December 16, 2013
Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9005, we have reviewed the
proposed initiative related to voter identification (A.G. File No.
13‑0039).
Background
Vote by Mail. Any registered voter may vote
using a vote-by-mail ballot instead of voting at a polling location on
the day of an election. California law also allows any registered voter
to become a permanent vote-by-mail voter.
Voter Identification. Federal law requires
first-time voters who register by mail to provide identification at some
point in the voting process (either when registering or voting). If
identification is not provided, first-time voters can still cast a
“provisional” ballot. Provisional ballots are conditional ballots, with
voting eligibility confirmed after the election. Other voters are not
required to show identification when they vote in person at polling
places. The identification of voters who vote using a vote-by-mail
ballot is verified by matching the voter’s signature on the ballot to
the signature on the voter’s affidavit of registration.
State Mandates. When the state mandates
that a local government provide a new program or higher level of
service, the State Constitution generally requires the state to
reimburse the local government. If a new law is determined to be a
reimbursable state mandate, the Legislature is required to fund local
government costs for the mandate, suspend the mandate, or repeal the
mandate. Suspending or repealing the mandate does not eliminate the
state’s obligation to reimburse local governments for any costs incurred
in prior years during which the mandate was active.
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Fees for
Identification. The DMV assesses fees for new and
replacement identification cards. These fees are $27 for most
individuals. For individuals that meet certain low-income eligibility
requirements, the fee is $8. There is no charge for seniors.
Proposal
This statutory initiative makes various changes to state elections
law. These changes are described below.
Requires Voters to Provide Identification for Voting at
Polling Place. The measure requires all voters who vote in
person at polling places to show identification. Voters not providing
the required identification could still cast provisional ballots.
Requires Additional Procedures for Vote-by-Mail Forms.
The measure requires a voter applying to vote by mail to
provide a photocopy of photo identification as well as additional
identification information not required by current law. A voter also
would be required to provide additional identification information on
his or her vote-by-mail ballot.
Requires Election Officials to Post Procedures for Public
Review. The measure requires election officials to post
procedures for processing vote-by-mail ballots for public review at
least 48 hours prior to processing vote-by-mail ballots.
Waives Fees for Identification Cards Used to Vote.
The measure waives any fees associated with obtaining a valid
identification card for the purpose of voting at a polling place.
Creates Certain Requirements for Elections Mandates.
The measure specifies that “local agency reimbursement from the
state shall not be suspended for performance of duties mandated by the
Elections Code” or any other statutes related to elections.
Fiscal Effects
Election Costs. For each election, counties
determine the number of voting precincts to use and the level of
resources—such as the number of workers used at polling locations and in
processing provisional ballots—to employ based, in part, on expectations
about the number of voters and processing time for standard and
provisional ballots. Some counties may increase the number of elections
workers or polling locations used in response to (1) the need to verify
additional information at polling places and in processing vote-by-mail
ballots and (2) a potential increase in the number of provisional
ballots which generally take longer to process than standard ballots. To
the extent this occurred, it would result in increased county costs.
Counties also may incur additional costs due to increased processing
time for vote-by-mail applications. Furthermore, election officials may
incur costs in posting vote-by-mail procedures for public review. While
the total costs of these activities is not known, based on county claims
for state mandate reimbursement for similar election activities in
previous years, we estimate that implementing these provisions could
cost in the low tens of millions of dollars per year.
DMV Identification Card Fee Revenue. The
DMV collects about $30 million in fee revenue each year from new and
replacement identification issuances. To the extent that individuals
requested identification cards for the stated purpose of voting in a
polling place, there could be reductions in the amount of fees collected
by the state for new and replacement identification cards.
Mandate Costs. The state owes local
governments about $100 million for reimbursement of prior year costs to
comply with various state elections mandates. (In recent years, state
elections mandates have been suspended annually. Under state law, local
governments are not required to implement suspended mandates and the
state does not incur additional financial responsibilities related to
them.) Current law requires the state to pay some of the $100 million
owed to local governments between 2015‑16 and 2020‑21, but does not
establish a timeline for paying the rest. While the terms of the measure
are not clear, the provisions specifying that state reimbursement shall
not be suspended could be interpreted as requiring the state to pay the
entirety of the elections-related mandate backlog promptly. If so, the
state would experience increased near term costs of about $100 million,
offset by decreased future costs of a comparable sum.
Summary of Fiscal Effects. This measure
would have the following fiscal impact:
- Increased local government elections costs and decreased state
fee revenues, potentially in the range of tens of millions of
dollars per year.
- Potentially increased state funding (about $100 million) to
local governments, offset by an equal amount of decreased state
funding to local governments in future years.
Return to Initiatives
Return to Legislative Analyst's Office Home Page