California Proposition 20, Criminal Sentencing, Parole, and DNA Collection Initiative (2020)

California Proposition 20
Election date November 3, 2020
Topic Law enforcement
Status d Defeated
Type State statute	Origin Citizens
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 20, the Criminal Sentencing, Parole, and DNA Collection Initiative, was on the ballot in California as an initiated state statute on November 3, 2020. Proposition 20 was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported this initiative to add crimes to the list of violent felonies for which early parole is restricted; recategorize certain types of theft and fraud crimes as wobblers (chargeable as misdemeanors or felonies); and require DNA collection for certain misdemeanors.

A "no" vote opposed this initiative to add crimes to the list of violent felonies for which early parole is restricted; recategorize certain types of theft and fraud crimes as wobblers (chargeable as misdemeanors or felonies); and require DNA collection for certain misdemeanors.

Election results

California Proposition 20
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		6,385,839	38.28%
No		10,294,058	61.72%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What would Proposition 20 have changed about criminal sentencing and supervision policies in California?

See also: Initiative design

Proposition 20 would have amended several criminal sentencing and supervision laws that were passed between 2011 and 2016.

The ballot initiative would have made specific types of theft and fraud crimes, including firearm theft, vehicle theft, and unlawful use of a credit card, chargeable as misdemeanors or felonies, rather than misdemeanors. The ballot initiative would have also established two additional types of crimes in state code—serial crime and organized retail crime—and charge them as wobblers (crimes chargeable as misdemeanors or felonies).

The ballot initiative would have required persons convicted of certain misdemeanors that were classified as wobblers or felonies before 2014, such shoplifting, grand theft, and drug possession, along with several other crimes, including domestic violence and prostitution with a minor, to submit to the collection of DNA samples for state and federal databases.

As of 2020, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DCR) had a parole review program in which felons convicted of nonviolent crimes, as defined in law, could be released on parole upon completing their sentence for his or her offense with the longest imprisonment term. The ballot initiative would have required the parole review board to consider additional factors, such as the felon's age, marketable skills, attitude about the crime, and mental condition, as well as the circumstances of the crimes committed, before deciding whether to release a felon on parole. The ballot initiative would have allowed prosecutors to request a review of the board's final decision. The ballot initiative would have also defined 51 crimes and sentence enhancements as violent in order to exclude them from the parole review program.

As of 2020, counties were responsible for supervising paroled felons convicted of non-serious and non-violent crimes, as defined in law, and who were not classified as high-risk sex offenders nor classified as needing treatment from the state Department of Mental Health. Counties had discretion on whether to petition the judicial system to change a felon's post-release supervision terms or status. Proposition 20 would have required local probation departments to ask a judge to change the conditions or status of a felon's post-release supervision if the felon violated supervision terms for the third time.

What existing laws would this ballot initiative have changed?

The ballot initiative was designed to make changes to AB 109 (2011), Proposition 47 (2014), and Proposition 57 (2016)—three measures that were each intended to reduce the state’s prison inmate population. According to Assemblyman Jim Cooper (D-9), the goal of the initiative was to "[reform] the unintended consequences of reforms to better protect the public." Former Gov. Jerry Brown (D) disagreed with Cooper's assessment, saying the initiative was the "latest scare tactic on criminal justice reform."

Before Proposition 47 and Proposition 57, and a month after the passage of AB 109, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that overcrowding in the state's prisons resulted in cruel and unusual punishment and affirmed a lower court's order to reduce the prison population. AB 109 shifted the imprisonment of non-serious, non-violent, and non-sexual offenders, as defined in state law, from state prisons to local jails. AB 109 also made counties, rather than the state, responsible for supervising certain felons on parole. Proposition 47, which voters approved in 2014, changed several crimes, which the measure considered non-serious and non-violent, from felonies or wobblers to misdemeanors. Former Gov. Brown (D) developed Proposition 57, which voters approved in 2016. Proposition 57 increased parole chances for felons convicted of nonviolent crimes, as defined in state law, and gave them more opportunities to earn sentence-reduction credits for good behavior.

The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, a nonprofit based in San Francisco, described AB 109 and Propositions 47 and 57 as successful sentencing reforms that reduced overcrowding in state prisons. Andrew Do, chair of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, described the measures as "California’s dangerous trifecta."

Initiative design

Click on the arrows (▼) below for summaries of the different provisions of the ballot initiative.

Penalities for theft-related crimes: classifying certain misdemeanors as wobblers

Background: Proposition 47 (2014)

In 2014, voters approved Proposition 47, which reduced penalties for certain theft-related crimes from felonies or wobblers (crimes chargeable as felonies or misdemeanors) to misdemeanors. Proposition 47 reduced penalties for grand theft of items valued at $950 or less; shoplifting of items valued at $950 or less; receiving stolen items valued at $950 or less; and writing a bad check or forging a check written for $950 or less.

Reclassification of misdemeanor crimes as wobbler crimes

The 2020 ballot initiative would have amended Proposition 47 to make specific types of grand theft, shoplifting, and fraud—no matter the value of the stolen or fraudulent items—chargeable as wobbler crimes, rather than misdemeanors. These changes would have affected:

• firearm theft;
• theft from an elder;
• identity theft;
• theft or unauthorized use of a vehicle;
• unlawful use, sale, or transfer of an account access card, such as a credit card or debit card; and
• forgery of an account access card.

