A Sacramento County Superior Court judge ordered some changes in the ballot arguments, but none in the title and summary, for Proposition 17, an insurance-company-backed ballot measure that would change rules for auto insurance, the Los Angeles Times reports.

As a political reporter, I’m used to hearing a lot of spin, but the dueling news releases sent out by the “Yes on 17” and “No on 17” camps were quite amazing in their differing accounts of what happened. Read them in their entirety, after the jump…

Yes on 17: Californians for Fair Auto Insurance Rates
For Immediate Release: March 12, 2010

Court Orders Changes to No on 17 Ballot Arguments to Strike False and Misleading Statements

At the Same Time, Judge Rejects All Challenges to Yes on 17 Ballot Arguments

Sacramento, CA – Today, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Allen Sumner ordered the No on 17 campaign to substantially change language in its ballot arguments which stated Prop. 17 punishes the military.

Throughout the campaign, No on 17 has repeatedly said that Prop. 17 will unfairly penalize, discriminate against, and/or negatively impact the military. The truth is that military personnel are better off under Prop. 17, but opponents are engaging in scare tactics.

Their ballot argument said, “NO ON 17: IT PUNISHES OUR TROOPS.” “THIS INITIATIVE RAISES RATES ON CALIFORNIANS WHO SERVE IN THE MILITARY AND STOP DRIVING WHILE LIVING STATESIDE. PENALIZING THESE SOLDIERS BY FORCING THEM TO PAY MORE WHEN THEY RESTART THEIR CAR INSURANCE IS WRONG.”

The judge found this statement in the No on 17 arguments to be false and misleading and originally ordered it omitted from the ballot pamphlet altogether. No on 17 attorneys immediately appealed this decision and asked the judge to instead allow them to submit new language. Yes on 17 agreed to this decision and rewrites are taking place now.

At the same time, the courts completely rejected No on 17’s frivolous counter-suit seeking changes to Yes on 17’s ballot arguments and rebuttals. In fact, the judge rejected each and every one of No on 17’s complaints, allowing the original Yes on 17 arguments to stand without modification.

“This ruling forcing opponents to strike false and misleading statements is a major win for California voters. Opponents of Prop. 17 have taken the anti-consumer position, trying to stop the extension of a discount for drivers who follow the law and maintain auto insurance,” said Mike D’Arelli, Executive Director, Alliance of Insurance Agents and Brokers. “They know they can’t win on the facts, so No on 17 has resorted to distortions and flat out lies to try to deceive the public. Today, the Court forced them to stop misleading the public through patently false arguments.”

Proposition 17 on the June 2010 ballot, makes an already-existing persistency or “continuous coverage” auto insurance discount portable, allowing customers to take their discount with them if they change auto insurance companies. Prop. 17 will mean more competition and choice in the auto insurance marketplace and will result in lower rates for drivers.

Ballot arguments and rebuttals appear in the Official Voter Information Guide compiled by the California Secretary of State and are distributed to every voter in California. Election law (Elec. Code § 9092, Gov. Code § 88006) states that information in the voter guide must not contain “false and misleading” statements.

Today, more than 80% of drivers maintain auto insurance and qualify for the persistency or continuous coverage discount, but can only get that discount from their current insurer. If a driver wants to switch to a new insurance company, he or she loses the discount and has to pay more.

And…

Stop Prop 17 News
For Immediate Release
March 12, 2010

Judge Rejects Mercury Insurance’s Lies; Voters Will Be Told of Prop 17 Car Insurance Surcharges

Sacramento – Judge Allen Sumner has upheld Attorney General Jerry Brown’s Official Title and Summary of Proposition 17, which warns the measure will allow car insurers to raise premiums. The ruling means voters will learn in the ballot pamphlet that Prop 17 will allow insurance companies to raise rates on California drivers based on their history of buying auto insurance.

Attorneys for Mercury Insurance failed as it tried to convince the court to remove any reference to the insurance surcharges that Prop 17 will create. Consumer advocates hailed the decision as a victory for voters, who will have the opportunity to cut through Mercury’s multi-million dollar campaign of lies and read a fair assessment of the insurance company’s initiative in the Voter Guide.

“When voters face the deceptive, multi-million dollar insurance company ad campaign for Prop 17, at least they’ll be able to turn to Attorney General Brown’s summary to learn the truth,” said consumer advocate Harvey Rosenfield who co-authored one of the ballot arguments against Prop 17. “Now that the Judge has made it clear that Prop 17 lets insurance companies raise car insurance premiums, will the insurance company backers of Prop 17 stop lying about it?”

With the ruling, voters will read the following in the Official Title and Summary of Prop 17:
“Will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who do not have a history of continuous insurance coverage.”

The Judge rejected Mercury’s attempt to strike out much of Prop 17 opponents’ ballot arguments. He did require two cosmetic changes to the arguments, so the main argument against 17 now includes the statement:

“It punishes our troops, among others. This initiative raises rates on Californians who stop their insurance, including military serving stateside. Penalizing these drivers by forcing them to pay more when they restart their insurance is wrong.”

The rebuttal argument was amended to read: “you will get hit with surcharges of up to $1,000/year.”

Proposition 17, which has been funded with $3.5 million from Mercury Insurance, would surcharge drivers, including soldiers and seniors, who have had a lapse in car insurance coverage for virtually any reason during the past five years. Under the measure, people who stopped driving and didn’t need insurance for a time would be required to pay up to a thousand dollars more for insurance when they sought to restart coverage. Currently, insurance companies are prohibited from imposing the surcharge in California.