SB 1174: California Bans Voter ID?
While the election is now over, Governor Gavin Newsom just passed a bill about one of the most debated issues that comes up during election season: Voter ID. I thought it appropriate coming off the general election to dive into the new law, especially since it is set to go into effect before the 2026 midterm. What is this bill, what is it set to do, and when will it go into effect?
SB 1174 - Overview
The bill is Senate Bill 1174, and it was introduced in the Senate back in February of this year. Currently in California, voter identification is not required on a statewide level. This means that when you go to vote at your nearest polling center, you are not required by law to show any form of identification – like your driver’s license or otherwise. That being said, local governments have the power to enact certain requirements when it comes to how they conduct an election.[1] This means that Voter ID requirements can theoretically vary from county to county, depending on the laws passed on a local level. Senate Bill 1174 will effectively ban local governments from enacting any requirement that voters show identification in order to vote in elections. The only Voter ID law that would stand is the Federal “Help America Vote Act” passed by President Bush back in 2002. This requires that anyone who is a) a first-time voter, and b) registered to vote by another method than in-person, or did not show identification when registering to vote, must provide some form of photo identification before being able to vote.[2] Other than those specific instances for first-time voters, SB 1174 will make it so that voters will not have to show identification to vote anywhere across California.
Background
What prompted this bill? Have there been widespread issues with access to voting due identification requirements at the local level? Why are the legislature and the governor involved in this issue?
Up until now, no counties in California have passed official Voter ID laws on the books. However, that changed in the March 2024 primary when Huntington Beach put a charter amendment on the ballot that would enact Voter ID in the city for all elections.[3] The measure passed with a 53% majority yes vote and was set to go into effect in 2026.[4] This measure wasn’t passed in a vacuum either, it came off the heels of several new laws enacted by the City Council since it gained a conservative majority in 2022. In December 2022, four new conservative members were elected to the council in what wasn’t even a close race, and they have taken it as a clear message from voters that the actions of the previous city council are not the direction that city residents want things to move in.[5]
This has gained major attention from Governor Gavin Newsom, who has opposed the Council’s more conservative approach to leadership. In response to the Voter ID measure passed in March, California’s Attorney General, Rob Bonta – who was appointed by Newsom in 2021 and elected by voters in the 2022 midterm election[6] – filed a lawsuit against Huntington Beach.[7] He made the argument, “The right to freely cast your vote is the foundation of our democracy and Huntington Beach’s voter ID policy flies in the face of this principle.”[8] The City Attorney for Huntington Beach responded to this lawsuit by saying, “The people of Huntington Beach have made their voices clear on this issue and the people's decision on the March 5th ballot measures for election integrity is final. To that end, the city will vigorously uphold and defend the will of the people.”[9] In addition to the lawsuit, Huntington Beach’s state senator, David Min, introduced Senate Bill 1174 to directly challenge the city, countering the will of the very people he represents.[10] The passage of the bill this fall means that it will supersede the city’s amendment to its charter, thus preventing Huntington Beach from enacting Voter ID requirements at the polls.
History of Voter ID, Support, & Opposition
Why are Voter ID laws so controversial? Why did the majority of voters in Huntington Beach want to enact them, yet the Governor and the Legislature want to ban them? Let’s break down a little history of Voter ID laws, their intended purpose, and the arguments for opposing them.
The first Voter ID law was passed by Indiana back in 2005, and its intended purpose was to add protections against voter fraud. Why was Indiana worried about voter fraud? It all stemmed from the election in 2000 when President Bush just narrowly defeated incumbent Vice President Al Gore. There had been so many recounts in Florida, and the margin of victory was so slim, that trust in election integrity was waning come the next election in 2004. This was evidenced by a Pew Research Center survey that found that less than half of Americans were confident in the accuracy of the vote count in 2004.[11] Indiana’s Secretary of State, Todd Rokita, reported that the main issue facing him in his role at the time was election integrity. He put it this way, “The problem was that people were losing confidence in the system. There was a perception that people were not taking the process seriously—there was a fear of votes being stolen. Even if the fear didn’t pan out to be true, and in some cases, it wasn’t, the fear was still there.”[12] Part of his work to bolster the public’s confidence in election integrity was to craft the first law requiring voters to present government-issued identification to vote.
