Prop. 39 would turn Trump conspiracy into California law. It has a chance of passing
- Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
SACRAMENTO — Today we’re talking about California’s Proposition 39, a bid to turn Trump’s election conspiracy fantasies into California law, and a proposal so disingenuous it’s caused Democratic legislators to sue the Democratic secretary of state in an attempt to stop the misinformation surrounding it.
As these lawsuits move forward and the November election rolls closer, we’re going to hear a lot about Proposition 39 — a measure that would require in-person voters to present government-issued identification, among other provisions. I fear most if not all of this debate will revolve around the false claim that large numbers of undocumented people vote illegally in our elections.
“It’s directly a product of all of the rhetoric that Trump has been putting out there regarding election fraud and voting fraud,” said Mindy Romero, founder and director of the nonpartisan Center for Inclusive Democracy.
Romero stresses that there is not and has never been any evidence of widespread voter fraud in California, and the state already has a system that effectively checks voter eligibility.
Proposition 39 is “seeking a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist, and a solution that actually could cause additional problems,” she said. “So in and of itself, it perpetuates this false and dangerous narrative that there has been voter fraud in California.”
That lie is part of the ongoing grievance-fueled Trump campaign against non-white “replacement” Americans, meant to undermine trust in elections — you may recall he’s gone so far as to say immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country.” It’s a venal and dark vein of partisanship aimed at keeping the far-right in power even at the expense of democracy.
But also an effective lie. Because many folks don’t know exactly how their ballots are verified but do have ID, they don’t see the full impacts of Proposition 39.
Trump falsely claimed that he was revealing ‘an election system so broken and so vulnerable that no one can possibly defend it.’
The easy ID myth
I’ll tell you more about Proposition 39, but I’m starting with a story about an all-American teenager I’ll call “Sofia.” I’ve been helping Sofia,18, attempt to get her first government-issued identification. I stress attempt.
Folks, there’s been hoops, there’s been hurdles, there’s been Kafkaesque bureaucracy.
For people like Sofia that don’t have bills or jobs or even accurate student records (she’s moved a lot), scraping up enough documentation to convince the DMV you are who you say you are is tough. First, you really need a certified birth certificate.
Sofia wasn’t born in the county where she lives (it’s county recorders that keep them), which means she had to either drive hours or go through the state’s third-party online vendor to order one, at a cost of about $30. But here’s the catch — she needed proof of identity to order it.
So to get a birth certificate to get her ID, she needed ID.
Stuck in this circular nightmare, we found, after much effort, a loophole: I could appear in front of a public notary with Sofia, to testify using my ID that she was indeed Sofia. Strange, but whatever. We did it.
That wasn’t enough for the DMV. Sofia also needed two bills or other documents verifying her address. Because they will literally give a credit card to anyone, she applied to an online company, and got her first statement. One document down.
Again, scouring the DMV rules for days, we found another weird loophole: The second document can be a letter from a nonprofit with the person signing it vouching for Sofia’s identity. We got the letter, and Sofia’s Real ID was issued.
But then she had to move before it arrived. She tried to arrange mail forwarding with the postal service, but guess what? They required ID.
So the ID was lost in transit, and we are back to square one.
Who Proposition 39 really targets
That means Sofia is one of thousands of Californians, born and raised in the Golden State, who lack official identification because its not as easy to obtain it as some want you to believe.
And because she lacks it, she could be prevented from voting if Proposition 39 is passed, even though she is a legal citizen with every right to have her ballot counted, and California already has a system in place to ensure only citizens vote.
Sofia is exactly the kind of voter that Proposition 39 is actually aimed at. This is a voter suppression law, plain and simple, and it will harm women with name changes, naturalized citizens, young people, older people and virtually anyone who cares about not returning to Jim Crow-style laws that push people out of voting with subterfuge.
Proponents of the proposition would like you to believe it’s something very different from what I just described. Their fight about how we talk about this proposal has led to two lawsuits so far — one filed by the backers of Proposition 39 because they don’t like the official title the California attorney general put on it, and one filed by the leaders of the state Legislature because they argue the statements written by proponents for official voting materials aren’t truthful.
I’ll give you a taste of both of those arguments. Right now, the state is proposing to title the measure “Prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification.”
State Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), the always-Trumper behind Proposition 39, helped lead a lawsuit claiming that is inaccurate.
