California judge rules that ballot label for November referendum needs rewrite

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — A Sacramento County, California judge has found that the ballot label for a question voters will decide in November lacks necessary information and must be rewritten.

Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and his organization had challenged the language in the ballot label for Proposition 5. That measure, if passed, would reduce the votes needed to pass certain general obligation bonds for housing and infrastructure projects from two-thirds to 55%.

Coupal in his suit argues that the threshold reduction is stated in the title and summary for the ballot measure. However, it isn’t in the ballot label, a shorter version of the title and summary. That could lead some voters to think the measure would, in fact, increase the threshold from a simple majority to 55%.

Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne W.L. Chang agreed in a tentative ruling handed down Thursday.

“The court finds the proposed ballot label, which is 10 words short of the 75-word limit, fails to inform the voters of the chief purpose of Proposition 5, and if published as written would be an error or omission …” Chang wrote. “The court further finds that issuance of a writ of mandate in this matter will not substantially interfere with the conduct of the election, given the applicable printing deadline of August 12, 2024.”

Chang in her tentative ruling addresses the Attorney General Office’s arguments against Coupal.

According to the attorney general, the ballot label has cues that lead a voter to understand the ballot measure would drop the vote threshold needed. Also, the attorney general split the word count with the Legislative Analyst’s Office, leaving it only 37 words for its portion of the ballot label. Finally, the attorney general's office argued the judge should rule that voters know existing law, meaning they don’t need to be informed the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote for bonds.

The judge wrote that she received no legal authority that requires the attorney general to split the word count with the legislative analyst for the ballot label. That means there’s no basis for thinking the remaining 10 words that could be added belong exclusively to the analyst.

“The attorney general posits that a ‘parade of horribles’ would ensue, inviting litigation from an interested party, any time the legislative analyst, ‘happen[s] to leave a few words on the table,’” Chang wrote. “The court’s determination today is limited to the specific facts presented in this litigation, and is in no way intended to suggest that the attorney general has an obligation to review all language if there are remaining words to use in a ballot label.”

Additionally, the judge noted the attorney general cited cases in which a judge must presume voters know about current law. However, that issue wasn’t before Chang, she wrote. Instead, she must determine whether voters are given enough information to comprehend the main purpose of the ballot measure.

“Rather, the attorney general in his drafting of the ballot label, must ‘avoid misleading the public,’ even if doing so requires a short restatement of existing law,” Chang wrote.

The judge in her decision also noted that the association isn’t an “elector.” Only an elector can request a writ of mandate, though that issue is moot because Coupal also petitioned the court for the ballot language change.  

Contacted Thursday, Coupal said he hadn’t yet had a chance to read the tentative ruling, though he knew it had been issued.

“Obviously, we’re pleased, but if the other side contests it, we’ll show up and defend it,” he told Courthouse News.

A hearing in the case is set for Friday. However, it will only occur if one of the parties involved requests it. If neither side opts for the hearing, the tentative ruling will become final.

The California Secretary of State’s Office couldn’t be reached for comment.

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit