California Proposition 18, Primary Voting for 17-Year-Olds Amendment (2020)

California Proposition 18
Election date November 3, 2020
Topic Suffrage
Status d Defeated
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature
List of California measuresCalifornia Proposition 13 (March)California Proposition 14California Proposition 15California Proposition 16California Proposition 17California Proposition 18California Proposition 19California Proposition 20California Proposition 21California Proposition 22California Proposition 23California Proposition 24California Proposition 25Submit

California Proposition 18, the Primary Voting for 17-Year-Olds Amendment, was on the ballot in California as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 3, 2020. Proposition 18 was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported this constitutional amendment to allow 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election to vote in primary elections and special elections.

A "no" vote opposed this constitutional amendment, thereby continuing to prohibit 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election to vote in primary elections and special elections.

Election results

California Proposition 18
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		7,514,317	43.96%
No		9,577,807	56.04%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

How would Proposition 18 have affected who can vote?

Changes to the California Constitution

Proposition 18 would have allowed 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election to vote in primary elections and special elections.

Did other states allow 17-year-olds to vote in primaries?

See also: States that allow 17-year-olds to vote in primaries

As of 2020, 18 states, along with Washington, D.C., allowed 17-year-olds who will be 18 by the time of the general election to vote in primary elections.

How was Proposition 18 placed on the ballot?

See also: Path to the ballot

Proposition 18 was approved as Assembly Concurrent Resolution 4 (ACA 4) during the 2019-2020 legislative session. The California State Senate voted 31 to 7 to pass ACA 4 on June 25, 2020. Senate Democrats, along with two Senate Republicans, supported ACA 4. The California State Assembly voted 56 to 13 to pass ACA 4 on June 26, 2020. Of those who supported ACA 4, 55 were Democrats and one was a Republican. Opponents included one Democrat and 12 Republicans.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

Amends California Constitution to Permit 17-Year-Olds to Vote in Primary and Special Elections if They Will Turn 18 by the Next General Election and be Otherwise Eligible to Vote. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

“

The California Constitution currently permits individuals who are at least 18 years old on the date of an election to vote in that election. Amends constitution to permit 17-year-olds who will be at least 18 years old and otherwise eligible to vote at the time of the next general election to vote in any primary or special election that occurs before the next general election.

”

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

Increased costs for counties, likely between several hundreds of thousands of dollars and $1 million every two years, to send and process voting materials to eligible registered 17-year-olds. Increased one-time costs to the state in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to update existing voter registration systems.

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article II, California Constitution

The measure would have amended Section 2 of Article II of the California Constitution. The following underlined text would have been added:

(a) A United States citizen who is at least 18 years of age and a resident in this State may vote.

(b) A United States citizen who is 17 years of age, is a resident in this State, and will be at least 18 years of age at the time of the next general election may vote in any primary or special election that occurs before the next general election in which the citizen would be eligible to vote if at least 18 years of age.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020

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 15, and the FRE is 19. The word count for the ballot title is 32, and the estimated reading time is 8 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 17, and the FRE is 32. The word count for the ballot summary is 64, and the estimated reading time is 17 seconds.

Support

Supporters

Officials

• Governor Gavin Newsom (D)
• Assemblymember Evan Low (D)
• Assemblymember Kevin Mullin (D)
• Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D)

Political Parties

• California Democratic Party

Government Entities

• Monterey County Board of Supervisors

Organizations

• ACLU of Southern California
• Democracy for America

Arguments

• The California Association of Student Councils: "Young people whose birthdays fall between the primary [and] general election are currently at a disadvantage to those who are permitted to vote in the primaries. Without full exposure to the election process they are unable to submit their most educated vote in the general election. Assembly Constitutional Amendment [four] would ensure that a greater number of citizens voting in the general election have the resources and experience they need to provide the vote that best matches their own values."

Official arguments

The following is the argument in support of Proposition 18 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:

Official Voter Information Guide: Proposition 18 will allow those who will be 18 years of age by the time of the general election to participate in the primary election of that year if they are 17 at the time of the primary. This important election reform will not only allow first-time voters to participate in the full election cycle, but also has the potential to boost youth participation in our elections. We need youth voices to be represented at the ballot box. Allowing some 17-year-olds to vote in primary elections if, and only if, they will be 18 by the time of the general election is a simple way to amplify the voices of young voters throughout California and will lead to a more inclusive election process for our state overall. California is behind the curve when it comes to this issue. Nearly half of states in the U.S. already allow 17-year-olds to participate in primaries and caucuses. If an individual plans to participate in the general election as a first-time voter, it is only reasonable that they be afforded the opportunity to shape the choices that appear on the general election ballot by participating in the primary. Proposition 18 links this 17-year-old participation to the age of majority by requiring that the individual be 18 by the time of the general election. According to research conducted by the California Civic Engagement Project, in the 2020 primary election in California, youth voters (those aged between 18 and 24) made up 14.5% of the population eligible to vote, however only about 6% of those who actually voted in the election. Youth are extremely underrepresented in our electoral process despite the fact that they are heavily impacted by the policies created by those elected. Not only does research indicate that the youth population has the lowest turnout levels out of any age demographic, but studies also show that voting is habit-forming—once an individual votes in an election, they are more likely to do so again. Early involvement in the electoral process for first-time voters should be a high priority for this reason. Proposition 18 is an opportunity to empower California's youngest voters and encourage them to become life-long participants in the most fundamental act of democracy. Please support Proposition 18. KEVIN MULLIN, Assemblymember CA Assembly District 22 EVAN LOW, Assemblymember CA Assembly District 28

Opposition

Arguments

• The Election Integrity Project California: "17-year-olds are legal minors. Under that definition, they are still considered children. They are almost all still living at home and under the strong influence of their parents. This is not conducive to independent thought and voting without undue pressure from their immediate superiors... 17-year-olds will almost always still be in high school, and under the strong influence of their teachers. This again makes it less likely that they would be expressing their own, independently thought-out choices were they to be allowed to vote."

Official arguments

The following is the argument in opposition to Proposition 18 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:

Official Voter Information Guide: Vote NO on Proposition 18 "Many tax increases and bond debt measures are decided on primary and special election ballots. That’s why only adults should vote."—Jon Coupal, President, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association 17-year-olds ARE NOT LEGALLY ADULTS Both the federal and California governments have set the age of legal responsibility at 18. In California, an individual even one day younger than 18 may not enter into a legal contract, or even use a tanning salon. Seventeen-year-olds cannot even participate in a school field trip without a permission slip signed by a parent or guardian. California law puts extra rules and restrictions on driver licenses of l6- and 17-year-olds because of concerns about maturity and judgment. The license restrictions disappear exactly on the 18th birthday, not before. California law reflects the scientific evidence that age-related brain development is connected to the ability to reason, analyze and comprehend cause-and-effect. The agreed-upon age of reason, both statewide and nationally, is 18. 17-year-olds ARE CAPTIVE AUDIENCES IN SCHOOL Voters deserve to hear all sides of an issue to make an informed choice. Most 17-year-olds are still in high school, dependent on teachers for grades and important recommendation letters vital to their future. They are a captive audience five days a week, with a strong incentive to do whatever teachers and counselors recommend. California’s primary ballot often includes school tax and bond measures for voter approval. Unlike adult voters, 17-year-olds who are still in high school are likely to hear only one side of these issues. For example, in 2019, the Los Angeles Unified School District engaged in an "informational" campaign to pass a proposed tax increase, Measure EE, in a special election. Schools posted huge banners on campus, handed out flyers and literature for students to take home, and even distributed sample social media posts in an effort to influence students and their families. If 17-year-olds are allowed to vote in primary and special elections, perhaps even filling out a mail-in ballot right in the classroom, these students could provide the margin to approve new debt and taxes that will greatly burden their parents and all taxpayers. POLITICAL PARTICIPATION IS OPEN TO ALL; VOTING IS DIFFERENT Everyone has the right to express an opinion, advocate on issues, organize like-minded people and volunteer on campaigns. The right to vote, however, is reserved for citizens who are state residents, who are not felons in prison, and who are at least 18 years of age on Election Day. Voting is a serious responsibility. In California elections, voters decide who will hold the power to make and enforce laws, whether to approve new debt that taxpayers will have to pay, whether to raise taxes, and many other complex issues. Important decisions must be made by voters who are legally adults, not by high school minors. VOTE NO on Proposition 18. RUTH WEISS, Co-founder Election Integrity Project California JON COUPAL, President Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association LARRY SAND, Retired Teacher

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

The Yes on 18 - Vote for Our Future PAC was organized as a political action committee (PAC) to support Proposition 18. The campaign, along with allied committees, had raised $1.27 million.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$1,178,656.25	$94,654.83	$1,273,311.08	$1,095,483.39	$1,190,138.22
Oppose	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$1,178,656.25	$94,654.83	$1,273,311.08	$1,095,483.39	$1,190,138.22