Codification of serial crime and organized retail crime

The ballot initiative would have established two additional types of crimes in state code—serial crime and organized retail crime—and define them as follows:

• serial crime: a person with two or more prior convictions for theft-related crimes committed on separate occasions would be charged with serial crime if the person is later convicted of shoplifting or petty theft of property worth more than $250.
• organized retail crime: a person, acting with one or more other persons, who commits two or more thefts of retail property or merchandise with a combined value of more than $250 during a period of 180 days would be charged with organized retail crime.

Convictions of serial crime and organized retail crime would have been charged as wobblers, meaning these crimes could be charged as either misdemeanors or felonies based on a court's decision. The punishment for serial crime and organized retail crime would have been imprisonment of up to three years.

DNA collection: requiring collection for specific misdemeanors

Background: Proposition 47 (2014)

In California, state and local law enforcement agencies are required to collect DNA samples from adults and juveniles convicted of felonies, arson, or crimes requiring them to register as sex offenders. The state Department of Justice files the DNA profiles with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

When Proposition 47 was approved in 2014, several crimes were changed from felonies to misdemeanors, meaning the government was no longer required to collect DNA samples from individuals convicted of those misdemeanors.

DNA collection for certain misdemeanors

Proposition 20 would have required state and local law enforcement agencies to collect DNA samples from adults for several crimes that were changed from felonies to misdemeanors via Proposition 47. The misdemeanor crimes that would have required DNA samples include:

• shoplifting;
• grand theft;
• receiving stolen items when the recipient knows the items were stolen;
• forging a check, bond, or bill;
• check, draft, or order fraud; and
• possessing a controlled narcotic substance classified in Schedule III, IV, or V, except as provided by a physician.

The ballot initiative would have also required law enforcement agencies to collect DNA samples from adults for several crimes that Proposition 47 did not affect, including:

• domestic violence;
• prostitution with a minor;
• battery against a current or former spouse, cohabitant, parent of the offender's child, fiancé or fiancée, or person who the offender was in a dating relationship with;
• corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition against a current or former spouse, cohabitant, parent of the offender's child, or fiancé or fiancée; and
• willfully causing or willfully permitting great bodily harm or death to an elder or dependent adult.

Criteria to consider in nonviolent offender parole program: additional factors to consider before deciding parole

Background: Proposition 57 (2016)

In 2016, voters approved Proposition 57, which required the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DCR) to enact a parole review program in which felons convicted of nonviolent crimes could be released on parole upon the completion of the sentence for his or her offense with the longest imprisonment term. Proposition 57 added this requirement for the DCR to the California Constitution as Section 32 of Article I.

The DCR excluded certain felonies, which were deemed violent, from the parole program, including murder; attempted murder; mayhem; arson; rape; kidnapping; carjacking; extortion; robbery; first-degree burglary; crimes requiring registration as sex offenders; and crimes that could receive capital punishment or life imprisonment.

The DCR established a parole program in which the department reviews an inmate's institutional record, evaluates the inmate's threat to public safety, and decides whether to refer the inmate to the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) for parole consideration. Before making a decision about parole for an offender, the BPH is required to review:

• an inmate's criminal history;
• an inmate's institutional records; and
• input from the inmate, victims, victims' families, and the district attorney’s office that prosecuted the offender.

Right of prosecutors to request review of parole decision

Proposition 20 would have allowed prosecutors to review an inmate's information. The ballot initiative would have allowed prosecutors to request a review of the BPH's final decision regarding parole.

DCR to make reasonable effor to locate victims

Citing the California Marsy's Law Amendment, the ballot initiative would have required the DCR to give reasonable notice to crime victims before an inmate is reviewed for parole, allow victims to be heard in parole considerations, and allow victims to participate in the review process. The ballot initiative would have required the DCR to make a reasonable effort to locate and contact crime victims who were not registered with the state.

Criteria for the BPH to consider whether an inmate is unsuitable for parole

Proposition 20 would have created two sets of criteria for the BPH to consider. The first set of criteria would have addressed whether an inmate is unsuitable for parole. The second set of criteria would have addressed whether the inmate is suitable for parole.

The criteria the BPH would have needed to consider when deciding whether an inmate is unsuitable for parole include:

• the inmate's juvenile and adult criminal history;
• the inmate's institutional behavior;
• the inmate's past and present attitude about the crime;
• the inmate's past and present mental condition;
• input from the inmate, victims, and prosecutors; and
• circumstances of the crimes committed, including
  • whether the crime involved multiple victims,
  • whether the crime took advantage of the victim's vulnerability due to age or mental or physical disability,
  • whether the crime took advantage of a position of trust,
  • whether the offender was armed with or used a firearm or other deadly weapon,
  • whether the victim suffered great bodily injury,
  • whether the crime was committed in association with a criminal street gang,
  • whether the offender occupied a position of dominance over other participants in committing a crime,
  • whether the offender induced others to participate in committing a crime,
  • whether the offender had a clear opportunity to cease but instead continued,
  • whether other criminal conduct was an integral part of the crime,
  • whether the crime created a potential for serious injury to persons other than the victim,
  • whether the offender was on probation, parole, post-release community supervision, or mandatory supervision when the crime was committed,
  • whether the offender was on pre-conviction or post-conviction release when the crime was committed,
  • whether the offender was in custody or had escaped from custody at the time the crime was committed,
  • whether the offender had a prior history of violence,
  • whether the offender had engaged in misconduct in prison or jail, and
  • whether the offender was incarcerated for multiple cases from the same or different counties.

