The measure would require Californians to present a government-issued ID when voting in person or write the last four digits of an ID number on their ballot envelope when voting by mail. Currently, California only requires an ID number when registering to vote. The measure would require the secretary of state and county election officials to verify voters’ citizenship and annually report the percentage of their voter rolls they have verified.
Yes Argument
This is a common-sense reform to reduce voter fraud and improve public confidence in elections. Other states that require ID have seen an increase in voter participation. Californians already need a government-issued ID for many facets of everyday life, and it makes sense to include that in our election system. Unlike President Donald Trump’s SAVE Act, the measure would not require proof of citizenship during registration, and it would not restrict mail-in voting.
No Argument
This latest attempt at introducing voter ID laws is part of President Trump’s agenda to make it harder to vote across the U.S. Voter fraud is rare, and this measure will suppress voter turnout among eligible voters who don’t have access to the required documentation, disproportionately affecting low-income voters, voters with disabilities and voters of color. California already has strong systems in place to verify voters, making this a costly waste.
Key Supporters
In Support
- Ken Calvert, U.S. representative
- Carl DeMaio, California Assembly member
- Julie Luckey, chair, Californians for Voter ID
- Tony Strickland, state senator
- California Republican Party
In Opposition
- Xavier Becerra, candidate for California governor
- Alex Padilla, U.S. senator
- California Common Cause
- California Democratic Party
- League of Women Voters of California
More Statewide Propositions
Should California issue $11.25 billion in general obligation bonds for affordable housing, homebuying opportunities and veterans and homelessness programs?
Should state and local governments have the option to provide public funding for election campaigns?
Should successor elections be eliminated from recall elections of state officials?
Should California issue $25 billion in revenue bonds to create a “middle-class” homebuyer downpayment assistance program?
Should California issue $8.4 billion in bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research?
Should California tax the wealth of billionaires to fund health care services?
Should California require ongoing audits of programs funded by specific taxes, and make those tax revenues subject to the state’s spending limit?
Should the state prohibit new taxes on financial assets like stocks and investment accounts and prohibit most retroactive taxes?
Should local tax measures placed on the ballot by voter signature face a higher threshold if the tax will be used for a specific purpose?
Should certain nonprofit community health clinics be required to spend at least 90% of their revenue on healthcare services?
Should California speed up its environmental review process for certain projects?