ACLJ Uncovers ACLU and Newsom-Connected Lawyers' Meetings With California DOJ Just Before Voter ID Ballot Rewrite

The ACLJ has obtained California Department of Justice records revealing a series of meetings arranged between the ACLU and other opponents of a voter ID initiative, a major political law firm with deep Newsom ties, and senior officials in Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office – including a meeting specifically about the measure’s ballot title and summary just three days before the language was substantially rewritten.

The documents, obtained by the ACLJ through the California Public Records Act (CPRA – the equivalent of FOIA in CA), reveal connections between the ACLU, Common Cause, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and attorneys who have represented California Governor Gavin Newsom and worked on the successful campaign to enshrine abortion rights in the California Constitution.

And the timing raises serious questions about what role these outside groups played in the Attorney General’s decision to change how California voters would see Proposition 39 described on their ballots.

The Ballot Language That Started Our Investigation

As we previously reported in our Proposition 39 investigation, California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office substantially changed the official title of a proposed constitutional amendment requiring voter identification and citizenship-verification measures.

On September 19, 2025, the Attorney General’s original title described the initiative as:

Establishes Additional Voter Identification and Citizenship Verification Requirements.

But on July 3, 2026, the Attorney General issued a dramatically different title:

Prohibits Citizens From Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification.

The original language emphasized the establishment of voter identification and citizenship-verification requirements. The revised language instead emphasized prohibiting citizens from voting.

That significant shift prompted the ACLJ to file a California Public Records Act request on July 27, demanding government records concerning the original and revised ballot language, the changes between them, and communications involving Governor Newsom’s office or former Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

Now, the records we’ve obtained reveal what was happening inside the Attorney General’s office in the weeks leading up to the July 3 revision.

ACLU and Common Cause Arrange Meeting With Bonta’s Senior Leadership

On June 9, 2026, Daniel Conway of Conway Strategies contacted CA DOJ Chief of Policy Laura Stuber on behalf of the coalition opposing Proposition 39.

Conway explicitly identified the coalition’s members, including Common Cause California, the ACLU, and the League of Women Voters of California.

He wrote:

We are hoping to meet with the appropriate team at the Attorney General’s office to discuss the measure and the process going forward.

The CA DOJ quickly accommodated the request, scheduling a meeting for June 11 at 11:30 a.m.

The invitation included some of the highest-ranking officials in Bonta’s office: Chief Deputy Attorney General Francesca Gessner, Chief of Staff Viviana Becerra, Chief of Policy Laura Stuber, Deputy Chief of Staff Lisa Nakashima, and several senior CA DOJ attorneys.

The outside delegation included ACLU representatives Cynthia Valencia and Julia Gomez, Common Cause representative Brittany Stonesifer, and Daniel Conway.

But another connection in these documents is particularly revealing.

The ACLU coalition specifically requested the inclusion of two attorneys from Olson Remcho LLP – James Harrison and Ben Gevercer – identifying them as the coalition’s legal counsel.

That law firm’s involvement becomes particularly significant when examining what happened next.

SEIU Arranges Separate Meeting – Then Cancels

Another organization was also seeking access to Bonta’s senior officials.

On June 4, SEIU California Government Relations Director Jessica Bartholow requested a meeting with the Attorney General’s office.

The correspondence included SEIU Political Director Oscar Lopez, Olson Remcho managing partner Richard Rios, and political strategist Jeff Gozzo.

The CA DOJ scheduled a meeting with its ballot and initiative team for June 17 at 11:30 a.m.

However, SEIU canceled that meeting on June 15.

Just over a week later, the same political and legal network resurfaced in a much more specific request.

Newsom-Connected Attorneys Seek Meeting Specifically About Ballot Language

On June 24, Richard Rios, managing partner of Olson Remcho – the same law firm whose attorneys were included in the ACLU/Common Cause coalition’s June 11 meeting – contacted the CA DOJ to request another meeting.

This time, the purpose was explicit.

I am reaching out (correctly this time) to request a title and summary/ballot label meeting regarding the Voter ID measure, No. 25-007A1.

He identified himself, SEIU Political Director Oscar Lopez, and Jeff Gozzo as intended participants.

CA DOJ Chief of Policy Laura Stuber sought to arrange the meeting as soon as possible. When she asked about meeting earlier, Rios explained:

There is ongoing research, so we prefer as much time as we can get while also ensuring the timing of our input is valuable to your team.

The meeting was ultimately scheduled for June 30 at 10:15 a.m. Rios subsequently arranged for fellow Olson Remcho attorney Aaron Silva to participate in his place.

That was just three days before the Attorney General issued the revised Proposition 39 ballot language.

And the backgrounds of these individuals make the meeting especially noteworthy.

The Governor Newsom and Abortion-Rights Connections

Rios is the managing partner of Olson Remcho, a prominent California political law firm with extensive ties to Democrat elected officials, political organizations, and labor unions.

Rios personally represented Governor Gavin Newsom in litigation before the California Supreme Court. In a 2024 announcement, Olson Remcho confirmed that Rios was among the attorneys who filed an emergency petition on behalf of Newsom and other parties challenging a separate proposed ballot initiative.

The firm also represented the successful 2022 campaign for California Proposition 1, which enshrined abortion rights in the state Constitution. Rios and Aaron Silva were both members of Olson Remcho’s Proposition 1 legal team.

Gozzo directed the successful 2022 Proposition 1 abortion-rights campaign. He also previously served as Director of the California Senate Democratic Caucus and has worked on numerous Democrat political campaigns.

In other words, the June 30 appointment brought together attorneys with documented ties to Governor Newsom, an experienced Democrat ballot-measure strategist, and an SEIU political official – specifically to discuss the official wording of Proposition 39.

Then, on July 3, the Ballot Title Changed

The documented timeline is striking:

• June 9: The ACLU/Common Cause opposition coalition requests a meeting with the Attorney General’s office.
• June 11: A meeting is scheduled with senior CA DOJ leadership and representatives of the opposition coalition, including counsel from Olson Remcho.
• June 17: A separate SEIU meeting with senior CA DOJ officials had been scheduled but was canceled June 15.
• June 24: Olson Remcho managing partner Richard Rios requests a meeting specifically concerning the voter ID measure’s title and summary, identifying SEIU Political Director Oscar Lopez and political strategist Jeff Gozzo as participants.
• June 30: CA DOJ schedules the title-and-summary discussion, with Olson Remcho attorney Aaron Silva replacing Rios.
• July 3: Bonta’s office issues its revised ballot title, replacing the original description emphasizing voter ID and citizenship-verification requirements with language emphasizing prohibiting citizens from voting.

California Voters Deserve Answers

California law requires the Attorney General to prepare an impartial ballot title and summary. That responsibility is particularly important when the measure concerns the integrity of elections themselves.

Public participation in the ballot-title process is permitted. But voters have a legitimate interest in knowing whether the words appearing on their ballots were selected through independent legal analysis or shaped by political interests working to defeat the measure.

The records obtained by the ACLJ establish that representatives of organized opposition groups sought access to Bonta’s senior leadership and that a separate team of politically connected attorneys and consultants secured an appointment specifically concerning the ballot language immediately before its revision.

The ACLJ initiated this investigation because California voters deserve to know how their government makes decisions affecting the ballot. These records provide an important new piece of that story.

We will continue examining the evidence, pursuing accountability, and defending the public’s right to transparent and impartial election administration.