Criteria for the BPH to consider whether an inmate is suitable for parole

The criteria the BPH would have needed to consider when deciding whether an inmate is suitable for parole include:

• the offender does not have a juvenile record of assaulting others or committing crimes with a potential of harm to victims;
• the inmate lacks a history of violent crime;
• the inmate has a minimal or no criminal history;
• the inmate has demonstrated remorse;
• the inmate’s age reduces the risk of recidivism;
• the inmate has made realistic plans and developed marketable skills that can be used following release;
• the inmate’s institutional activities show an ability to function within the law following release;
• the inmate participated in the crime under partially excusable circumstances;
• the inmate had no apparent predisposition to commit the crime but was induced by others to participate;
• the inmate was a passive participant or played a minor role in committing the crime; and
• the crime was committed due to or during an unusual situation unlikely to reoccur.

Crimes defined as violent: crimes not eligible for nonviolent offender parole program

Background: Proposition 57 (2016)

Proposition 57, which voters approved in 2016, was intended to increase parole chances for individuals convicted of felonies defined as nonviolent by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DCR). The DCR excluded certain felonies, which were deemed violent, from the parole program, including murder; attempted murder; mayhem; arson; rape; kidnapping; carjacking; extortion; robbery; first-degree burglary; crimes requiring registration as sex offenders; and crimes that could receive capital punishment or life imprisonment.

Crimes defined as violent to exclude from parole program

The ballot initiative would have defined 51 crimes and sentence enhancements as violent in order to exclude them from Proposition 57's nonviolent offender parole program. The following chart lists the crime that would have been defined as violent:

Crime
murder or voluntary manslaughter
attempted murder
solicitation to commit murder
use or attempted use of a destructive device or explosive to commit murder
felonies that could receive capital punishment or life imprisonment
felonies in which the offender inflicted great bodily harm on another person
felonies in which the offender used a firearm
sexual felonies in which the offender used a firearm
felonies in which the offender used an assault weapon or machine gun, as defined in law
assault with a deadly weapon, firearm, or other means of force likely to produce great bodily injury
assault with caustic chemicals
felony in which a deadly or dangerous weapon was used
discharging a firearm at another person from a vehicle
willful and malicious discharge of a firearm at an inhabited dwelling house, occupied building, or occupied vehicle
offenses that result in lifetime sex offender registration
rape
rape when a person is unable to resist due to unconsciousness, an intoxicating effect of an anesthetic or controlled substance, or a mental or physical disability
continuous sexual abuse of a child
abduction of a minor for purposes of prostitution
human trafficking
sexual penetration when a person is unable to resist due to unconsciousness, an intoxicating effect of an anesthetic or controlled substance, or a mental or physical disability
anal sexual penetration when a person is unable to resist due to unconsciousness, an intoxicating effect of an anesthetic or controlled substance, or a mental or physical disability
oral sexual penetration when a person is unable to resist due to unconsciousness, an intoxicating effect of an anesthetic or controlled substance, or a mental or physical disability
sexual penetration against a person's will or against a child who is under 14 years of age and more than 10 years younger than the perpetrator
anal sexual penetration against a person's will or against a child who is under 14 years of age and more than 10 years younger than the perpetrator
oral sexual penetration against a person's will or against a child who is under 14 years of age and more than 10 years younger than the perpetrator
lewd or lascivious act against a person's will or against a child who is under the age of 14 years
assault with the intent to commit rape or mayhem
aiding and abetting in a rape or unlawful sexual penetration
domestic violence resulting in a traumatic condition
assault of a child under age eight resulting in the child's death when a reasonable person would have expected such assault to cause great bodily harm
elder or dependent adult abuse
extortion
robbery
carjacking
burglary of a dwelling when a person is in the residence
kidnapping
hostage-taking
arson
two or more acts of arson of a structure or forest land
mayhem
willful and malicious use of a destructive device or explosive that causes bodily injury to a person;
willful and malicious use of a destructive device or explosive that causes death or great bodily injury to a person;
willful and malicious use of a destructive device or explosive that causes mayhem
possessing, exploding, or attempting to explode a destructive device or explosive with the intent to injure or intimidate a person or injure or destroy property
developing, possessing, or transferring a weapon of mass destruction
willful resistance to a police officer causing death or serious injury to the officer
use of force against victims or witnesses
threats to victims or witnesses
any attempt to commit crimes listed in this table
any conspiracy to commit crimes listed in this table

Changes to probation and parole supervision: rules regarding probation violations and exchange of information

Background: AB 109 (2011)

In 2011, the California State Legislature passed Assembly Bill 109 (AB 109), which included the Postrelease Community Supervision Act (PCSA). The PCSA required counties, rather than the state, to supervise felons convicted of certain types of crimes after their release from prison. PCSA affected felons who were convicted of crimes that the law described as non-serious and non-violent and who were not classified as high-risk sex offenders nor classified as needing treatment from the state Department of Mental Health. The PCSA gave counties the power to decide methods for punishing violations of supervision conditions, such as flash incarceration. Counties were also given the option to petition a hearing officer to change a felon's supervision conditions, incarcerate a felon in jail for longer than 10 days, or refer a felon to a reentry court.

Violation of post-release supervision

Whereas AB 109 gave counties discretion on whether to petition the judicial system to change a felon's post-release supervision terms or status, Proposition 20 would have required local probation departments to petition to revoke the post-release supervision of an offender who violated the terms of supervision for the third time. Revocation of an offender's post-release supervision could have resulted in stricter supervision conditions or imprisonment.

