California’s Democrat Attorney General Rob Bonta has changed the originally-straightforward language used to describe to voters a ballot measure to require voter ID, reframing the proposal in negative terms in an apparent effort to prevent the its passage.California is just one of the Democrat-controlled states fiercely fighting Republican efforts to ensure that only eligible voters are able to cast ballots by establishing voter verification requirements.Attorney General Bonta, who is tasked with creating and publishing a voter information guide describing the proposals voters will pass judgement on in November’s election, originally summarized Proposition 39 as an enhanced means of identifying voters and verifying that they are citizens:“ESTABLISHES ADDITIONAL VOTER IDENTIFICATION AND CITIZENSHIP VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.“Under current law, when registering to vote, individuals must state under penalty of perjury that they are United States citizens and provide information to verify their identity (e.g., birthdate, driver’s license or Social Security number). This measure would amend the California Constitution to further require that:voters present government-issued identification at the polls or the last four digits of a government-issued identification number when voting by mail;the State provide voter identification cards on request; andelections officials annually report percentage of each county’s voters whose citizenship they have verified.”That’s not the explanation of the proposal that will be mailed to voters, however. In the vein of Democrats’ narrative that requiring voters show identification is, somehow, voter suppression, AG Bonta’s revised summary in the final version of the information guide now tells voters that the proposal “prohibits citizens from voting” and “invalidates” ballots:“PROHIBITS CITIZENS FROM VOTING UNLESS THEY PRESENT GOVERNMENT-ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.“Invalidates mail ballots that do not have last four digits of designated government-issued identification number written on envelop. Prohibits in-person voting without presenting government-issued identification.”And, in line with Democrats’ claims that voters will be disenfranchised because it’s too difficult to obtain identification, the new summary edits out the previous mention that the proposal requires California to “provide identification cards on request.”The actual text of the proposal also mandates that identification cards be provided free of charge:“Upon request by an eligible voter, the state shall provide, at no charge, a voter ID card for use in casting a ballot.”Republicans in the state are denouncing the new wording of AG Bonta’s voter information summary for being blatantly manipulative and an effort to rig the result by giving voters the false impression that the proposition would prevent eligible citizens from voting. Despite fearmongering by Democrat politicians, such as Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who claim requiring a photo ID to vote is racist, voter ID has strong support from more than three-fourths of minorities. Fully 83% of all U.S. adults – and even 71% of Democrats – approve of voter ID, according to a Pew Research survey.California isn’t the only Democrat-led state that’s been exposed using biased language in an apparently effort to mislead voters, however. Earlier this year in Virginia, Democrat Governor Abigail Spanberger's redistricting ballot measure included heavy-handed commentary suggesting that opposing the measure would be a vote in support of existing unfairness.As CNSNews reported in February, the text of the ballot question posed to voters in the then-upcoming April 21, 2026 special election declared the current redistricting process “unfair” – but only until Democrats in power redistrict Virginia’s map overwhelmingly in their favor (emphasis added):“Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia's standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?”Instead of restoring fairness, the measure was actually designed to boost Democrats’ congressional district advantage from 6-5 currently to 10-1.While the redistricting referendum passed, a Circuit Court judge ruled that the referendum's ballot question related to redistricting was "flagrantly misleading" and legally defective. Upon appeal, the voter-approved redistricting scheme was ultimately voided by the Virginia Supreme Court.