Sacramento Judge: California Prop 39 Ballot Argument Ruling Finds Claims False

• A Sacramento judge tentatively ruled that arguments supporting California's Proposition 39 are false and misleading.
• The ruling sided with Democratic leaders Robert Rivas and Monique Limón, who challenged claims about the voter ID measure saving money, simplifying voting, and enhancing security.
• Judge Shelleyanne Chang found that requiring ID for in-person voting and the last four digits of an ID for mail-in ballots contradicts claims of ease and privacy.
• The court also noted the Legislative Analyst's Office contradicted claims of cost savings, projecting increased government expenses.
• The decision is tentative, with a hearing scheduled, and another lawsuit challenging the Attorney General's wording of Prop 39's title and summary has since been decided.

Any statements suggesting Proposition 39 would result in overall fiscal savings, particularly the claimed 'millions of dollars each election,' were 'objectively untrue' and could not be dismissed as mere statements of opinion or hyperbole.

A Sacramento Superior Court judge has issued a tentative ruling finding that arguments made in favor of California's Proposition 39, a proposed voter identification measure, are false and misleading. This decision marks a preliminary victory for Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate President pro Tempore Monique Limón, prominent Democratic leaders who initiated legal action last week to challenge the language slated for the official voter information guide. The disputed claims asserted that Proposition 39 would lead to cost savings, simplify the voting process, and bolster election security.

Proposition 39, if enacted, would mandate that individuals present government-issued identification when casting a ballot in person. For those voting by mail, the measure would require them to include the final four digits of a government-issued ID on their ballot. Judge Shelleyanne Chang, in her tentative decision, expressed skepticism regarding the claim of making voting easier, noting the additional steps voters would be required to take. She specifically questioned how requiring an extra step of either bringing identification or searching for and providing ID digits for mail-in ballots could be considered 'easy' or 'easier.'

Following the tentative ruling, Judge Chang encouraged both sides in the Rivas and Limón petition to convene and propose acceptable, alternative language before a hearing scheduled for later Thursday. The parties involved in this and a related lawsuit have emphasized the need for a swift resolution, citing impending deadlines for the printing and distribution of official ballots and voter information guides.

Judge Chang's ruling meticulously addressed each of the challenged claims, finding them all to be problematic. Beyond the assertion of simplified voting, the court also took issue with the proposition's claims regarding enhanced election security and privacy protections. The judge highlighted that the measure's requirement for mail-in voters to include 'the last four digits of a unique identifying number from government-issued identification' on the exterior of the ballot envelope would, in fact, render voters' identification numbers less private and less secure, directly contradicting the proponents' arguments.

Furthermore, the court scrutinized the claim that Proposition 39 would generate millions of dollars in savings for each election cycle. Judge Chang determined this assertion was directly contradicted by findings from the Legislative Analyst’s Office. That office had projected that the proposition would actually increase government expenditures, estimating costs to rise by tens of millions to potentially hundreds of millions of dollars. Any potential savings, the Legislative Analyst’s Office indicated, would only arise from a reduction in the number of registered voters.

Based on these discrepancies, Judge Chang concluded that any statements suggesting Proposition 39 would result in overall fiscal savings, particularly the claimed 'millions of dollars each election,' were 'objectively untrue' and could not be dismissed as mere statements of opinion or hyperbole. Consequently, the judge granted the petition filed by Rivas and Limón, affirming that all challenged statements were indeed false and misleading.

While a tentative decision has been rendered in the Rivas and Limón petition, the legal landscape surrounding Proposition 39 involves another challenge. A separate lawsuit, which has since been decided, was filed by supporters of the proposition against changes made to its ballot title and summary by the state Attorney General's office. The plaintiffs in this case include Californians for Voter ID, Yes on 39, and an Orange County voter, who are contesting modifications made by Attorney General Rob Bonta's office.

Initially, the proposition's title stated it would 'establishes additional voter identification and citizenship verification requirements.' However, the Attorney General's office subsequently revised this to state that the measure 'prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification.' The plaintiffs in this related California election law litigation are seeking a judicial order to either amend or strike the challenged language. Alternatively, they are requesting that the phrase 'prohibits citizens from voting' be removed from the official ballot materials, and that the Secretary of State include their preferred language in the voter information guide.

Lawyers advising political campaigns on ballot initiatives must meticulously vet all voter information guide arguments for factual accuracy, as courts are willing to strike down claims deemed objectively false or misleading, even if presented as opinion. This ruling highlights the judicial scrutiny applied to official voter materials and the potential for last-minute changes impacting campaign messaging.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service