Exchange of information between counties and the state regarding probation and parole

Proposition 20 would have required the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DCR) to release information regarding a paroled inmate’s record of supervision during prior periods of parole to local law enforcement agencies that receive the paroled inmates within their jurisdictions. Counties would have been required to release similar information to the DCR, upon request.

The ballot initiative would have also required local probation department to tell the county's courts, public defenders, district attorneys, and sheriff when flash incarceration (detention between one and ten days) is imposed on an offender for violating his or her post-release supervision.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

Restricts Parole for Non-Violent Offenders. Authorizes Felony Sentences for Certain Offenses Currently Treated Only as Misdemeanors. Initiative Statute.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

“

Limits access to parole programs established for non-violent offenders who have completed the full term of their primary offense by eliminating eligibility for certain offenses. Changes standards and requirements governing parole decisions under this program. Authorizes felony charges for specified theft crimes currently chargeable only as misdemeanors, including some theft crimes where the value is between $250 and $950. Requires persons convicted of specified misdemeanors to submit to collection of DNA samples for state database.

”

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

Increased state and local correctional costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually, primarily related to increases in county jail populations and levels of community supervision. Increased state and local court-related costs of that could be more than several million dollars annually. Increased state and local law enforcement costs not likely to be more than a few million dollars annually related to collecting and processing DNA samples.

”

Full text

The full text of the ballot initiative is below:

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 14, and the FRE is -4. The word count for the ballot title is 19, and the estimated reading time is 5 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 16, and the FRE is 21. The word count for the ballot summary is 70, and the estimated reading time is 18 seconds.

Support

Keep California Safe, also known as Yes on 20, led the campaign in support of the ballot initiative. Keep California Safe named the ballot initiative the Reducing Crime and Keeping California Safe Act. The campaign was a project of the California Public Safety Partners (CAPSP).

Supporters

Officials

• U.S. Representative Devin Nunes (R)
• Assemblymember Jim Cooper (Nonpartisan)
• Assemblymember Vince Fong (R)

Political Parties

• Republican Party of California

Government Entities

• Orange County Board of Supervisors

Corporations

• Albertsons Safeway

Unions

• Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
• Los Angeles Police Protective League
• Peace Officers Research Association of California

Arguments

• Asm. Jim Cooper (D-9): "Right now California crimes that are considered nonserious and nonviolent—and that allow you to get out of jail or prison earlier—are drugging and raping somebody, raping a developmentally disabled person, spousal abuse, a drive-by shooting, human trafficking of a child. So a myriad of different crimes, some 17 to be exact. The public never had any idea. These were not considered serious or violent crimes in the state of California. When they hear it they're shocked."
• Patricia Wenskunas, CEO of Crime Survivors Inc.: "When Californians voted on Proposition 57 in 2016, they were promised that it would apply only to "nonviolent" offenders, but that word does not mean what they thought it meant. Most of us think that nonviolent offenders have committed low-level crimes, like personal drug use, petty theft or getting drunk in public. California voters are shocked to discover that human trafficking and domestic violence are on this list. As a victim's advocate, who works directly with victims of these and other horrific crimes, I can't express to you how dangerous and damaging this current classification is, and how vital it is to pass Proposition 20 to change it."

Official arguments

The following is the argument in support of Proposition 20 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:

Official Voter Information Guide: "He slashed at me with a knife and tried to kill me," says Terra Newell, who survived a knife attack by the sociopath Dirty John. "It was brutal and terrifying—but in California, his attack wasn't a violent crime." Under California law, assault with a deadly weapon is classified a "nonviolent" offense—along with date rape, selling children for sex, and 19 other clearly violent crimes. All are "nonviolent" under the law. Proposition 20 fixes this. "Nonviolent" crimes in California include domestic violence, exploding a bomb, shooting into a house with the intent to kill or injure people, raping an unconscious person and beating a child so savagely it could result in coma or death. Sex traffickers typically beat, rape and drug their victims before selling them for sex. But in California, trafficking is a "nonviolent" offense. Even hate crimes are considered "nonviolent." As a result, thousands of offenders convicted of these 22 violent crimes, including sex offenders and child molesters, are eligible for early prison release, WITHOUT serving their full sentences, and WITHOUT their victims being warned. Proposition 20 PREVENTS the early release of violent offenders and sexual predators by making these 22 violent crimes "violent" under the law, and requires that victims be notified when their assailants are set free. Proposition 20's "full sentence" provision applies ONLY to violent inmates who pose a risk to public safety, regardless of race or ethnicity. It does NOT apply to drug offenders and petty criminals, and does NOT send more people to prison. "Claims that Proposition 20 will fill our prisons with thousands of new inmates are false," says Michele Hanisee, president of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys. "It doesn't send one new person to prison. It simply requires violent offenders and sexual predators to complete their full sentences." This protects victims and gives offenders longer access to counseling, anger management and other rehabilitation programs. "Proposition 20 protects children against physical abuse and sexual exploitation," says Klaas Kids Foundation founder Marc Klaas. "Trafficking children will finally be recognized as the violent crime it is." Proposition 20 provides additional protection against violent crime by allowing DNA collection from persons convicted of theft or drug offenses, which multiple studies show helps solve more serious and violent crimes like rape, robbery and murder. California reduced penalties for theft in 2014. Since then, major theft has increased 25%, costing grocers, small business owners, retailers, homeowners and consumers billions of dollars. Shoplifting has become so common it’s seldom reported. Proposition 20 strengthens sanctions against serial theft by habitual criminals—to help stop car break-ins, shoplifting, home burglaries and other major theft. California's drug addiction crisis is fueling much of this theft. By strengthening sanctions against theft, Proposition 20 helps get addicts (who are 75% of California's homeless population) off the streets and into the substance abuse and mental health programs they desperately need. Voting "YES" on Proposition 20 is a vote against hate and violence. It's a vote for children, victims and survivors. It's a vote for equal justice and a safer California. PATRICIA WENSKUNAS, Founder Crime Survivors, Inc. NINA SALARNO BESSELMAN, President Crime Victims United of California CHRISTINE WARD, Director Crime Victims Alliance

Opposition

Californians Against the Prison Spending Scam, also known as No on Prop. 20, led the campaign in opposition to the ballot initiative.

