California Attorney General Rob Bonta has drawn well-deserved ire for altering the ballot text of Proposition 39, set to go before voters this November.
Along with its myriad other responsibilities, the state attorney general’s office is tasked with setting the official title and summary for ballot measures. Given the partisan nature of the office, AGs regularly use this power to skew language in favor of their political preference.
In this case, Bonta reworked the initiative’s circulating title — “Establishes Additional Voter Identification and Citizenship Verification Requirements”—into a far more loaded framing: “Prohibits Citizens from Voting Unless They Present Government Issued Identification.”
The summary received a similar makeover. Where the original text neutrally explained that voters must present government-issued ID at polls or write the last four digits of an ID number on mail ballots, Bonta’s rewrite leads with negative framing, stating it “invalidates mail ballots that do not have last four digits of designated government-issued identification number written on envelope.”
On a packed election ballot, subtle shifts in wording can easily tip the scales one way or another. Proponents, including Assemblyman Carl DeMaio, R-San Diego, have blasted Bonta’s change, going so far as to accuse him of “rigging the election.” While that’s a bit hyperbolic, DeMaio isn’t wrong to accuse the AG of using “pejorative, argumentative phrasing” — claims the AG’s office officially denies, of course, citing the office’s broad discretion when writing titles and summaries.
In a sense, Bonta is simply following a long state tradition.
Former AG Xavier Becerra titled a measure to repeal the state’s gas tax increase as one that “Eliminates certain road repair and transportation funding.” In 2015, AG Kamala Harris slanted a proposed ballot measure on pension reform so badly that its proponents (including DeMaio) had to abandon it.
Ironically, when this editorial board endorsed Bonta for a full term as AG in 2022, we credited him for being fair in his time as appointed AG. “We’ll keep close watch as his office issues more summaries, but so far he has stuck to his promise to describe ballot measures in a neutral manner,” we noted in the August 2022 editorial.
This is yet another reminder that an elected partisan official shouldn’t hold this power.
Whatever one thinks of any given ballot measure, descriptions must be as neutral as possible. That way, it’s truly up to the voters to decide on the matter at hand.
This editorial board has long argued that the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office — widely respected for its objectivity and professionalism — should take over writing California’s ballot titles and summaries.
Instead of expecting elected partisan AGs to behave better, it’s time to take that power away and transfer it to a more neutral entity.