California proposals spark litigation and partisan disputes

It’s one of the battles in California’s ongoing initiative wars: the wording voters will see.

The public review period for the state’s official Voter Guide ended on Monday, and activity has been ramped up.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association was awaiting an appellate court decision Monday evening on a Sacramento County judge’s ruling that the Proposition 5 ballot name must be changed.

Critics have long complained that the state’s elected attorney general — all Democrats since 1999 — twists the names, titles and summaries of bills to suit their policy preferences.

The taxpayer association argued that Prop. 5’s label should say it would lower the majority required to approve local loan funds from two-thirds to 55%. The original label — a shortened version of the title and summary — included only the number 55%, so voters could assume the threshold had been raised from a simple majority, the taxpayer group said.

The ruling, issued last week and appealed by the attorney general’s office, found that the label “failed to inform” voters of the primary purpose of Prop. 5 and that without “additional clarifying language,” the label could mislead voters. (The labels can be 75 words long; the Prop. 5 label is 65 words long.)

Laura Dougherty, the association’s legal director, wrote in an email to CalMatters that the attorney general “has an obligation to inform the public about the main points and objectives of any measure” and that “there are still many words left for the printer to fill in the blanks.”

In his appeal, Attorney General Rob Bonta said the office has “significant deference” in determining ballot labels. Bonta argued that not only is Prop. 5’s label accurate, but that the court “appears to be inventing a new” standard of review that gave his ballot materials less consideration “if he doesn’t use all the words available to him.”

Rent control: It’s not just about the title and the abstract: Supporters and opponents can also go to court to argue the ballot measure’s official case. The same judge on Monday ruled that four of the California Apartment Association’s six statements on Prop. 33, the rent-control measure the association opposes, must be removed or amended. The court order called for language that secures the association’s claims: For example, its case must state that Prop. 33 would “weaken” rather than “repeal” tenant protections and “undermine” rather than “eliminate” the state’s rent-control law.

School bonds: Another battle is underway, this one over Prop. 2, which would allow the state to borrow $10 billion to repair and build schools and community colleges. The state Republican Party is considering whether to support the bill, and a “yes” recommendation from the party’s 14-member House Initiative Committee is drawing criticism from California Republicans and some GOP lawmakers.

The college group argues that Prop. 2 violates the party platform and also points out that the state party took a neutral stance on Prop. 1, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s mental health measure on the March ballot that included $6.4 billion in bonds — and which narrowly passed. (The state Democratic Party supports Prop. 2.)

Republican delegates can reject the commission’s recommendation by a two-thirds vote and have until Aug. 28 to vote.

• Ellie HockenburyCalifornia GOP spokesperson: “The CAGOP referendum initiative endorsement process is still ongoing and we have not yet taken a position on Proposition 2. The party greatly respects our delegates and values ​​their feedback as part of this process.”

November elections: Stay up to date with CalMatters by signing up for 2024 election emails. Check out our Voter Guide, including updates and videos on the 10 propositions and an FAQ on voting.