Today, there are 35 states that require Voter ID to vote in-person on Election Day, with each state having unique requirements including if the identification needs to include a photo.[13] The intended purpose of Voter ID laws is ultimately to ensure that a person who shows up at the polls to cast a ballot is actually who they say they are, is registered to vote, and is a citizen who is eligible to vote in our elections. Fred Lucas of the Heritage Foundation describes the benefits of requiring Voter ID as such, “Voter ID laws can stop multiple types of fraud, such as impersonating another registered voter, preventing noncitizens from voting, and stopping out-of-state residents or someone registered in multiple jurisdictions.”[14]
Opponents of Voter ID laws make the argument that these laws prevent otherwise qualified voters from participating in elections. In that way, it disenfranchises certain groups, like racial minorities or low-income individuals, who may not have an ID to present at the time of voting. Julia Gomez, a Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Southern California argues that not everyone has proper photo ID. She includes people who live in rural communities who cannot get to the DMV to obtain an ID; Black, Latino and voters with disabilities who cannot afford the costs associated with obtaining an ID; and immigrants who have moved here and are missing identification documents within the groups of people who are disenfranchised by Voter ID laws.[15] She even goes so far as to compare requiring Voter ID to poll taxes, “Some have argued voter ID could be considered a poll tax because you’re forcing people to spend money on voter ID in order to vote.”[16] The opposing argument to requiring Voter ID can be summed up by this statement by the ACLU:
“Overly burdensome photo ID laws deprive many voters of their right to vote, reduce participation, and stand in direct opposition to our country’s trend of including more Americans in the democratic process. Many Americans do not have one of the forms of government-issued photo identification that state laws list as acceptable for voting. These voters are disproportionately low-income, racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and people with disabilities. Such voters more frequently cannot afford or cannot obtain the underlying documents that are a prerequisite to obtaining government-issued photo ID card.”[17]
Going back to our earlier example, Connie Lawson – Indiana’s Secretary of State from 2012 to 2021– reported in response to allegations like these that voter turnout was not affected by the passage of the law, evidenced by the fact that it actually increased by 4% between 2004 and 2008. She also argued that there isn’t compelling evidence that can prove voters are blocked from casting their ballots due to the ID requirement.[18]
Voter Fraud
One key component to the argument both for and against Voter ID requirements is the threat of fraud occurring in our elections, which harms voters as they may be impersonated and therefore rendered unable to vote, or by persons not qualified to vote participating in our elections. Supporters of Voter ID laws say voter fraud is a clear and present danger that can and should be mitigated by checking identification, while opponents of Voter ID laws say voter fraud is not really a threat, and that checking identification is unnecessary. Which case is true?
Well, there are several documented and even convicted cases of voter fraud occurring within the U.S. For example, going back all the way to the election in 1982, there were estimated to be 100,000 fraudulent ballots cast.[19] The Justice Department investigated and convicted 63 individuals of various types of voter fraud. Fast forward to 2004 and the case of Chad Staton – who worked for the NAACP National Voter Fund in Ohio. He was charged and found guilty of 10 felony counts of filing over 100 falsified voter registrations.[20] In the very next election, in 2008, a community-based advocacy organization was investigated for what the secretary of state called, “the worst case of voter registration fraud in the history of the state of Washington.” Employees of the organization had filled out 1,762 fraudulent voter registration forms.[21] In 2012, Robert Monroe voted several times in numerous elections, including one case of voting five times in a recall election. In 2014, Rosa Maria Ortega voted in multiple elections even though she was not a citizen.[22]
These are some of the most egregious cases across the country, but they don’t represent all of them. In California alone, there are 64 documented criminal cases of instances of voter fraud going back as far as 1993.[23] As is the case with all instances of fraud, the biggest threat isn’t the cases that are caught, tried, and convicted, but rather the question of how many more cases there are that have not been caught. Those who oppose Voter ID laws, or who say that voter fraud isn’t a reality, make the argument that 64 cases in one state is such a marginal fraction of a percentage out of all voters that it is too insignificant to make a difference in elections or to warrant stricter voter integrity measures. But supporters say that it is precisely the existence of cases like the ones I just listed that require our state governments to do their due diligence in helping to prevent, identify, and catch voter fraud.
