Or better still, simply give them a single choice. If your committee/jury/council/etc. are making the call on what actually constitutes information or mis-info

Or better still, simply give them a single choice. If your committee/jury/council/etc. are making the call on what actually constitutes information or mis-information, why not have that body simply limit the choices, rather than limit the people making the choice? After all, they will have to decide which side of a disagreement constitutes truth so why even allow the option for those nasty false ideas to be voted on? This way you can simply limit your choices to who is the most competent (or popular, or intimidating) and which of the more trivial details of implementation to choose. Sure, you won't be able to show very open minded ballots (being voted on by a very homogeneously minded electorate), but you do get to avoid those unfortunately allegations of disenfranchisement. Naturally, this could be applied not just at the ballot box, but also for speech in the public square. Why allow misinformed ideas and facts to breed in the minds of those poor, unwashed masses that don't think so clearly as we do? I propose then also licenses, which must be renewed periodically and even subject to snap reviews, for publishing, public speaking, and any other transmission of ideas/thoughts where there is risk of misinformation leading our society astray.