DeMaio issued a statement claiming Democrats are “trying to deceive voters by putting a false ballot title on it and are now even distracting voters from their tampering of the ballot title with this frivolous lawsuit.”
That frivolous lawsuit he’s complaining about is the one where the Democratic leaders of the Legislature last week sued the Democratic secretary of state and others over the language included in the state voter guide. The Democrats aren’t really angry at each other, it’s just that Secretary of State Shirley Weber is in charge of voter materials, so she’s one of the folks they’ve got to sue to make their case.
The lawsuit alleges, among other complaints, that proponents are falsely framing Proposition 39 as making it “easier to vote” when in fact it does the opposite.
“Prop. 39 requires no burdens be placed on voters,” the materials at issue read, according to the lawsuit. “No additional documents (birth certificate, marriage license, etc.) are required.”
So I take you back to Sofia. Because while Proposition 39 might not ask her to bring her birth certificate to the polls, it would ask her to bring her ID, which required her birth certificate to get.
A distinction without a difference.
“The fact that Donald Trump has endorsed it tells you everything you need to know,” wrote the lawsuits’ plaintiffs, House speaker Robert Rivas and Senate pro Tempore Monique Limón, in a statement. “As Californians and Latinos, we will not let MAGA cronies take Constitutional rights away from voters.”
At the heart of MAGA conspiracies is misinformation about voter rolls and voter ID, relentlessly boring topics that may determine the fate of democracy.
That lawsuit will likely have its first hearing in court this week. But whatever a judge decides, the ballot box is where the fate of Proposition 39 rests.
Though it seems like average Californians could see through this sham, there are big bucks backing it, and money always speaks loudly.
The donors in support read like the guest list for a White House dinner. So far, they’ve raised more than $15 million. That includes $4 million from Richard Uihlein, the Illinois billionaire and Trump supporter who often funds organizations and causes that promote election conspiracies and far-right candidates.
The crypto-billionaire Winklevoss twins, Cameron and Tyler, have each donated $250,000, along with other Silicon Valley types including former RFK Jr. running mate Nicole Shanahan, who ponied up $370,000 in support of Proposition 39.
Oh, and by the way, L.A. developer and former mayoral candidate Rick Caruso has donated $25,000 to the effort.
That’s a lot of dough being poured into stopping certain Californians from voting. If they succeed, it won’t just be an inconvenience at the polls — but instead a double victory for Trump, both suppressing the vote ahead of the presidential election and legitimizing his election lies through law.
What else you should be reading
The must-read: FBI Escalates Trump’s “Voter Fraud” Crusade With Disturbing Move
The California angle: How Trump’s Endangered Species Act rollback is roiling Northern California
The L.A. Times Special: Trump running out of options to fix inflation, economic woes before election, experts say
Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The article argues that Proposition 39 is fundamentally rooted in former President Trump’s unfounded claims of widespread election fraud and inflammatory rhetoric about immigrants, framing the measure as an effort to enshrine those conspiracy narratives into California law and to erode public trust in elections.[12][13][18][19]
The piece contends that there is no evidence of large-scale illegal voting by undocumented immigrants in California and notes that election-law experts and civil-rights groups already describe the state’s eligibility checks and anti-fraud protections as robust.[4][19][20]
The article describes Proposition 39 as a voter suppression measure disguised as “election integrity,” emphasizing that it would require government-issued identification for in‑person voting and ID numbers on mail ballots, erecting new barriers for many eligible voters who do not have, or struggle to obtain, such documents.[1][12][16]
To illustrate those barriers, the piece recounts the experience of a young Californian trying to secure a first government ID, highlighting the cost, documentation demands, and bureaucratic hurdles, and suggesting that this kind of difficulty is common among low-income, highly mobile, and younger residents.