I would argue that we just saw voter fraud as a present reality in the 2024 election. The Detroit News reported that a Chinese student who is not a US citizen voted in the state of Michigan and has since been arraigned for the crime. The astonishing part is that every news outlet reported that his vote would still count in the election, as there was no way to undo it once he voted.[24] Is it so insane and unfounded to think that, with 8 million illegal border crossings and 1.7 million illegal immigrants who have evaded border patrol under the Biden administration over the past 4 years – numbers reported by the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability and House Committee on Homeland Security, that maybe voter fraud is a threat in our elections and that bare minimum measures should be taken to prevent it?[25]
Common Sense Responses
What is my response to this bill? I want to persuade you that common sense would tell us three truths:
1) Voter ID laws do not discriminate against or disenfranchise certain groups of voters,
2) State governments should listen to the will of the people when considering how to govern them, and lastly,
3) We shouldn’t be bullied, gaslit, or lied to by our government leaders, and when they do those things, we should both question their motives and demand better.
Let’s go through each one.
First, Voter ID laws are not discriminatory. The intention of these laws is to safeguard against various types of voter fraud. That should be a huge priority for our government, and for us as citizens of America. Our elections are only free and fair if they are without fraud. No matter how small or insignificant fraud cases may seem, they challenge our very democracy by taking away someone’s right to vote (i.e. if someone is impersonated and therefore does not get the chance to vote), or by giving that right to someone who is not a citizen of our country. It is common sense that if you check someone’s government issued ID, then you can be more sure that the person voting is the same person who was registered to vote and should be casting that ballot.
Just looking at the data alone, states with some of the strictest Voter ID laws have the highest confidence in election integrity, as well as high voter turnout. Take Florida as an example. Florida requires voters to show one of 12 types of photo ID at the polls.[26] Yet, in 2024 Florida saw the highest voter turnout the state has had in the past 30 years, with 78% of registered voters casting their ballots.[27] Not only that, but 95% of voters in Florida report confidence in election integrity in the local elections across their state.[28] It's interesting that a state with stringent Voter ID laws is reporting record numbers of voter turnout, and high levels of voter confidence.
If you think about it, you and I have to show our IDs all the time in society. Here’s a list of other everyday things that require a person to show their ID in order to do them:
- Buy alcohol,
- Open a bank account,
- Apply for food stamps,
- Apply for welfare,
- Apply for Medicaid,
- Apply for Social Security,
- Rent a house,
- Pick up prescription medication, and
- Apply for unemployment benefits.[29]
These are just a few of the things that require an ID, and most of them are actions that many would argue impact low-income or marginalized groups. If the ACLU wants to argue that requiring ID to vote is the equivalent of a poll tax because certain individuals cannot afford an ID, then how do they explain requiring ID for many of the benefits those individuals would need – like welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, and unemployment benefits?
To take the logic one step further, government-issued identification is required to register to vote. Right on the California Secretary of State website it says, “The voter registration application asks for your driver license or California identification card number, or you can use the last four numbers on your Social Security card.”[30] So, California will ask for you to show your ID to register to vote, but then once you actually show up to the polls, that’s when asking for ID is discriminatory, racist, and the equivalent of a poll tax. I honestly just don’t see how that makes sense.
That isn’t even taking into account the federal law mentioned earlier, the “Help America Vote Act” passed by President Bush back in 2002. That, again, requires that anyone who is a) a first-time voter, and b) registered to vote by another method than in-person, or did not show identification when registering to vote, provide some form of photo identification before being able to vote.[31] That means that if you register to vote online in California, then show up to vote in-person, federal law would say the polling place should be asking to see your identification. Or, if you were unable to show your ID when you registered, then by the time you vote, you need to show your identification. Why is this not discriminatory in the first election that you vote in-person for, but it becomes discriminatory in future elections?
