Today I announced my lawsuit against Attorney General Jerry Brown for abusing the power and authority of the AG’s office when Brown wrote an overtly biased “title and summary” for a state ballot initiative that I submitted earlier this year.
The attorney general is required by law to meet a higher standard of fairness and impartiality when he drafts petitions, as well as ballot title and summaries. But instead, Brown cast his duties aside and played into the politics of ACORN and other Left Wing groups who oppose any type of voter reform. In the process, Californians were robbed of any degree of impartiality by Jerry Brown.
Earlier this year, I submitted Vote SAFE, a ballot measure that would improve California’s voting process by requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls; allow county Registrar of Voters additional time to count military votes that are mailed in from outside the U.S.; and protect the identity of absentee voters by concealing the voter’s signature on the envelope.
The Vote SAFE measure takes pains to make sure everyone has an opportunity to vote by allowing voters who don’t possess ID to vote provisionally, and requiring DMV to issue free California ID cards to voters who don’t have drivers’ licenses or other photo ID.
Unfortunately, the title and summary issued by Attorney General Brown contains legally inaccurate and misleading words designed to discourage petition signers or to set the stage to defeat the measure once it has qualified for the ballot.
Despite the fact that the United States Supreme Court (2007) upheld state voter photo ID laws as a legitimate anti-fraud requirement, Attorney General Brown inaccurately describes the Vote SAFE measure in the following manner:
LIMITS ON VOTING. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Prohibits citizens from voting at the polls unless they present a government-issued photo-identification card. Establishes provisional voting for citizens at the polls who fail to present government-issued photo-identification. …
Brown abused his discretion in describing the chief purposes and points of this measure. It’s obvious the words ‘limits’ and ‘prohibits’ do not accurately represent ‘the chief purposes and points’ of the measure. Presenting ID is a requirement for boarding a plane, cashing a check or using a credit card, not a prohibition.
Brown’s title and summary stands in stark contrast to a 2005 title and summary provided by former Attorney General Bill Lockyer describing a similar photo voter identification ballot measure, as follows:
VOTER IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Requires that voters present one of four types of picture identification before voting: (1) California driver’s license; (2) California Department of Motor Vehicles issued identification card; (3) military identification card; or (4) United States Passport.
…
… Allows voters who cannot provide identification to vote, in the form of a provisional ballot.
Attorney General Lockyer faithfully fulfilled his duty. Attorney General Brown has not.
The lawsuit aims to correct Brown’s political bias by demanding that he do his job and write a fair and impartial title and summary as prescribed by law.
For more information on the Vote SAFE initiative, visit: www.VoteSAFEnow.org