Those 500-or-so-word ballot measure arguments and rebuttals published this week in the Secretary of State’s Voter Information Guide have already sparked at least one legal fight.

The argument is over the arguments submitted against Proposition 17, the Mercury Insurance-backed measure that supporters say would allow auto insurers to extend discounts for maintaining continuous coverage to motorists who switch carriers.

Californians for Fair Auto Insurance Rates, a coalition backing Proposition 17, has filed a 62-page lawsuit to alter the arguments against the measure, saying opponents are “intentionally misleading voters” with their charge that the change would create new penalties.

The opponents, who say the change would result in rate hikes for motorists who experienced a lapse in coverage, countered that Mercury Insurance is the one lying and attempting to mislead the public with its attempt to shut them up.

“This lawsuit is a total waste of court resources, but Mercury will spend any amount of money to have its way and deny the public honest information about its attack on responsible drivers who can’t afford Prop 17’s premium hikes,” said Consumer Watchdog founder Harvey Rosenfield, who signed the argument against Prop 17.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Jerry Brown has ordered that the Prop 17 title and summary be changed to include language indicating that a “yes” vote could result in a rate hike for some drivers, based on their past coverage.

Both sides are expected to air their arguments in court before the March 15 deadline for making changes to the voter guide.