By Edward Henderson, California Black Media
Questions about election security, voter access and public confidence in elections have become some of the most closely watched issues in American politics.
This November, California voters will weigh in on those debates through Proposition 39, a ballot measure that would establish new voter identification requirements while expanding citizenship verification and election auditing procedures.
If approved, Proposition 39 would require voters to present a government-issued identification card when voting in person. Mail-in voters would be required to provide the last four digits of a government-issued identification number they designated during voter registration. The measure would also require election officials to use government data to verify U.S. citizenship, when possible, publish annual reports showing the percentage of voter registrations verified for citizenship in each county and require the California State Auditor to conduct regular audits of compliance with the new requirements.
A “yes” vote would amend the California Constitution to establish those requirements. A “no” vote would leave California’s current election laws in place, under which most voters are not required to present identification at the polls and citizenship is verified through existing voter registration procedures.
Supporters argue Proposition 39 is intended to strengthen public confidence in California’s elections by increasing transparency and oversight.
In a statement by Julie Luckey, director of Californians for Voter ID, the campaign behind the initiative, she highlights the need for the state to catch up with the times when it comes to these procedures.
“Thirty-six states in the U.S. have implemented some form of voter identification requirement,” Luckey said. “Voter ID is simply a common-sense policy. California needs to modernize its elections to align with the vast majority of the world’s democracies. While our state leads in so many areas, it lags behind on this issue. It’s time for California to catch up and enact voter ID laws.”
Opponents contend the initiative would discourage participation and make it more difficult for many eligible Californians to vote while attempting to address a problem they say does not exist. They also argue that the initiative would not improve election security.
Jenny Farrell, executive director of the League of Women Voters of California, spoke with California Black Media (CBM). She said Proposition 39 is unnecessary because, in her view, California already has safeguards in place to protect elections.
“Prop 39 is part of President Trump’s voter suppression agenda designed to make voting more difficult, undermine confidence in our elections, and narrow who gets to participate in our democracy,” Farrell said. “California’s elections are already secure, and we already verify voters. There is no problem to solve.”
Farrell also shared that the in-person identification requirement would disproportionately affect groups that are less likely to have the required forms of government-issued identification.
The debate has also moved into the courts. Proposition 39’s backers, led by lead plaintiff Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (D-San Diego), filed a lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court against Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber. They argue that the measure’s revised ballot title and summary are biased and violate state election laws requiring impartial language. The original title stated that the measure “establishes additional voter identification and citizenship verification requirements.” The revised title says it “prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification.”
The lawsuit asks the court to order the state to replace the revised description before voter-information materials are finalized.
Bonta’s office defended its handling of the measure, noting that ballot language routinely changes after initiatives qualify. “We take our duty to prepare a title and summary and ballot label seriously, and we are confident the court will agree we have faithfully executed that duty here,” a spokesperson for Bonta’s office said. The court’s decision could determine how Proposition 39 is described to millions of voters in the state’s official voter guide.
“This requirement would disproportionately burden people who are less likely to have the sort of ID that Prop 39 requires — including Black Californians and other communities of color, women and others who have changed their names, seniors, voters with disabilities, and Californians who move frequently,” Farrell said.
“The bottom line is that we should be protecting every eligible voter’s freedom to cast a ballot safely and privately — not creating new obstacles that make it harder for their voices to be heard,” she added.
The California Democratic Party announced on Aug. 2 that it voted to oppose Prop 39 at its Summer Executive Board Meeting held in San Diego.