Opponents

Former Officials

• Former Governor Jerry Brown (D)

Political Parties

• California Democratic Party

Unions

• California Federation of Teachers
• California Labor Federation
• California Teachers Association
• SEIU California State Council

Organizations

• ACLU of California
• ACLU of Northern California
• ACLU of Southern California
• California League of Conservation Voters
• California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
• Chan Zuckerberg Advocacy
• Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice
• Equality California
• Indivisible California
• League of Women Voters of California
• National Center for Crime Victims
• NextGen California
• Open Society Policy Center
• Public Defenders Association
• University of California Student Association

Individuals

• Patty Quillin - Philanthropist
• Lynn Schusterman - Chair of Schusterman Family Philanthropies

Arguments

• Ana Zamora, director of prosecutorial reform for the ACLU of Northern California: "They would like us to believe that California is in dire straits in order to reverse many of the reforms we have put in place since 2012. ... We urge the proponents of this new effort to reject the Trump Administration’s return to the failed 1990’s era of harsh sentencing and mass incarceration, as the voters of this state have consistently done, and instead work toward keeping California’s crime rates the lowest in history."
• Dan Newman, a political consultant for the opposition campaign: "It’s a prison spending scam at a time when we are actively closing prisons and reallocating funds toward what’s needed in communities. They’re doubling down on solidifying their places on the wrong side of history at a critical moment."
• Maureen Washburn, a policy analyst for the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice: "When we're considering ... a proposal that would increase penalties for low-level offenses, in a system that's already profoundly biased against Black, indigenous and Latino Californians, I think it's clear that it would only extend the harm of our criminal justice system."
• Former Gov. Jerry Brown (D): "Prop. 20 wants to basically eliminate all hope in the prison. Men who have given decades will have no chance to earn their way back to society. And that's fundamental to any kind of criminal justice system that while you impose punishment, you make room for redemption and rehabilitation in the prison."
• Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton: "Accountability is a key piece of justice, but it is not the only piece. You cannot double down on punishment at the expense of getting results. By increasing the number of offenses eligible for parole by over 100 percent, the only thing Prop 20 guarantees is that a person who’s locked up for those offenses will have no incentive to participate in the rehabilitation program. That means far more people will exit our prisons without receiving the rehabilitation services that research shows recidivism."
• Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen: "We had prisons that were bursting at the seams, unconstitutionally overcrowded that we had to send our prisoners to different states. We had 14 new prisons built over a period of time but one public university. We had high crime rates. Do we want to turn back the clock or do we want to move forward as we have been over the last few years in this state?"

Official arguments

The following is the argument in opposition to Proposition 20 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:

Official Voter Information Guide: STOP THE PRISON SPENDING SCAM—VOTE NO ON PROP. 20! California already has lengthy sentences and strict punishment for serious and violent crime. Backers of Prop. 20 are trying to scare you into rolling back effective criminal justice reforms you just passed, to spend tens of millions of your taxpayer dollars on prisons. Don't be fooled. Every year, thousands are convicted of felonies with long sentences. The problem isn’t sentencing, it's what happens in prison to prepare people for release. Prop 20 could slash mental health treatment and rehabilitation programs—proven strategies to reduce repeat crime. That will make us all less safe. Crime victims, law enforcement leaders as well as budget and rehabilitation experts oppose Prop. 20 because it wastes tens of millions on prisons while cutting rehabilitation programs and support for crime victims. Prop. 20 is a prison spending scam that takes us backwards. PROP. 20 WASTES YOUR MONEY ON PRISONS. Prop. 20 will spend tens of millions of taxpayer dollars—your money—on prisons. California is facing massive cuts to schools, health care, and other critical services. Spending tens of millions more on prisons right now is a wasteful scam. PROP. 20 IGNORES HOMELESSNESS, SCHOOLS, MENTAL HEALTH, AND HOUSING. We must always do more to address crime, but Prop. 20 will make things worse. Prop. 20 wastes tens of millions of your taxpayer dollars on prisons that would be better spent on schools, homelessness, mental health treatment, and affordable housing. PROP. 20 IS EXTREME. Prop 20 means that theft over $250 could be charged as a felony. That's extreme, out of line with other states, and means more teenagers and Black, Latino and low income people could be locked up for years for low-level, non-violent crimes. PROP 20 CUTS THE USE OF REHABILITATION—MAKING US LESS SAFE. Rehabilitation is a proven strategy to reduce repeat crime, so people become law-abiding, productive, taxpaying citizens. Prop 20 could cut rehabilitation—meaning fewer people would be ready to re-enter society when they are released, which would harm public safety. PROP. 20 REDUCES NECESSARY SUPPORT FOR CRIME VICTIMS. While overspending on prisons, Prop. 20 will slash financial support available to help victims of crime recover from trauma. PROP. 20 TAKES US BACKWARDS. California has made progress, carefully enacting modest reforms to reduce wasteful prison spending, and expand rehabilitation and other alternatives that have proven to cost-effectively reduce and prevent crime. People are demanding more changes to fix unjust policies that disproportionately harm poor people and people of color. Prop. 20 would repeal the progress we've made and take us backwards toward the failed, wasteful, and unjust policies of the past. EXPERTS ON CRIME, SPENDING, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGREE. Prop. 20 will NOT make our communities safer. Prop. 20 WILL waste tens of millions of YOUR taxpayer dollars on prisons—causing CUTS to critical services people need. STOP the Prison Spending Scam. VOTE NO on Prop. 20! NoProp20.vote TINISCH HOLLINS, California Director Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice WILLIAM LANDSDOWNE, Police Chief (ret.) City of San Diego MICHAEL COHEN, Director of Finance (fmr.) State of California

