California Proposition 34, Require Certain Participants in Medi-Cal Rx Program to Spend 98% of Revenues on Patient Care Initiative (2024)

California Proposition 34
Election date November 5, 2024
Topic Business regulation and Elections and campaigns
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 34, the Require Certain Participants in Medi-Cal Rx Program to Spend 98% of Revenues on Patient Care Initiative, was on the ballot in California as an initiated state statute on November 5, 2024. The ballot measure was approved.

A "yes" vote supported:  requiring health care providers that spent over $100 million in any 10-year period on anything other than direct patient care and operated multifamily housing with over 500 high-severity health and safety violations to spend 98% of revenues from the federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care; penalizing violators of the initiative with loss of tax-exempt status and licenses to operate health insurance plans, pharmacies, and clinics; and permanently authorizing Medi-Cal RX in state law.

A "no" vote opposed this initiative to penalize health care providers who spend revenues from the federal discount prescription drug program on purposes other than direct patient care.

Election results

California Proposition 34
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		7,378,686	50.89%
No		7,121,317	49.11%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What did Proposition 34 do?

See also: Measure design

Proposition 34 established a new category of entities called "prescription drug price manipulators." Entities classified as "prescription drug price manipulators" were required to meet the following annual requirements to maintain their tax-exempt status and licensure as health insurance plans, pharmacies, and clinics:

• spend at least 98% of revenues from federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care and
• not engage in unprofessional conduct or conduct contrary to public health, welfare, or safety.

Proposition 34 also permanently authorized the state to implement the Medi-Cal Rx program. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) first established the program in January 2019 via executive order.

Who did the new spending requirement apply to?

The spending requirement applied to prescription drug price manipulators. Under the initiative, an entity is a prescription drug price manipulator if the entity meets all of the following:

• participates in the federal 340B drug price discount program;
• owns or has owned at least one license to operate as a health insurance plan, pharmacy, or clinic in the state or contracts with Med-Cal as a primary care case management organization or with Medicare as a special needs plan;
• has spent more than $100 million on purposes not related to direct patient care in a 10-year period of its existence; and
• owns, operates, or previously owned and operated one or more multifamily dwellings that have received a combined total of at least 500 state or local high violations.

The Legislative Analyst's Office said, "few entities would meet the measure’s tests to qualify as a prescription drug price manipulator, but the exact number is not known."

Who supported and opposed Proposition 34?

See also: Support and Opposition

Yes on 34, Protect Patients Now, which is sponsored by the California Apartment Association, led the campaign in support of Proposition 34. The campaign reported $44.5 million. The campaign said, "The Protect Patients Now Act will force the worst abusers of the drug discount program, like Weinstein’s [AIDS Healthcare Foundation], back to the program’s original mission to provide healthcare to low-income patients. This measure focuses only on the program’s worst offenders, putting in place new accountability measures to ensure they are appropriately using taxpayer dollars. The Act requires the program’s worst offenders like AHF and any others like it to spend 98% of their taxpayer-generated revenues on direct patient care. It also prevents them from overcharging government agencies for prescription drugs. So long as these worst offenders meet these requirements, they can continue their health care operations."

Proposition 34 was opposed by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and Housing is a Human Right. Opponents received $15.8 million. Susie Shannon, policy director of Housing is a Human Right, said, "The anti-renter California Apartment Association is peddling a deceptive, unconstitutional ballot measure cleverly disguised as a patient protection bill but is, in fact, designed to hurt both patients and low-income renters. It’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Don’t be fooled: The Patient Protection Act targets one organization, AHF, the largest HIV/ AIDS organization in the world, and the leading organization working to expand rent control for the most vulnerable in our society – low-income seniors, veterans, single parents and patients with HIV/AIDS. CAA, which does not represent patients, has shown they are willing to deceive voters in their quest for unbridled profits for the billionaire landlord class they represent, while patients and low-income renters suffer."

Measure design

See also: Text of measure

Medi-Cal Rx program: Permanently authorized

The initiative permanently authorized the state to implement Medi-Cal Rx program. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) first established the program in January 2019 via executive order.

Classifying prescription drug price manipulators: Criteria and requirements

The spending requirement applied to prescription drug price manipulators. Under the initiative, an entity is a prescription drug price manipulator if the entity meets all of the following:

• participates in the federal 340B drug price discount program;
• owns or has owned at least one license to operate as a health insurance plan, pharmacy, or clinic in the state or contracts with Med-Cal as a primary care case management organization or with Medicare as a special needs plan;
• has spent more than $100 million on purposes not related to direct patient care in a 10-year period of its existence; and
• owns, operates, or previously owned and operated one or more multifamily dwellings that have received a combined total of at least 500 state or local high violations.

Under the initiative, if an entity is classified as a prescription drug price manipulator, the entity would have to meet the following requirements annually to maintain its tax-exempt status and licensure as health insurance plans, pharmacies, and clinics:

• spend at least 98% of revenues from federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care and
• not engage in unprofessional conduct or conduct contrary to public health, welfare, or safety.

Prescription drug price manipulators were prohibited from entering into a pharmacy sales agreement, an agreement where a pharmacy charges more than the discounted price for a prescription drug obtained by the entity participating in the federal 340B drug discount program.

The initiative also required prescription drug price manipulators to spend at least 98% or more of their revenue earned from their national participation in the 304B program on direct patient care to be eligible for state and local government grants and contracts.

Prescription drug price manipulators reporting requirements: Required reports

Under the initiative, prescription drug price manipulators are required to annually report financial information on the revenue generated from their participation in the drug discount price program to the attorney general and to the Department of Managed Health Care, the Board of Pharmacy, and the Department of Public Health if the entity has licenses to operate health insurance plans, pharmacies, and clinics. The initiative authorized these departments to cover the administrative costs of the reporting requirements by charging fees on prescription drug price manipulators. Late reports were considered unprofessional conduct.

Penalties for violations: Loss of tax-exempt status and licensure

If a prescription drug price manipulators did not meet the criteria or reporting requirements established by the initiative, the entity would lose its tax-exempt status and licenses to operate health insurance plans, pharmacies, and clinics. The entity would also be prohibited from reapplying for tax-exempt status or licensure for 10 years and be exempt from receiving new or renewed state and local grants or contracts. Leaders of the entity would be prohibited from serving leadership positions in the state's licensed health insurance plan, pharmacy, or clinic during the 10 years.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title is as follows:

“

Restricts spending by health care providers meeting specified criteria. Initiative statute.

”

Petition summary

The summary provided for inclusion on signature petition sheets is as follows:

“

Requires certain health care providers to spend 98% of revenues from federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care. Applies only to health care providers that: spent over $100,000,000 in any ten-year period on anything other than direct patient care; and operated multifamily housing with over 500 high-severity health and safety violations. Penalizes noncompliance by revoking health care licenses and tax-exempt status. Permanently authorizes state to negotiate Medi-Cal drug prices on statewide basis.

”

Fiscal impact

The fiscal impact statement is as follows:

“

Increased costs to state government, potentially up to the millions of dollars annually, to review entities’ compliance with the measure and enforce the measure’s provisions. These costs would be paid for by fees created under the measure. Uncertain fiscal impacts to state and local government health programs, depending on how the affected entities respond to the measure’s requirements.

”

Full text

The full text of the ballot measure is below:

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2024

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure.

The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 13, and the FRE is 9. The word count for the ballot title is 11.

The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 14, and the FRE is 25. The word count for the ballot summary is 75.

Support

Protect Patients Now, which is sponsored by the California Apartment Association, led the campaign in support of the initiative. A full list of endorsements is available here.

