Words matter. And when those words come from the government and appear on a ballot, they matter even more.
When ballots drop on October 5th, Californians will begin voting on Proposition 39, a constitutional amendment concerning voter identification and citizenship verification. But before voters ever reach the substance of the measure, they will encounter something worth examining: the words the State of California has chosen to describe it.
When the initiative that became Proposition 39 qualified for the ballot, the Secretary of State announced it using the Attorney General's circulating title: “Establishes Additional Voter Identification and Citizenship Verification Requirements.”
The title voters will see in the state's official voter guide is considerably different: “Prohibits Citizens From Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification.”
Those two sentences describe the same ballot measure, but they don't read the same way. That's something Californians should pay attention to, regardless of how they ultimately vote on Proposition 39.
California's ballot initiative process gives citizens extraordinary power. Voters can change statutes, amend our state Constitution, and make policy decisions that ordinarily would be left to elected lawmakers. With that power comes a responsibility on the part of government: Give voters clear information and let them make the decision.
The Attorney General has an important role in that process. His office prepares the official titles and summaries for ballot measures, and those few words can shape a voter's first impression of an initiative long before he or she reads the actual text. That's precisely why neutrality matters.
Supporters of Proposition 39 challenged the revised language in court, arguing that it was prejudicial. A Sacramento County Superior Court judge rejected that challenge and concluded that the new title and summary accurately described the measure's effects. That ruling is an important part of the record and should be acknowledged.
But a court's determination that language satisfies the requirements of the law doesn't end the broader conversation about how California should communicate with its voters. The question isn't simply whether each word can be defended as technically accurate. It's whether the government's description gives voters a neutral understanding of the policy choice before them.
Today's voter ID initiative may be tomorrow's tax increase, criminal justice reform, environmental regulation, or constitutional amendment. Californians across the political spectrum should want the same standard applied to all of them.
Imagine a ballot title concerning a policy you strongly oppose. Now imagine the government rewriting that title using language favored by the policy's supporters. You probably wouldn't be satisfied simply because every individual word could be defended as technically accurate. The standard we expect when our side is out of power should be the same standard we defend when our side is in power.
Government shouldn't need to persuade voters through a ballot title. Campaigns exist to make arguments. Supporters can tell voters why they should vote yes. Opponents can tell them why they should vote no. Newspapers, advocacy organizations, political parties and citizens can argue the merits as vigorously as they want. The government's job should be different: Tell voters what the measure does.
That principle becomes even more important in a state where voters are routinely asked to decide complicated questions of law and public policy through the initiative process. Most Californians don't have hours to study every provision of every measure, which means the official title and summary can carry significant weight.
Those words should inform, not persuade.
Give us the facts. Spare us the framing. And trust California voters to decide the rest.
Mike Garcia is a former U.S. Congressman, F/A-18 Navy combat fighter pilot, and aerospace executive. He is Chairman of America First California at the America First Policy Institute and serves on the Department of War’s Defense Policy Board.