Support

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

Committees in support of Proposition 18
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Yes on 18 - Vote for Our Future	$761,497.00	$94,654.83	$856,151.83	$684,497.00	$779,151.83
Alex Padilla Ballot Measure Committee for Democracy and Justice - Yes on Propositions 16, 17, and 18	$417,159.25	$0.00	$417,159.25	$410,986.39	$410,986.39
Total	$1,178,656.25	$94,654.83	$1,273,311.08	$1,095,483.39	$1,190,138.22

Donors

The following were the top five donors who contributed to the support committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Patty Quillin	$250,000.00	$0.00	$250,000.00
Committee to Innovate for California's Future, Evan Low Ballot Measure Committee	$230,000.00	$0.00	$230,000.00
California Democratic Party	$0.00	$91,483.71	$91,483.71
California League of Conservation Voters	$60,000.00	$0.00	$60,000.00
Kevin Mullin for Assembly 2020	$50,000.00	$0.00	$50,000.00

Media editorials

Support

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

• San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: "The idea isn’t a wholesale lowering of the voting age. It’s built on logic that links the sorting out of candidates in primaries with the eventual final choice in a general election. The young people envisioned in the proposition would have a crack at both votes, choosing the first cut of contenders and then taking part in the final runoff. It allows for a full cycle in the political game."
• San Mateo Daily Journal Editorial Board: "This would allow someone the ability to participate in a complete election cycle. While there are limits to maturity for those of this age, this one exception makes sense."
• Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "In California we have an added reason to let some 17-year-olds vote — our top-two primary system. Except for presidential elections, voters in California primaries don’t select which candidates will represent the various political parties on the November ballot, but rather they select from all the candidates which two will face off in November. (In some races, there won’t even be a runoff if a candidate gets more than 50% of the vote in the primary.) It makes sense that the teens who will be eligible to vote in a general election should also help decide whose names will be on that ballot."
• The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board: "One lamentable aspect of U.S. politics in the Donald Trump era is the disappearance of the bipartisan consensus that voting should be encouraged to give people a stake in their democracy. Vote yes on Proposition 18 to give more young people that stake."
• The Bakersfield Californian Editorial Board: "This is the latest effort of many in recent years to reach out to young voters to encourage the development of a lifelong “habit” of voting, which is the cornerstone of self-government. ... These and other outreach efforts seem to be paying off. According to a YouGov survey of California youth conducted on behalf of the University of California, 70 percent of young people interviewed said they were registered to vote and about 55 percent said they will “definitely” or “probably” vote in November."
• The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: "Opponents also claim that 17-year-olds will be unduly influenced by their teachers, especially when it comes to voting on school bonds. Not only is this a cynical ploy to attempt to defeat school bonds, it’s also an insult to the intellectual capabilities of young people. Young voters have the most at stake in elections — after all, they’ll be living with the consequences far into the future — and we need to do everything we can to encourage their participation from the start. The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board urges a yes vote on Prop. 18."

Opposition

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

• The Orange County Register Editorial Board: "There is no compelling reason to extend the right to vote to those who are 17, especially considering there are plenty of avenues for politically interested young people to be involved in the political process at a younger age, including working on campaigns, helping candidates get out the vote, speaking their minds and educating themselves."
• Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Board: "There’s no clear age of maturity, but 18 is a rational point to mark the entry into adulthood. Indeed, in some areas,18 is on the low end. When it comes to purchasing alcohol in California, the age has remained 21. And, state lawmakers in 2016 raised the age for purchasing tobacco from 18 to 21. In 2019, the federal government did the same for the nation. It doesn’t make sense to now lower the voting age to 17. Vote no on Prop. 18."
• The Desert Sun Editorial Board: "Pre-registration of young people beginning at age 16 already gives those eager to join the process a tangible step toward voting, which should remain a goal they’ll attain at age 18. It is definitely worth waiting for. Vote "no" on Proposition 18."
• The Press Democrat Editorial Board: "We doubt that even the most politically engaged 17-year-old is fully prepared to weigh parcel taxes and bond acts. Even fewer would be subject to the taxes they would be voting on. [...] California allows teens as young as 16 to preregister to vote, and we might be persuaded to go along with 17-year-olds voting in primaries. But Proposition 18 is a step too far. [...] The Press Democrat recommends a yes vote on Proposition 17 and a no vote on Proposition 18."

Polls

See also: 2020 ballot measure polls

California Proposition 18, Primary Voting for 17-Year-Olds Amendment (2020)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Probolsky Research (likely voters) 10/12/2020 - 10/15/2020	44.6%	52.0%	3.4%	+/-3.3	900
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Voting at 17 years old by state

As of June 2020, 18 states, along with Washington, D.C., allowed 17-year-olds who will be 18 by the time of the general election to vote in primary elections.

