Court Rules in Favor of California AG Over Voter ID Ballot Measure Title

California’s attorney general secured a win in the lawsuit challenging the title and label of a measure set to appear on the November ballot after Judge Jennifer K. Rockwell ruled on Aug. 6 that the changes made to the text describing the voter ID ballot measure, known as Proposition 39, were within the legal authority of the state’s attorney general.

The measure was originally titled “Establishes Additional Voter Identification and Citizenship Verification Requirements.” This title had been in use since Sept. 19, 2025, while the Prop 39 initiative gathered signatures to qualify for the November ballot.

After the measure qualified, the office of state Attorney General Rob Bonta certified it on July 3 and, a few weeks later, renamed it “Prohibits Citizens From Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification.”

State Assemblyman Carl DeMaio worked with the Yes on 39 campaign to file the lawsuit in the State Superior Court in Sacramento County in an effort to “correct the ballot title, summary, and label the Attorney General certified,” according to the filing.

The lawsuit, filed July 27, argued that the new title was inaccurate because “the measure does not prohibit any citizen from voting but regulates which ballots are counted.”

The ballot measure establishes three requirements, according to the lawsuit.

First, the California secretary of state and county election officials must maintain accurate voter registration records. Second, people voting in person must present a government-issued identification, and those voting by mail must provide the last four digits of a government-issued ID number. Third, election officials will be subject to periodic reporting and audits regarding their efforts to verify the citizenship of people on their voter rolls.

Rockwell found that because the ballot measure requires ID verification for in-person voting, it “is therefore not merely ‘a verification rule,’ as it imposes substantive restrictions on the submission of ballots by citizens.”

Rockwell said that the act of voting includes having the ballot counted, not just cast.

Ballots cast without the proper ID requirement would not be counted under Prop 39; therefore, it would equate to prohibiting citizens from voting unless they present ID, according to Rockwell.

She concluded that “there is nothing misleading or inaccurate” about the prohibitive language used by the attorney general’s office to describe Prop 39.

“Today’s ruling confirms what we have said from the start: the ballot materials at issue — the ballot title and summary and ballot label — give a true and impartial statement of Proposition 39’s chief purpose and points,” Bonta said. “My office followed the law and fulfilled its duty to provide California voters with clear, accessible, and accurate information. We’re pleased that the court agreed with us.”

DeMaio said he was not surprised at the court’s decision.

“Despite the politicians’ dirty tricks to manipulate voters, we feel confident Prop 39’s bipartisan solution for Voter ID will still pass,” he wrote in a post on X.

The Yes on 39 campaign said it will continue to raise awareness about the title change leading up to the November election.

“We’re stuck with this title after this judge’s ruling,” DeMaio said in a video posted on X. “But the good thing about voter ID is that a supermajority of Californians support voter ID.”

Beginning on Aug. 10, California officials will start preparing and printing the Official Voter Information Guide, which will be available in September. The last day to register to vote is Oct. 19, and the general election is on Nov. 3.