It’s the 12 Days of Ballotpedia! Your gift powers the trusted, unbiased information voters need heading into 2026. Donate now!
California Allow Public Financing of Election Campaigns Measure (2026)
| California Allow Public Financing of Election Campaigns Measure | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Election date |
|
| Topic Campaign finance and Election administration and governance |
|
| Status On the ballot |
|
| Type Legislatively referred state statute |
Origin |
The California Allow Public Financing of Election Campaigns Measure is on the ballot in California as a legislatively referred state statute on November 3, 2026.[1]
A "yes" vote supports repealing the ban on public financing of campaigns, enacted in 1988, and allowing the state and local governments to create programs that provide candidates with public funds under spending limits and eligibility rules. |
A "no" vote opposes repealing the ban on using public funds for election campaigns, keeping the prohibition in place with the existing exemption for charter cities. |
Overview
How would the measure change state law in relation to public funding of campaigns?
- See also: Measure design
The measure would repeal the ban on public funding of campaigns, enacted by the approval of Proposition 73 in 1988, thereby allowing the state or local governments to establish programs for the public funding of election campaigns. Currently, state law allows charter cities to provide public financing for campaigns but prohibits the state, counties, districts, and general law cities from adopting such programs.[1]
The measure would require the state and local governments to develop expenditure limits and criteria for candidates to qualify for public funds for election campaigns. It would prohibit the public funds from being used for legal defense fees, fines, or to repay a personal loan to their campaign.[1]
Why do voters need to decide this change?
- See also: Legislative alteration in California
In California, the legislature may only amend or repeal a voter-approved initiative if the initiative itself permits such changes; otherwise, any changes must be approved by voters. Proposition 73 does not allow the state legislature to amend the law outright. In 2016, the state legislature attempted to repeal the ban on public funding with the enactment of Senate Bill 1107, but it was overturned by a court that ruled the voters would need to approve such changes to the law via ballot measure because SB 1107 was inconsistent with the voter-enacted Political Reform Act of 1974.[2]
The measure would add a provision to the state law authorizing the state legislature to amend the provisions of the law related to the public funding of campaigns without voter approval, but require voter approval on all other provisions of the law.[1]
Do any states or cities allow for public funding of campaigns?
- See also: Public financing of campaigns
As of September 2025, 14 states and Washington, D.C., provided for some method of public campaign financing for state offices. In California, five charter cities—Berkeley, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Francisco—have adopted such programs. The last city to adopt a program was Berkeley in 2016 with the approval of Measure X1. The other programs were adopted in the 1990s and 2000s.[3][4]
Who supports and opposes the measure?
- See also: Support and Opposition
The measure was endorsed by California Democratic Party, California Working Families Party, League of Women Voters of California, ACLU of California, California Common Cause, and Represent.Us. Sen. Ben Allen (D-24) said, "The California Fair Elections Act is all about trying to improve our Democracy and elections. Public financing programs serve as a tool to lessen the power of big money, expand opportunities for more people to run for office, and allow candidates to focus more on voter appeal instead of donor appeal."[5][6]
The California Taxpayers Association opposes the measure. David Kline, Vice President of Communications and Research for California Taxpayers Association said, "People when they pay taxes want to pay for schools, fire departments, libraries, roads, that sort of thing. The last thing they want to pay for is a negative political ad that is going to hit them on the radio or T.V. during election season."[6]
Measure design
- See also: Text of measure
The measure would amend provisions of the Political Reform Act, which were adopted by the approval of Proposition 73 in 1988. Proposition 73 was an initiated state statute. In California, legislative alteration of an initiated state statute requires voter approval.[1]
The measure would repeal the prohibition on public officers and candidates from expending or accepting public funds for campaign purposes, thereby allowing the state or local governments to establish programs for the public funding of election campaigns. The measure would require the state and local governments to develop expenditure limits and criteria for candidates to qualify for public funds for election campaigns. It would prohibit the public funds from being used for legal defense fees, fines, or to repay a personal loan to their campaign.[1]
