Prop. 14 opened California’s primary elections to millions of independent voters for the first time, letting residents support any candidate regardless of party affiliation in the primary round. Democratic and Republican leaders, despite their many disagreements, found common cause in opposing the measure. An open primary system dilutes the influence parties have traditionally wielded over which candidates advance and which don’t. When every registered voter can weigh in, party insiders lose a measure of control they once took for granted.

The parties tried to stop Prop. 14 at the ballot box and failed. Asking Californians to surrender voting rights they had just secured turned out to be an unpersuasive pitch.

This past spring, however, a new argument emerged during a crowded and unusually unpredictable primary race for governor. With no dominant frontrunner and a Democratic field far larger than the Republican one, some observers raised concerns that California’s two GOP candidates might end up capturing both spots in the November runoff — effectively guaranteeing a Republican governor in a heavily Democratic state.

That scenario would have required every single Democratic candidate to remain deadlocked through months of costly advertising and mounting public scrutiny. As happens in any campaign, the field shifted as the race progressed. In the end, one Democrat and one Republican advanced to the general election ballot — a thoroughly typical result for California, nothing like the feared outcome.

Yet that fleeting possibility has now become fuel for a renewed push to scrap the top-two primary altogether. A ballot measure aiming to do just that has been filed, and the state attorney general’s office has issued its official title and summary — the first procedural step toward reviving the closed primary system Californians moved away from during Barack Obama’s first term in the White House.

That title and summary spell out what the measure would eliminate, but they say far less about what would take its place. Nowhere does it mention the closed system that would replace the current one. Nowhere does it mention the roughly 5.3 million Californians registered without party affiliation who would lose their ability to vote in state primaries. Nor does it mention the far larger number of voters who would find themselves limited to whichever candidates their party has already blessed.

Should this measure qualify for the ballot, the attorney general’s office owes voters language that reflects reality — plain, complete and honest about the fact that passage would strip millions of Californians of a role they currently play in choosing who appears on the general election ballot.

California isn’t alone in grappling with this tension. Similar battles are unfolding on opposite ends of the political map. In Alaska, conservative activists aligned with the MAGA movement are pushing to repeal that state’s open primary system. In New York, progressive and socialist-aligned Democrats are resisting efforts to extend primary voting rights to more than a million unaffiliated residents. Different states, different ideologies, yet the same underlying impulse: keep primary elections restricted to loyal party members only.

This isn’t fundamentally a question of left versus right, or which faction comes out ahead politically. It’s a question of whether democracy functions as it should — whether every voter has a genuine opportunity to help decide who represents them. That principle only holds if everyone gets a seat at the table where it matters most: the ballot box.

Fairness demands that every eligible voter be allowed to participate whenever a public election is held using taxpayer dollars and public resources. Anything less undermines the basic premise of representative government.

That principle is exactly what Proposition 14 was designed to safeguard nearly two decades ago. It remains worth protecting today.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California’s Top-Two Primary Gives Independent Voters a Real Voice — And It’s Worth Protecting appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The high court ruled Monday that new U.S. Postal Service regulations aimed at restricting mail ballots cannot take effect before the Nov. 3 election. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing in concurrence, stopped short of saying the postal service lacks authority to impose such rules altogether, but he warned that rolling them out now would be “arbitrary and capricious” given how little time states and local election officials would have to adjust.

California was among the states that challenged the postal service rules, building on an earlier legal fight over a Trump executive order targeting mail-in voting. The state relies on a universal vote-by-mail system, automatically sending ballots to every registered voter.

Gov. Gavin Newsom welcomed the ruling as a win for voters heading into the fall election.

“Finally, 50 days out, and the American people have certainty when it comes to our country’s electoral process: Voting is safe, vote-by-mail is accessible to any and all who need it,” Newsom said. “And I encourage every Californian to make their voice heard this November.”

At the heart of the dispute is a Trump administration proposal to build a federal database of registered voters, which the postal service would use to verify eligibility before delivering mail ballots. Under the plan, the agency could have refused to deliver ballots in any state that declined to share its voter information.

California election officials have said the state’s existing ballot procedures already satisfy many of the technical requirements the administration sought, including the use of scannable bar codes on return envelopes. Other states, however, faced the prospect of scrambling to redesign ballots and election procedures on short notice had the rules been allowed to move forward.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the outcome of the case carried enormous weight.

