The RCJ votes No. We believe every voter should be required to offer proof of identification, and there are measures in place to do that. There are, however, problems regarding name changes (common among married women) and regarding the types of documentation that may be required, all of which stands as barriers to voting – and we are against barriers to voting.
Proposition 39 would amend the California Constitution to require voters to provide additional government-issued identification information when casting a ballot. In-person voters would have to present government-issued identification, while voters by mail would generally have to write the last four digits of a designated government-issued identification number on their ballot envelope. The state would also provide free voter-ID cards upon request and require election officials to make efforts to verify the citizenship of registered voters.
The Pro Argument
Supporters argue that Proposition 39 would strengthen election security and public confidence by adding another method of verifying a voter’s identity. They contend that California already uses identification information during voter registration and that extending verification to the time a ballot is cast would provide an additional safeguard.
Supporters also point to the measure’s free state-issued voter ID, citizenship-verification requirements and periodic audits as ways to make voter records more accurate. They argue that voter-identification requirements used elsewhere have not necessarily reduced participation and could increase confidence in the electoral process.
The Con Argument
Opponents argue that California already has procedures for verifying voters. For in-person voting, voters currently establish their identity through their signature; mail-ballot signatures are checked by election officials. They contend that Proposition 39 would therefore add substantial new requirements without addressing a demonstrated level of voter fraud.
Critics also worry that eligible voters could have ballots rejected because of identification problems—for example, an incorrect identification number or discrepancies between registration and government records. They argue that the requirements could disproportionately burden people who have difficulty obtaining or maintaining government identification. Opponents further object to the additional handling of personal identification information and to the cost of implementing the system.
In Brief
The central issue is whether additional voter identification requirements would provide a meaningful increase in election security and public confidence or instead create unnecessary barriers for eligible voters. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that Proposition 39 would cost state and local governments tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars annually, depending on how the Legislature and election officials implement it.
Supporters
The official voter guide identifies these principal supporters:
- The Transparency Foundation
- Latino American Political Association
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
- California Women’s Leadership Association
Other prominent supporters include Reform California, led by Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, and the California Republican Party. The campaign is organized as Californians for Voter ID.
Supporters describe Proposition 39 as a bipartisan election-security measure. They argue that requiring government identification would increase public confidence in elections, improve voter-list accuracy, and help ensure that only eligible voters cast ballots. The measure also provides for a free state-issued voter ID for voters who request one.
Opponents
The official voter guide identifies:
- ACLU California Action
- Common Cause
- League of Women Voters of California
Other major opponents include the California Democratic Party, California Nurses Association, California School Employees Association, and major labor organizations including SEIU California. U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla and other prominent California Democrats have also publicly urged a “no” vote.
Opponents argue that California already has procedures for establishing voter identity and eligibility, including signature verification for mail ballots. They contend that adding an ID requirement could create difficulties for eligible voters who lack qualifying identification or whose identification information is outdated or doesn’t match their voter registration.
The basic divide
Supporters frame Proposition 39 primarily as an election-security and public-confidence measure, emphasizing government-issued identification and citizenship verification.
Opponents frame it primarily as a voting-access issue, arguing that additional identification requirements could create barriers for eligible voters while adding substantial administrative costs. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates implementation could cost state and local governments tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
There is also a notable difference in the political coalitions: Republican organizations and taxpayer groups are prominent among supporters, while Democratic organizations, civil-rights groups, voting-rights organizations and labor groups are prominent among opponents. The official voter guide, however, emphasizes the supporters’ claim that Prop. 39 has backing from Democratic, Republican and independent voters.