Two good ideas from Republicans dead on arrival in Democratic Legislature

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 column argues that two Republican-backed structural changes — making the California secretary of state officially nonpartisan and transferring ballot title and summary duties from the elected attorney general to the Legislative Analyst’s Office — are sound good‑government reforms that were blocked in a Democratic‑dominated Legislature for partisan reasons.
• It notes that the secretary of state, while currently elected on a party line, functions as California’s chief elections administrator and has historically overseen voting fairly, so formally designating the office as nonpartisan would align it with other neutral positions such as the state superintendent of public instruction and county registrars of voters.
• The article contends that Democrats quietly ensured the constitutional amendment to make the secretary of state nonpartisan — introduced late in the session by Republican Assemblymembers Natasha Johnson and Josh Hoover — would never receive a hearing, even though outside reporting shows the proposal, ACA 23, was formally introduced and framed by its authors as a way to improve public trust in elections.^[1][6][7]
• At the same time, the piece suggests Republicans’ distrust of California’s election system stems less from actual misconduct by election officials and more from former President Trump’s unfounded claims of fraud, pointing to polling that shows strong confidence among Democrats and independents but deep skepticism among Republicans.
• Turning to ballot measures, the column argues that the most consequential reform would be shifting responsibility for drafting official ballot titles and summaries from the partisan attorney general to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, a nonpartisan staff unit that already prepares fiscal analyses and neutral descriptions in the voter guide.^[8][12][15]
• It asserts that recent attorneys general, including Rob Bonta and potential future governor Xavier Becerra, have increasingly used ballot titles on hotly contested measures to advance Democratic talking points, despite state law instructing the attorney general to provide “true and impartial” language not likely to create prejudice for or against a proposal.^[8][11]
• To illustrate the concern, the article highlights Proposition 39, a Republican‑backed voter ID and citizenship‑verification initiative, and criticizes the official ballot title — “Prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government‑issued identification” — as unfairly negative and loaded, noting that Bonta’s office changed earlier, more neutral language after the measure qualified for the ballot and that proponents sued over the description.^[2][3][4][5]
• Even while stating opposition to the substance of Proposition 39, the column maintains that slanted ballot language from a partisan attorney general can mislead voters who rely heavily on titles and labels, reinforcing the case for transferring that power to the Legislative Analyst so voters see clearer, more neutral descriptions.^[8][12][15]
• Finally, the piece criticizes Democratic leaders for allowing the ballot‑language reform legislation to die in the Senate Appropriations Committee without a floor vote — a tactic also described in outside accounts of Senator Roger Niello’s efforts — and concludes that there are times when politics should be removed from election administration to strengthen democratic legitimacy.^[9][10][13]

Different views on the topic

• In contrast to the column’s portrayal of the attorney general’s role, recent court rulings have upheld Rob Bonta’s description of Proposition 39, with a Sacramento County judge finding that the ballot label and title — including the phrase “prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government‑issued identification” — accurately describe the measure’s effect and represent a reasonable, lawful exercise of the attorney general’s discretion.^[3][4]
• Building on that judicial reasoning, the tentative ruling in the Prop. 39 case explicitly concludes that the challenged language complies with Elections Code requirements for impartial ballot materials, signaling that at least some legal authorities do not see the attorney general’s wording as partisan propaganda but as a permissible effort to convey the practical consequences of the initiative.^[4][8]
• At the same time, Bonta and defenders of the current system stress that differences between the language used when an initiative is circulated and the wording that appears on the ballot are routine and permitted under California law, arguing that such changes are made to enhance clarity and consistency for voters rather than to “rig” outcomes — an argument echoed in public statements noting that all voter‑proposed initiatives on the ballot underwent similar revisions.^[5][8]
• Supporters of keeping ballot‑drafting authority within the Department of Justice also point to statutory safeguards: state law requires the attorney general to provide a “true and impartial” title and summary that is neither an argument for nor against a measure, and prohibits language likely to create prejudice, suggesting to these critics that legal standards already restrain partisan manipulation without needing to shift duties to the Legislative Analyst.^[8][11]
• In response to broader concerns about initiative wording, alternative reform proposals such as the Ballot Measure Transparency Act have sought to adjust formats and legal standards — for example by redefining what ballot titles must include and clarifying what counts as “accurate, impartial, and understandable” language — while still leaving a central role for the attorney general, reflecting a view that incremental changes can address bias without fully removing the office from the process.^[14][15]
• On the question of voter ID, backers of Proposition 39 and related “election integrity” amendments present a markedly different perspective from the column’s skepticism, insisting that stricter identification and citizenship verification rules are necessary to prevent illegal voting and restore confidence in elections; proponents describe the measure as establishing additional requirements to safeguard the ballot rather than as a tool for voter suppression.^[2][7]
• Additionally, Republican legislators promoting ACA 23 and other election‑related amendments often frame their efforts not primarily as partisan maneuvers but as attempts to respond to constituents’ concerns about election integrity, arguing at public events that placing positions like the secretary of state on a nonpartisan footing would align statewide offices with existing nonpartisan local and judicial posts and give voters more confidence in the process.^[1][7]
• Finally, the legislative history of ballot‑language reform complicates the column’s suggestion of purely partisan obstruction: Niello’s constitutional amendment and related bills have attracted bipartisan support in committee, including backing from at least one Democratic senator, indicating that some lawmakers across party lines view the attorney general’s current role as acceptable or reformable and do not fully share the column’s sense that partisan bias dominates ballot titles.^[9][10][13]