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

Two PACs—Keep California Safe and Protecting California Cooper Ballot Measure Committee—were registered to support the ballot initiative. Together, the committees raised $5.96 million, including $2.00 million from the California Correctional Peace Officers Association Truth in American Government Fund.

Two PACs—Committee for California Issues PAC and California Public Safety and Rehabilitation—were registered to oppose the ballot initiative. Together, the committees raised $8.63 million, including $2.25 million from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$5,423,937.50	$538,122.90	$5,962,060.40	$5,596,291.81	$6,134,414.71
Oppose	$8,478,515.75	$153,197.63	$8,631,713.38	$7,403,744.77	$7,556,942.40
Total	$13,902,453.25	$691,320.53	$14,593,773.78	$13,000,036.58	$13,691,357.11

Support

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

Committees in support of Proposition 20
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Yes on 20 - Keep California Safe	$5,403,704.95	$538,122.90	$5,941,827.85	$5,580,801.06	$6,118,923.96
Protecting California Cooper Ballot Measure Committee	$20,232.55	$0.00	$20,232.55	$15,490.75	$15,490.75
Total	$5,423,937.50	$538,122.90	$5,962,060.40	$5,596,291.81	$6,134,414.71

Donors

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

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
California Correctional Peace Officers Association Truth in American Government Fund	$2,000,000.00	$0.00	$2,000,000.00
California Grocers Association Issues Committee	$615,000.00	$0.00	$615,000.00
Peace Officers Research Association of California PIC	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00
Association For Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs PIC	$400,000.00	$0.00	$400,000.00
Devin Nunes Campaign Committee	$305,500.00	$0.00	$305,500.00

California Correctional Peace Officers Association

In December 2018, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association's (CCPOA) political fund contributed $2 million to the Keep California Safe PAC. On January 14, 2019, CCPOA president Kurt Stoetzl asked the PAC to return the contribution. Stoetzl said, "As you aware, during the last week of December 2018, CCPOA contributed two million dollars to your Issues Committee. As you may not be aware, this contribution was made by our past president in the final hours of his term. This contribution was made without the new leadership of CCPOA having the opportunity to evaluate the proposed initiative, to determine if the goals of your Issues Committee, and the initiative, are in step in the goals of CCPOA." Stoetzl said the CCPOA wanted the contribution back "so that we can evaluate your positions and determine whether or not we are in support."

Opposition

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

Committees in opposition to Proposition 20
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
No on Prop 20 - Californians Against the Prison Spending Scam	$8,106,937.44	$93,697.63	$8,200,635.07	$6,988,211.00	$7,081,908.63
Pico California Action Supporting Schools and Communities First - Yes on 15, No on 20	$256,100.00	$10,000.00	$266,100.00	$300,055.46	$310,055.46
Committee for California Issues PAC	$115,478.31	$49,500.00	$164,978.31	$115,478.31	$164,978.31
Total	$8,478,515.75	$153,197.63	$8,631,713.38	$7,403,744.77	$7,556,942.40

Donors

The following were the top donors to the opposition committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Chan Zuckerberg Initiative	$2,250,000.00	$0.00	$2,250,000.00
Patty Quillin	$2,000,000.00	$0.00	$2,000,000.00
Open Society Policy Center	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00
Art for Justice Fund (Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors)	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00
Stacy H. Schusterman	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00
The Heising-Simons Action Fund Nonprofit 501(c)(4)	$375,000.00	$0.00	$375,000.00

Methodology

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

Media editorials

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the ballot initiative. If you are aware of a media editorial board position that is not listed below, please email the editorial link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support

• San Mateo Daily Journal Editorial Board: "This proposition closes unforeseen loopholes that have allowed for serial retail thefts and early release for those who have committed assault and domestic violence."
• The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board: "The measure faces sharp criticism for undermining the momentum for criminal justice reform. But the drafters of Propositions 47 and 57 are the ones who have undercut the momentum for reform with their sloppy work then and their refusal to admit mistakes now. Vote yes on Proposition 20."

