California Attorney General, Rob Bonta, recently won a court case challenging his modification of the title and explanatory text of a proposition on the November ballot. The judge, Jennifer K. Rockwell, ruled on Thursday that Bonta’s changes to Proposition 39 were accurate and within his legal authority.
The original title of the proposition was “Establishes Additional Voter Identification and Citizenship Verification Requirements,” which had been in use since September 19, 2025, while the proposition was undergoing signature gathering to be included on this year’s November ballot.
After obtaining enough signatures and passing the qualification review, the Attorney General’s Office certified the proposition on July 3, renaming it as “Prohibits Citizens From Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification” a few weeks later.
In response, State Assemblyman Carl DeMaio collaborated with the political action committee “Yes on 39” and filed a lawsuit in the Sacramento County Superior Court to “correct the ballot title, summary, and the label certified by the Attorney General.”
The lawsuit filed on July 27 argued that the new title was inaccurate as the proposition did not actually prohibit any citizens from voting but rather regulated which ballots should be counted.
According to the lawsuit, the proposition established three requirements. Firstly, the Secretary of State and county election officials must maintain accurate voter records. Secondly, in-person voters must present a government-issued ID, while mail-in voters must provide the last four digits of their government-issued ID. Lastly, election officials must work on verifying voter rolls and undergo regular reporting and audits.
Judge Rockwell noted that the proposition’s requirement for verifying the identity of in-person voters “is not just a verification rule, as it imposes substantive restrictions on citizens casting ballots.” Voting involves ensuring the ballot is counted, not just casting it.
Rockwell explained that under Proposition 39, ballots that do not meet the proper ID requirements would not be counted, effectively prohibiting citizens from voting without presenting proper identification.
On the day of the ruling, Bonta expressed satisfaction with the judge’s decision on social media, stating, “Today’s ruling confirms our belief from the beginning: the controversial ballot materials – title, summary, and label – truthfully and fairly reflect the main purpose and key points of Proposition 39.”
DeMaio remarked that he was not surprised by the court’s decision and stated on social media, “Despite politicians using various dirty tricks to manipulate voters, we are confident that the bipartisan consensus solution for voter ID presented by Proposition 39 will still be approved.”
The supporters of Proposition 39 stated that they will continue to raise awareness about the title change before the November election. DeMaio mentioned in a video posted on social media, “Following the judge’s decision, we have no choice but to stick with this title. However, the good news is that the vast majority of Californians support voter ID verification.”
Starting from Monday, officials in California have begun preparing the official Voter Information Guide, which will be distributed in September. The voter registration deadline is on October 19, with the election scheduled for November 3.