California’s attorney general has drawn renewed scrutiny following a late-stage revision to the description of a proposed voter identification measure, reigniting debate over the role of partisan officials in framing ballot initiatives. The change, made by Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, alters the official summary of Proposition 39 ahead of the upcoming election.

Proposition 39 seeks to tighten voting requirements by mandating that in-person voters present government-issued identification and that mail-in voters provide the last four digits of an identification number. Bonta’s revised description now states the measure “prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification,” replacing the prior wording that it “establishes additional voter identification and citizenship verification requirements.” Critics argue the new language could influence voter perception by emphasizing the restrictive aspect of the proposal.

The attorney general’s office is statutorily responsible for drafting titles and summaries of citizen-initiated ballot measures to inform the electorate, but the task has frequently become contentious due to the officeholder’s political affiliations. Opponents contend that such officials use their authority to tailor language in ways that favor their political interests or confuse voters.

This controversy echoes previous incidents involving past California attorneys general, including former AG Xavier Becerra, now a leading candidate for governor. Becerra faced multiple lawsuits—six in total—over his handling of ballot measure descriptions during his tenure.

Examples from recent years illustrate the pattern:

- **Proposition 22 (2020):** This initiative classified app-based transportation and delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than employees eligible for benefits. Becerra’s description highlighted that it “exempts app-based transportation and delivery companies from providing employee benefits,” diverging from the original title’s neutrally phrased “changes employment classification rules for app-based transportation and delivery drivers.” Supporters of the measure criticized this rephrasing as mirroring labor unions’ opposition narratives.

- **Proposition 6 (2018):** Designed to repeal a statewide gas tax increase funding road repairs, the measure was described by Becerra as “eliminat[ing] certain road repair and transportation funding.” Opponents challenged this characterization in court but failed to have it overturned.

- **Proposition 15 (2020):** This property tax initiative aimed to increase funding for schools and local governments by reassessing commercial and industrial properties based on market value. While labor unions supported the measure, business groups argued Becerra’s title—“Increases funding for public schools, community colleges, and local government services by changing tax assessment of commercial and industrial property”—downplayed its nature as a tax increase.

Most recently, Proposition 5 (2024) sought to lower the supermajority voting threshold required for approving certain bonds related to housing and infrastructure projects from two-thirds to 55%. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association contested Bonta’s description, asserting it misleadingly suggested an increase in the vote threshold rather than a decrease. Bonta’s office defended the summary in court, stating it was reasonable to assume voters understood the existing voting laws.

As the debate continues, the practice of attorneys general revising ballot measure language remains a focal point for discussions about electoral fairness and voter clarity in California’s direct democracy system.