The expenditure limits would be established by statute, ordinance, or charter of the governing entity providing public election funds. The law would require the strict criteria set by the state or local governments for candidates to be eligible for public funds to require candidates to demonstrate broad-based support in their district (e.g., a minimum small-dollar contribution requirement or vouchers from a specified number of voting-age residents). The law would prohibit the strict criteria from requiring candidates to collect a specific number of signatures or raise a specified total dollar amount greater than $10 per contributor. The public funding program would be prohibited from discriminating against a candidate based on party affiliation or whether the candidate is an incumbent or challenger.[1]
The measure would authorize the state legislature to amend the provisions of the law related to the public funding of campaigns without voter approval, but require voter approval on all other provisions of the law.[1]
The measure would have also made changes to the ban on foreign entities making campaign contributions if Assembly Bill 953, which enacted identical changes, did not take effect. The measure added foreign national to the list of entities prohibited from making campaign contributions in the state. Foreign national was defined as "a person who is not a citizen of the United States and who is not a lawfully admitted permanent resident" and exempts persons granted deferred action under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program from this definition. AB 953 was unanimously approved and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Oct. 1, 2025.[1][7]
Text of measure
The full text of the ballot measure is below:[1] Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the text below to view the ballot language.
Sec. 2 The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) All citizens should be able to make their voices heard in the political process and hold their elected officials accountable.
(b) Elections for local or state elective office should be fair, open, and competitive.
(c) The increasing costs of political campaigns can force candidates to rely on large contributions from wealthy donors and special interests, which can give those wealthy donors and special interests disproportionate influence over governmental decisions.
(d) Such disproportionate influence can undermine the public’s trust that public officials are performing their duties in an impartial manner and that government is serving the needs and responding to the wishes of all citizens equally, without regard to their wealth.
(e) Special interests contribute more to incumbents than challengers because they seek access to elected officials, and such contributions account for a large portion of the financial incumbency advantage, as confirmed by studies such as those published in the Journal of Politics in 2014 and Political Research Quarterly in 2016.
(f) Citizen-funded election programs, in which qualified candidates can receive public funds for the purpose of communicating with voters rather than relying exclusively on private donors, are currently operative in five charter cities in California, as well as numerous other local and state jurisdictions.
(g) Citizen-funded election programs encourage competition by reducing the financial advantages of incumbency and making it possible for citizens from all walks of life, not only those with connections to wealthy donors or special interests, to run for office, as confirmed by studies such as those published in State Politics and Policy Quarterly in 2008, and by the Campaign Finance Institute in 2015, the National Institute on Money in State Politics in 2016, and the State Politics and Policy Quarterly in 2022.
(h) By reducing reliance on wealthy donors and special interests, citizen-funded election programs inhibit improper practices, protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption, and protect the political integrity of our governmental institutions.
(i) In Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal.4th 389, the California Supreme Court highlighted the Court of Appeal’s observation that “it seems obvious that public money reduces rather than increases the fund raising pressures on public office seekers and thereby reduces the undue influence of special interest groups.”
(j) In Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, the United States Supreme Court recognized that “public financing as a means of eliminating the improper influence of large private contributions furthers a significant governmental interest.”
(k) In Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett (2011) 564 U.S. 721, the United States Supreme Court acknowledged that public financing of elections “can further ‘significant governmental interest[s]’ such as the state interest in preventing corruption,” quoting Buckley v. Valeo.
(l) In Buckley v. Valeo, the United States Supreme Court further noted that citizen-funded elections programs “facilitate and enlarge public discussion and participation in the electoral process, goals vital to a self-governing people.”
(m) The absolute prohibition on public campaign financing allows special interests to gain disproportionate influence and unfairly favors incumbents. An exception should be created to permit citizen-funded election programs so that elections may be conducted more fairly.
Sec. 3 Section 85300 of the Government Code is amended to read:85300.
(a) A public officer shall not expend, and a candidate shall not accept, any public funds for the purpose of seeking elective office if the funds are earmarked by any state or local entity for education, transportation, or public safety.
