\/p>\n

Lord Acton warned that “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”<\/p>\n

The attorney general is supposed to describe ballot measures, not use his official office to, in essence, campaign for or against them.<\/p>\n

Prop. 39 would require government-issued identification for in-person voting and identifying information for mail voting, provide voter ID cards on request and require election officials to report how much of their voter rolls have been citizenship-verified.<\/p>\n

I support those reforms. California needs them.<\/p>\n

And Bonta’s attempt to tilt the playing field shouldn’t be rewarded. Watching California’s top law-enforcement officer pull something like this only reinforces why those safeguards are needed.<\/p>\n

Supporters of Prop. 39 overcame the enormous hurdle of qualifying it for the ballot. Now Bonta has put another hurdle in their way.<\/p>\n

Bonta took an oath to enforce the law fairly. Tuesday, he broke it in broad daylight, in front of 40 million Californians who are paying his salary.<\/p>\n

He may get to choose the words voters see.<\/p>\n

He doesn’t get to choose how they vote.<\/p>\n

Jon Fleischman, a longtime strategist in California politics, writes at SoDoesItMatter.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n