By admin 
Backers of a ballot measure that would institute a voter ID requirement are threatening possible legal action after Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office rephrased the title and summary of the proposition in a way they say is biased.
Read more Audit says UC, CSU sexual harassment response has improved, but gaps remain
Proposition 39 would require voters to produce a government-issued ID every time they cast a ballot in California, or if voting by mail, provide the last four digits of an ID number.
The proposition is roundly opposed by California’s elected Democrats, who argue the initiative is unnecessary and would disenfranchise voters. Prop. 39 has drawn financial support from right-leaning billionaires as well as grassroots conservative activists.
Bonta’s office is charged with setting the title and summary of potential propositions — a process that critics say can lead to biased phrasing.
Bonta’s office initially called the voter ID proposal “Establishes Additional Voter Identification and Citizenship Verification Requirements.” Backers used that title to collect more than 1.3 million signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot.
The initial, 2025 version of the description said the measure would “further require that voters present government-issued identification at the polls or the last four digits of a government-issued identification number when voting by mail; the State provide voter identification cards on request; and elections officials annually report percentage of each county’s voters whose citizenship they have verified.”
But on Tuesday, Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s office with a new label: “Prohibits Citizens from Voting Unless They Present Government Issued Identification.”
The summary of Prop. 39 also changed. It now says that the measure “invalidates mail ballots that do not have last four digits of designated government-issued identification number written on envelope” and “prohibits in-person voting without presenting government-issued identification.”
In a video released on his social media channels Tuesday evening, the measure’s sponsor, Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, R-San Diego, called the change “pejorative, argumentative phrasing” and accused Bonta of “rigging the election.” DeMaio said the coalition backing Prop. 39 would discuss legal action, though he was skeptical the left-leaning California Supreme Court would give them a fair hearing.
Read more Is the California State Fair affordable? What to expect to pay for food, rides
Lawsuits are a perennial feature of California’s election season, but judges have been reluctant to alter the attorney general’s phrasing.
Meredith Shields, a spokesperson for the “Californians for Voter ID, Yes on 39” said voters of all stripes would agree that Bonta’s new description is “partisan, biased and intended to predetermine an election outcome.”
“Whether you support or oppose this measure, changing ballot language at the 11th hour only fuels public skepticism about our election system,” Shields said. “Californians deserve a process that is transparent, consistent and fair from beginning to end.”
State code says a measure’s ballot title needs to be “true and impartial,” but says it may differ from previous iterations.
Bonta’s spokesperson, Walter Garcia, said it is “not uncommon for the ballot title and summary to change from the circulating version — and this year, all nine voter-proposed initiatives had changes.”
“Our office properly exercised its discretion to provide further clarity to voters about Prop. 39’s chief purpose and points for the ballot stage,” Garcia said.
Republican lawmakers have proposed moving the naming duties out of the Attorney General’s Office to nonpartisan legislative analysts, but those efforts have so far been stymied by Democrats.
Read more Driver convicted in DUI crash that killed five passengers along Sacramento Delta