(b) Candidates shall abide by expenditure limits and meet strict criteria to qualify for public funds.
(c) Public funds shall not be utilized to pay legal defense fees or fines.
(d) (1) A candidate shall not, at any time, use public funds to repay a personal loan to their campaign.
(2) A candidate who receives public funds for their campaign shall not, after their campaign ends, use any source of funds to repay a personal loan to their campaign.
(e) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:(1) “Available candidate funds” means the candidate’s expenditure limit or the sum of all contributions and public funds received by the candidate’s controlled committee for the elective office, whichever is less.
(2) “Expenditure limits” means voluntary spending limits established by statute, ordinance, or charter that qualified, voluntarily participating candidates must abide by to receive public funds.
(3) “Independent expenditures against” means the sum of any expenditures made or expenses incurred by any person or persons for the purpose of making independent expenditures in opposition to a specific candidate.
(4) “Independent expenditures in support” means the sum of any expenditures made or expenses incurred by any person or persons for the purpose of making independent expenditures in support of a specific candidate.
(5) “Net supportive funds” means the sum of available candidate funds, plus the independent expenditures in support of that candidate, minus the independent expenditures against that candidate.
(6) “Public funds” means any moneys provided to a candidate by a state or local governmental entity for the purpose of seeking elective office.
(7) (A) “Strict criteria” means the requirements set by statute, ordinance, or charter that candidates must meet to receive public funds. These criteria shall require candidates to demonstrate broad-based support in their district, such as by requiring candidates to receive small-dollar contributions or vouchers from a specified number of voting-age residents.
(B) (i) If a statute, ordinance, or charter requires a minimum number of individuals making small-dollar contributions pursuant to subparagraph (A), the largest contribution the statute, ordinance, or charter may require for a contributor to be counted is ten dollars ($10).
(ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, a statute, ordinance, or charter may allow a contribution larger than the small-dollar contribution amount required pursuant to subparagraph (A) to be counted as a contribution equal to the small-dollar contribution amount required pursuant to subparagraph (A).
(C) “Strict criteria” shall not include requirements that candidates receive a specified number of signatures or raise a specified total dollar amount of more than ten dollars ($10) per contributor.(f)
(1) A statute, ordinance, or charter may increase the expenditure limits for each qualified, voluntarily participating candidate.
(2) An increased limit pursuant to this subdivision shall not exceed an amount equal to the highest dollar amount of net supportive funds of any other candidate for the same office, plus the dollar amount of independent expenditures against the qualified, voluntarily participating candidate, minus the dollar amount of independent expenditures in support of the qualified, voluntarily participating candidate.
(g) Public funding statutes, charters, ordinances, and resolutions shall not discriminate based on party or according to whether a candidate is a challenger or an incumbent.
(h) The Commission is not responsible for the administration or enforcement of a system of public funding of candidates established by a local governmental agency.
(i) Subdivisions (e), (f), and (h) of this section may be amended by statute pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 81012. The remaining subdivisions of this section may be amended only by a statute that complies with subdivision (b) of Section 81012.
Sec. 4. Section 85320 of the Government Code is amended to read:85320.
(a) A foreign government or foreign principal shall not make, directly or through any other person, a contribution, expenditure, or independent expenditure in connection with the qualification or support of, or opposition to, any state or local ballot measure or in connection with the election of a candidate to state or local office.
(b) A person or a committee shall not solicit or accept a contribution from a foreign government or foreign principal in connection with the qualification or support of, or opposition to, any state or local ballot measure or in connection with the election of a candidate to state or local office.
(c) For the purposes of this section, a “foreign principal” includes the following:(1) A foreign political party.
(2) A person outside the United States, unless either of the following is established:
(A) The person is an individual and a citizen of the United States.
(B) The person is not an individual and is organized under or created by the laws of the United States or of any state or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and has its principal place of business within the United States.
(3) A partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.