“Had this rule been allowed to take effect, the consequences would have been catastrophic,” Bonta said.

California counties are set to begin mailing ballots to voters no later than the first week of October, giving residents ample time to cast their votes ahead of Election Day.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Supreme Court Rejects Trump Bid to Limit Mail-In Voting Ahead of November Election appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

California remains locked in a legal fight with the Trump administration over the president’s push to impose new restrictions on universal mail-in voting. The dispute has left some voters wondering whether mail ballots will even be an option for the November 3 election, and if so, whether it’s still safe to use one.

The short answer from election officials: yes and yes. Mail voting will remain available this year, and it remains a secure and generally reliable method of casting a ballot. Still, county registrars are encouraging voters not to wait until the deadline to return their ballots, given the uncertainty swirling around the U.S. Postal Service’s role in the process.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on whether President Trump can direct the Postal Service to restrict mail-in voting ahead of the midterms. Trump has proposed creating a federal database of registered voters that the Postal Service would use to verify that mail ballots are delivered only to eligible U.S. citizens. Under his plan, the Postal Service could refuse to deliver ballots in states that don’t share that voter information.

The legal battle, which has dragged on for months, has left voters — and even some election officials — confused, something voting rights advocates say may be the point.

Despite the uncertainty, California election officials insist the state is prepared to run its elections smoothly no matter how the Supreme Court rules. County registrars are monitoring the litigation closely, but they are also moving forward with plans to mail ballots as usual ahead of the October 5 deadline. State and local officials are encouraging voters worried about postal delays to vote early and take advantage of California’s other options, including official drop boxes and in-person voting centers.

“As we do in every election, we have contingency plans and backup plans in place,” said Tricia Webber, Santa Cruz County’s clerk and registrar of voters and president of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials.

Some counties, including Santa Cruz and Los Angeles, are looking into setting up temporary voting centers where residents could request and drop off ballots in person. In Santa Cruz County, Webber said her office is working on plans to send its mobile voting unit around the county to give residents another way to cast a ballot.

“Until there’s an answer,” Webber said, referring to the pending court ruling, “California counties are going to continue to operate business as usual.”

WHAT TRUMP WANTS THE POSTAL SERVICE TO DO

In March, Trump signed an executive order aiming to give the federal government control over who receives mail ballots. Within days, more than 20 Democratic attorneys general, including California’s Rob Bonta, sued the administration, arguing the Constitution gives only Congress and state governments authority over election administration.

Federal district and appellate courts sided with the Democratic-led states, upholding a preliminary injunction that bars the Postal Service from carrying out any part of the plan while the lawsuit continues.

The core legal questions remain unresolved. Last month, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to keep planning how it would carry out the executive order, prompting Democratic-led states to file a new legal challenge against the Postal Service’s implementation plans.

The Postal Service’s proposal, finalized in August, would create a system to track each voter’s ballot using a unique barcode and cross-reference it against a database of eligible registered voters.

While some states worry they may need to reprint ballot envelopes to comply, Webber said the vast majority of California counties already use envelopes that meet the requirements.

The federal government does not currently maintain a comprehensive list of all eligible registered voters and would need states to submit voter information to a federal mail ballot portal that has not yet been built.

It appears unlikely that portal will be ready in time for the 2026 midterms. According to the office of U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Postal Service employee who filed a whistleblower complaint said the rollout has been rushed, risky and disorganized because of an unrealistic timeline.

“In an attempt to meet impossible deadlines, the United States Postal Service has eliminated standard and necessary testing, creating a substantial risk of a ‘catastrophic failure’ of the system that could ‘derail the midterm elections,'” Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, wrote in a late-August letter to Postmaster General David Steiner.

In June, the postmaster general told a congressional committee that the Postal Service would withhold mail ballots in states that refuse to share basic voter information, including names, addresses and each ballot’s unique barcode.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, the state’s top elections official, has not said whether California would comply with the proposed voter information requirement.

“California election officials will continue to do everything in their power to ensure that every eligible California voter has the right to cast their ballot by mail and that vote is counted,” her office said.

