The latest article on potential legal action to keep Prop. 77 off the ballot due to discrepencies between initiative language submitted to the AG and that circulated for signatures mentions no cause for blocking the measure except for the language difference.
I mention this only because a commenter (or commenters) have twice mentioned that petition signatures had used the petition version's language implying line-drawers only need to consider voters (not all residents as is legally required, duh) to convince signers in conservative areas to sign on to the proposal.
I've yet to see any coverage of those allegations. But I invite anyone with links to pass 'em on up to the front of the class.
Again, some of the difference could certainly be found material. And, legally, I don't believe there is any burden to prove a petition signer was actually fooled by bait-and-switch action - it's enough that they might reasonably have considered the information important in . . . wait, I was about to bust the materiality standard for securities law, but it's probably close . . . .
A Primer On 3 Current Proposals: Part 1
Following Up on the Redistricting Prop's Legal Snag
Great, Now We Can All Get Back To The Really Important Stuff