California stands out as one of the states where you can cast your ballot without presenting identification at the polling place. This might seem unusual in a landscape where voter ID laws are increasingly common, so the question naturally arises: why doesn’t California require ID to vote? The answer involves a combination of historical context, legal considerations, and a commitment to maximizing voter access. Recently, this issue has been further highlighted by a legal battle between the state and a local city, leading to the enactment of Senate Bill 1174 (SB 1174).
This article delves into the reasons behind California’s approach to voter identification, exploring the recent legislative developments and the ongoing debate surrounding voter access and election security.
California’s Stance on Voter ID: Access Over Restriction
For statewide elections, California law, as outlined in Cal. Elec. Code § 14216, has long permitted individuals to vote without showing identification at the polls. This approach is rooted in the belief that requiring voter ID can create barriers to voting, particularly for certain demographics. While California does require a valid California driver’s license or identification card number for voter registration (Cal. Elec. Code § 2196), this is distinct from requiring ID at the point of voting. The philosophy is to streamline the voting process and ensure that eligible citizens are not disenfranchised by cumbersome requirements.
This commitment to voter access contrasts with states that have implemented strict voter ID laws, often citing concerns about election integrity. However, California prioritizes the principle of making voting as accessible as possible, arguing that strict ID requirements disproportionately affect low-income voters, voters of color, young or elderly voters, and people with disabilities – groups who may have more difficulty obtaining or presenting the required identification.
The Huntington Beach Measure A: A Local Challenge to State Law
The debate over voter ID in California recently intensified with events in Huntington Beach. In October 2023, the Huntington Beach City Council, leveraging perceived ambiguities in state election law regarding local control, voted to put Measure A on the March 2024 ballot. Measure A was a city charter amendment seeking to mandate voter identification at polling places within Huntington Beach for municipal elections. This measure was approved by Huntington Beach voters, granting the city significant discretion to define acceptable forms of ID and implement voter ID checks.
However, the State of California swiftly challenged Measure A. In April 2024, the Attorney General of California and the Secretary of State filed a lawsuit against Huntington Beach. The state argued that California election law establishes uniform procedures for voter eligibility, explicitly not including voter ID at the polls, and that this state law preempts any conflicting local ordinances. The lawsuit emphasized that Measure A created “unnecessary obstacles to voter participation” and would disproportionately burden vulnerable voter populations. A separate legal challenge to Measure A was also filed by a private citizen, Bixby v. Estanislau.
SB 1174: Reinforcing the State’s Prohibition on Local Voter ID Mandates
In response to the Huntington Beach situation and to clarify state law definitively, the California legislature introduced and passed Senate Bill 1174. Signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 29, 2024, SB 1174 explicitly prohibits local governments, including charter cities like Huntington Beach, from requiring voters to present identification to cast their ballots at polling places.
SB 1174 directly addresses the ambiguity that Huntington Beach attempted to exploit, solidifying the state’s authority over election procedures and ensuring a uniform, statewide approach that does not include voter ID requirements at the polls. Senator Dave Min, the author of SB 1174, introduced the bill specifically to counter Measure A and prevent similar local initiatives from undermining state election law.
The Charter City Argument and Potential for “Parallel Elections”
Despite SB 1174, the city attorney of Huntington Beach has asserted that as a charter city, Huntington Beach retains the right to control its own municipal elections, citing the California Constitution, Art. XI, Section 5(b)(3). This section grants charter cities autonomy in matters concerning “conduct of city elections.” Huntington Beach has indicated its intention to defend Measure A, setting the stage for potential legal clashes regarding the scope of charter city authority versus state election law.
If Measure A survives legal challenges and SB 1174 remains in effect, a highly complex scenario of “parallel elections” could emerge in Huntington Beach. To comply with both, the city might have to administer two separate election processes: one for city-specific races requiring voter ID (under Measure A) and another for all other elections (state and federal) where ID is prohibited (under SB 1174). This would create significant administrative burdens and voter confusion, especially since municipal and other elections often appear on the same ballot, as exemplified by the upcoming November 2024 election. The practicalities of enforcing ID requirements for only part of the ballot are unclear and potentially fraught with logistical difficulties.
National Context and the Future of Voter ID Debates
California’s proactive stance against local voter ID requirements with SB 1174 makes it a leading example for states grappling with the balance between voter access and election security concerns. California is one of 14 states that do not mandate voter ID at the polls. Similar to California’s pre-SB 1174 situation, other states without statewide voter ID requirements face the challenge of potential conflicts with local jurisdictions seeking stricter rules. For instance, in New Mexico, despite state law not requiring photo ID (N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 1-1-24, 1-12-7.1, 1-12-10, 1-12-4.1), the city of Rio Rancho attempted to implement a photo ID requirement (Rio Rancho Muni. Code § 30.31).
California’s decisive action with SB 1174 could influence other states to adopt similar legislation to prevent local voter ID mandates and maintain uniform statewide election standards. As disagreements between local governments and state officials over election administration continue to grow, particularly concerning issues like election certification, more states might look to California’s approach as a model for resolving these conflicts and ensuring consistent voter access across all jurisdictions.
Endnote
[1] California requires voters to have a valid California driver’s license or identification card number in order to register to vote. See Cal. Elec. Code § 2196.
