Lawmakers respond to voter ID lawsuit decided in California court this week

The updated title certified by the California Attorney General’s office is “Prohibits Citizens From Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification.” That is a change from the original ballot title, “Establishes Additional Voter Identification And Citizenship Verification Requirements,” according to the California Secretary of State’s Office.

Prop. 39, a voter identification ballot measure that will go before California voters on the Nov. 3 midterm election ballot, would require voters to have voter ID when casting their ballot, according to the Nov. 3 voter information pamphlet.

Citizens who want to vote would either have to present ID at voting centers during elections, or write the last four digits of their identification number on the outside of the vote-by-mail envelope. They can use their social security number or driver’s license number.

“It’s very clear that the Attorney General and some of the California politicians know that the majority of California voters support our voter ID initiative on Prop. 39,” Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Huntington Beach, told The Center Square on Friday. “So they’re trying to rig the election by putting a biased, dishonest title on a common-sense measure. So they’re changing the ballot title to say they’re prohibiting citizens from voting.”

Strickland added that isn’t true, and that the changed ballot title is misleading.

“This attorney general in particular is very biased in the title and summary,” Strickland said. “Over the past few years, the attorney general has totally used his powers in order to do this. He’s trying to mislead the voters on what the initiative actually does.”

The California Department of Justice did not respond to The Center Square before press time on Friday.

Brittany Stonesifer, senior program manager for voting rights and redistricting, said Rockwell made the correct call.

“Obviously, we are excited about the outcome,” Stonesifer told The Center Square Friday. “This new language obviously is accurate.”

Stonesifer previously told The Center Square that voter suppression, not election integrity, was the motivation for Prop. 3, and voters of color could be unfairly targeted by voter ID measures.

“Those voters should know that the court here did the right thing by making sure that these ballot labels accurately represent the harmful impacts that this would have for Californians,” Stonesifer said. “This initiative is designed to make voting harder, riskier and more expensive for all Californians, but it specifically means to target underrepresented voters and further push them out of democracy.”

Tomasa Dueñas, press secretary for Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, a Santa Cruz Democrat and chair of the Assembly Elections Committee, told The Center Square  that the court decided to reinforce one of California’s fundamental principles of the initiative process.

“Whether it’s the Attorney General’s ballot title and summary or the arguments presented in the Official Voter Information Guide, the purpose is to inform voters with clear, truthful information about what Proposition 36 would actually do, rather than unsupported claims or characterizations,” Dueñas texted to The Center Square. “Californians deserve to make that decision based on facts.”

The rest of the Democratic and Republican lawmakers who sit on elections and constitutional amendment-related committees in the state legislature did not respond to The Center Square for comment on Friday.