The last point to persuade you that Voter ID laws are not, in fact, discriminatory, is the fact that even if you lived in a state or county with Voter ID requirements, and showed up to the polls without your ID, you can still cast a ballot! You will not be turned away or told you can’t participate in the election. Depending on the state, poll workers can either 1) waive the requirement depending on if they can verify through other means that the individual is who they say they are, or, more commonly, 2) the individual would fill out a provisional ballot, then come back another time to provide their ID and have their ballot officially cast. The timeframe depends on the state, some require it before the end of election day, others give voters up to a week after the election is over to provide their ID.[32] So, if someone simply forgets their ID, it is not as though they have completely forfeited their right to vote, they are given ample avenues for how to still make their voice heard. That isn’t even pointing out the fact that this is all about voting in-person. In California, voters are automatically registered through the DMV and receive mail-in ballots at their doorstep that only require a signature. If someone really could not provide identification, in our state you can still vote by mail.
All of this is to prove the point that it is baseless to claim that the concept of Voter ID requirements is discriminatory. Identification is used for so many other things in life, including many benefits given by the government, and having to prove who you are is such a basic ask to do something as monumental and important as vote to elect the leaders of our government.
Second, state governments should listen to the will of the people when considering how to govern them. Governor Gavin Newsom approved SB 1174 with the full knowledge that the constituents of Huntington Beach passed the Voter ID requirements by majority vote. If local counties and cities disagree with the state government in the majority, on any issue – not just Voter ID, then the state government should follow the model that our federal government follows with them. The federal government was limited by the Constitution in what powers it specifically was designated. These included actions like levying and collecting taxes, regulating commerce, declaring war and supporting the military, paying debts, etc.[33] What remains in governance is delegated to the states to govern themselves. Some issues need consistency, like issues that impact citizens on a national scale – think immigration, national security, or interstate commerce. There are also issues of civil liberty – like slavery, freedom of speech, religion, or to bear arms, due process of law, and the like. These are all protected and governed on a federal level. How states go about governing when it comes to matters of education, law enforcement, environmental issues, and such, can and does vary greatly from state to state.
The same model can apply to local governments as well. States of course should provide consistency across the board on issues that affect residents from a state level, but local governments have the freedom to enact specific legislation that affect their constituents – especially legislation that constituents vote for and are in favor of. So, if a city’s residents have a particular concern about voter fraud in their elections and want to enact a requirement that does not impose on civil liberties, as we just discussed, then why should the Attorney General of the state sue them for that? Why should the governor weaponize statewide legislation to shut down the will of the people? They make the argument that the law goes against the California constitution – and if it did, then they would certainly have a right to strike it down – but that allegation alone is not proof that it does violate the constitution. For Governor Newsom to step in and pass a bill that supersedes the will of the people signals that he isn’t listening to what the people under his governance are saying. 53% of voters in Huntington Beach were in favor of the election reform, but it doesn’t end there. Gallup conducted a nationwide poll on Americans’ support of certain election laws, and 84% of those polled were in favor of laws that require photo ID to be provided at the time of voting. Let me repeat that, 84% of Americans across the country want voter ID laws in place. Not only that, but 83% of those polled were in favor of laws requiring proof of citizenship at the time of voting.[34] It seems that in California and across the country, Americans approve of Voter ID laws, but that doesn’t seem to matter to our legislature or our governor – but not listening to the very people you were elected to lead is to abdicate your responsibilities to those people entirely.
