State officials were sued this week after changing the official title and summary language for a ballot initiative \u2014 a common legal fight due to the way California prepares voting materials.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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 \u201crig\u201d the process.<\/p>\n
\u201cSo that voters are confused and are prejudiced against voting for the initiative,\u201d DeMaio told KCRA 3<\/a>.<\/p>\n In California, a proponent submits an initiative for the Attorney General\u2019s Office to draft a title and summary before collecting signatures to qualify for the ballot. If they\u2019re successful, the attorney general can alter that language before voting information materials are finalized.<\/p>\n Bonta\u2019s office initially stated Prop 39 “Establishes additional voter identification and citizenship verification requirements.”<\/a> Earlier this month, they changed that language to “Prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification.”<\/a><\/p>\n A pro-voter ID group filed suit Monday, arguing the description of the proposition \u201cis not a true and impartial statement of the measure’s purpose.” They\u2019re asking the court to order new language ahead of an Aug. 10 deadline to finalize materials for a voter information guide.<\/p>\n The Attorney General\u2019s Office is reviewing the petition.<\/p>\n \u201cWe 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,\u201d the office said in a statement.<\/p>\n The Sacramento Bee reported<\/a> Wednesday that Democratic state legislative leaders also filed their own suit against different Prop 39 language in the draft voter guide: supporters\u2019 argument in favor of the initiative.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n \u201cThe proponents are saying \u2018Hey, the attorney general is in the other party. They don\u2019t like my policy,\u2019\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Political science studies<\/a> have suggested the way an initiative is phrased can impact whether voters support it.<\/p>\n \u201cSo these court battles, there are high stakes to them,\u201d Kousser said.<\/p>\n Still, the courts appear hesitant to mandate changes.<\/p>\n In a high-profile example from 2017, Republicans challenged then-Democratic Attorney General Xavier Becerra\u2019s language for an initiative to repeal California\u2019s 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 \u201cconsiderable latitude\u201d to draft initiative language, SF Gate reported<\/a>.<\/p>\n Some states charge nonpartisan officials or boards with drafting initiative language, while others allow proponents to write their own titles and summaries.<\/p>\n