Carl DeMaio has a pattern in connection with initiatives, whether local or statewide. He promotes them, like Proposition 6 in 2018, for as long as he can raise funds without providing the initiative text -- the words that will become enacted as law and other related sections that provide purposes or related rules, but that will not become enacted as law.
But first, a little background.
Proposition 6, which was promoted as "repealing" the automatically-increasing fuel taxes and vehicle registration taxes enacted by SB-1 (2017), actually did nothing of the sort. What it did do, by its very language, was require voter approval of such taxes.
The entirety of DeMaio's initiative consisted of 244 words (1367 characters). (See: Text of Proposed Laws (November 6, 2018)) The skimpy, short text was purposeful. The primary goal was not enacting law. It was to fit the initiative text on a one-page petition. This penny-wise-but-pound-foolish approach is a hallmark of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. (See: Official Comment)
Proposition 6 would have added the following language to Article XIII A as Section 3.5.
"(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Legislature shall not impose, increase or extend any tax, as defined in section 3, on the sale, storage, use or consumption of motor vehicle gasoline or diesel fuel, or on the privilege of a resident of California to operate on the public highways a vehicle, or trailer coach, unless and until that proposed tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a majority vote.
(b) This section does not apply to taxes on motor vehicle gasoline or diesel fuel, or on the privilege of operating a vehicle or trailer coach at the rates that were in effect on January 1, 2017. Any increase in the rate of such taxes imposed after January 1, 2017 shall cease to be imposed unless and until approved by the electorate as required by this section."
Basically, Proposition 6 piggy-backed on Proposition 13 (1978) with respect to voters approving local taxes. The Legislature complied with "section 3" referenced in the initiative text by approving SB-1 with a two-thirds vote of each house. Proposition 13 did not require that voters had to approve a tax increase passed by two-thirds of the Legislature. (Nobody called that a "loophole.") But Proposition 6 didn't go hog wild on all tax increases that section 3 covers. It limited itself to two specific types of taxes that are paid by almost every adult in the state. When you voted for this, did you know what a trailer coach was? We're not sure how anyone can "operate" a "trailer coach" (section 635), but that's why lawyers get paid the big bucks,.
The close connection between Proposition 6 and Proposition 13 tends to confirm what we heard (hearsay) at the time -- that some lawyer at HJTA wrote this monstrosity. When HJTA tried to extend voter approval to all taxes passed by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature with TPGAA in 2024, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial departments of California all went berserk.
As you can read, paragraph (a) makes "operating a vehicle" on "public highways" a "privilege" in the constitution. Paragraph (b), in different language, reinforces that "privilege."
The first time the public was able to see the initiative text was when the Attorney General posted the request for a circulating ballot title and summary on its web site.
There are only three other privileges in the constitution: "The privilege of free suffrage" (voting), "the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail" (sales), and "the privilege of keeping, buying, selling, serving, and otherwise disposing of alcoholic beverages" (liquor).
In fact, had Proposition 6 been enacted, nothing would have changed. No public official was directed to do or to not do anything. Enforcing it would have required someone to go to court and convince judges to create statute-like rulings based on the new rules in the constitution. Anyone interested could actually read SB-1 and see how the Legislature imposed duties and mandates on specific public officials to carry out its policy of automatically-increasing taxes. Courts might even have rejected any court filings based on the lack of standing or based on separation of powers (courts are prohibited from writing law). Where would that have left the people of California? Angry and blaming the courts or anyone else, except the only legitimate target of their wrath -- the proponents of the initiative.
As you can see from the research, DeMaio is doing this again (third time) for voter ID. He makes all kinds of claims about what it will do or how he determined the elements to include in the initiative text. However, he never makes the initiative text public prior to it being officially "filed." The palpable purpose for this tactic is that he doesn't want to subject the initiative text to review by anyone, along with potential criticism. That would be antithetical to his fundraising plans.
DeMaio also has never identified the names of the people who wrote his initiatives. After the fact, the author(s) have not disclosed their handiwork either.
For this third attempt, initially, DeMaio identified a filing date no later than August 31, 2025. On June 20, via an e-mail to his list, he moved up the date to July 21, 2025. Last week, in connection with his Wednesday Zoom webinar (replayed as his July 4, 2025 YouTube blog post), he moved the date to July 16, 2025.
In several of his fundraising messages (since mid-April), he has claimed that the initiative text has been finalized. In the Q&A portion of the July 2, 2025 Zoom webinar, he made claims that were different from earlier claims about what the initiative does. If you were on the webinar, you would have heard the question that raised the issue of forcing the Attorney General's office to defend the initiative in court, should it pass. DeMaio's answer to the question was inconsistent with what we contend will be in the text of the initiative (a regurgitation of the text of the previous versions).
If DeMaio actually files his Voter ID initiative, which he might not, we will write an analysis of what he submits to the Secretary of State and submit that analysis as public comment to the Attorney General's office within the 30-day public comment period.
The language of DeMaio's previous two attempts did, literally, nothing to establish Voter ID or anything else in California. As we describe in the research and analysis cited above, had either of those initiatives been approved by the voters, nothing in California would have changed. Yes, a few hundred words would have been added to the constitution, but those words, at best, would have only established some policy changes.
The new filing date is just a few days away. We encourage you to call or write to DeMaio and ask him for the initiative text that he purports to be ready to file. You will not get it.
Let's see what happens on July 16. Will DeMaio send out an e-mail telling you the Voter ID initiative has been filed? Another possibility is that he pushes back the filing date. He has a lot of wiggle room built into his published schedule. Pushing back the date means he can continue to pump his list for more money. How do you think it will go?
By the way, we used to support the concept of Voter ID.
There is no historical context requiring identification to vote in any state of the United States. Until 1888, all voting was in person and votes were declared publicly. The controversy surrounding federal elections at that time resulted in most states adopting the Australian ballot (voting in secret).
It's only been in very recent times (this century) that the policy of requiring voters to provide identification when voting has come to the fore. This has been driven primarily by the enactment of laws that have, basically, done away with in-person voting and the entire concept of an election day.
Our position now is that the people are in the thrall of a Hegelian dialectic (thesis, antithesis, synthesis) situation where the intentionally-created voting process that provides for all manner of voter fraud has resulted in an "easy" fix -- forced identification with, presumptively, a government-issued identification.
Almost all of the so-called election integrity organizations and pundits have gotten on the bandwagon. Critical thinking and discernment along with analysis of the consequences have been thrown out the window.
We contend that voter ID requirements, once enacted, will be another brick in the wall that builds our own prison. The opposition to voter ID is controlled by the same people who want you to be a slave, own nothing, and be happy. By putting up opposition to something they really want, the bad guys have lulled the people into accepting the merits of what they are purportedly against. As the old adage goes, "be careful what you wish for."
In at least one dystopian future timeline, all voting will be done via a device that ensures compliance with a digital identity. Those who refuse the mark will lose their "privilege of free suffrage." While the pretense of a secret ballot will persist, those who count the votes will know exactly how everyone voted on everything and will mete out rewards or punishment accordingly.
Will anyone remember that they voted for it?
Restricting freedom is always for a "good" purpose.
# # #