Opposition

• The Bakersfield Californian Editorial Board: "With the coronavirus pandemic carving a massive hole in state and local budgets, sending government agencies scrambling to fund basic public services, voters should not support a proposal to once again swell prison populations and increase costs. As the nation’s attention has focused in the wake of the George Floyd death on criminal justice reform and the equal treatment of all people, now also is not the time to swing the pendulum back to a tough-on-crime era through even more “ballot box” law making. If earlier reforms need to be reversed, let a more deliberate and analytic legislative process drive the effort, rather than yet another political campaign."
• The Orange County Register Editorial Board: "Fundamentally, however, Prop. 20 itself is the wrong vehicle for raising and implementing the policy changes it promotes. At a time when Californians continue to be supportive of scaling back mass incarceration, Prop. 20 offers only the preferences of police and prison guard unions. Complex issues such as the matters at hand demand a more deliberative and thoughtful approach than Prop. 20 provides. Voters should vote “no” on Prop. 20."
• San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: "Various studies have shown these dramatic drops in incarceration have not contributed to a significant increase in crime, which continues to stabilize at 1960s levels. It’s instructive that one of the big early funders of Proposition 20 was the prison guards, with boosts from other law enforcement unions. Voters who were fed up with the waste of money and waste of lives — and racial disparities — rejected that retrograde mindset with the passages of Props. 47 and 57. Vote no on Prop. 20."
• Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "Proposition 20 is built on a package of falsehoods about critical reforms that California lawmakers and voters wisely adopted over the last nine years to curb some of the most gratuitous excesses of the state’s criminal justice system. The measure deserves a resounding 'no.' This state is leading the nation away from decades of foolish and wasteful policies that prevent even low-level offenders from correcting their mistakes and getting on with productive and law-abiding lives. This is no time to reverse course."
• Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Board: "Prop. 20 also would add crimes to the list of violent felonies for which early parole is restricted. It’s a return to the “lock ’em up and throw away the key” approach that made California the national leader in recidivism rates. The state has moved toward a system that invests in rehabilitation, mental health treatment and drug addiction prevention for inmates, helping prepare them for returning to communities and being productive members of society. Restricting parole opportunities takes away inmates’ incentives for addressing their problems. California paid a heavy price for its heavy-handed 1990s approach to crime. Voters should reject any effort to return to that failed system. Vote no on Prop. 20."
• The Desert Sun Editorial Board: "Like all initiatives, voters have no line-item veto here. They cannot pick and choose which aspects they accept and which they reject. It is an up-or-down proposition. As such, we recommend a “no” vote on Proposition 20. That said, it is the responsibility of our lawmakers to address faults within what has come before. Refinements that improve public safety must be made while better managing the state corrections population in a manner that ensures true justice."
• The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: "Should California abandon its historic criminal justice reforms and return to the bad old days of overcrowded prisons full of Black and brown people? Since those criminal justice reforms are working, we think the answer is a resounding “no.” That’s why voters should reject Prop. 20, which would undo the sensible reforms adopted under former Gov. Jerry Brown."
• The Press Democrat Editorial Board: "California’s move away from long sentences hasn’t been flawless. For example, we supported legislation that would have increased the penalty for auto break-ins. Lawmakers should revisit this issue. They also ought to consider a provision of Proposition 20 that would require more people convicted of misdemeanors to submit DNA samples for the state database. But it would be unwise to abandon shorter sentences or incentives for inmates to prepare themselves to be productive citizens, especially with the coronavirus pandemic chewing up the rainy day fund and creating a deep budget deficit. The Press Democrat recommends a no vote on Proposition 20."

Polls

See also: 2020 ballot measure polls

California Proposition 20, Criminal Sentencing, Parole, and DNA Collection Initiative (2020)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
SurveyUSA (likely voters) 9/26/2020 - 9/28/2020	35.0%	22.0%	43.0%	+/-5.4	588
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

Brown v. Plata

In 2009, a three-judge court ordered the state government to reduce the prison population to within 137.5 percent of the state prisons’ designed capacities. The three-judge court said, "until the problem of overcrowding is overcome it will be impossible to provide constitutionally compliant care to California’s prison population."

California appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. The state government said tools existed to resolve the overcrowding issue without reducing the prison population, including constructing new prisons and transferring prisoners to other states. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that overcrowding in the state's prisons resulted in cruel and unusual punishment—a violation of the Eighth Amendment—and affirmed the lower court's order to reduce the prison population. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the court's 5-4 decision, ruling, "the court-mandated population limit is necessary to remedy the violation of prisoners’ constitutional rights." Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan concurred with the decision. The remaining four justices—Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito—dissented. Justice Scalia stated, "[Brown v. Plata] is perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our Nation’s history: an order requiring California to release the staggering number of 46,000 convicted criminals."

Assembly Bill 109 (2011)

In 2011, the California State Legislature passed Assembly Bill 109 (AB 109), known as the criminal corrections realignment law. AB 109 transferred the management and supervision of certain felons, who were convicted of non-serious, non-violent, and non-sexual crimes (as defined in law), from the state government to county governments. Before AB 109, state law required felons to serve sentences in state prison.

Title 2.05 of AB 109 was known as the Postrelease Community Supervision Act (PCSA), which required counties, rather than the state, to supervise felons convicted of certain types of crimes after their release from prison. PCSA affected felons who were convicted of crimes that the law described as non-serious and non-violent and who were not classified as high-risk sex offenders nor classified as needing treatment from the state Department of Mental Health. The PCSA gave counties the power to decide methods for punishing violations of supervision conditions, such as flash incarceration, mandatory community service, and mandatory drug treatment. Counties were also given the option to petition a hearing officer to change a felon's supervision conditions, incarcerate a felon in jail for longer than 10 days, or refer a felon to a reentry court.

The California State Senate passed AB 109 in a vote of 24 to 16. The California General Assembly passed AB 109 in a vote of 51 to 27. Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed AB 109 into law on April 4, 2011.