(4) A domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation if the decision to contribute or expend funds is made by an officer, director, or management employee of the foreign corporation who is neither a citizen of the United States nor a lawfully admitted permanent resident of the United States.
(d) This section shall not prohibit a contribution, expenditure, or independent expenditure made by a lawfully admitted permanent resident.
(e) (1) Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(2) In addition to other penalties, a person who violates this section shall be fined an amount at least equal to the amount contributed or expended, but not exceeding an amount equal to three times the amount contributed or expended.
Sec. 4.1. Section 85320 of the Government Code is amended to read:85320.
(a) A foreign government, foreign principal, or foreign national shall not make, directly or through any other person, a contribution, expenditure, or independent expenditure in connection with the qualification or support of, or opposition to, any state or local ballot measure or in connection with the election of a candidate to state or local office.
(b) A person or a committee shall not solicit or accept a contribution from a foreign government, foreign principal, or foreign national in connection with the qualification or support of, or opposition to, any state or local ballot measure or in connection with the election of a candidate to state or local office.
(c) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1) (A) “Foreign national” means a person who is not a citizen of the United States and who is not a lawfully admitted permanent resident.
(B) “Foreign national” does not include a person who has been granted deferred action, and whose deferred action has not expired, under the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, as described in guidelines issued by the United States Department of Homeland Security.
(2) “Foreign principal” includes any of the following:
(A) A foreign political party.
(B) A person outside the United States, unless either of the following is established:
(i) The person is an individual and a citizen of the United States.
(ii) The person is not an individual and is organized under or created by the laws of the United States or of any state or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and has its principal place of business within the United States.
(C) A partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.
(D) A domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation if the decision to contribute or expend funds is made by an officer, director, or management employee of the foreign corporation who is neither a citizen of the United States nor a lawfully admitted permanent resident of the United States.
(d) This section shall not prohibit a contribution, expenditure, or independent expenditure made by a lawfully admitted permanent resident.
(e) (1) Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(2) In addition to other penalties, a person who violates this section shall be fined an amount at least equal to the amount contributed or expended, but not exceeding an amount equal to three times the amount contributed or expended.
Sec. 5. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
Sec. 6. (a) Sections 1 to 4.1, inclusive, of this act shall become effective only when submitted to and approved by the voters at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election, as specified in this section.
(b) Notwithstanding Section 9040 of the Elections Code or any other law, the Secretary of State shall, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 81012 of the Government Code, submit the specified sections of the act to the voters for approval at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election, as follows:
(1) If Assembly Bill 953 is not enacted or does not become effective on or before January 1, 2026, the Secretary of State shall submit Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of this act to the voters for approval at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election, in which case Section 4.1 of this act shall not become operative.
(2) If Assembly Bill 953 is enacted and becomes effective on or before January 1, 2026, and it amends Section 85320 of the Government Code, the Secretary of State shall submit Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4.1 of this act to the voters for approval at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election, in which case Section 4 of this act shall not take effect.
(c) (1) Section 4.1 of this act incorporates amendments to Section 85320 of the Government Code proposed by both this bill, subject to voter approval at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election, and Assembly Bill 953. Section 4.1 of this bill shall only take effect if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(A) Both bills are enacted on or before January 1, 2026.
(B) Each bill amends Section 85320 of the Government Code.
(C) The Secretary of State submits Section 4.1 to the voters pursuant to subdivision (a).
(D) Section 4.1 of this act is approved by voters at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election.
(2) (A) If Assembly Bill 953 is enacted on or before January 1, 2026, and amends Section 85320 of the Government Code, that section, as amended by Assembly Bill 953, shall become operative on January 1, 2026.
(B) (i) If Section 4.1 of this act takes effect pursuant to paragraph (1), Section 85320 of the Government Code, as amended by Assembly Bill 953, shall remain operative only until Section 4.1 takes effect.
(ii) If Section 4.1 of this act does not take effect, Section 85320 of the Government Code, as amended by Assembly Bill 953, shall remain operative.[8]Support
Ballotpedia has not located a campaign in support of the ballot measure. You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.