Supporters

Officials

• State Asm. Evan Low (D)
• Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis (D)

Political Parties

• Republican Party of California

Organizations

• ALS Association
• California Apartment Association
• California Association of Realtors
• California Chamber of Commerce
• Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
• San Francisco Women's Cancer Network

Arguments

• Protect Patients Now: "The Protect Patients Now Act will force the worst abusers of the drug discount program, like Weinstein’s [AIDS Healthcare Foundation], back to the program’s original mission to provide healthcare to low-income patients. This measure focuses only on the program’s worst offenders, putting in place new accountability measures to ensure they are appropriately using taxpayer dollars. The Act requires the program’s worst offenders like AHF and any others like it to spend 98% of their taxpayer-generated revenues on direct patient care. It also prevents them from overcharging government agencies for prescription drugs. So long as these worst offenders meet these requirements, they can continue their health care operations."
• Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association: "Some nonprofit healthcare organizations that receive federal funds to provide health care services have abused the system to spend large amounts of money on political causes. Proposition 34 would end this practice and require that healthcare providers spend most of the money they receive from a federal prescription drug discount program on direct patient care."

Opposition

Stop the Revenge Initiative – No on 34 led the campaign opposing Proposition 34.

Opponents

Former Officials

• Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (D)

Unions

• UNITE HERE Local 11

Organizations

• AIDS Healthcare Foundation
• Consumer Watchdog
• Dolores Huerta Foundation
• Housing is a Human Right
• National Organization for Women

Arguments

• Susie Shannon, policy director of Housing is a Human Right: "The anti-renter California Apartment Association is peddling a deceptive, unconstitutional ballot measure cleverly disguised as a patient protection bill but is, in fact, designed to hurt both patients and low-income renters. It’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Don’t be fooled: The Patient Protection Act targets one organization, AHF, the largest HIV/ AIDS organization in the world, and the leading organization working to expand rent control for the most vulnerable in our society – low-income seniors, veterans, single parents and patients with HIV/AIDS. CAA, which does not represent patients, has shown they are willing to deceive voters in their quest for unbridled profits for the billionaire landlord class they represent, while patients and low-income renters suffer."
• Consumer Watchdog: "The proposed Initiative is a poorly veiled attempt by the California Apartment Association to silence a political adversary. If it is allowed to be put to the voters, no organization in the future will be safe from similar retribution by monied opponents."

Campaign finance

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through December 31, 2024.

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

Yes on 34, Protect Patients Now registered as a political action committee (PAC) to support of the initiative. Stop the Revenge Initiative - No on 34 registered in opposition to the initiative.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$44,759,427.00	$38,614.75	$44,798,041.75	$44,725,384.54	$44,763,999.29
Oppose	$16,281,340.00	$230,976.56	$16,512,316.56	$16,241,266.55	$16,472,243.11
Total	$61,040,767.00	$269,591.31	$61,310,358.31	$60,966,651.09	$61,236,242.40

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the initiative.

Committees in support of Proposition 34
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Yes on 34, Protect Patients Now	$44,759,427.00	$38,614.75	$44,798,041.75	$44,725,384.54	$44,763,999.29
Total	$44,759,427.00	$38,614.75	$44,798,041.75	$44,725,384.54	$44,763,999.29

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committee registered in support of the initiative.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
California Apartment Association	$44,475,000.00	$38,614.75	$44,513,614.75
California Association of Realtors Issues Mobilization PAC	$250,000.00	$0.00	$250,000.00
St. Anton Communities	$20,000.00	$0.00	$20,000.00
Glen Raft	$2,500.00	$0.00	$2,500.00
Smith-Brennan Properties, LLC	$2,000.00	$0.00	$2,000.00
Steve Talbert	$2,000.00	$0.00	$2,000.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to the ballot measure.

