Top Democrats rip arguments in support of California voter ID ballot measure

The Assembly speaker and state Senate president pro tempore want a quick resolution, as voter information guides will be printed soon.SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — Two of California’s top lawmakers filed suit Wednesday over language about a November ballot initiative seeking to impose voter ID requirements on the Golden State.Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate President pro Tempore Monique Limón are challenging an argument in favor of Proposition 39. They say initiative supporters have made false claims, including that it saves money, makes voting easier and forbids placing burdens on voters.“Because California law prohibits these unsupportable statements from being distributed to voters through the state’s official ballot materials, they must be stricken,” the pair says in the lawsuit.The Democratic lawmakers urge a Sacramento County Superior Court judge to resolve the suit by Aug. 10, as voter information guides will be printed and mailed to millions of people within weeks. No hearing date has been set.A voter-initiated ballot measure, Proposition 39 would require people to show government-issued ID when casting a ballot in person. They’d have to include the last four digits of a government-issued ID when voting by mail.California would have to provide voter ID cards when requested, and elections officials would have annual reporting requirements, showing the percentage of voters whose citizenship they’ve verified.No ID is currently required at state polls.“Prop. 39 keeps voting EASY — while also making it more SECURE,” the argument in support states. “Prop. 39 keeps mail ballots, extended polling hours and all other conveniences in place for voting accessibility. Most importantly, Prop. 39 requires no burdens be placed on voters. No additional documents (birth certificate, marriage license, etc.) are required.”Rivas and Limón say it’s untrue that the measure would make it easier to vote, as voters need show no ID currently.“The argument in favor falsely states that ‘[n]o additional documents (birth certificate, marriage license, etc.) are required,’” the pair say, adding: “Proposition 39 plainly requires ‘additional documents’ from voters, because current law does not require in-person voters to present any documents at the time of voting.”The lawmakers also say a claim that the proposition has privacy protections is wrong, as no new privacy or security measures are included.And a mention of the state’s signature verification process implies the proposition would eliminate or change those requirements, which isn’t accurate, they say. The measure adds voter ID requirements and repeals no other procedure currently in place.The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office contradicts supporters’ arguments that the proposition would save money. While the office said it could reduce some costs, other costs would increase by hundreds of millions of dollars, the pair writes.Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, a San Diego Republican and coauthor of the proposition, blasted the suit in an X post.“These politicians know that they can’t win a fair vote on Prop 39’s bipartisan solution for voter ID because it has supermajority support from California voters,” he wrote. “So instead they’re trying to deceive voters by putting a false ballot title on it and are now even distracting voters from their tampering of the ballot title with this frivolous lawsuit.”The lawsuit is the second filed this week in Sacramento County over the proposition.Californians for Voter ID, Yes on 39 and an Orange County voter sued claiming Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office made improper changes to the measure’s title and summary.Initially, it stated the proposition “Establishes additional voter identification and citizenship verification requirements.” Bonta’s office changed it to: “Prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification.”They want a judge to compel the state to amend or strike the challenged language and have the secretary of state include the new language in the voter information guide. Alternatively, they want the phrase “prohibits citizens from voting” removed.A hearing is set in that case for Aug. 6.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads