California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) dealt a body blow to a voter identification ballot measure by rewriting the description after it received enough signatures to make the ballot. According to the measure’s new title in a draft voter guide released last week, Proposition 39 “prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification.” It takes real determination to make an 80-20 issue sound so terrible.

California Proposition 39 is a standard voter ID measure, which would require voters to produce a government ID every time they cast a ballot or to provide the last four digits of the ID number if voting by mail. Reportedly, the proposition requires any government ID, not specifically a photo ID.

One duty of the California attorney general’s office is to write a title and summary for a proposed ballot measure. The attorney general’s office originally titled Proposition 39, “Establishes Additional Voter Identification and Citizenship Verification Requirements.”

“When Rob Bonta didn’t think we could get the signatures on Prop. 39, he provided a relatively fair ballot title,” said Assemblyman Carl DeMaio (R), the measure’s sponsor.

However, it seems that even Californians are less open to noncitizens diluting their votes than the leftist fringe would like to believe. Before the deadline, Proposition 39 collected more than 1.3 million signatures under Bonta’s original title, so that the measure qualified for the ballot.

That set alarm bells ringing in Sacramento. In 2024, the City of Huntington Beach approved a voter ID ballot measure for voting in local elections beginning in 2026. Shortly thereafter, the state government enacted a law prohibiting local governments from implementing voter ID measures. If Proposition 39 passed, it would be a rebuke to the entire progressive supermajority that has kept California elections unguarded in spite of public support for commonsense security measures like requiring voter ID.

In a matter of weeks, Bonta’s office created new language for Proposition 39, which made it sound much less desirable. The new title of the measure says it “Prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification,” when its real aim is to prohibit noncitizens from voting. It further puts the entire description in negative terms. “Invalidates mail ballots that do not have last four digits of designated government-issued identification number written on envelope. Prohibits in-person voting without presenting government-issued identification.”

DeMaio slammed the new language as “a biased and dishonest” title with “pejorative, argumentative phrasing,” accusing Bonta of “rigging the election.”

Bonta has taken flak for writing slanted titles for ballot measures before. In 2025, Bonta informed California voters that a blatant gerrymander to eliminate five Republican districts “authorizes temporary changes to congressional district maps in response to Texas’ partisan redistricting.”

A fundamental weakness in ballot measures is that voters often do not see the full text on which they are voting, or the legal jargon it entails is hardly comprehensible to the ordinary voter. Thus, simplified titles and descriptions of ballot measures can play a significant role in determining whether the measures succeed or fail.

Progressives have often turned this fact to their advantage by manipulating voters with skewed descriptions for ballot measures, enabling them to sneak undesirable policies into state laws and constitutions, because voters did not really know what they were voting for.

For instance, in the 2024 election, the first full cycle after Roe v. Wade was overturned, pro-abortion activists placed pro-abortion initiatives on the ballot in 10 different states. Almost all of these passed, even in red states with pro-life laws. But opponents argued that the language for many of the ballot measures was “deceptive.” For instance, the pro-abortion ballot measure in Missouri also included an attack on parental rights and some recognition for gender transition procedures.

In 2026, Virginia Democrats proposed a similar ballot measure to place a right to abortion in the state constitution. However, the move drew a lawsuit from the Founding Freedoms Law Center (FFLC), alleging that it “completely fails to inform the voters that the proposed amendment, due to its overwhelming breadth, would overturn many significant aspects of Virginia regulatory authority.” Among other things, the lawsuit alleged, the amendment would terminate parental consent and notification requirements for minors seeking abortion or sterilization, facilitate the rape of minors, and potentially allow non-licensed, non-medical professionals to commit abortions.

American progressives pay loud, frequent homage to the idea of “democracy,” usually defined as Jean-Jacques Rousseau defined it — as the will of a majority of voters. They therefore fully endorse ballot measures, referenda, and other legislation-by-election as the most direct expression of their ideal vision of democracy.

However, the frequency with which some progressives thumb the scales on such ballot referenda suggests that they have ideals higher than democracy. Progressives fear that voters will choose the options progressives disfavor, such as when they elected Donald Trump to the presidency in 2024. Thus, they put their thumb on the scale of ballot measures with deceptive language, manipulating voters into choosing the “right” option.

Progressives don’t want real democracy, where the people choose freely and without hindrance. They want a stage-managed “democracy.” They want a system in which they provide the signals, and voters follow their lead. Progressives have an aesthetic preference for popular election, because they want to believe that they are fighting “for the people.” But, too often, when push comes to shove, progressives reveal that they will implement their preferred policies by any means necessary, even if “the people” are not ready to go along without a nudge.