26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

See also:Amendment XXVI, United States Constitution

On July 1, 1971, the 26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified. The 26th Amendment added the following language to the U.S. Constitution:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

According to a California Assembly Floor Analysis, published on August 16, 2019, "Because the US Constitution only addresses abridging the right to vote and this measure expands voting rights there appears to be no conflict with the federal constitution. In an opinion dated April 12, 2004, the Legislative Counsel opined that an amendment to the California Constitution to permit a person under the age of 18 to vote would not violate federal law."

Election policy on the ballot in 2020

In 2020, voters in 14 states voted on 18 ballot measures addressing election-related policies. One of the measures addressed campaign finance, one were related to election dates, five addressed election systems, three addressed redistricting, five addressed suffrage, and three addressed term limits.

Click Show to read details about the election-related measures on statewide ballots in 2020.

Election-related policy ballot measures in 2020

Campaign finance See also: Campaign finance on the ballot a Oregon Measure 107: Measure 107 authorizes the state legislature and local governments to (1) enact laws or ordinances limiting campaign contributions and expenditures; (2) require disclosure of contributions and expenditures; and (3) require that political advertisements identify the people or entities that paid for them. Going into the election, Oregon was one of five states with no limits on campaign contributions. Election dates a New Mexico Constitutional Amendment 2: The amendment allowed the state legislature to pass laws adjusting the election dates of state or county officeholders and adjusting office terms according to those date changes. Under the measure, laws proposing adjustments to election dates of non-statewide officeholders must be supported by a legislative finding that such a change would promote consistency or that it would evenly distribute the number of offices appearing on the ballot. Election systems a Alaska Ballot Measure 2: Ballot Measure 2 replaced the state's partisan primaries with open top-four primaries for state executive, state legislative, and congressional offices and established ranked-choice voting for general elections, including the presidential election, in which voters would rank the candidates. Ballot Measure 2 also required persons and entities that contribute more than $2,000 that were themselves derived from donations, contributions, dues, or gifts to disclose the true sources, as defined in the law, of the political contributions. Colorado Proposition 113: In 2019, the Colorado State Legislature passed a bill to add Colorado to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). NPVIC member states have agreed to give the state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote, provided the NPVIC goes into effect. The NPVIC was designed to go into effect if states representing at least 270 electoral votes join the NPVIC. The campaign Protect Colorado's Vote filed a veto referendum to overturn the law, which resulted in Proposition 113. On November 3, voters upheld the law and voted in favor of adding Colorado to the NPVIC. d Florida Amendment 3: Amendment 3 would have replaced Florida's closed primaries with top-two open primaries for elected state offices. Under Amendment 3, all candidates would have run in the same primary election. The top-two candidates, regardless of their partisan affiliation, would have moved on to the general election under Amendment 3. d Massachusetts Question 2: Question 2 would have enacted ranked-choice voting (RCV) for primary and general elections for state executive officials, state legislators, federal congressional representatives, and certain county offices. As of 2020, statewide elections in Massachusetts used a plurality voting system. a Mississippi Ballot Measure 2: As of 2020, Mississippi required that a candidate for governor or elected state office receive the most votes in a majority of the state's 122 state House of Representatives districts (known as the electoral vote requirement). Ballot Measure 2 repealed this requirement. Instead, Ballot Measure 2 provided that a candidate for governor or state office must receive a majority vote to win and that a runoff election would be held between the two highest vote-getters in the event that no candidate receives a majority vote. Redistricting See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot a Missouri Amendment 3: In 2018, Missouri voters approved Amendment 1, the Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative, which created the nonpartisan state demographer responsible for state legislative redistricting. Amendment 3 repealed the nonpartisan state demographer and returned the state to the use of bipartisan redistricting commissions, with changes to the number and selection of commissioners. The 2020 amendment also maintained the criteria of competitiveness and partisan fairness that was enacted in 2018, but it loosened the partisan fairness requirement and required that population, voter rights abridgment, contiguous districts, simple shapes, and the rules for counties be considered with a higher priority. a New Jersey Public Question 3: As of 2020, the New Jersey Constitution required the state legislative redistricting commission to pass a redistricting plan within a month of receiving the official census data. Question 3 postponed state legislative redistricting until after the election on November 2, 2021, should the state receive federal census data after February 15, 2021. The U.S. Census Bureau asked Congress to extend the deadline to deliver census data from April 1, 2021, to July 31, 2021, due to delays related to the coronavirus pandemic. a Virginia Question 1: Question 1 transferred the power to draw the state's congressional and legislative districts from the state legislature to a redistricting commission composed of state legislators and citizens. Going into 2020, the Virginia General Assembly was responsible for drawing the state's congressional and state legislative district boundaries. The redistricting plans were passed as legislation and subject to the governor's veto power. Suffrage See also: Suffrage on the ballot a Alabama Amendment 1: Amendment 1 amended the Alabama Constitution to state that "only a citizen of the United States," rather than "every citizen of the United States," who is 18 years old or older has the right to vote in Alabama. a California Proposition 17: Proposition 17 amended the state constitution to allow people with felonies who are on parole to vote; therefore, the ballot measure kept imprisonment as a disqualification for voting but removed parole status. Going into 2020, the California Constitution disqualified people with felonies from voting until the completion of their imprisonment and parole. d California Proposition 18: Proposition 18 would have allowed 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election to vote in primary elections and special elections. a Colorado Amendment 76: Amendment 76 amended the Colorado Constitution to state that “only a citizen”, instead of "every citizen", of the U.S. who is 18 years of age or older can vote in Colorado. Under the Colorado Votes Act, which went into effect in August 2019, individuals who are 17 years of age at the time of a primary election but who will be 18 years of age at the time of a general election were allowed to register to vote and vote in the primary election. According to the Colorado Blue Book, prevents 17-year-olds from voting. a Florida Amendment 1: Amendment 1 amended the Florida Constitution to state that “only a citizen” of the U.S. who is 18 years old or older can vote in Florida instead of saying that "every citizen" of the U.S. who is 18 years old or older can vote in Florida. Term limits and term lengths See also: Term limits on the ballot a Arkansas Issue 2: Issue 2 changed term limits of state legislators to twelve consecutive years with the opportunity to return after a four-year break. The 12-year limit applied to anyone elected in 2021 or after. Going into 2020, Arkansas legislators could serve up to 16 years throughout their lifetimes in the House or Senate. d Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 2: The amendment would have increased the office terms of commonwealth's attorneys from six years to eight years starting in 2030; increased the office terms of district judges from four years to eight years starting in 2022; and changed attorney licensing requirements for district judges from two years to eight years beginning in 2022. d Missouri Amendment 1: Amendment 1 would have limited the lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state auditor, and attorney general to two terms of office in a lifetime. Going into 2020, the state constitution limited the governor and state treasurer to two terms of office in a lifetime but not the other executive offices.