The article argues that Proposition 39 would disproportionately burden groups that already face obstacles in documentation and name matching—such as young voters, naturalized citizens, women who have changed their names, older voters, and communities of color—linking these effects to a long history of Jim Crow-style tactics that used technical requirements to push people out of the electorate.[12][15]
The piece notes that the measure’s requirement for voters who cast ballots by mail to include the last four digits of a government ID number on the envelope could expose voters to heightened risks of identity theft and lead to more valid ballots being rejected, particularly among the more than 80% of Californians who vote by mail.[1][12][15]
The article stresses that opponents view the proposition’s citizenship-verification mandates and repeated audits as unnecessary and stigmatizing, arguing that these provisions rest on the false premise that noncitizens are regularly voting and that they fuel a narrative casting certain communities as inherently suspect in the electoral system.[1][12][17]
The piece underscores that Democratic legislative leaders have sued the secretary of state and others over what they describe as misleading and deceptive language from proponents in the official voter guide, particularly the claim that Prop. 39 places “no burdens” on voters and makes voting easier, which critics say contradicts the reality of new ID requirements.[6]
At the same time, the article explains that supporters of Proposition 39 have filed their own lawsuit challenging the attorney general’s official ballot title—“Prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification”—and that opponents see this as part of a broader campaign to soften or obscure the measure’s restrictive impact on voting.[1][2][16]
The piece situates Proposition 39 within a larger clash between California officials and Trump’s administration over election rules, noting that state leaders have recently moved to restrict law-enforcement interference in ballot handling and to block federal attempts to pressure states on election administration, which critics say makes Prop. 39 feel like a step backward from those protections.[5][9][11][14]
The article highlights that the campaign for Proposition 39 is heavily funded by wealthy donors aligned with Trump and conservative causes—citing contributions from billionaire Richard Uihlein, the Winklevoss twins, Nicole Shanahan and developer Rick Caruso—and argues that this influx of more than $15 million is aimed at shaping the electorate by making it harder for certain Californians to vote.[3][12]
Finally, the piece suggests that if Prop. 39 passes, it would deliver a “double victory” for Trump and his allies: it would both suppress votes ahead of the presidential election and symbolically validate his false claims about California elections by embedding their logic into the state constitution.[12][13][14][18]
Different views on the topic
Supporters of Proposition 39 frame it as a straightforward voter ID initiative designed to strengthen election security, arguing that requiring a government-issued ID for in‑person voting and partial ID numbers on mail ballots will deter fraud and help ensure that only eligible citizens cast ballots.[1][8][12][16]
Proponents emphasize that the measure directs state and local election officials to use “best efforts” and government data to verify the U.S. citizenship of registered voters, along with regular audits and reporting, presenting these requirements as necessary safeguards in an era of heightened concern about election integrity.[1][8][12]
Campaign materials and allied commentary assert that Prop. 39 does not impose extra document burdens at the polling place—such as demanding birth certificates or marriage licenses—and maintain that the only new step is presenting or providing an ID number, which they contend is a minimal, reasonable expectation.[1][6]
Supporters highlight that the proposition requires the state to issue a dedicated voter-identification card at no cost to any eligible voter who requests one, arguing that this free ID option ensures access for people who do not drive or cannot afford other forms of identification.[1][7][12]
Backers, including Reform California and opinion writers citing historical figures like Alexander Hamilton, argue that California’s existing system—based largely on signature verification—is outdated and vulnerable, and contend that aligning the state with voter-ID practices used elsewhere will modernize elections and bolster public confidence.[7][8]
Proponents dispute claims that the mail‑in ID number requirement will expose voters to identity theft or lead to widespread rejection of legitimate ballots, insisting that matching those digits to registration records is a standard security measure and that safeguards can protect personal information.[8][10]
Supporters argue that robust verification of citizenship and identity will protect the votes of lawful citizens from being diluted by any illegal ballots, and say that increased transparency through mandated audits and annual reports will make election administration more accountable to the public.[1][8][12]
Proponents and sympathetic media outlets characterize efforts by Democratic leaders and California’s attorney general to alter ballot titles and voter‑guide language as partisan “rigging” or manipulation meant to kill a popular election-security measure before voters can fairly judge it, accusing state officials of trying to deceive the electorate about what Prop. 39 would do.[2][10][16]
Backers often point to public polling showing broad national support for voter ID laws, arguing that Proposition 39 simply reflects a widely held view that showing identification when voting is common sense and that California should not be an exception to that norm.[7][8]
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
The latest effort is coming from the L.A. County Board of Supervisors. They just announced a $3 million program in conjunction with some nonprofits groups to test and clean the soil at homes still standing in the areas impacted by the Eaton Fire.
California once bet big on offshore wind to help power its clean-energy future, but the Trump administration is now paying developers billions to walk away from their projects. As California’s remaining offshore-wind leases hang in the balance, the state is fighting back in court.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