Committees in opposition to Proposition 34
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Stop the Revenge Initiative - No on 34	$16,281,340.00	$230,976.56	$16,512,316.56	$16,241,266.55	$16,472,243.11
Total	$16,281,340.00	$230,976.56	$16,512,316.56	$16,241,266.55	$16,472,243.11

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committee registered in opposition to the ballot measure.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
AIDS Healthcare Foundation	$16,270,000.00	$8,770.83	$16,278,770.83
Youth Power PAC	$4,466.41	$0.00	$4,466.41
PICO California Action Fund	$294.00	$0.00	$294.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

The following media editorial boards published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Opposition

The following media editorial boards published an editorial opposing the ballot measure:

• Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Board: " At the same time, voters should also reject Proposition 34, a measure that can best be described as 'Revenge of the Landlords.' ... Proposition 34 is an abusive use of the state’s initiative system to silence a political opponent. It would set a horrible precedent if it passes and survives legal challenges."
• San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: "Prop 34 could also set a dangerous precedent of interest groups using the initiative process to limit other groups from doing the same. Addressing this issue will require comprehensive, nonpartisan ballot measure reform, not a slew of slanted measures targeting individual political players. Voters should reject Prop 34."
• Bay Area Reporter Editorial Board: "[W]e believe writing a state ballot proposition that affects a single agency sets a bad precedent. Some other groups could try the same tactics against other nonprofits if they don't like what those agencies are doing. ... Vote NO on Prop 34."
• Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "There are other reasons to reject this ballot initiative. Complicated healthcare policy ought to be made by the Legislature, not foisted on the electorate. One of Proposition 34‘s purported benefits is to permanently authorize the state to negotiate Medi-Cal drug prices. But the state has done that for years thanks to an executive action by Gov. Gavin Newsom. So California’s taxpayers aren’t being squeezed by higher Medi-Cal payments to the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. ... Voters should emphatically reject Proposition 34 and send the message that they will not tolerate such a weaponization of the state’s citizen initiative process."

Polls

See also: 2024 ballot measure polls

Are you aware of a poll on this ballot measure that should be included below? You can share ballot measure polls, along with source links, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

California Proposition 34, Require Certain Participants in Medi-Cal Rx Program to Spend 98% of Revenues on Patient Care Initiative (2024)
Poll	Dates	Sample size	Margin of error	Support	Oppose	Undecided

Public Policy Institute of California	10/07/2024 - 10/15/2024	1,137 LV	± 3.1%	47.0%	49.0%	4.0%
	Question: "Proposition 34 is called “Restricts Spending of Prescription Drug Revenues by Certain Health Care Providers.” Initiative Statute. Requires certain providers to spend 98% of revenues from federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care. Authorizes statewide negotiation of Medi-Cal drug prices. The fiscal impact is increased state costs, likely in the millions of dollars annually, to enforce new rules on certain health care entities. Affected entities would pay fees to cover these costs. Supporters include The ALS Association; California Chronic Care Coalition; Latino Heritage Los Angeles. Opponents include the National Org. for Women; Consumer Watchdog; Coalition for Economic Survival; AIDS Healthcare Foundation; Dolores Huerta. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no?"

Public Policy Institute of California	8/29/2024 - 09/11/2024	1,071 LV	± 3.7%	53.0%	43.0%	4.0%
	Question: "Proposition 34 is called “Restricts Spending of Prescription Drug Revenues by Certain Health Care Providers”. Initiative Statute. Requires certain providers to spend 98% of revenues from federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care. Authorizes statewide negotiation of Medi-Cal drug prices. The fiscal impact is increased state costs, likely in the millions of dollars annually, to enforce new rules on certain health care entities. Affected entities would pay fees to cover these costs. Supporters include The ALS Association; California Chronic Care Coalition; Latino Heritage Los Angeles. Opponents include the National Org. for Women; Consumer Watchdog; Coalition for Economic Survival; AIDS Healthcare Foundation; Dolores Huerta. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no?"

Note: LV is likely voters, RV is registered voters, and EV is eligible voters.

Background

California Medi-Cal Rx Program

On January 7, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom (D) signed an executive order requiring the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to transition Medi-Cal pharmacy services from managed care to fee-for-service. Managed care means the state pays a fee to a managed care plan for each enrollee, and the plan pays providers for the Medi-Cal services needed by the beneficiary included in the plan's contract. Fee-for-service means the state pays providers directly for the Medi-Cal services needed by the beneficiary. DHCS had to request federal approval to transition from managed care to fee-for-service. The full transition took effect on January 1, 2022.