Last year, the U.S. Department of Justice sued Weber and five other Democratic secretaries of state for refusing to turn over unredacted voter files containing far more sensitive personal information than what the Postal Service rule requires. A federal judge in Southern California dismissed that case in January.

UNCERTAINTY COULD DRIVE MORE VOTERS TO CAST BALLOTS EARLY

In an unexpected twist, concerns about postal reliability may end up accomplishing something election officials and voting advocates have long struggled to achieve: getting more Californians to vote early.

That marks a shift from the run-up to June’s primary, when nervous Democrats urged voters to hold off casting ballots for governor until the last possible moment. Now, social media feeds are filled with posts urging people to vote early and use official drop boxes rather than rely on the mail.

“This whole thing could backfire,” said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. “What you’re seeing now on social media, in response to this legal drama and confusion, is a lot of people encouraging their friends to vote early — and that’s exactly the message we’ve been pushing all along.”

Early voting helps county election workers tabulate results faster on election night, allowing news organizations such as the Associated Press to call races sooner. Because mailed ballots take the longest to process, returning them several days ahead of the deadline gives election workers more time to remove ballots from envelopes and prepare them for counting before Election Day itself.

“Fortunately, we give voters a lot of options here, and that’s really going to benefit California,” Alexander said. “Other states don’t have as strong a system offering as many alternatives and pathways for voters to exercise their right to vote.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Mail-In Voting Rules Uncertain? Here’s How Californians Can Prepare to Vote in November appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

As the Trump administration and more than 20 states continue fighting in court over whether the president can direct the U.S. Postal Service to restrict how mail ballots are handled ahead of the Nov. 3 election, a wave of social media posts is urging voters to skip the mail altogether. Instead, users are encouraging friends and family to vote early in person or drop their ballots directly into official drop boxes.

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, said the uncertainty swirling around the Trump administration’s plans may end up working against the president’s own goals.

“This whole play may backfire,” Alexander said. “What you’re seeing now on social media in response to this court drama and this confusion are lots of people urging their friends to vote early — and that’s exactly what we’ve been saying.”

Election officials have long pushed early voting because ballots that arrive by mail take longer to process. Workers must open each envelope, verify signatures and prepare the ballot before it can be counted. When voters submit ballots several days ahead of the deadline, county officials can get a head start on that work, which speeds up results once polls close — and allows race callers to project winners sooner.

The dispute traces back to March, when President Trump signed an executive order attempting to give the federal government oversight of who can receive a mail ballot. To implement that order, the Postal Service last month proposed a system that would assign a unique tracking barcode to every mailed ballot and cross-check it against a database of registered voters.

The catch: no such comprehensive federal voter database currently exists. The plan would rely on individual states voluntarily submitting voter registration data to a so-called “federal ballot mail portal” that has not yet been built. Under Trump’s proposal, the Postal Service would refuse to deliver ballots in any state that declines to share that information.

So far, federal courts have blocked the plan from moving forward, siding with the states that sued to stop it. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, allowed the administration last month to continue preparing for implementation while the justices consider a final ruling.

Until that ruling comes down, California counties are proceeding as usual, according to Tricia Webber, clerk and registrar of voters for Santa Cruz County and president of the California Association of County Election Officials.

Locally, residents can expect county registrars across the Inland Empire and Southern California to continue promoting early voting options — ballot drop boxes, vote centers and mail-in ballots submitted well ahead of the deadline — regardless of how the federal case unfolds.

Community members interested in learning more about ballot security closer to home can attend a public forum hosted by CalMatters and the UC Riverside School of Public Policy on Sept. 24 in Riverside. The event will examine the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department’s handling of mail ballots and what the incident could mean for future elections in the region.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Trump Factor Could Drive Surge in Early Voting Across California appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Weber, a Democrat seeking reelection this year against Republican challenger Don Wagner, says the state’s election system is sound and that recent claims of widespread voter fraud aimed at California and other states don’t hold up under scrutiny.

She points to a recent example from Nevada, where the Trump administration’s Department of Homeland Security initially claimed to have uncovered 278,000 illegal voter registrations. That number was later walked back dramatically, with officials acknowledging that 99.94% of those flagged registrations were legitimate. No solid evidence has since emerged to support claims of fraud among the remaining cases.

