Friday, August 14, 2026
Page 4
Court of Appeal
Bonta’s Descriptions of Ballot Propositions Not Misleading
By a MetNews Staff Writer
California Attorney General Rob Bonta has scored two victories in the Third District Court of Appeal, with the justices holding, as they have in the past, that ballot proposition descriptions need only be non-misleading, not precise.
Presiding Justice Laurie M. Earl authored both opinions, filed Wednesday and not certified for publication. One upholds the ballot title and summary (in the voters’ pamphlet), as well as the ballot title (appearing on the ballot, itself) describing Proposition 41; also approved by the court was the description of Proposition 42.
The California Taxpayers Association said in its writ petition, filed in the Sacramento Superior Court on July 30:
“California law requires voters to be presented with accurate information when they sort through their ballot. They are not getting it now with respect to Proposition 41, a proposed constitutional amendment due to be voted on by California voters at the November 3, 2026 General Election. Proposition 41 mandates public audits by a specific—and unique—public official: the California State Auditor. Unfortunately, this chief purpose and point of Proposition 41 is completely omitted from the ballot title and summary and ballot label prepared for the measure.”
Ballot Label
The ballot label, drafted by Bonta’s office, says:
“PROHIBITS NEW STATE TAXES THAT EXCLUDE REVENUES FROM STATE SPENDING LIMIT. REQUIRES AUDITS FOR NEW STATE SPECIAL TAXES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Nullifies state taxes enacted after January 1, 2026 that exempt their revenues from voter-approved state spending limit. Requires pre-election and recurring audits of programs funded by new special taxes. Fiscal Impact: The net fiscal effect is unknown as it depends on future decisions by voters, the Legislature, and other policymakers.”
Sacramento Superior Court Judge Sacramento Judge James Arguelles on Aug. 10 granted a writ; Bonta petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ; a peremptory writ was grated in the first instance directing that Arguelles’s decision be vacated.
2017 Opinion
Earl quoted the Court of Appeal’s 2017 opinion in Becerra v. Superior Court as saying:
“There will always be a multitude of ways in which any initiative or ballot proposal ‘could have” been described. That is the nature of language. But the Elections Code has not made the courts the drafters of titles and summaries. That role has been assigned to the Attorney General. Our task is not to compose but to review the language composed by the Attorney General for accuracy and impartiality. Perhaps better words could be chosen or arranged differently but there is no basis to conclude that the Attorney General’s work product is inaccurate, argumentative or misleading, or otherwise beyond the bounds of the extensive discretion reposed in that office in fashioning a title and summary.”
The presiding justice said in Wednesday’s opinion:
“While the ballot materials certainly could have described the proposed audits as ‘public audits,’ it is not inaccurate or misleading to simply use the word “audits.” nor does this language fail to describe the chief points of the measure. The language specifies that the audits concern only statewide special taxes. It goes on to describe how there will be audits at two different periods: preelection audits and recurring audits. Moreover, it describes the particular subjects of the audits…..We conclude the Attorney General’s language summarizing the chief points of the measure falls within the range of reasonably differing opinions….”
The case is Bonta v. Superior Court (Guiterrez), C106933.
David Kline, the California Taxpayers Association’s vice president of communications and research. commented yesterday:
“It is disappointing that the attorney general went to such great lengths to fight for omitting the word ‘public’ from the description of an initiative that requires public audits. The trial court correctly determined that voters deserve the most complete description possible, and it is frustrating that the Court of Appeal decided that giving extraordinary deference to a politician’s description of the measure is more important.”
Proposition 42
Jennifer Yoder, the California Senior Alliance, and the Peace Officers Research Association of California challenged the ballot label, for Proposition 42. The label reads:
““PROHIBITS NEW STATE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES AND CERTAIN RETROACTIVE STATE TAXES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Prohibits any new state tax (1) imposed on the ownership of personal property (all things people own other than real estate)….”
The real parties contend that the proposition is “designed to protect Californians from novel taxes on the ownership of retirement and investment accounts and business interests, among other forms of personal property...” and that the label, being broadly phrased, “is certain to mislead large swaths of voters.”
They want added to the label words appearing in the summary which define personal property to include “business interests, intellectual property, and financial assets (including assets in retirement and investment accounts).”
Arguelles on Aug. 10 granted a writ. the Court of Appeal countermanded him.
Earl wrote:
“[W]e conclude the language in the ballot label is factually accurate, and further when read in conjunction with the summary, fully addresses real parties’ concerns.”
Arguelles ruled that the summary, read by few voters, does not save the ballot label, but that view, Earl declared, is not supported by the required “clear and convincing proof.”
“Whether or not the term could be further defined, nothing in ‘personal property’—either alone or when followed by the definition ‘all things people own other than real estate’—drives the reader to a verifiably false conclusion,” she wrote.
The case is Bonta v. Superior Court (Yoder), C106936.
Writ Denied
On Aug. 6, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Jennifer K. Rockwell denied a petition for a writ of mandate filed by Californians for Voter ID, Yes on 39, and Donald DiCostanzo. They challenged the description of Proposition 39.
The proposed label was:
“ESTABLISHES ADDITIONAL VOTER IDENTIFICATION AND CITIZENSHIP VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. This measure would amend the California Constitution to further require that voters present government-issued identification at the polls or the last four digits of a government-issued identification number when voting by mail; the State provide voter identification cards on request; and elections officials annually report percentage of each county’s voters whose citizenship they have verified.”
As revised by Bonta’s office, it reads:
“PROHIBITS CITIZENS FROM VOTING UNLESS THEY PRESENT GOVERNMENT-ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. 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.”
Rockwell ruled that Bonta’s ballot label, title and description summary “accurately describe the effect of the measure” and are within the “considerable latitude” the attorney general has under California law.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company