Supporters of a California ballot measure requiring voter identification have filed a lawsuit challenging the state Attorney General’s description of the initiative on the November ballot, alleging the language is biased and misleading.

The lawsuit, lodged Monday in Sacramento County Superior Court, was brought by Californians for Voter ID, Yes on 39, and Orange County voter Donald DiCostanzo. Led by California Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), the plaintiffs argue that Attorney General Rob Bonta’s official summary of Proposition 39 violates California Elections Code by failing to provide an impartial statement of the measure's purpose.

Proposition 39 would mandate that voters present government-issued identification, such as a driver’s license, when casting ballots in person. For mail-in ballots, the measure requires voters to include a four-digit personal identification number (PIN) derived from official identification or generated by the county on their ballot envelopes. Additionally, the measure directs the secretary of state and county elections officials to maintain accurate voter rolls, verify citizenship status, and report annually on the percentage of citizenship-verified registrations in each county.

Currently, California law requires identification only at the voter registration stage, where individuals must affirm eligibility and citizenship under penalty of perjury; no ID is necessary when voting in person or by mail.

The lawsuit claims that Bonta’s ballot label unfairly characterizes the measure as prohibiting citizens from voting without ID, omitting language about voter roll maintenance and citizenship verification included in the description used during signature gathering. Plaintiffs contend the language is framed in “prohibitive terms” and thus misleads voters about the measure’s intent.

According to the plaintiff’s complaint, the initial circulation materials described the measure as establishing “additional voter identification and citizenship verification requirements” and requiring officials to provide voter ID cards upon request. In contrast, Bonta’s final summary states the proposition “prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification,” and “invalidates mail ballots” lacking the required PIN, language the plaintiffs argue is misleading and negative.

A spokesperson for Bonta defended the summary, stating the Attorney General’s office takes its responsibility to provide fair and accurate ballot language seriously and expects the courts will uphold their work.

Legal observers note that California law permits some variation between circulated descriptions and official summaries. Election law expert Fred Woocher emphasized that the summary’s wording can legally differ from initial materials. UCLA law professor Rick Hasen, who declined to comment on the lawsuit itself, has previously criticized Proposition 39 as vague and difficult to implement, noting that verifying citizenship would impose significant administrative challenges.

The statutory window for challenging ballot materials in California spans 20 days. On Wednesday, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) and Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limón (D-Goleta) filed a separate lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court opposing Proposition 39. They argue that claims the measure makes voting “easier” are false, emphasizing that the requirement to find and provide a unique identification number could complicate mail voting.

DeMaio dismissed the latest suit as “frivolous.” The dispute echoes a 2017 case where proponents of a gas tax repeal sued the then-Attorney General Xavier Becerra over allegedly misleading ballot language. While a judge initially ruled in favor of the proponents, an appellate court ultimately upheld the state’s ballot description.

As the legal challenges unfold, voters will weigh Proposition 39 alongside other initiatives on the November ballot.