Weber says this pattern isn’t new and has repeatedly been used to cast doubt on California’s election system, despite little evidence to back it up. Independent research and investigations, she notes, consistently show that large-scale voter fraud simply doesn’t happen in the United States. California, she says, has strong safeguards in place, but true attempts at fraud remain exceedingly rare.

During her time in office, Weber says the state has run elections marked by high turnout and smooth operations. She credits California’s vote-by-mail system, which she describes as both convenient and secure, along with the state’s ballot-curing process, which allows election officials to follow up with voters if there’s an issue such as a mismatched signature, ensuring legitimate ballots aren’t thrown out.

“Our system works,” Weber said, arguing that accessibility and accountability can coexist.

She also emphasized her willingness to separate politics from the responsibilities of her office. Weber recalled her decision during the 2021 recall election to deny a request from Gov. Gavin Newsom, who had appointed her to the position, to alter his party affiliation on the ballot. She said the decision reflected her commitment to fairness over political loyalty, even when it meant pushing back against the very governor who gave her the job.

For Weber, the broader fight over voting rights carries deep personal meaning. Born in the Jim Crow-era South, she says her parents were unable to vote until they left Arkansas and settled in Los Angeles, where they cast their first ballots. Voting, she said, was treated as sacred in her household — so much so that her mother once turned their living room into a neighborhood polling place.

Weber says her family’s journey, from being denied basic voting rights to now overseeing California’s elections, reflects a uniquely American story. She said she doesn’t take that responsibility lightly and remains committed to defending Californians’ access to the ballot box against what she characterizes as politically motivated attacks on the state’s election system.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California’s Vote-by-Mail System Works — And It’s Worth Defending appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The short answer, according to state and county election officials: Yes, voters can still cast ballots by mail, and the process remains safe and dependable. Still, officials are urging Californians not to wait, encouraging early submission ahead of the Nov. 3 election.

At the center of the confusion is a pending U.S. Supreme Court decision that could determine whether President Trump can direct the U.S. Postal Service to restrict mail ballots before the midterms. Trump has proposed creating a federal database of registered voters that the Postal Service would use to verify eligibility before delivering ballots. Under his plan, the agency could refuse to deliver ballots in states that don’t share voter data.

The legal fight has dragged on for months, leaving many voters — and even some election officials — confused about what to expect. Voting rights advocates say that confusion may be intentional.

Despite the uncertainty, California election officials insist the state is ready to run its election smoothly no matter how the courts rule. County registrars are tracking the litigation closely, but they’re also moving ahead with plans to mail ballots by the state’s Oct. 5 deadline. Officials are encouraging residents to prepare early and consider alternatives to the mail, such as ballot drop boxes and in-person voting locations, if they have concerns about postal delivery.

“Like we do for all of our elections, we have contingency plans or disaster plans put into place,” said Tricia Webber, Santa Cruz County’s clerk and registrar of voters, who also leads the California Association of County Election Officials.

Some counties — including Santa Cruz and Los Angeles — are looking into setting up temporary voting stations where residents could request and turn in ballots on the spot. In Santa Cruz County, Webber said officials are also considering deploying their mobile voting unit to give residents another way to cast a ballot.

“Until there’s an answer,” Webber said, referring to the pending Supreme Court decision, “California counties are doing business as usual.”

**What Trump wants USPS to do**

The controversy dates back to March, when Trump signed an executive order attempting to give the federal government oversight of who receives mail ballots. More than 20 Democratic attorneys general, including California’s Rob Bonta, quickly sued, arguing the Constitution grants election authority to states and Congress — not the executive branch.

Lower federal courts sided with the Democratic-led states, issuing a temporary injunction that has so far blocked the Postal Service from acting on the president’s directive. But the broader legal questions remain unsettled. Last month, the Supreme Court allowed the administration to continue developing its implementation plan, prompting Democratic states to file a new round of legal challenges.

The Postal Service’s finalized proposal, released in August, calls for tracking each mailed ballot using a unique barcode that would be checked against a database of eligible voters.

While some states worry they may need to redesign ballot envelopes if the rule survives legal challenges, Webber said most California counties already use compliant envelopes.

