Election 2026 · State of California

Proposition 39: Voter ID for in-person and mail voting

Published September 29, 2026 · Updated October 2, 2026

Proposition 39 would require voters to show government-issued ID to vote in person. To vote by mail, voters would have to pick a government ID number for their registration and write its last four digits on each ballot envelope, and ballots would not count if the number does not match. It would also require elections officials to try to verify voters' citizenship and report on it each year, and the state to offer a free voter ID card.

Summary by CityHallPass, not the official text or legal advice. The official text controls: California Official Voter Information Guide: Proposition 39.

What would Proposition 39 cost?

The Legislative Analyst estimates state and local costs of tens of millions of dollars to low hundreds of millions of dollars each year to put the new requirements in place. The amount depends on later decisions, such as how the free ID card is designed and how many people request one.

What it means for the City of LA

The ID rules would apply to every election in California, including City of Los Angeles elections, which the County of Los Angeles now runs for the City. State law today bars cities from requiring voter ID; Proposition 39 would write the requirement into the State Constitution. The Legislative Analyst estimates state and local costs of tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars a year but gives no figure for the City. The City's proposed 2026-27 budget sets aside $11 million for its general municipal elections.

The details

The question on your ballot

Invalidates mail ballots that do not have last four digits of designated government-issued identification number written on envelope. Prohibits in-person voting without presenting government-issued identification. Fiscal Impact: Costs of between tens of millions of dollars and low hundreds of millions of dollars each year to implement new voting requirements. Supporters: The Transparency Foundation; Latino American Political Assn; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn; CA Women’s Leadership Assn Opponents: ACLU California Action; Common Cause; League of Women Voters of California

What would change

The measure does not say which IDs count. It defines government-issued ID only as documentation “that allows conclusive verification of the voter’s identity” (text, Sec. 3.1(b)). The Legislative Analyst says the Legislature would have to pass laws to settle which forms of ID are accepted and what counts as “best efforts” on citizenship (analysis). The measure does not repeal signature checks on mail ballots.

What it would mean for City of Los Angeles elections

• It would cover City elections. The ID rule applies to “any election in the State” (text), and the Legislative Analyst says each ballot cast “in any election in California” would need the added ID information (analysis).
• The County runs them. City elections for Mayor, Council, other City offices and City measures are held in even-numbered years. Since 2020 the County of Los Angeles has run most of the work of those elections (City Clerk).
• Today a city cannot require ID. A 2024 state law bars any city, including a charter city, from requiring ID to vote “unless required by state or federal law” (Elections Code Sec. 10005, SB 1174). Courts blocked Huntington Beach’s voter-approved voter ID charter amendment, and in January 2026 the State Supreme Court declined to review the appeals court ruling (Orange County Register). Proposition 39 would put the requirement in the State Constitution.
• How Angelenos vote now. In the November 2024 election, 2,732,752 of the 3,793,106 Los Angeles County ballots (72.05%) were cast by mail and 1,060,354 (27.95%) at vote centers (LA County Registrar). Under Prop. 39, the first group would add ID digits to the envelope and the second would show ID.
• Rejected mail ballots in LA County. In November 2024 the County rejected 21,356 of 2,764,734 returned mail ballots (0.77%), including 7,967 for signatures that did not match and 3,272 with no signature (Secretary of State). In the June 2026 primary it rejected 24,806 (1.34%), including 7,190 for mismatched signatures (Secretary of State).
• Cost. The Legislative Analyst estimates state and local costs of tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars a year and gives no figure for any one city or county (analysis). The City’s proposed 2026-27 budget holds $11 million for general municipal election expenses, up from $10 million in 2025-26 (CAO, Unappropriated Balance).
• Neighborhood Council elections. The City Clerk runs Neighborhood Council elections in odd-numbered years (City Clerk). Voters in them need not be U.S. citizens, and the voting age is 16 (EmpowerLA). Neither the measure nor the Legislative Analyst says whether these elections would count as an “election in the State” for the ID rule.
• Timing. The Nov. 3, 2026 election, with the City’s Mayor race and eight City measures (City Clerk list), runs under current rules, since an approved amendment takes effect only after the vote is certified (Cal. Const., Art. XVIII, Sec. 4). Under the City’s even-year schedule, the next regular City election would be in 2028 (City Clerk).

How it got on the ballot

Proposition 39 is a citizen initiative, placed on the ballot by voter petitions.