340B Drug Price Discount Program

The 340B Drug Pricing Program was created in 1992. The program requires drug manufacturers to provide drugs at discounted prices in order to participate in Medicaid. Organizations that provide discounted-priced drugs include community health centers, children’s hospitals, hemophilia treatment centers, critical access hospitals (CAHs), sole community hospitals (SCHs), rural referral centers (RRCs), and public and nonprofit disproportionate share hospitals (DSH).

Under Medi-Cal Rx, California organizations participating in the 340B drug price discount must provide Medi-Cal patients with drugs at their discounted price. Those organizations do not earn revenue from providing discounted drugs to Medi-Cal patients.

AIDS Healthcare Foundation

See also: AIDS Healthcare Foundation

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) is a 501(c)(3) organization based in Los Angeles, California, that aims to provide education, research, healthcare, and services related to HIV/AIDS. As of 2024, the president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation was Michael Weinstein.

AHF qualified an initiative for the November 2024 ballot that would allow cities and counties to limit rent on any housing and prohibit the state from limiting "the right of any city, county, or city and county to maintain, enact or expand residential rent control." The AIDS Healthcare Foundation sponsored two similar initiatives in 2018 and 2020 that were defeated. AIDS Healthcare Foundation contributed $63.1 million in support of both initiatives.

Ballot measure activity

The following table details the AIDS Healthcare Foundation's ballot measure stances available on Ballotpedia:

Ballot measure support and opposition for the AIDS Healthcare Foundation
Ballot measure	Year	Position	Status
California Rent Control Initiative	2020	Supported	d Defeated
California Proposition 10: Local Rent Control	2018	Supported	d Defeated
Los Angeles Measure S: Laws Governing the General Plan and Development	2017	Supported	d Defeated
Ohio Issue 2: Drug Price Standards	2017	Supported	d Defeated
California Proposition 60: Condoms in Pornographic Films	2016	Supported	d Defeated
California Proposition 61: Drug Price Standards	2016	Supported	d Defeated
San Francisco Measure D: Prescription Drug Purchasing	2013	Supported	a Approved
Los Angeles County Measure B: Condoms in Pornographic Films	2012	Supported	a Approved

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in California

The state process

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. Petitions are allowed to circulate for 180 days from the date the attorney general prepares the petition language. Signatures need to be certified at least 131 days before the general election. As the verification process can take multiple months, the secretary of state provides suggested deadlines for ballot initiatives.

The requirements to get initiated state statutes certified for the 2024 ballot:

• Signatures: 546,651 were required.
• Deadline: The deadline for signature verification was 131 days before the general election, which was around June 27, 2024. However, the process of verifying signatures can take multiple months and proponents are recommended to file signatures at least two months before the verification deadline.

Signatures are first filed with local election officials, who determine the total number of signatures submitted. If the total number is equal to at least 100 percent of the required signatures, then local election officials perform a random check of signatures submitted in their counties. If the random sample estimates that more than 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, the initiative is eligible for the ballot. If the random sample estimates that between 95 and 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, a full check of signatures is done to determine the total number of valid signatures. If less than 95 percent are estimated to be valid, the initiative does not make the ballot.

Details about this initiative

• The initiative was filed on August 30, 2023, by Thomas Bannon.
• The initiative was cleared for signature gathering on November 3, 2023.
• On November 28, 2023, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation announced that it had filed a lawsuit against the initiative arguing that it is unconstitutional because it "illegally applies to one—and only one—organization in all of California: AIDS Healthcare Foundation." The petition was denied by the Third District court of Appeal on November 30, 2023.
• On December 13, 2023, the secretary of state reported that proponents had collected 25% of the required number of signatures.
• On April 10, 2024, the secretary of state reported that the campaign had submitted 868,689 raw signatures for verification.
• On May 21, the secretary of state reported that the campaign had met the signature requirement and had qualified for the ballot.