A major hurdle remains: the federal government doesn’t currently maintain a complete list of eligible voters and would depend on states voluntarily submitting data to a so-called “federal ballot mail portal” that hasn’t yet been built.

Whether that system could even be operational in time for this year’s midterms is in question. According to Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal’s office, a Postal Service whistleblower described the rollout as rushed and warned that skipped testing procedures could lead to a “catastrophic failure” capable of disrupting the midterm elections.

“In an effort to meet impossible deadlines, USPS has eliminated standard and needed testing, thereby creating substantial risk of a ‘catastrophic failure’ of the system that could ‘derail the midterm elections,'” Blumenthal wrote in a letter to Postmaster General David Steiner in late August.

Steiner told a congressional committee in June that the Postal Service intends to withhold ballots in states that refuse to share basic voter information — including names, addresses and ballot barcodes.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, the state’s top elections official, has not indicated whether California would comply with such a request.

“California’s elections officials will continue to do everything within our power to ensure that every eligible California voter has the right to cast a mail ballot and have that vote count,” Weber said.

Last year, the U.S. Justice Department sued Weber and five other Democratic secretaries of state after they declined to hand over unredacted voter files — information far more sensitive than what the Postal Service rule would require. A federal judge in Southern California dismissed that lawsuit in January.

**Confusion could push more voters to act early**

In an unexpected twist, anxiety over the Postal Service’s reliability may accomplish something election officials have long hoped for: convincing more Californians to vote earlier rather than waiting until the final days.

That marks a shift from the run-up to June’s primary, when nervous Democratic voters were urged to hold off on choosing a gubernatorial candidate until the last possible moment. Now, social media is filled with posts encouraging people to vote as soon as possible and to rely on drop boxes instead of the mail.

“This whole play may backfire,” said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. “What you’re seeing now on social media in response to this court drama and this confusion are lots of people urging their friends to vote early — and that’s exactly what we’ve been saying.”

Earlier voting helps county election workers process ballots more quickly on election night, which in turn allows outlets like The Associated Press to call races sooner. Because ballots that arrive by mail take longer to process than those dropped off in person, submitting them several days before the deadline gives election workers a head start on removing ballots from envelopes and preparing them for tabulation.

“Fortunately, we give voters lots of options, and that’s really going to work to California’s benefit,” Alexander said. “Other states do not have the kind of robust process that creates lots of redundancies and avenues for voters to vote.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Mail-In Voting Rules Still Unclear: How Californians Can Get Ready for November Election appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

That delay is not the product of faulty machines or election fraud. It is the predictable outcome of policies that were never designed with speed in mind.

Under current law, California counties have up to 30 days after Election Day to finish counting, auditing and certifying results. Mail ballots postmarked on Election Day can legally arrive up to a week later, and elections officials are required to verify the signature on every single ballot envelope before it can even be opened. As the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation has noted, county officials are essentially running two parallel election systems at once — one for early and in-person votes, another for the flood of mail ballots that trickle in afterward.

The consequence is that a state of 23 million registered voters routinely waits weeks to learn who actually won a contest.

Even Gov. Gavin Newsom seemed to recognize the problem earlier this year. After the current secretary of state — whom he originally appointed — pushed back on calls for faster counting and insisted she would not compromise accuracy for speed, Newsom sent a letter to all 58 county elections officials urging them to tally ballots “as quickly as possible” in order to prevent, in his words, “election lies from taking hold.”

To be clear, none of this suggests that California’s elections are compromised or rigged. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the practice of counting ballots that arrive up to five days after Election Day, as long as they were postmarked in time. That ruling means the state will keep operating under a legal framework that was never built for efficiency.

But other states prove that speed and accuracy aren’t mutually exclusive — they’re simply a matter of when the counting is legally allowed to begin. Florida offers perhaps the sharpest contrast: while California often needs more than a month to finish counting, Florida regularly wraps up within four days.

Three specific reforms could close that gap.

First, California should join the 28 other states that already allow counties to begin processing and verifying mail ballots before Election Day itself. In Florida, state law permits officials to start processing and even counting mail ballots roughly three weeks in advance, which is why the state can often report results within hours of polls closing. Giving California’s counties that same head start would dramatically shrink the post-election counting window.