• Sept. 19, 2025: The Attorney General issued the petition’s title and summary. The proponents are Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, Sen. Tony Strickland and Donald J. DiCostanzo (Secretary of State, eligible measures). LAist describes DeMaio and Strickland as the two Republican legislators behind it (LAist).
• Oct. 21, 2025: The campaign reported gathering 25% of the signatures needed (Secretary of State, eligible measures).
• March 2026: Petitions were filed with the counties. They held 1,367,961 raw signatures, 264,563 of them from Los Angeles County (Secretary of State random sample count). That is about 19% from Los Angeles County (our calculation).
• April 24, 2026: The random sample projected 1,027,018 valid signatures, more than 110% of the 874,641 needed, and the measure became eligible (Secretary of State random sample count).
• Title change (July-Aug. 2026): Voters had signed the petition under the title “Establishes Additional Voter Identification and Citizenship Verification Requirements” (Secretary of State, eligible measures). The ballot title is “Prohibits Citizens from Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification” (guide). The Yes campaign sued over the new title. On Aug. 6, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Jennifer K. Rockwell ruled that the title, summary and label “accurately describe the effect of the measure.” In a separate suit by Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate President pro Tem Monique Limón, Judge Shelleyanne Chang tentatively found misleading the Yes argument’s claim that the measure would make voting easier (LA Times; Mercury News).

Vote needed. As a constitutional amendment, it passes with a majority of votes cast statewide (Cal. Const., Art. XVIII, Sec. 4).

What each side says

In the state voter guide. Arguments are the opinions of their authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency (arguments).

Argument for, signed by the Democratic, Republican and Independent coalition chairs of Californians for Voter ID, Margit Whitlock, Tafa Jefferson and Joe Green (argument in favor):

• Trust: voter ID is “a common-sense reform to increase trust and participation.”
• Access: mail ballots and extended hours stay, and every voter can get a free ID.
• Signatures: “In the last election, more than 100,000 ballots were rejected due to signature mismatches.”
• Turnout: states with voter ID and free IDs have “seen an increase in voting.”
• Audits: an independent audit every two years and citizenship checks of the rolls.

The opponents’ rebuttal, signed by U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, the California Nurses Association and the California School Employees Association, says the measure is funded by “MAGA rightwing billionaires,” that Texas threw out “12 times more mail ballots than California” under similar rules, and that the Legislative Analyst found it could cost “hundreds of millions each year” (rebuttal).

Argument against, signed by David Trujillo of ACLU California Action, Darius Kemp of Common Cause and Lorrel Plimier of the League of Women Voters of California (argument against):

• Motive: it ties the measure to President Trump’s claims about elections.
• Cost: “hundreds of millions of dollars.”
• Privacy: writing ID digits on the envelope exposes voters to identity theft.
• Rejected ballots: one wrong digit, an outdated address or a changed name could cause a valid ballot to be rejected, and voters who do not designate an ID “may not get a mail ballot at all.”
• Hidden costs: a “free” ID still costs travel, time off and documents.

The supporters’ rebuttal, signed by the Transparency Foundation, the California Women’s Leadership Association and the Latino American Political Association, says the measure “is not about Donald Trump or Gavin Newsom” and that “states with voter ID laws have not seen decreases in voter participation” (rebuttal).

Outside the guide.

• California Republican Party Chair Corrin Rankin: “ID is required for so many things that we do in life” (ABC7).
• Democratic candidate for governor Xavier Becerra said a voter who registered under a maiden name and votes under a married name could have the vote blocked (ABC7).
• DeMaio called it a “superior model” to the federal SAVE America Act because it keeps mail voting (Mercury News).
• LA County Supervisor Holly Mitchell: “LA County’s elections are already secure, and Prop 39 does nothing to make them safer” (City News Service via Westside Current).
• County registrars interviewed by ABC7 said checking partial ID numbers could take longer than signature checks (ABC7).

Checking the main factual claims against official records.

Who supports and opposes it

Supporters

• Californians for Voter ID and Reform California, led by Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (Cal-Access; LA Times).
• The Transparency Foundation, Latino American Political Association, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and California Women’s Leadership Association (ballot label; argument in favor).
• California Republican Party, Republican candidate for governor Steve Hilton, Rep. Ken Calvert and Sen. Tony Strickland (LAist).

Opponents

• ACLU California Action, Common Cause and the League of Women Voters of California (argument against).
• U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, the California Nurses Association and the California School Employees Association (rebuttal).
• California Democratic Party, the California Labor Federation and the UCLA Voting Rights Project (LAist).
• Xavier Becerra and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, honorary co-chairs of one No committee (Mercury News).
• Los Angeles County Supervisors Hilda Solis, Holly Mitchell, Lindsey Horvath and Janice Hahn (City News Service via Westside Current).

Editorial boards. The Sacramento Bee recommends no (Sacramento Bee; MSN copy). We found no LA Times or Daily News editorial board position as of Sept. 30, 2026. The LA Times ran an op-ed in favor by an outside contributor (LA Times).

We found no position from Mayor Karen Bass or the City Council as of Sept. 30, 2026.

Money for and against

Source: each committee’s campaign statements (Form 460) and late contribution reports (Form 497) in the Cal-Access raw data export dated Sept. 30, 2026, analyzed by CityHallPass. Committee pages: Yes on 39, Block Election Rigging, Californians for Voting Rights, Stop the Rig. The “against” totals subtract the $2 million that Block Election Rigging passed to Stop the Rig. The Yes figure counts from Jan. 1, 2025; counting only 2026, the Yes committee raised $15,735,437.36 through Sept. 19. A fourth listed No committee, VoteRiders, reported no money (Secretary of State totals). The LA Times reported $39.3 million raised by opponents and $15.6 million by supporters (LA Times, Sept. 28, 2026). We could not match the opponents’ figure to the committee filings.

