California voter ID ballot measure challenged over allegedly misleading language

• A Sacramento County judge is being asked to intervene in a dispute over the wording of Proposition 39.
• The plaintiffs claim that Attorney General Rob Bonta's office altered the measure's title and summary in a way that misrepresents its purpose.
• Proposition 39 would require voters to show government-issued ID at the polls or provide digits on an ID when voting by mail.

The lead characterization in the title, summary, and label, that the measure ‘prohibits citizens from voting,’ is affirmatively inaccurate.

A Sacramento County judge is being asked to intervene in a dispute over the wording of Proposition 39, a ballot measure that would introduce voter ID requirements in California. The plaintiffs, including Californians for Voter ID and an Orange County voter, claim that Attorney General Rob Bonta's office altered the measure's title and summary in a way that misrepresents its purpose. Specifically, they argue that the new language implies that the measure would prohibit citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification, which is not accurate. The plaintiffs are seeking to have the state amend or strike the challenged language and include the new language in the voter information guide.

Proposition 39 would require voters to show government-issued ID at the polls or provide the last four digits of a government-issued ID number when voting by mail. California would also be required to issue voter ID cards upon request and elections officials would have to report annually on the percentage of verified citizens in each county. The plaintiffs argue that these requirements are not as restrictive as the new language suggests, pointing out that voters who cast ballots by mail would only need to provide digits that can be matched with existing records. They also contend that the measure's original language was neutral and accurately stated its two main purposes.

The plaintiffs are urging the court to act quickly, as printing deadlines for ballots are rapidly approaching. If the challenged language is not addressed before then, it could lead to confusion among voters and potentially affect ballot counting procedures in California's November election. The attorney general's office has maintained that its changes were necessary to provide more accurate and helpful information to voters, but the plaintiffs argue that this was a pretext for imposing prohibitive terms on the measure. State Senator Tony Strickland, coauthor of the measure, has stated that he is confident in the measure's language and does not believe it will be changed.

Lawyers and compliance officers should watch for the potential impact on voter turnout and ballot counting procedures in California's November election, as a court challenge to Proposition 39's wording could lead to last-minute changes or confusion among voters.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News