This brings us to my third and final point, which is that we shouldn’t be bullied, gaslit, or lied to by our government leaders, and when they do those things, we should both question their motives and demand better. The legislature’s response and our governor’s response to this issue and the concerns that voters have is nothing short of bullying. Good governance requires you to listen and to understand the concerns of the people you are governing. Rather than taking citizens’ concerns about election integrity under consideration, our state government time and time again has resorted to calling anyone who raises these issues an election denier and a conspiracy theorist. David Min, the representative who proposed SB 1174, said this about enacting the new law, quote, “We cannot have 100 different city charters making up 100 different sets of voting rules, based on fringe conspiracy theories.”[35]
Did you catch that? Concern over cases of voter fraud – which do happen, have been prosecuted, and are well documented – is just a conspiracy theory. If you have concerns, then you’re just crazy, and you want to keep marginalized communities from voting. That is demeaning and downright untrue. If you have questions about why people who you know aren’t citizens are getting ballots in their mailboxes (which I can personally attest is happening), or concerns that there are reports of noncitizens casting their ballots (like what happened with the student in Michigan), or ideas for how our state can require the most basic form of proof that a voter is who they say they are, then according to our legislature and our governor, you promote conspiracies that deserve to be ignored. Why doesn’t Gavin Newsom instead try to assuage voter fears? Why doesn’t he go out of his way to address each concern head on and outline all the ways that he has worked against voter fraud? Instead, he and other of our representatives in California’s government assert that you must be in favor of discrimination and withholding civil rights from others in our state. They spread lies that there are so many people who can’t afford an ID, yet they themselves require ID for things like welfare, food stamps, and even registration to vote in the first place. The disregard for truth and accurate representation of the facts is, quite frankly, unacceptable. Our leaders must do better.
Action Items
What can you do? If this bill was already passed and is set to take effect on January 1st, then what is left for us? Why does it matter?
The first and best thing you can do is be informed as to what is true and refuse to be deceived. It can be so hard to do that when someone is accusing you of supporting discrimination because of your values or beliefs. You don’t want to support discrimination! I certainly don’t want any American to be prevented from voting, regardless of their political beliefs. But you cannot sacrifice common sense and reason on the altar of accepting the narrative in order to prove that you are not the things they accuse you of being. Rather, you can explain all the reasons we have covered together today, and stand your ground with confidence, no matter what others think. Equip yourself with the truth of Voter ID laws, what their aim is, and the reality of the threats they are trying to mitigate. When you do that, when you arm yourself with facts, you are empowered to speak against lies and promote truth.
Then, you can contact your representatives to make known your concerns and advocate for change, even on bills that have already been passed! Giving feedback to your district’s Senate or Assembly representatives can help them to shape policy in the future, or even work to amend the current policy that has just been enacted. The California Secretary of State’s website has a lookup tool to find your representatives in the Senate and Assembly, and you can find who they are for you as well as how to contact them here: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/who-are-my-representatives.
Lastly, by being informed and making known your concerns, you are also equipped for future legislation and future candidates! When you see a measure, whether city or statewide, on voter requirements or election protection, you will be more informed on how to vote, how to talk about it with friends and family, and how to shape our state for the better. You can also cut through the lies told by politicians who want your vote and demand they do better by voting them out in our next election. It’s time to start holding our representatives accountable for their complete disregard for their responsibility to represent the interests of all Californians – starting with you.
References:
[1] California Legislative Information. “Bill Text - SB-1174 Elections: Voter Identification.,” September 30, 2024. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB1174.
[2] “Voter ID Requirements | USAGov,” September 11, 2024. https://www.usa.gov/voter-id.
[3] City of Huntington Beach. “Ballot Measures.” OCVote.gov, March 2024. https://ocvote.gov/sites/default/files/elections/2024%20Primary/HBEA%201%20-%20LAYOUT.pdf.
[4] Ballotpedia. “Huntington Beach, California, Measure 1, Voter ID and Election Rules Amendment (March 2024) - Ballotpedia,” n.d. https://ballotpedia.org/Huntington_Beach,_California,_Measure_1,_Voter_ID_and_Election_Rules_Amendment_(March_2024).
[5] Szabo, Matt. “Huntington Beach City Council Seats New Conservative Majority, Votes Tony Strickland as Mayor - Los Angeles Times.” Daily Pilot, December 8, 2022. https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/story/2022-12-07/huntington-beach-city-council-seats-new-conservative-majority-votes-tony-strickland-as-mayor.
[6] Danella Debel. “Governor Newsom Swears in Rob Bonta as Attorney General of California | Governor of California.” Governor of California, June 17, 2024. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2021/04/23/governor-newsom-swears-in-rob-bonta-as-attorney-general-of-california/.
[7] “Huntington Beach, California, Measure 1, Voter ID and Election Rules Amendment (March 2024) - Ballotpedia,” n.d.
