The Real Threat to California Election Integrity? Biased Ballot Titles
SACRAMENTO — California’s biggest legislative battles are fought at the ballot box given our state’s freewheeling initiative process, which places make-or-break power in the hands of the attorney general. AGs write the titles and summaries of any measure that makes it to the statewide ballot. Those descriptions are the main — or only — information voters read before making their decision. As partisan politicians, AGs often write those descriptions to benefit their allies and hobble their foes.
The state is now in the midst of a battle over a Voter ID measure that voters will consider on the November ballot — so of course this time-tested AG tradition of putting their finger on the scales is front and center. AG Rob Bonta is a progressive Democrat who has battled various Voter ID proposals, so his latest changes to the ballot title have prompted understandable anger — and even a lawsuit — from the measure’s supporters.
Proposition 39 is a fairly modest proposal placed on the ballot through signature-gathering. Per the Legislative Analyst’s Office, it “requires voters to present government-issued identification” when voting in person. “When voting by mail, Proposition 39 requires voters to provide the last four digits of their selected government-issued identification number on the ballot envelope.”
As KPBS reported, Bonta’s office initially offered this description: “Establishes additional voter identification and citizenship verification requirements.” But in early July, “they changed that language to ‘Prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification.’” That’s a startling difference, as the first explanation seems benign, whereas the second one sounds nefarious. It’s one thing to require additional voter identification and quite another to prohibit citizens from voting. Prop. 39 proponents have a solid complaint.
Meanwhile, leading legislative Democrats have sued the secretary of state for elements of proponents’ “vote yes” argument printed in the state’s official voting guide. Proponents claim the measure will make voting easier and that it will result in cost savings. Those lawmakers might be correct, as the measure does, on its face, impose new hurdles, however small, on voters. The LAO, which provides genuinely fair-minded analyses, pins the additional costs on local governments at “tens of millions of dollars to low hundreds of millions of dollars.”
Still, supporters and foes who make pro and con arguments should have more leeway than the AG, who writes the overall explanation. AGs, from our likely next governor Xavier Becerra to former Vice President Kamala Harris, were notorious for their alleged title-writing biases. Harris was accused of echoing labor-union talking points in a way that killed a 2014 pension-reform measure, for instance. Republican AGs have done so, as well, but it’s been 26 years since we had one of those.
I have no problem with narrowly tailored, state-based reforms that require voting identification — provided the measures don’t impose undue burdens on voters or are the cat’s paw for partisan shenanigans. Prop. 39 seems to conform to that standard and perhaps will, as supporters suggest, instill more confidence in California’s elections. I take umbrage at those who claim Voter ID will revive the California GOP’s electoral prospects, and others who cast aspersions on the state’s voting system mainly because they don’t understand how votes are tallied.
California’s voting system is ripe for improvement, but the problem lies in our slow vote-counting. That can be fixed by, say, allowing registrars to start tabulating votes before the polls close on Election Day or changing deadlines so voters don’t have a full week after Election Day for their mail-in ballots to arrive. But that doesn’t mean registrars are stealing elections.
A new scorecard by my R Street Institute colleague, governance fellow Chris McIsaac, found that our nation’s decentralized election system yields various levels of efficiency, but most states do a decent and fair job tabulating results. The lowest states scored a 3 out of 5 based on a variety of administrative standards, including their ability to accurately identify voters. California’s overall system received a middling 3.5, with its problems centered on the so-so way it maintains its lists — and its lacking voter-identification system. Prop. 39 could help raise our grade, but it should be up to the states — and not the feds — to tinker with their systems.
Seeing the Trump administration trying to meddle in state elections by accessing voter data is disturbing, given the partisan nature of the election comments made by the president. We wouldn’t want, say, the Biden administration sticking its fingers in local election counting. We shouldn’t want Republicans to do it, either. Per the report, state “differences strengthen the system … because they allow for experimentation and innovation that can either lead to new best practices or serve as cautionary tales on strategies to avoid.” Two cheers for federalism.
However, California really does need to do something about its most obvious case of election interference: those above-mentioned attorney generals who have a long history of meddling in initiative contests by unfairly describing the measures. If California really wants to boost faith in its elections, it should turn that power over to, say, the LAO or a panel of retired judges — but I somehow doubt that there’s any appetite in Sacramento to do so.
Whatever one thinks about Voter ID, it is well within the purview of the state’s voters to decide on such basic election matters. It would be an election-integrity-undermining travesty if a biased description were the deciding factor.