Sponsors of the measure hired The Monaco Group, PCI Consultants and Inc. to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $7,663,137.00 was spent to collect the 546,651 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $14.02.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in California

See below to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in California.

How to vote in California

Poll times

All polls in California are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Pacific Time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.

Registration

Check your voter registration status here.

To vote in California, an individual must be a U.S. citizen and California resident. A voter must be at least 18 years of age on Election Day. Pre-registration is available at 16 years of age. Pre-registered voters are automatically registered to vote when they turn 18.

Automatic registration

California automatically registers eligible individuals to vote when they complete a driver's license, identification (ID) card, or change of address transaction through the Department of Motor Vehicles. Learn more by visiting this website.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

California has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Same-day registration

California allows same-day voter registration.

Californians must be registered to vote at least 15 days before Election Day. If the registration deadline has passed for an upcoming election, voters may visit a location designated by their county elections official during the 14 days prior to, and including Election Day to conditionally register to vote and vote a provisional ballot, which are counted once county election officials have completed the voter registration verification process. The state refers to this process as Same Day Voter Registration.

Residency requirements

To register to vote in California, you must be a resident of the state. State law does not specify a length of time for which you must have been a resident to be eligible.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

California's constitution requires that voters be U.S. citizens. When registering to vote, proof of citizenship is not required. Individuals who become U.S. citizens less than 15 days before an election must bring proof of citizenship to their county elections office to register to vote in that election. An individual applying to register to vote must attest that they are a U.S. citizen under penalty of perjury.

As of November 2024, two jurisdictions in California had authorized noncitizen residents to vote for local board of education positions through local ballot measures. Only one of those jurisdictions, San Francisco, had implemented that law. Noncitizens voting for board of education positions must register to vote using a separate application from the state voter registration application.

All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters.

Verifying your registration

The secretary of state's My Voter Status website allows residents to check their voter registration status online.

Voter ID requirements

California does not require voters to present identification before casting a ballot in most cases. However, some voters may be asked to show a form of identification when voting if they are voting for the first time after registering to vote by mail and did not provide a driver license number, California identification number, or the last four digits of their social security number. On September 29, 2024, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed SB 1174 into law prohibiting any jurisdiction in the state from adopting a local law that requires voters to present ID before voting.

The following list of accepted ID was current as of October 2024. Click here for the California Secretary of State page to ensure you have the most current information.

“

Current and valid photo identification provided by a third party in the ordinary course of business that includes the name and photograph of the individual presenting it. Examples of photo identification include, but are not limited to, the following documents: driver's license or identification card of any state; passport; employee identification card; identification card provided by a commercial establishment; credit or debit card; military identification card; student identification card; health club identification card; insurance plan identification card; or public housing identification card. Any of the following documents, provided that the document includes the name and address of the individual presenting it, and is dated since the date of the last general election…: utility bill; bank statement; government check; government paycheck; document issued by a governmental agency; sample ballot or other official elections document issued by a governmental, agency dated for the election in which the individual is providing it as proof, of residency or identity; voter notification card issued by a governmental agency; public housing identification card issued by a governmental agency; lease or rental statement or agreement issued by a governmental agency; student identification card issued by a governmental agency; tuition statement or bill issued by a governmental agency; insurance plan card or drug discount card issued by a governmental agency; discharge certificates, pardons, or other official documents issued to the individual by a governmental agency in connection with the resolution of a criminal case, indictment, sentence, or other matter; public transportation authority senior citizen and disabled discount cards issued by a governmental agency; identification documents issued by governmental disability agencies; identification documents issued by government homeless shelters and other government temporary or transitional facilities; drug prescription issued by a government doctor or other governmental health care provider; (R) property tax statement issued by a governmental agency; vehicle registration issued by a governmental agency; or vehicle certificate of ownership issued by a governmental agency.

”

See also

2024 measures

• 2024 ballot measures
• Healthcare on the ballot
• 2024 petition deadlines

California

• California ballot measures
• California initiative laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls
• Ballot measure signature costs

External links

• Initiative and referendum status
• Full text