[8] Aron, Hillel. “California Sues Huntington Beach Over Voter ID Referendum.” Courthouse News Service, April 15, 2024. https://www.courthousenews.com/california-sues-huntington-beach-over-voter-id-referendum/.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Koseff, Alexei. “California Sues Huntington Beach to Stop Voter ID Requirement.” CalMatters, April 16, 2024. https://calmatters.org/politics/elections/2024/04/california-elections-huntington-beach-voter-id/.
[11] Siegel, Josh, and Josh Siegel. “After Voter ID Defeats, Lessons From Indiana’s Law That ‘Has Stood Test of Time.’” The Daily Signal, March 21, 2022. https://www.dailysignal.com/2016/08/07/after-voter-id-defeats-lessons-from-indianas-law-that-has-stood-test-of-time/.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ballotpedia. “Voter Identification Laws by State - Ballotpedia,” n.d. https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_identification_laws_by_state.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Huh, Jenny. “The Debate Over ID: Is It Extra Voter Security or Voter Disenfranchisement?” KGET News, April 17, 2024. https://www.kget.com/news/politics/your-local-elections/the-debate-over-id-is-it-extra-voter-security-or-voter-disenfranchisement/.
[16] Ibid.
[17] “Voter Identification Laws by State - Ballotpedia.”
[18] Ibid.
[19] The Heritage Foundation. “Voter Fraud | the Heritage Foundation,” n.d. https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/heritage-explains/voter-fraud.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid.
[23] The Heritage Foundation. “The Heritage Foundation’s Election Fraud Map.” Election Fraud Map | the Heritage Foundation, n.d. https://electionfraud.heritage.org/search?state=ca.
[24] The Detroit News. “Chinese Student to Face Criminal Charges for Voting in Michigan. Ballot Will Apparently Count.” The Detroit News, October 31, 2024. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/10/30/chinese-university-of-michigan-college-student-voted-presidential-election-michigan-china-benson/75936701007/.
[25] House Committee on Oversight and Accountability and House Committee on Homeland Security. “Crisis at the Border: Reports From the Frontline.” Report. House Oversight and Homeland’s Report, 2023. https://budget.house.gov/imo/media/doc/ogr_icymi.pdf.
[26] Ballotpedia. “Voter ID in Florida - Ballotpedia,” n.d. https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_ID_in_Florida.
[27] Tutten, James. “Florida Reports Highest Voter Turnout in Over 30 Years for 2024 General Election.” WFTV, November 8, 2024. https://www.wftv.com/news/local/florida-reports-highest-voter-turnout-over-30-years-2024-general-election/GHUJVTQTVRCMHBAP3JV2YN772Y/.
[28] DeLisa, Caden. “Florida Voters Trust Local Elections, Worry About State and National Integrity, Study Finds.” The Capitolist, May 28, 2024. https://thecapitolist.com/florida-voters-trust-local-elections-worry-about-state-and-national-integrity-study-finds/.
[29] Gogol, Frank. “22 Things That Require a Photo ID.” Stilt, April 10, 2024. https://www.stilt.com/immigrants/22-things-that-require-a-photo-id/.
[30] “Registering to Vote :: California Secretary of State,” n.d. https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-resources/voting-california/registering-vote.
[31] “Voter ID Requirements | USAGov,” September 11, 2024. https://www.usa.gov/voter-id.
[32] National Conference of State Legislatures. “Voter ID Laws,” February 2, 2024. https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.
[33] Constitution USA. “Enumerated Powers | Federalism | CONSTITUTION USA With Peter Sagal | PBS,” n.d. https://www.pbs.org/tpt/constitution-usa-peter-sagal/federalism/enumerated-powers/#:~:text=These%20included%3A%20to%20lay%20and,support%20an%20Army%20and%20Navy.
[34] Brenan, Megan. “Americans Endorse Both Early Voting and Voter Verification.” Gallup.Com, November 7, 2024. https://news.gallup.com/poll/652523/americans-endorse-early-voting-voter-verification.aspx.
[35] Democracy Docket. “California Governor Signs Law to Ban Local Voter ID Requirements - Democracy Docket,” October 2, 2024. https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/california-governor-signs-law-to-ban-local-voter-id-requirements/.
