This is the third in a series of columns addressing deceptive election tactics being used against California taxpayers. The first column discussed how candidates deceive voters by concealing their own history of raising taxes or lying about their intentions to raise taxes in the future. The second column was about local and state initiative campaigns trying to disguise themselves as pro-taxpayer when the substance of the measure is contrary to the interests of taxpayers.
The worst example of the latter is when those interests use the word “taxpayer” in the name of the committee or, worse, when campaigns hijack the names or likenesses of real taxpayer organizations or taxpayer heroes. This scenario is exactly what occurred in San Bernardino County when proponents of Measure D – an “incumbent protection” scheme – distributed a campaign mailer featuring a photo of Howard Jarvis.
The third method of election manipulation doesn’t relate specifically to campaigns, but to government conduct. Voters, as well as media outlets have complained that the “official” language in ballot material is often one-sided. This is not about the arguments in the ballot pamphlet which, by nature, argue for one side or the other. Rather this is about the ballot label itself and the “title and summary” that accompany ballot measures.
This has been a problem for many years and has gotten so bad that transparency advocates introduced a constitutional amendment (ACA 7) in 2019 that would remove the Legislature and the Attorney General from the process of providing ballot material content. Instead, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) would assume responsibility to write the circulating and pamphlet ballot label, title, and summary for all measures put before voters. (In California, the LAO has a reputation as a fair arbiter on matters of public policy).
ACA 7 was designed to address what multiple media sources have reported regarding the politicization of the ballot pamphlet process by the office of the Attorney General who, at the time, was Xavier Becerra.
Predictably, ACA 7 failed to make it out of the legislature where it was deemed to be a threat to entrenched political interests.
As bad as the situation is at the state level, it is often worse at the local level. The Alameda Grand Jury recently released a scathing report about how government entities prepare glowing descriptions in the official ballot pamphlets of measures that the agencies themselves propose.
The Grand Jury report said such ballot questions generally suffered from a “proponent’s bias” as a result of the typical process of selection and drafting of the proposal. “In general,” the report concluded, “we found that ballot questions too often fall short of what voters have a right to expect in terms of transparency and impartiality, even when satisfying minimum legal standards.” (emphasis added).
It should not be surprising that most of the local measures analyzed by the Grand Jury that had biased ballot descriptions were tax increases or bond measures.
To protect voters (and taxpayers) the Grand Jury issued several recommendations including the creation of an advisory panel to review ballot questions for truthfulness and impartiality. As with the recommendation for reforms at the state level, the Alameda Board of Supervisors rejected the proposal.
This is not a partisan issue. In Alameda County, taxpayer organizations and the League of Women Voters supported the reforms, as did the East Bay Times. At the state level, media outlets as diverse as the San Francisco Chronicle, the Orange County Register and the Sacramento Bee have all decried the politicization of the ballot material process. Here’s a sampling:
LA Times (2020): “In theory, California’s attorney general does just that, writing neutral, evenhanded summaries for ballot measures. In practice? The attorney general’s office often forsakes impartiality in favor of loaded and misleading language designed to sway voters. The [then] attorney general, Xavier Becerra, is no different.”
Related Articles
Both McCarthy, progs lily-livered on Ukraine
The Jan. 6 committee is just another partisan stunt
Can California improve lives of Iowa’s hogs?
The Builders Remedy for California housing
OC Register (2015): “Which is why it’s dismaying, once again, that Attorney General Kamala Harris has placed a biased ‘title and summary’ above a needed pension-reform initiative as it goes forth for signature gathering to qualify for the November 2016 ballot.”
San Francisco Chronicle (2019): “California’s Loaded Ballot Language an Insult to Voters.”
To conclude this series of columns on “election deception,” it is important for all voters to go into the voting booth well informed on the extent to which powerful political forces seek to persuade with false information.
But remember also that false information can be defeated by the truth. “Veritas Vos Liberabit.” (The truth shall set you free.)
Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.