New York Post89%
California AG Rob Bonta rigs language in Voter ID initiative 62%
By Jon Fleischman76%
7/23/2026, 12:57:10 AM
BS Summary: This article contains 31 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 20.6% saturation with 159 hits. Analysis detected 1,372 faulty-reasoning hits from 772 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 57.1% and a BS Rank of 62% (8,243 of 21,176 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 61.10% of the article peer group.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta used the power of his office Tuesday to put a political thumb on the scale against Proposition 39.
He did it by dramatically rewriting the official title and summary of the voter ID initiative after Californians had already qualified it for the November ballot.
When supporters of Prop. 39 began collecting signatures last year, Bonta gave the initiative a straightforward official title:
“ESTABLISHES ADDITIONAL VOTER IDENTIFICATION AND CITIZENSHIP VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.”
More than 1.3 million Californians signed petitions carrying that description.
But when the state’s draft voter guide went on public display Tuesday, they saw something very different.
Here’s the new title:
“PROHIBITS CITIZENS FROM VOTING UNLESS THEY PRESENT GOVERNMENT-ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.”
The revised summary likewise emphasizes that mail ballots will be “invalidated” without required identifying information and that in-person voting will be “prohibited” without government-issued identification.
Nothing about the initiative changed.
Bonta’s description of it did.
Assemblyman Carl DeMaio, one of Prop. 39’s proponents and a leader of the Yes campaign, caught the switch and sounded the alarm.
“When Rob Bonta didn’t think we could get the signatures on Prop. 39, he provided a relatively fair ballot title,” DeMaio said.
But after voters forced it onto the ballot, DeMaio charged, Bonta changed it to “a biased and dishonest one.”
And the original language wasn’t something DeMaio wrote.
It was Bonta’s own official description of the initiative.
A biased and dishonest one.
Written by the state’s top law enforcement officer.
About an election law.
We don’t have to look very far back to see how differently Bonta treats ballot measures his political allies support.
Last year, Gov.
Gavin Newsom and legislative Democrats put Proposition 50 on the ballot to replace California’s independently drawn congressional districts with maps designed by the Democratic-controlled Legislature.
Bonta’s official title didn’t just tell voters what the measure did.
It told them why Democrats said they were doing it:
“AUTHORIZES TEMPORARY CHANGES TO CONGRESSional DISTRICT MAPS IN RESPONSE TO TEXAS’ PARTISAN REDISTRICTING.”
His official summary began the same way: “In response to Texas’ mid-decade partisan congressional redistricting…”
Compare that with “PROHIBITS CITIZENS FROM VOTING.”
Read those two titles side by side.
Ask yourself who wrote them to inform voters — and who wrote one to scare them.
I called veteran California election-law attorney Tom Hiltachk to get his take.
“The complete re-write of the previously issued title and summary required to be printed on the petitions used to qualify an initiative is highly unusual,” Hiltachk told me.
“In this case, the extent of the changes made indicates that the attorney general was persuaded by opponents of voter ID to re-write the description to gain political advantage, most likely based on extensive public opinion research.”
Here’s the maddening part.
Bonta can change the language.
Hiltachk confirmed that California law allows the attorney general to issue a different title and summary after an initiative qualifies.
But the law also requires the attorney general to provide a “true and impartial statement” and says the title and summary shall neither be an argument nor be likely to create prejudice for or against a measure.
By any reasonable measure, this rewrite fails that test.
There is a bigger problem here.
Democrats hold every statewide constitutional office in California and commanding majorities in both houses of the Legislature.
And a Democratic attorney general has enormous discretion over the words millions of voters see when deciding the fate of measures his political allies want to pass — or defeat.
Lord Acton warned that “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
The attorney general is supposed to describe ballot measures, not use his official office to, in essence, campaign for or against them.
Prop. 39 would require government-issued identification for in-person voting and identifying information for mail voting, provide voter ID cards on request and require election officials to report how much of their voter rolls have been citizenship-verified.
I support those reforms.
California needs them.
And Bonta’s attempt to tilt the playing field shouldn’t be rewarded.
Watching California’s top law-enforcement officer pull something like this only reinforces why those safeguards are needed.
Supporters of Prop. 39 overcame the enormous hurdle of qualifying it for the ballot.
Now Bonta has put another hurdle in their way.
Bonta took an oath to enforce the law fairly.
Tuesday, he broke it in broad daylight, in front of 40 million Californians who are paying his salary.
He may get to choose the words voters see.
He doesn’t get to choose how they vote.
*Jon Fleischman, a longtime strategist in California politics, writes at SoDoesItMatter.com*.
Speakers
2speakers14%attributed speech666writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice
100%flagged-word coverageTom Hiltachk
65 attributed words61% of attributed speech76% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.