BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1356
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 21, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 1356 (Bill Berryhill) - As Amended: April 13, 2009
SUBJECT : Elections: proof of identification.
SUMMARY : Requires a voter to present photo identification
before receiving a ballot at the polling place. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Requires a voter, prior to receiving a ballot at the polling
place, to present a member of the precinct board with proof of
identification that satisfies the following requirements:
a) The document shows the name of the individual to whom it
was issued, and the name conforms to the name in the
individual's voter registration record;
b) The document shows a photograph of the individual;
c) The document includes an expiration date, and the
document is either unexpired or the document expired less
than two years prior to election day; and,
d) The document was issued by the United States, the State
of California, or is a valid tribal member identification
card issued by an Indian tribe recognized by the federal
government.
2)Provides that if a voter is unable to or refuses to provide
proof of identification at the polling place on election day,
the voter may execute a declaration under penalty of perjury
that he or she is registered to vote. Provides that upon
execution of such a declaration, the voter shall be provided a
provisional ballot and an identification envelope to be
completed by the voter in the same manner as a vote by mail
identification envelope.
3)Requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to waive the fee for
an original or replacement identification card for any person
who requests the card for the purposes of complying with the
requirements of this bill.
AB 1356
Page 2
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires a voter who appears at the polling place to vote to
announce his or her name and address to a precinct officer.
Requires the precinct officer, upon finding the name in the
roster of voters, to repeat the voter's name and address.
Requires the voter to then write his or her name and residence
address on a roster of voters, whereupon the voter is provided
a ballot.
2)Permits a voter to vote a provisional ballot if his or her
qualification or entitlement to vote cannot be immediately
established upon examination of the roster of voters for the
precinct or upon examination of the records on file with the
county elections official.
3)Authorizes a member of the precinct board to challenge the
ability of a person to vote on various grounds, including that
the voter is not the person whose name appears on the index,
is not a precinct resident, is not a U.S. citizen, has already
voted on that day, or is on parole for the conviction of a
felony.
4)Provides that any person who votes more than once, attempts to
vote more than once, or impersonates or attempts to
impersonate a voter at an election is guilty of a crime
punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months
or two or three years, or in county jail not exceeding one
year.
5)Requires a person to pay a fee of $24 to obtain a California
identification card, with certain exceptions.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. State-mandated local program; contains
a crimes and infractions disclaimer; contains reimbursement
direction.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
AB 1356 will help safeguard our right to vote and
instill public confidence in the security and
integrity of our elections system, by requiring voters
to show a photo ID at the polls in order to receive a
AB 1356
Page 3
ballot. Voters who cannot afford an ID card may
receive a free California ID card in order to vote.
The right to vote is a precious liberty guaranteed by
the U.S. and California Constitutions. However, the
integrity of the ballot box is just as important to
the credibility of elections as access to it. Voters
are disenfranchised by the counting of improperly cast
ballots, and their civil rights are violated just as
surely as if they were prevented from voting.
Unfortunately, California's current system of
elections serves as an open invitation to fraud, and
is urgently in need of reform. One of the major
problems with California's existing voter registration
procedures is the absence of safeguards to ensure that
non-eligible persons, such as foreign citizens,
convicted felons, and fictitious persons, do not vote.
First, voters need not show any proof of identity when
registering to vote. Voters state in their
registration that they are eligible, but there is no
background check. Second, they are asked to give a
driver's license or ID number on the voter
registration form, but if they do not, they are still
registered to vote. Thus, there is no assurance that
the name on the registration card is a real person, or
that the person is lawfully entitled to vote.
Further, since there is no requirement to show ID,
there is no assurance that the person who appears at a
polling place is actually the person he or she claims
to be.
Sadly, vote fraud is a very real and growing problem in
California and the U.S. as a whole. Such fraud carries
with it the possibility of improperly changing the results
of closely-decided elections and thereby disenfranchising
voters.
Further, existing law does not require persons to show
proof of identity when requesting a ballot at the polls or
when casting a ballot by mail. Thus, there is no assurance
that such persons are who they claim to be or are even
legally entitled to vote that ballot.
AB 1356
Page 4
2)Voter Fraud Prevention : The author argues that the current
procedures for a voter to announce his or her name, and
allowing a precinct board member to challenge a potential
voter, are insufficient to protect against voter fraud.
However, the author has not provided any evidence that voter
fraud of the type that would be prevented by a photo
identification requirement is a problem in need of a solution.
Furthermore, the committee is unaware of any empirical evidence
that suggests that voter fraud is a problem in California that
is in need of a solution. In fact, a May 2006 report
commissioned by the United States Election Assistance
Commission, found that "more researchers find [voter fraud] to
be less of a problem than is commonly described in the
political debate," and that "[t]here is widespread but not
unanimous agreement that there is little polling place fraud,
or at least much less than is claimed, including voter
impersonation, 'dead' voters, noncitizen voting and felon
voters."
