Republish
California legislators must stop the attorney general from rigging ballot initiative descriptions
We love that you want to share our stories with your readers. Hundreds of publications republish our work on a regular basis.
All of the articles at CalMatters are available to republish for free, under the following conditions:
-
- Give prominent credit to our journalists: Credit our authors at the top of the article and any other byline areas of your publication. In the byline, we prefer āBy Author Name, CalMatters.ā If youāre republishing guest commentary (example) from CalMatters, in the byline, use āBy Author Name, Special for CalMatters.ā
-
- Credit CalMatters at the top of the story: At the top of the storyās text, include this copy: āThis story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.ā If you are republishing commentary, include this copy instead: āThis commentary was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.ā If youāre republishing in print, omit the second sentence on newsletter signups.
-
- Do not edit the article, including the headline, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. For example, āyesterdayā can be changed to ālast week,ā and āAlameda Countyā to āAlameda County, Californiaā or āhere.ā
-
- If you add reporting that would help localize the article, include this copy in your story: āAdditional reporting by [Your Publication]ā and let us know at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- If you wish to translate the article, please contact us for approval at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations by CalMatters staff or shown as āfor CalMattersā may only be republished alongside the stories in which they originally appeared. For any other uses, please contact us for approval at visuals@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations from wire services like the Associated Press, Reuters, iStock are not free to republish.
-
- Do not sell our stories, and do not sell ads specifically against our stories. Feel free, however, to publish it on a page surrounded by ads you’ve already sold.
-
- Sharing a CalMatters story on social media? Please mention @CalMatters. We’re on X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and BlueSky.
If youād like to regularly republish our stories, we have some other options available. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org if youāre interested.
Have other questions or special requests? Or do you have a great story to share about the impact of one of our stories on your audience? Weād love to hear from you. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org.
California legislators must stop the attorney general from rigging ballot initiative descriptions
Share this:
By Kevin Kiley, Special to CalMatters
Assemblyman Kevin Kiley represents the 6th Assembly District, which includes parts of El Dorado, Placer, and Sacramento counties, Assemblymember.Kiley@assembly.ca.gov. He wrote this commentary for CalMatters.
Imagine that in next yearās presidential race, election officials scrambled the letters in Donald Trump so it appeared on ballots as Daldon Prumt. Most people would agree this is not acceptable. Voters need their ballots to accurately convey who it is they are voting for or against.
Yet for decades, a similar exercise in obfuscation has been perpetrated on California voters.
Every two years, Californians become lawmakers by voting on statewide ballot propositions, which often have enormous consequences for the state. To understand what it is they are voting for or against, many voters rely solely on the description of the proposition written on their ballot. But time and again, this ādescriptionā has failed to accurately convey what the proposition would do.
Oddly, the job of writing these all-important ballot descriptions falls not to an elections officer or some other neutral official, but is instead entrusted to the partisan, elected attorney general of California.
Our current Attorney General, Democrat Xavier Becerra, is only the latest in a line of attorneys general who have exercised this power without even a pretense of impartiality, instead skewing ballot language to lead voters towards their preferred political outcome.
Last month, Becerraās office released the ballot description for a proposed $12.5 billion a year in new taxes on business properties.
The most salient fact about this propositionāthat it is a massive tax increaseāis mysteriously absent from Becerraās description.
Instead, the attorney general mentions three times in the 100-word summary that the measure would fund education and schools. Not coincidentally, this major assist from the attorney general came after polls showed the proposal, when accurately described, failing to gain traction with voters.
For many observers, Becerraās latest attempt to subvert the electoral process is a bridge too far. Editorial boards and columnists across the state expressed frustration and outrage, calling his ballot description an āabuse of power,ā āshameful,ā ādishonorable,ā ātaking political sides.ā
A San Francisco Chronicle columnist observed that Becerra ācanāt be trusted with that solemn obligation to voter education.ā
This misuse of power is not unique to Becerra or his political party. In 1996, Republican Attorney General Dan Lungren wrote a misleading summary for Proposition 209, an initiative seeking to end affirmative action in California.
More recently, in 2015 Democratic Attorney General Kamala Harris wrote a slanted title and summary for a pension reform measure, which the backers ultimately abandoned because Harris took the fate of the measure into her own hands.
And two years ago, Becerra took heat for not including the words ātaxā or āfeesā in his description of the 12-cent-a-gallon gas tax repeal, which ultimately confused voters and led to the measureās defeat.
The attorney general, or any elected politician, is simply the wrong person to be tasked with writing neutral ballot language. After all, ballot propositions are supposed to be a way for citizens to make laws directly without politicians standing in the way.
Thatās why I proposed Assembly Constitutional Amendment 7, which would take the authority away from the AG and put it in the hands of a nonpartisan entity free from political pressures by special interests.
Specifically, ACA 7 would assign ballot descriptions to the Legislative Analystās Office, which has proven itself trustworthy and capable of writing impartial analyses of every initiative that qualifies for the ballot.
This change would ensure fairness in our initiative process regardless of who is elected attorney general–something all voters deserve. Thatās why good government groups such as California Common Cause and the League of Women Voters of California have endorsed my proposal.
When the Legislature reconvenes in January, I am calling on my colleagues to restore fairness to the initiative process and pass ACA 7.
___
Assemblyman Kevin Kiley represents the 6th Assembly District, which includes parts of El Dorado, Placer, and Sacramento counties, Assemblymember.Kiley@assembly.ca.gov. He wrote this commentary for CalMatters.