Second, the state needs to properly fund the staffing and equipment counties require to count more efficiently. The California Voter Foundation has called for $55 million in dedicated state funding for elections personnel and technology upgrades. The Legislature allocated $29 million in this year’s budget — a reasonable step, but not nearly enough if it isn’t paired with structural changes to how and when counting happens. Money alone won’t fix a slow system.

Third, California should establish a mandatory interim reporting deadline, requiring counties to release results covering the vast majority of ballots within 72 hours of Election Day.

None of these changes would take away a single voter’s rights. Every ballot postmarked by Election Day — even those arriving up to five days later — would still be counted in full. Every existing voter protection would remain intact. The only thing that would change is how long Californians have to wait to learn the outcome of their own elections.

After three decades of public service at nearly every level of California government — school board, the state Assembly, city hall and now county government — I’ve come to understand that broken processes don’t fix themselves. Someone has to decide the problem is worth solving, build support for change, and see it through.

California should be a leader in running elections efficiently and transparently, not an outlier known for taking longer than almost anywhere else. We have the technology. We have the expertise. What’s missing is a Secretary of State willing to treat this as the urgent, nonpartisan reform it needs to be. That change has to start with new leadership in that office.

Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s campaign did not respond by deadline to an invitation to offer her perspective on this issue.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Can Count Votes Both Quickly and Accurately — Here’s How appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

As someone who has spent nearly two decades working to strengthen civic engagement here in the Inland Empire, I’ve come to believe that a healthy democracy depends on elections that are both secure and accessible. I’ve watched newly naturalized citizens cast their first ballots with pride, and I’ve seen young people become lifelong voters simply because someone took the time to walk them through the process. Those moments matter, and the progress behind them is worth protecting.

That’s why I’m concerned about Proposition 39, one of several statewide measures Californians will weigh in on this fall. If approved, it would require voters to show a government-issued photo ID at the polls and would ask mail-in voters to include the last four digits of a government ID number on their ballots — information election officials would then have to cross-check against voter registration records.

The trouble is, California already has a system in place to confirm who is eligible to vote. State law requires anyone registering to affirm, under penalty of perjury, that they are a U.S. citizen, and applicants must submit identifying information such as a driver’s license number or Social Security number. Voting while ineligible is also a federal crime. Prop. 39 would layer a new requirement on top of safeguards that already exist, adding friction without addressing any real problem.

If voters approve the measure, it could create real obstacles for millions of eligible Californians trying to cast a ballot — particularly Latino voters and young people, two groups I’ve worked closely with throughout my career. National research shows that more than one in four Latino adults lack a driver’s license reflecting their current name or address, and 41% of young adults ages 18 to 24 face the same issue. As these groups gain more political influence with each election cycle, measures like this risk chipping away at their voice in California’s future.

There’s also a broader concern about trust. Many eligible voters — especially in immigrant and mixed-status households — are already wary of interacting with government systems because of privacy concerns and uncertainty about how their personal data might be used. Introducing a new ID requirement could deepen that hesitancy, discouraging participation among people who have every right to vote, while also raising questions about the cost and security of implementing such a system.

Supporters of Prop. 39 argue that ID requirements would prevent fraud and bolster confidence in elections. But the evidence simply doesn’t support that claim. According to the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice, documented instances of voter fraud occur at a rate of roughly 0.0003% to 0.0025% — essentially nonexistent.

There’s a financial cost to consider as well. California is already grappling with budget shortfalls, and the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that creating a new statewide ID system, as Prop. 39 would require, could cost taxpayers anywhere from tens of millions of dollars to several hundred million. Even if the ID itself were offered free of charge to voters, the overall price tag would be substantial — and hard to justify for a problem that isn’t actually occurring.

California is home to more than 27 million eligible voters, making it the largest democratic electorate in the country. At a moment when the nation is preparing to mark its 250th anniversary, we should be looking for ways to strengthen access to the ballot box — not erect new barriers.

Our state has an opportunity to model the democratic ideals this country was founded on by ensuring that every eligible Californian can vote with confidence, ease and full participation in the process.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Voter ID Ballot Measure Would Burden a System That’s Already Secure appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

This November, voters will weigh in on Proposition 39, a measure that would require Californians to show a government-issued ID when voting in person, or supply the last four digits of an ID number when voting by mail. The initiative also directs the state to provide free identification cards to residents who don’t already have one, and it calls for tighter maintenance of voter rolls, including stronger citizenship verification.