3)Alternative Efforts : It may be argued that imposing
procedural limitations on the right to vote is too onerous of
a means to thwart voter fraud, especially given the lack of
empirical evidence that voter fraud is a significant problem
in California. A 2001 report by the Task Force on the Federal
Election System found that between six and 10 percent of the
American electorate does not have official state
identification. Similarly, the 2005 Carter-Baker Commission
found that approximately 12% of the national voting age
population does not have a driver's license, and a November
2006 survey by the Brennan Center for Justice found that 11%
of United States citizens do not have government-issued photo
identification. To the extent that these figures are
reflective of the California electorate, it is possible that
more than one million Californians who are eligible and
registered to vote do not have one of the forms of
identification specified in this bill.
If voter fraud truly is a problem in California, perhaps
additional resources should be directed to current efforts
that address voter fraud. Current efforts include a voter
fraud hotline at the office of the Secretary of State (SOS),
continuous removal of the obsolete, duplicative, and
non-eligible names from the voter rolls, and vigorous
prosecutions by local law enforcement agencies working
AB 1356
Page 5
together with the SOS's office. In fact, it appears that such
efforts at reducing the possibility of voter fraud are
working, as the SOS recently reported that the total number of
registered voters in California had declined by nearly one
million voters over a two year period in part due to improved
procedures for removing obsolete and duplicative names from
the voter rolls.
4)Help America Vote Act : The federal Help America Vote Act of
2002 (42 U.S.C. 15301, et seq.) requires a voter who registers
to vote by mail and who has not previously voted to present
one of a number of specified documents to establish identity
before receiving a ballot, with certain exceptions. A voter
who registers by mail and votes by mail is required to submit
with his or her ballot a copy of one of the specified
documents to establish identity, with certain exceptions.
This requirement only applies the first time an individual
votes after registering to vote.
5)Arguments in Opposition : In opposition to this bill,
Disability Rights California writes:
AB 1356's identification requirements go beyond that
required by federal and state law. They are excessive and
unduly burdensome for all voters, but particularly for
those voters who, because of a disability-related reason,
are unable to produce the requisite identification. This
difficulty exists for persons who heavily depend on others
for their care and daily living and is particularly acute
for persons residing in institutions. This bill's impact
extends to individuals who rely on others in order to live
in the community. These individuals, by and large, do not
possess the means to navigate the government bureaucracies
necessary to obtain the required identification.
AB 1356 is the latest in a series of legislative attempts
in recent years which, under the rationale to prevent voter
fraud, have sought to mandate additional proof of identity.
There is questionable evidence that the ends justify the
means. For example, a 2006 study on Voter Identification
laws by the Eagleton Institute of Politics and Political
Science at Rutgers University concluded that there is
little evidence that stricter identification requirements
prevent voter fraud at polling places.
AB 1356
Page 6
Also in opposition to this bill, the American Civil Liberties
Union notes that "[r]equiring photo identification may . . .
distort election results by giving officials discretion to
determine who can vote. Deciding whether a voter matches the
photo in an identification card is a very subjective
process-one that is easily prone to mistake or much worse.
This creates opportunities for discrimination at the polls
against racial, ethnic, and language minority voters."
6)Related Legislation : SB 465 (Huff), which is being heard in
the Senate Committee on Elections, Reapportionment and
Constitutional Amendments today, would require a voter to
present photo identification before receiving ballot at the
polling place.
AB 1399 (Anderson), which is pending in this committee, would
require a voter to present proof of identity and residency
before receiving a ballot at the polling place.
AB 1415 (Adams), which is also being heard in this committee
today, and SB 370 (Runner), which is being heard in the Senate
Committee on Elections, Reapportionment and Constitutional
Amendments today, also require a voter to present photo
identification before receiving a ballot at the polling place,
among other provisions.
7)Related Initiative : This bill is similar to a provision in an
initiative that has been submitted to the Attorney General for
a title and summary. That initiative is substantially similar
to AB 1415 and SB 370.
8)Previous Legislation : AB 9 (Huff) of 2007 would have required
a voter to present photo identification before receiving a
ballot at the polling place. AB 1855 (Walters) of 2006 would
have required a voter to present photo identification before
receiving a ballot at a polling place. AB 934 (Wyland) of
2005 would have required a person to provide proof of
citizenship in order to register to vote and to provide proof
of identity in order to vote. AB 1006 (Keene) of 2005 would
have required a voter to present proof of his or her identity
and residency before receiving a ballot. All four of these
bills failed passage in this committee.
9)Double-Referral : This bill has been double-referred to the
Assembly Transportation Committee. Due to upcoming committee
AB 1356
Page 7
deadlines, if this bill is approved in committee today, it
would need to be heard in the Assembly Transportation
Committee next week. As such, in order to ensure that this
bill can be heard in both policy committees before the
upcoming deadline, if it is the author's or the committee's
desire to amend this bill, it should be passed out of
committee without being amended, but with the author's
commitment to amend the bill in the Assembly Transportation
Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file.
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union
Disability Rights California
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094