Who is giving

Method: every itemized contribution on the committees’ statements from Jan. 1, 2025 through Sept. 19, 2026, plus late contribution reports after that date, from the Cal-Access raw data export. Different spellings of one donor are merged. Shares are ours.

For. The Yes committee reported 416 donors. Richard Uihlein, whose employer is listed as Uline, gave $17 million in three gifts from December 2025 to September 2026, 69.2% of the total. Reform California, DeMaio’s ballot measure committee, gave $3.1 million, nearly all as in-kind signature gathering. Other large donors were Nicole Shanahan ($370,000), Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss ($250,000 each) and Sequoia Capital’s Douglas Leone ($250,000). Donors outside California gave $18.5 million (75.2%). A $300,000 gift from Perfect One Capital was later refunded (Cal-Access). Reform California itself raised $6.3 million from Jan. 2025 to Sept. 19, 2026, from more than 13,000 itemized donors plus $1.35 million in gifts under $100 (Cal-Access).

Against. The largest No committee, Block Election Rigging, reported 37 donors. The largest were the California Democratic Party ($2.0 million), the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria ($2 million), the SEIU California State Council ($1.02 million), SEIU Local 2015’s Dignity CA committee ($1 million) and Reed Hastings ($1 million). Six union committees, including the California Teachers Association’s, gave $500,000 each (Cal-Access). The ACLU-sponsored committee’s largest donors were M. Quinn Delaney and Patty Quillin, $1.5 million each (Cal-Access).

How the money was spent. The Yes committee paid GOCO Partners $7.07 million for petitions, 82.6% of its cash payments (Cal-Access). Block Election Rigging paid AL Media $6.17 million for television and online ads (Cal-Access).

Outside spending

Reform California filed 24-hour independent expenditure reports of $728,316.85 supporting the measure through Sept. 29. Republican legislators’ ballot measure committees, including those of Assemblymember David Tangipa ($72,743.84) and Sen. Tony Strickland ($20,000), reported smaller amounts (Cal-Access raw data export).

Independent analysis

• Legislative Analyst. Costs of tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars a year for the state and counties, under 0.25% of the General Fund. Some savings could come from fewer people on the rolls, but “likely would not exceed the costs” (analysis).
• Scale of voting by mail. About 13 million of the roughly 16 million Californians who voted in November 2024 used mail ballots (Legislative Analyst). Statewide, 122,439 returned mail ballots (0.92%) were rejected that election, and 148,427 (1.73%) in the June 2026 primary, most of them for arriving late (Secretary of State, Nov. 2024; June 2026). The Associated Press reported that the June rise was driven by late postmarks (AP via LAist).
• Noncitizen voting. LAist reports that efforts to find and prosecute noncitizen voters “have thus far turned up few culprits” (LAist).

We found no City or County estimate of what the measure would cost Los Angeles.

If it passes

• Effective date. A constitutional amendment takes effect on the fifth day after the Secretary of State files the statement of the vote (Cal. Const., Art. XVIII, Sec. 4). The measure says it is “self-executing” (text, Sec. 3.1(c)).
• Laws to follow. The Legislature must “promptly enact laws” to carry it out, including rules for military and overseas voters. The Legislative Analyst says it would have to define which IDs count (text, Sec. 3.1(c); analysis).
• Every voter re-designates. New and existing voters would have to choose an ID in their registration to vote by mail (Legislative Analyst).
• Enforcement. Any citizen may sue over the state’s or a county’s compliance (text, Sec. 3.1(c)). The text requires the State Auditor to audit compliance “during every odd-numbered year” (text, Sec. 3.1(c)).
• Legal challenges. We found no filed challenge to the measure’s substance as of Sept. 30, 2026.

Key moments

• Huntington Beach ruling stands (Jan. 28, 2026). The State Supreme Court declined to review the ruling against that city’s voter ID law. Sen. Tony Strickland, a Prop. 39 proponent, had co-signed the ballot argument for the city’s measure as a councilmember (Orange County Register; Secretary of State, eligible measures).
• Ballot title fight (July-Aug. 2026). The Attorney General changed the title for the ballot. The Yes campaign sued and lost on Aug. 6. DeMaio called the ruling “expected” but “disappointing”; Attorney General Rob Bonta said the court confirmed the ballot materials were accurate and impartial (LA Times; Mercury News).
• LA County supervisors oppose (Sept. 21, 2026). Four of the five supervisors endorsed the No campaign (City News Service via Westside Current).

We found no debate between the campaigns in news coverage as of Sept. 30, 2026.

Polls

In the PPIC poll, 85% of Republicans and 19% of Democrats supported the measure (Mercury News).