Bill Jones, who served two terms as California’s secretary of state and oversaw the state’s elections office, says he’s backing the measure because he believes voter confidence and voter participation go hand in hand — not because he thinks fraud is widespread in California, but because he believes the system currently has fewer safeguards than it once did.

“A voter who doubts the process is a voter who eventually disengages,” Jones said, explaining his support for the initiative. “For elections to work, participation and integrity depend on each other.”

Jones argues that Proposition 39 would not create new obstacles for eligible voters, since the required ID would be free and easily accessible. He also points out that California would be joining the majority of states nationwide — 36 in total — that already require some form of identification to vote, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Supporters of the measure say it addresses a long-standing weak spot in California’s election system: a voter registration list that isn’t always promptly updated to remove duplicate entries, deceased voters or people who were mistakenly added. Jones contends that stronger identity checks, paired with more diligent list maintenance, would help restore public trust without shutting anyone out of the process.

The measure qualified for the ballot earlier this year after gathering signatures from a politically diverse coalition of supporters. But it has also become a point of contention over how it’s described to voters. In July, the state Attorney General’s office revised the official ballot language, now stating that the initiative “prohibits citizens from voting” unless they present identification — wording that Jones and other supporters argue mischaracterizes a policy already in place across much of the country, under both Democratic and Republican leadership.

Jones, who has observed elections abroad as part of international monitoring efforts, said his time watching Mexico’s electoral system rebuild credibility after decades of one-party rule shaped his views on the value of identity verification. During that trip, he recalled seeing voters present identification and have their fingers marked with ink to prevent duplicate voting — a system designed to reassure the public that election results reflected the true will of voters.

While he acknowledges California’s challenges are far different from Mexico’s political history, Jones said the comparison illustrates a broader point: safeguards matter most when public trust is fragile. He noted that California currently mails ballots automatically to registered voters, including some who may have moved, and permits ballot collection practices — commonly known as ballot harvesting — that didn’t exist during his time overseeing state elections.

Jones was careful to note that none of these practices point to widespread fraud. Rather, he said, they highlight gaps in oversight at a time when confidence in public institutions, including elections, has been declining nationally.

“Prop. 39 doesn’t solve every problem with American elections,” Jones said. “But it does something achievable — it makes California’s system harder to doubt.”

Not everyone agrees that the measure would strengthen elections without unintended consequences. Critics, including civic engagement advocates, argue that voter ID requirements — even those offering free identification — can create new barriers for voters who lack easy access to documentation, transportation or the resources needed to obtain an ID before Election Day. Opponents worry the proposal could disproportionately affect lower-income residents, elderly voters, or those in rural and underserved communities across the Inland Empire and beyond.

As the November election approaches, voters throughout Southern California will be asked to weigh those competing concerns: whether tighter identification rules will restore confidence in the state’s election system, or whether they risk making it harder for eligible residents to cast a ballot.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Stricter Voter ID Rules Could Help Restore Trust in California Elections appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The loudest complaints tend to focus on fraud. Slow ballot counts that ultimately favor Democratic candidates strike some critics as proof that something shady is going on. But that suspicion isn’t backed by evidence — it’s driven by disappointment with the outcome, not by any documented wrongdoing.

The more legitimate concern is apathy. In the 2024 presidential race, which featured Californian Kamala Harris facing off against Donald Trump, fewer than 60% of eligible voters in the state bothered to cast a ballot, according to the Secretary of State’s office. That kind of disengagement chips away at the legitimacy of election outcomes, since so many residents simply opt out.

The pattern held true again this year. Turnout figures are still being finalized for June’s gubernatorial primary and the Los Angeles mayoral race, but early numbers suggest both contests struggled to draw voters, particularly younger residents of color. Preliminary data show barely 38% of registered voters in Los Angeles County cast a ballot last month.

This year has given Californians several chances to wrestle with a bigger question: Should the state be working to expand who can vote, or tighten the rules around it?

