On November’s ballot in California this year, voters will see Proposition 39, the Voter Identification Initiative, which has stirred controversy due to a last-minute change in its title and label. Supporters of the proposition filed a lawsuit against California’s Attorney General on Monday, claiming that the altered wording constitutes biased manipulation of the election process.
Originally titled “Establishes Additional Voter Identification and Citizenship Verification Requirements,” Proposition 39 had been using this title throughout the signature collection and qualification process to be included on the November ballot since September 19, 2025.
After obtaining enough signatures, the California Attorney General’s office, headed by Rob Bonta, certified the initiative on July 3 and renamed it to “Prohibits Citizens From Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification.”
In response, the “Yes on 39” alliance, in collaboration with “Californians for Voter ID,” and Orange County voter Donald DiCostanzo, filed a ten-page lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court demanding a correction to the Attorney General’s certified ballot title, summary, and label.
The lawsuit alleges that Bonta violated election laws by failing to remain neutral and that the new title is inaccurate because “the proposal does not prohibit any citizen from voting but rather regulates which ballots can be counted.”
According to the lawsuit, Proposition 39 aims primarily to establish ballot verification rules for election officials responsible for counting votes.
The initiative includes three main requirements:
1. The California Secretary of State and county election officials must maintain accurate voter registration records.
2. In-person voters must present government-issued identification, while mail-in voters must provide the last four digits of their government-issued identification number.
3. Election officials must regularly report and be audited on their execution of verifying the citizenship status of registered voters.
The lawsuit argues that the revised ballot title and summary are misleading, using prohibitive language to describe the proposal. Additionally, the new summary omits crucial details about the requirement for election agencies to maintain accurate voter rolls.
Bonta’s office informed the media that the modifications were entirely legal and aimed at providing voters with more comprehensive information. A spokesperson stated, “We take the responsibility of editing proposal titles and summaries very seriously, and we are confident that the court will agree that we have faithfully fulfilled our duties in this matter.”
Bonta had previously noted that among the 14 measures on this year’s ballot, he had drafted the titles and summaries for nine of them, all of which were amended.
Leading the signature collection efforts for Proposition 39, State Assemblyman Carl DeMaio criticized the new title and summary. In a press release on the 21st, DeMaio highlighted that Proposition 39 is a bipartisan solution supported by the vast majority of Democratic, independent, and Republican voters.
“Our proposal does not bar any citizens from voting; in fact, we aim at protecting citizens’ votes, ensuring that each vote is valid and not offset by illegal or illegitimate ballots,” DeMaio clarified. He explained that Proposition 39 differs from the Congressional “Save Act” as it preserves mail-in ballots, which offer convenience without imposing additional burdens on voters.
DeMaio noted that the original title was used for the initiative petition, which collected over 1.3 million signatures. He criticized Bonta for altering the title with biased and dishonest wording at the last moment, attempting to manipulate the election and undermine Proposition 39.
However, DeMaio acknowledged the slim likelihood of winning in California courts, where judges often share the same political party alignment as the Attorney General, who also aspires for promotions. Regardless, DeMaio affirmed their commitment to pursuing legal avenues while ensuring that voters understand the truth.
He also referenced a similar situation in 2018 with a ballot measure aimed to repeal California’s gas tax. The Attorney General at the time, Xavier Becerra, changed its title from “Gas Tax Repeal Initiative” to “Eliminates Recently Enacted Road Repair and Transportation Funding” at the last minute, leading to a significant drop in public support from 65% to 45%.
DeMaio expressed confidence that even with the revised title and summary, voters would ultimately support Proposition 39.
The lawsuit requests an expedited hearing in court and hopes for a ruling before August 10. At that point, California officials will begin printing the official Voter Information Guide for the November elections.