View this post on the web at [link removed]

The other day I was going through my e-mails and read my latest “Netter News” — an email that my friend Mike Netter sounds out with items of political interest. In this case Mike was encouraging people to print out and sign some ballot measure petitions. One for requiring Voter ID [ [link removed] ], another was the Local Taxpayer Protection Act to Save Prop. 13 [ [link removed] ], and the last the California School Choice Act [ [link removed] ]. You can read the e-mail here [ [link removed] ]. Being somewhat familiar with the first two I clicked to view the petition for the last one. What I ended up reading was just an egregious use of the power of the Attorney General to write pretty much any title, summary and question for a citizen-initiated ballot measure…
The Constitutional Problem Hiding in Plain Sight
Attorney General Rob Bonta is not the first California Attorney General to tilt ballot titles and summaries, nor is he unique. But he is the most recent, and his handling of the “Children’s Educational Opportunity Act of 2026” spotlights a deeper problem that predates him. For decades, Attorneys General have shaped the political terrain by slanting the very first words voters read about statewide ballot measures. Kamala Harris did it. Xavier Becerra did it. The current Attorney General is doing it now. For many voters, these short official summaries are the only information they will ever see before marking a ballot. The real issue is that the California Constitution allows an elected partisan officeholder to control the official description that millions of voters rely on.
This structural flaw in California’s governing system has reached a point where it cannot be ignored. California’s initiative process is supposed to give citizens a direct voice in lawmaking, with the Attorney General serving as a neutral explainer. Instead, the office has evolved into a gatekeeping role with enormous power over public perception. In this case, the handling of the school choice initiative demonstrates how easily that authority can be used to pre-shape public opinion. The official language goes well beyond a mere summary of the measure. It frames it, tilts the debate, and casts it in the most contentious terms before supporters have any meaningful chance to make their case. A leading cause, by the way, for proponents of great measures to abandon their efforts.
A Measure Described Through the Narrowest Possible Lens
The proposal itself is straightforward. It would create a $17,000-per-year Education Savings Account for each eligible student, funded from existing state and local education dollars rather than from any new tax. Parents could use the funds to send their children to religious or other private schools anywhere in the United States. The measure would also repeal California’s constitutional ban on public funding for religious schools and prevent the state from imposing curriculum rules on private institutions or applying stricter building and safety standards to homeschools than to ordinary residences or similar businesses. Clearly this is an opportunity for families trapped in underperforming districts to gain options already available in Arizona, Florida, and other states.
The Attorney General’s official title frames the measure in a very different way. It reads: “REQUIRES STATE PROVIDE ANNUAL PAYMENTS TO STUDENTS ATTENDING RELIGIOUS AND OTHER PRIVATE SCHOOLS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.” With one stroke, the emphasis shifts from parental decision-making and educational opportunity to government payments for religious institutions. Voters encountering this language in all capital letters at the top of the voter guide are steered toward skepticism before they learn anything else about the proposal. The wording may be technically defensible, but it is framed in the most politically charged way possible.
How the Summary and Fiscal Analysis Reinforce the Tilt
The summary that follows reinforces that initial impression. It highlights the repeal of the constitutional provision regarding funding for religious schools, the removal of state oversight of private curricula, and the ability of parents to use the funds outside the public system. It does not mention the initiative’s stated purpose, which is to respond to what many describe as an educational crisis in California. It does not acknowledge the potential benefits for low-income families or the broader context of school choice programs that already operate in other states. Those omissions amplify fear while stripping away any sense of opportunity.
Below the summary appears the fiscal analysis from the Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Finance. The study warns that the state would face increased costs ranging from several billion dollars to more than $10 billion per year, paid for with revenue now used for public schools or other state programs. It also states that public schools could face funding reductions of more than $16 billion annually, which would likely lead to staff and service cuts. These figures outline real fiscal scenarios, yet the presentation is constructed to leave voters with only one takeaway: this supposedly endangers public education. There is no reference to how states with similar ESA programs have managed enrollment adjustments.
A Pattern That Has Emerged Before
The use of ballot language to shape outcomes is not limited to initiatives the Attorney General opposes. It also appears in measures he favors. A recent and telling example is Proposition 50, the statewide ballot measure framed by supporters as a “reform” of redistricting but which was a cynical, partisan power grab by Governor Newsom and legislative Democrats. In that case, the title, summary, and ballot question emphasized reassuring phrases such as “fair” and “independent” redistricting while minimizing the long-term structural consequences of the change.
What Proposition 50 exposes is just how dangerous this unchecked authority has become. The power to draft titles and summaries does not simply function as a tool for blocking measures the Attorney General dislikes. It also operates as a mechanism for quietly advancing policies he supports. Whether the objective is to defeat a proposal or to shepherd one toward passage, the underlying problem is the same: one elected partisan official is permitted to write the first and most influential description of the law the public is being asked to approve.
So, Does It Matter?
A reasonable person might assume that the authors of a citizen initiative could hire a lawyer and force a court to order a rewrite of a slanted or misleading title; that safeguard exists. In the real world, it rarely functions that way. California courts, including the Supreme Court, have consistently held that the Attorney General’s titles and summaries are presumptively valid and may be rewritten only in a “clear case” with clear and convincing proof that the language is false or misleading. In practice, that gives the office vast discretion over how every statewide measure is framed.
That reality transforms what is supposed to be a neutral administrative duty into a potent political weapon. It also leaves voters with no reliable protection against subtle manipulation at the very point where their understanding of a measure begins. One controlled study found that simply changing a ballot title shifted voter support by roughly twelve percentage points — enough to flip the outcome of an election — underscoring just how consequential those first words can be. The proponents of the Children’s Educational Opportunity Act can object publicly, but the official voter guide will still carry the Attorney General’s framing. The problem is not just about tone or fairness in one campaign. It is built into the system itself. So long as an elected partisan official retains near-unchecked authority over ballot language, the initiative process will remain vulnerable to distortion, and voters will continue to see measures through a filter crafted by those with a vested interest in the outcome.

Unsubscribe [link removed]?