Those pushing for stricter rules have already gotten a measure onto the November ballot. It would require voters to show a government-issued ID at the polls, or provide the last four digits of an ID number when submitting a mail ballot. Supporters of Proposition 39 argue this protects election integrity, though opponents say it would likely suppress turnout — a outcome that could favor more conservative candidates.

On the opposite side of the debate are advocates working to widen access to the ballot box. San Francisco has already taken that step, allowing certain noncitizen residents to vote in school board elections. Approved by voters in 2016 and later upheld through legal challenges, the policy rests on the idea that a stake in the community — not citizenship status — should determine who gets a say in decisions that affect daily life.

A similar effort recently stalled in Los Angeles, though it’s likely to resurface. The debate underscores a deeper divide in California over who should have a voice in elections, and in which ones.

Long ballot counts, for instance, are simply the byproduct of a system designed to make voting more accessible. California’s election rules — allowing ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted even if they arrive up to a week later — were recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Notably, the ruling also validated a nearly identical system in deeply conservative Mississippi, a reminder that flexible voting timelines aren’t inherently a partisan issue.

Noncitizen voting, meanwhile, represents a different kind of expansion. It remains illegal in federal elections and banned in nearly 20 states, but historically many local governments have allowed it, and today Vermont, Maryland, Washington D.C. and parts of California permit noncitizens to vote in certain local races when local officials approve it.

When Los Angeles considered a similar proposal this year, critics reacted with alarm, falsely suggesting the city was preparing to let people without legal status flood the voter rolls. In reality, the measure would have applied only to legal noncitizen residents — green card holders, for instance — and only for city council and school board elections.

City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martinez championed the proposal, arguing that legal immigrants who pay taxes and raise children in Los Angeles schools have a genuine stake in decisions made by local government. It’s a reasonable argument: A longtime green card holder with kids enrolled in LAUSD arguably has more invested in school board outcomes than a newly arrived resident without children. If the guiding principle behind voting rights is that those affected by government decisions deserve a voice, then extending the franchise to noncitizen residents in local races isn’t unreasonable.

Despite building momentum toward a spot on the November ballot, Soto-Martinez ultimately withdrew the proposal after it drew pushback from some Black community leaders concerned about how it might affect political representation. The idea is expected to return in some form.

It’s a reminder that questions about expanding access to the ballot are rarely simple, and can carry consequences that aren’t immediately obvious.

Just as important: losing an election is not, by itself, evidence of foul play.

Consider a baseball analogy. On June 10, the Dodgers led the Pittsburgh Pirates 6-1 in the seventh inning, only to collapse and lose 9-8. Nobody seriously suggested the game was rigged just because the better team blew a lead — that’s simply how nine innings of baseball can go.

The same logic applies to elections. Candidates who lose sometimes cry foul, and that happened repeatedly this summer in both statewide and Los Angeles races. President Trump, reacting to Spencer Pratt’s loss in the L.A. mayoral race, predictably claimed the election was “rigged.” But no evidence has surfaced to support that claim. Ballots were processed as they arrived and counted under established procedures — they just took time.

As is typical in California, ballots that arrived later in the count skewed more Democratic than those cast in person, since younger and working voters tend to rely more heavily on mail voting. That trend was even more noticeable this cycle, as many Democratic voters waited until the final days to decide between Tom Steyer and Xavier Becerra in the governor’s race.

In the end, the top two finishers in the gubernatorial primary were Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton — hardly the result one would expect if the system were being manipulated to favor Democrats. In the Los Angeles mayoral race, incumbent Karen Bass finished on top, with Councilmember Nithya Raman edging out second place — not the runoff matchup Bass had hoped for, since she had been counting on facing the far weaker Pratt.

Those outcomes aren’t proof of a rigged system. They’re simply how the numbers fell. Becerra’s finish is no more suspicious than Wyoming’s long track record of electing Republicans.

The nation does have a real problem with its elections, but it isn’t the one frequently invoked by Trump and his allies. There’s no credible evidence of widespread fraud in federal, state or local races, and no sign that people without legal status are casting ballots. The actual crisis is one of participation — too many eligible voters are staying home, not too many people illegally showing up to vote.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Should California Make Voting Easier or Harder? Lawmakers Debate the Question appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.