Words have consequences. When they come from the government and appear on an official ballot, their impact matters even more.

Beginning October 5, Californians will vote on Proposition 39, a proposed constitutional amendment addressing voter identification and citizenship verification. Before voters consider the substance of the measure, however, they will encounter another issue: the language California officials have selected to describe it.

After the initiative that became Proposition 39 qualified for the ballot, the Secretary of State announced it using the Attorney General’s circulating title: “Establishes Additional Voter Identification and Citizenship Verification Requirements.”

The official voter guide presents voters with a notably different title: “Prohibits Citizens From Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification.”

Both descriptions refer to the same ballot measure, yet they create very different impressions. That contrast deserves Californians’ attention, regardless of how they plan to vote on Proposition 39.

California’s ballot initiative system gives citizens remarkable authority. Voters can amend the state Constitution, change statutes and make policy decisions that would otherwise be handled by elected representatives. That power also creates a duty for government: provide voters with clear, neutral information and allow them to decide for themselves.

The Attorney General plays a central role in that process. His office prepares the official titles and summaries for ballot measures, and those brief descriptions can shape a voter’s first impression long before the underlying text is reviewed. That is exactly why neutrality is essential.

Proposition 39 supporters challenged the revised wording in court, arguing that it was prejudicial. A Sacramento County Superior Court judge rejected the challenge, finding that the title and summary accurately conveyed the measure’s effects. That ruling is an important part of the record and should not be ignored.

Still, a court’s conclusion that ballot language meets legal requirements does not settle the larger question of how California should communicate with voters. The issue is not merely whether each word can be defended as technically accurate. The question is whether the government’s description gives voters a fair and neutral understanding of the choice before them.

Today’s voter identification initiative could be tomorrow’s tax increase, criminal justice proposal, environmental regulation or constitutional amendment. Californians of every political viewpoint should support the same standard for all ballot measures.

Consider a ballot title involving a policy you strongly oppose. Then imagine the government rewriting that title with wording favored by the policy’s supporters. You likely would not be satisfied merely because every word could be justified as technically accurate. The standard we demand when our side is out of power should be the same one we uphold when our side is in charge.

Government should not use a ballot title to persuade voters. Political campaigns exist to make arguments. Supporters can explain why voters should approve a measure, while opponents can make the case against it. Newspapers, advocacy groups, political parties and individual citizens are free to debate the merits. The government’s responsibility should be simpler: explain what the measure does.

That principle is especially important in California, where voters regularly decide complex legal and policy questions through the initiative process. Most Californians do not have the time to study every provision of every proposal, making the official title and summary especially influential.

Those words should inform voters, not persuade them.

Give us the facts. Leave out the framing. Then trust California voters to make the decision.

Mike Garcia is a former U.S. Congressman, F/A-18 Navy combat fighter pilot, and aerospace executive. He is Chairman of America First California at the America First Policy Institute and serves on the Department of War’s Defense Policy Board.

Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy RedState’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.