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the California Constitution

In California, a two-thirds vote is needed in each chamber of the California State Legislature to refer a constitutional amendment to the ballot for voter consideration.

Asm. Kevin Mullin (D-22) introduced the constitutional amendment as Assembly Concurrent Resolution 4 (ACA 4) during the 2019 legislative session. On August 22, 2019, the California State Assembly approved ACA 4. The Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee amended ACA 4 on June 23, 2020. The California State Senate voted 31 to 7 to pass ACA 4 on June 25, 2020. The California State Assembly voted 56 to 13 to pass ACA 4 on June 26, 2020. As one seat was vacant in the Assembly, 53 votes were needed to pass ACA 4.

Vote in the California State Senate June 25, 2020
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 27  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	31	7	2
Total percent	77.50%	17.50%	5.00%
Democrat	29	0	0
Republican	2	7	2

Vote in the California State Assembly June 26, 2020
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 53  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	56	13	10
Total percent	70.89%	16.46%	12.66%
Democrat	55	1	5
Republican	1	12	4
Independent	0	0	1

Senate Bill 300

Based on California Elections Code 9040 (CEC 9040), the deadline for the California State Legislature to place legislative referrals, including constitutional amendments, on the ballot for the general election on November 3, 2020, was June 25, 2020. Since CEC 9040 is a statute, the state Legislature can waive or adjust the referral deadline with a bill.

With Senate Bill 300 (SB 300), the state Legislature is seeking to allow more time to place three constitutional amendments—ACA 4, ACA 11, and ACA 25—on the ballot for November 3. SB 300 would give the state Legislature until July 1, 2020, to pass the constitutional amendments.

On June 26, the Assembly voted 47 to 16 to pass SB 300. On June 29, the Senate voted 29 to 8 to pass SB 300.

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed SB 300 into law on June 30, 2020.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in California

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in California.

How to cast a vote in California

The information below covers regular voting policies in the state. Information may have not applied to the election on November 3, 2020, because of temporary changes in response to coronavirus. Click here to read about changes made for the 2020 elections. 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

2020 measures

• 2020 ballot measures
• Suffrage on the ballot
• Elections and campaigns on the ballot

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws
• Voting in primaries at 17 years old

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• California Assembly Concurrent Resolution 4 (2019)
• Official Voter Information Guide