Ballot Language Wars Reshape Major Referendums Before a Single Vote Is Cast

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 altered the language of California’s voter ID measure, Proposition 39, 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 supporting the measure has appealed the ruling.

Bonta changed the initial language from “Establishes additional voter identification and citizenship verification requirements,” to “Prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification.”

This month, supporters of a voter ID measure in Arizona sued Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, saying 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.

Changing the framing on the ballot for otherwise popular measures has been a longstanding power play of the Left, said Ken Cucinelli, chairman of the Election Transparency Initiative.

“This is a George Soros mentality with Saul Alinsky tactics,” Cucinelli told the Daily Signal. “Conservatives don’t like those tactics, but we just need to shut up and go win.”

Cucinelli, a former Virginia attorney general, added that Bonta’s changes to California’s voter ID measure are not the most egregious; rather, he noted 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 changed 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 in part because of the language, but the state Supreme Court allowed the referendum to go forward for a vote. The gerrymandered map won with 51%, but the state’s high court determined that the legislature bypassed normal legal procedures for ratifying a constitutional amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the state high court’s ruling.

Politically motivated language can affect the outcome of a referendum, said Craig Burnett, chairman of the political science department at Florida Atlantic University. He co-authored a 2015 study that investigated the question.

“My coauthor and I picked two issues that were sticky for most voters and, as such, should not have been open to persuasion,” Burnett told the Daily Signal. “Simple changes to the text had significant impacts.”

However, he said, it’s difficult to know conclusively when altering ballot language changes an outcome of a real election.

“Unfortunately, we can never know,” he said. “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 separate 2021 study by Ted Rossier, political science professor at the University of North Georgia, found in one sampling “support for one measure was drastically reduced with the change in question framing.” However, the study found another sampling’s results were inconclusive; it also found that “experienced voters are no more immune to framing effects than inexperienced voters.”

Ballotpedia scores the readability of ballot measures, but not for bias. It measures readability based on metrics the Department of War used for troop manuals.

The organization evaluated 800 ballot measures and found that measures with more complex language are somewhat more likely to pass, said Ryan Byrne, the ballots team managing editor for Ballotpedia.

“Both sides tend to do this,” Byrne told the Daily Signal. “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 that bans gender transition surgeries on minors and restricts some abortions and school transgender participation policies.

A state court ruled the language was insufficient because it didn’t tell voters the measure would repeal the “reproductive rights” ballot measure approved by voters in 2024. The Missouri Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s ruling but went further by rewriting the ballot language.

Two ballot measures that likely would have passed were removed from the ballot this year in Maine and Massachusetts, one due to the language dispute.

In Massachusetts, a citizen-initiated ballot referendum to cut state income taxes from 5% to 4% had 66% public support in 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, a Democrat, prepared a ballot summary stating the long-term capital-gains tax rate would remain unchanged. Opponents of the measure sued over the language, arguing that the initiative would actually reduce that rate as well.

In June, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the attorney general’s summary was not sufficiently fair and prevented the initiative from appearing on the 2026 ballot. Justice Serge Georges Jr. wrote for the court, “The summary’s contrary statement is not a minor imprecision. It is significantly misleading and likely to influence voters.”

A since-removed citizen-initiated Maine “Protect Girls’ Sports” ballot measure would have prohibited biological boys from playing girls sports in schools.

While the matter is a moot point now, in April, Democrat Secretary of State Shenna Bellows altered the language of the measure. Her language would have asked 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 the measure from the November ballot, raising questions about 12,000 signatures. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court in July upheld her decision.