Proposition 47 (2014)

See also: California Proposition 47, Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative (2014)

In 2014, voters approved Proposition 47 in a vote of 59.6 percent to 40.4 percent. Proposition 47 classified crimes that the initiative considered non-violent and non-serious as misdemeanors instead of felonies unless the defendant has prior convictions for murder, rape, certain sex offenses, or certain gun crimes. It also permitted re-sentencing for those currently serving a prison sentence for any of the offenses that the initiative reduces to misdemeanors. Under Proposition 47, about 10,000 inmates were eligible for re-sentencing, according to Lenore Anderson of Californians for Safety and Justice.

More than $10.97 million was raised to support the ballot initiative, including $3.50 million from the ACLU and $1.46 million from the Open Society Policy Center. Supporters included Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), along with U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and former speaker of the U.S. House Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia).

Opponents raised 5 percent of what supporters' received, totaling $551,800 in contributions. The top contributor to the opposition was the Peace Officers Research Association of California PIC, which provided $286,000. U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) opposed Proposition 47, as did the state Republican Party.

Proposition 57 (2016)

See also: California Proposition 57, Parole for Non-Violent Criminals and Juvenile Court Trial Requirements (2016)

Proposition 57 was approved with 64.5 percent of the vote. The initiative increased parole chances for felons convicted of nonviolent crimes and gave them more opportunities to earn credits for good behavior. The measure allowed individuals convicted of nonviolent felony crimes who served full sentences for their primary offense and passed screening for public security eligible for parole. It also allowed judges, not prosecutors, to decide whether to try certain juveniles as adults in court. Using numbers from early 2016, there were about 25,000 nonviolent state felons that could seek early release and parole under Proposition 57.

The measure was developed by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and backed by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), former speaker of the U.S. House Newt Gingrich (R), and the California Democratic Party. The committees supporting Proposition 57 raised an aggregate $15.04 million, with $2.17 million from the state Democratic Party, $1.75 million from Tom Steyer, and $1.00 million from Mark Zuckerberg.

Opponents raised $1.51 million in contributions. The largest donors included the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs PIC, which gave $200,000, and the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers' Association IEC, which donated $150,000. The California Republican Party, U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-4), and U.S. Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-46) were opposed to the measure.

California's state imprisonment rate

Prior to the enactment of AB 109's Postrelease Community Supervision Act (PCSA) on July 1, 2011, the state's imprisonment rate was 431 inmates per 100,000 residents. The next year the imprisonment rate was 356 inmates per 100,000 residents. In 2019, the rate fell to 317 inmates. The following graph illustrates the state's imprisonment rate from 1995 through 2019. Rates were calculated using the CDCR's prison population reports and the U.S. Census Bureau's annual population estimates.

• The first orange bar represents the enactment of AB 109's PCSA on July 1, 2011.
• The second orange bar represents the enactment of Proposition 47 following the election on November 4, 2014.
• The third orange bar represents July 1, 2017—the date when the CDCR started referring inmates for Proposition 57's parole program.

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements and Laws governing the initiative process in California

In California, the number of signatures needed to qualify a measure for the ballot is based on the total number of votes cast for the office of governor. For an initiated state statute, petitioners must collect signatures equal to 5 percent of the most recent gubernatorial vote. To get this measure on the 2020 ballot, the number of signatures required was 365,880. In California, initiatives can be circulated for 180 days. Signatures needed to be certified at least 131 days before the 2020 general election. As the signature verification process can take several weeks, the California secretary of state issues suggested deadlines for several months before the certification deadline.

The timeline for this initiative was as follows:

• Nina Salarno Besselman submitted a letter requesting a title and summary on October 31, 2017.
• A title and summary were issued by the California attorney general's office on January 4, 2018.
• On February 7, 2018, the campaign reported collecting at least 25 percent of the required signatures.
• Proponents of the initiative needed to submit 365,880 valid signatures by July 3, 2018, in order for it to make the ballot.

On July 9, 2018, Secretary of State Alex Padilla reported that more than enough signatures had been submitted for the measure to make the ballot in 2020.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Arno Petition Consultants to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $2,046,104.99 was spent to collect the 365,880 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $5.59.

Brown v. Padilla and Salarno Besselman

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Required number of signatures for the ballot initiative
Court: Sacramento County Superior Court
Plaintiff(s): Gov. Jerry Brown	Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Nina Salarno Besselman
Plaintiff argument: The ballot initiative should have been considered a constitutional amendment, and thus should have required 585,407 signatures, rather than 365,880 signatures, to make the ballot.	Defendant argument: The ballot initiative met the signature requirements as required by the secretary of state.

  Source: Associated Press

On December 20, 2018, Gov. Jerry Brown (D) filed litigation against Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D) and initiative's official proponent, Nina Salarno Besselman, in the Sacramento County Superior Court. Gov. Brown asked the court to invalidate the initiative because, according to Brown, Secretary of State Padilla used the wrong signature threshold. Padilla required proponents to collect 365,880 signatures—the number required for initiated state statutes. Gov. Brown said 585,407 signatures should have been required—the number required for initiated constitutional amendments. According to Gov. Brown, the initiative should have been treated as a constitutional amendment because of its impact on the constitutional powers that Proposition 57 (2016) provided the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Jeff Flint, a spokesperson for Keep California Safe, said, "The secretary of state told us how many signatures are required and that’s how many we collected."

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
• Law enforcement on the ballot
• Civil and criminal trials on the ballot

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

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

External links

Information

• Initiative #17-0044
• Official Voter Information Guide

Support

• Keep California Safe
• Keep California Safe on Facebook
• Keep California Safe on Twitter

Opposition

• Californians Against the Prison Spending Scam
• Californians Against the Prison Spending Scam on Facebook
• Californians Against the Prison Spending Scam on Twitter