Supporters
Officials
- State Sen. Ben Allen (D)
- State Sen. Sabrina Cervantes (D)
- State Sen. Tom Umberg (D)
Political Parties
- California Democratic Party
- California Working Families Party
Organizations
- ACLU of California
- California Common Cause
- Consumer Watchdog
- End Citizens United
- League of Women Voters of California
- Represent.Us
Arguments
Opposition
Ballotpedia has not located a campaign in opposition to the ballot measure. You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.
Opponents
Organizations
Arguments
Campaign finance
- See also: Ballot measure campaign finance, 2026
Ballotpedia has not identified any committees registered to support or oppose the ballot measures.[9]
| Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| Oppose | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| Total | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
Background
California Proposition 73, Funds for Election Campaigns Initiative (June 1988)
In June 1988, California voters approved Proposition 73 by a margin of 58% to 42%. The initiated state statute amended the Political Reform Act of 1974, placed limits on campaign contributions, prohibited the use of public funds for election campaigns, and prohibited elected officials from using public funds to send mass mailings. In 1990, U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton ruled the campaign contribution limits were unconstitutional because they violated the First Amendment right to freedom of expression.[10][11]
California Proposition 9, Fair Political Practices Commission and Election and Campaign Policies Initiative (June 1974)
In June 1974, California voters approved Proposition 9, which is known as the Political Reform Act of 1974, by a margin of 70% to 30%. The initiated state statute:[12]
- created the five-member Fair Political Practices Commission;
- limited campaign expenditures for candidates and ballot measure committees;
- required lobbyists to register with the California Secretary of State;
- prohibited contributions from lobbyists to candidates; and
- provided that the Legislative Analyst writes the analysis of ballot measures in the voter pamphlet, among other changes.
Public financing of campaigns
- See also: Public financing of campaigns
As of September 2025, 14 states and Washington, D.C., provided for some method of public campaign financing for state offices. Public financing of campaigns is when the government provides funds to candidates running for political office. Three models of public financing are popular: 1) matching funds, where the "government 'matches' certain small-dollar donations earned by a candidate with public funds at a set rate;" 2) vouchers, where the "government distributes 'vouchers' representing a small amount of public funds to each eligible resident, who may donate the funds to a participating candidate of their choice;" and 3) grants, where "participating candidates receive lump-sum grants of public funds."[4][13]
|
|
Public financing of local election campaigns in California
In California, charter cities are not prohibited from funding campaigns for city offices. As of September 2025, five charter cities—Berkeley, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Francisco—have adopted such programs. The last city to adopt a program was Berkeley in 2016 with the approval of Measure X1. The other programs were adopted in the 1990s and 2000s.[3]
Senate Bill 1107 (2016)
In 2016, the state legislature attempted to authorize public funding of elections with the passage of Senate Bill 1107, which allowed state or local governments to create dedicated funds that public officers or candidates could use for campaigning. SB 1107 was overturned, and the court ruled that voters would need to approve such changes to the law via ballot measure because SB 1107 was inconsistent with the voter-enacted Political Reform Act of 1974.[14][2]
Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Assoc., et al. v. Gavin Newsom, Governor, et al. (2019)
The Third District Court of Appeal ruled in 2019 that Senate Bill 1107 violated the state's Political Reform Act, adopted in 1974. The act provided two methods for amendment: (1) a law furthering the purposes of the act passed by a two-thirds vote of the state legislature and signed by the governor, or (2) a law approved by voters. The court ruled that the state legislature acted within its power to amend the statute, but the amendment contradicted the act's primary purpose and was therefore invalid.[15]
Legislative alteration in California
In California, the legislature may only amend or repeal a voter-approved initiative if the initiative itself permits such changes; otherwise, any changes must be approved by voters. From 2010 to 2025, the California State Legislature has amended two initiated state statutes—Proposition 35 and Proposition 64. Proposition 35 increased the maximum sentence for human trafficking and was approved in 2012. It was amended by the state legislature in 2016. Proposition 64 legalized marijuana in 2016 and was amended in 2017. Both alterations were passed as measures to further the purpose of the initiatives and were, therefore, not referred to the voters.
Path to the ballot
A simple majority vote is required during one legislative session for the California State Legislature to place a legislatively referred state statute on the ballot. That amounts to a minimum of 41 votes in the California State Assembly and 21 votes in the California State Senate, assuming no vacancies. State statutes do require the governor's signature.
Senate Bill 42 (2025)
The following is the timeline of the bill in the state legislature:[16]
- January 6, 2025: Senate Bill 42 was read for the first time.
- June 2, 2025: The state Senate passed SB 42 by a vote of 28-10.
- September 12, 2025: The state Assembly passed an amended version by a vote of 59-20.
- September 13, 2025: The state Senate concurred with the amendments by a vote of 29-8.
- October 2, 2025: Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed the bill, sending it to the ballot.[17]
| Votes Required to Pass: 21 | |||
| Yes | No | NV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 29 | 8 | 3 |
| Total % | 72.5% | 20.0% | 7.5% |
| Democratic (D) | 29 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican (R) | 0 | 8 | 2 |
| Votes Required to Pass: 41 | |||
| Yes | No | NV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 59 | 20 | 1 |
| Total % | 73.8% | 25.0% | 1.2% |
| Democratic (D) | 59 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican (R) | 0 | 20 | 0 |
How to cast a vote
- See also: Voting in California
See below to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in California.
See also
|
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 California Legislative Information, "SB-42 Political Reform Act of 1974: public campaign financing: California Fair Elections Act of 2026." accessed June 16, 2025
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 BBK Law, "Political Reform Act’s Ban on Public Money for Campaigns Upheld," September 12, 2019
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 California State Legislature, "SB 42 analysis," accessed October 9, 2025
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 U.S. Government Accountability Office, "Campaign Finance: Observations on Public Financing Programs in Selected States and Localities," December 19, 2024
- ↑ California State Legislature, "SB 42 analysis," accessed October 10, 2025
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 LAist, "Public funding for elections? The idea is back in California," August 19, 2025
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Assembly Bill 953 text," accessed October 1, 2025
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ Cal-Access, "Campaign finance," accessed October 6, 2025
- ↑ UC Hastings, "Voter Pamphlet," accessed October 1, 2025
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Judge Strikes Down Prop. 73 Funding Limits," September 26, 1990
- ↑ UC Hastings, "Voter Pamphlet," accessed October 9, 2025
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 Campaign Legal Center, "What Is Public Financing? How Small-Dollar Democracy Combats Big-Money Elections," October 11, 2024
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Senate Bill 1107," accessed October 9, 2025
- ↑ California Third District Court of Appeal, Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Assoc., et al. v. Gavin Newsom, Governor, et al., October 29, 2019
- ↑ California Legislative Information, "SB-42 History," accessed June 13, 2025
- ↑ Governor Gavin Newsom, "Governor Newsom signs bills curbing billionaire influence on elections and protecting elections from interference," October 2, 2025
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Section 3: Polling Place Hours," accessed October 29, 2025
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Voter Registration," accessed October 29, 2025
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 California Secretary of State, "Registering to Vote," accessed October 29, 2025
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Same Day Voter Registration (Conditional Voter Registration)," accessed October 29, 2025
- ↑ SF.gov, "Non-citizen voting rights in local Board of Education elections," accessed November 14, 2024
- ↑ Under federal law, the national mail voter registration application (a version of which is in use in all states with voter registration systems) requires applicants to indicate that they are U.S. citizens in order to complete an application to vote in state or federal elections, but does not require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the application "may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to prevent duplicate voter registrations and permit State officials both to determine the eligibility of the applicant to vote and to administer the voting process."
- ↑ Democracy Docket, "California Governor Signs Law to Ban Local Voter ID Requirements," September 30, 2024
- ↑ Congress, "H.R.3295 - Help America Vote Act of 2002," accessed September 30, 2025
