BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1716
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 17, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 1716 (Garrick) - As Introduced: February 16, 2012
UPDATED: April 17, 2012
SUBJECT : Elections: voter identification.
SUMMARY : Makes significant changes to voting procedures.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires a voter who is returning a vote by mail (VBM) ballot
to include the last four digits of the voter's California
driver's license, identification card number or, if the voter
has neither, the last four digits of the voter's social
security number (SSN) on the VBM ballot identification
envelope.
2)Prohibits a VBM ballot from being counted unless the signature
and numeric identifying information is verified as being
consistent with the voter's state or federal records, prior to
counting the ballot.
3)Requires a VBM identification envelope to include a security
flap or sleeve to conceal the voter's signature and
identifying information during mailing.
4)Requires a person who desires to vote at a polling place to
first provide the precinct worker proof of identification
before being permitted to sign the roster of voters.
5)Defines the phrase, "proof of identification," for the
purposes of this bill, to mean a document that satisfies all
of the following:
a) The document shows the name of the individual to whom
the document was issued and the name conforms to the name
on 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 not expired or, the document expired
AB 1716
Page 2
after the date of the most recent general election; and
d) The document was issued by the United States or the
State of California.
6)Provides that if a voter is unable or declines to show proof
of identification, or if a member of the precinct board
determines that the proof of identification presented does not
meet the requirements of this bill, the voter may request and
be issued a provisional ballot and be permitted to vote that
ballot.
7)Provides that the provisional ballot cast pursuant to the
procedure outlined above will only be counted if, within 10
days following the election, the voter provides the required
proof of identification to the county voter registration
office or establishes that they are exempted from such a
requirement.
8)Exempts a voter who resides at a state-licensed care facility
that is being used as a polling place from the requirements of
this bill.
9)Permits a voter, who declares that he or she has a religious
objection to being photographed by executing a sworn affidavit
before a superior court clerk or county elections board, in a
manner prescribed by the board, to vote by providing a copy of
the signed affidavit and proof of identification that meets
all the other criteria specified in this bill, except for the
photograph.
10)Permits a registered voter to obtain a state-issued
identification card from the Department of Motor Vehicles at
no cost once for each period of validity of the card, for the
purposes of complying with this bill.
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.
AB 1716
Page 3
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 voter who submits his or her voter registration
form by mail and who has not previously voted to present one
of a number of specified documents to establish identity
before receiving a ballot. This requirement only applies the
first time an individual votes after registering to vote.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. State-mandated local program; contains
reimbursement direction.
AB 1716
Page 4
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
This bill seeks to protect the integrity of the voting
process and to protect our constitutional right from those
who seek to defraud our election system and the legal
voters of California.
Photo ID's are required to make certain purchases and to do
hundreds of day-to-day tasks. We are required to show
valid proof of ID for:
Buying pseudoephedrine
buying spray-paint
going to an R-rated movie
buying alcohol
buying cigarettes
buying nicotine patches to quit smoking
renting videos
renting a surfboard
renting a bike
Taking tests such as SAT, ACT, ASVAB, LSAT,
BAR, etc.
Using your credit card
Running in an organized race
Going through security at the airport
Traveling to different countries
Show your ID for bank transactions
Renting a car
Renting a hotel room
Picking a kid up from school if you aren't the
parent
Volunteering at a school
Participating in elite sporting events
Applying for a marriage license
To operate a vehicle
Apply for a bank account
Government social program participation (ie.
WIC, Welfare)
Valid photo ID required for getting a job and
filing your W-9
Applying for a loan
Require at Live Scan
Entrance into a nightclub
AB 1716
Page 5
Proof of ID is even required by unions such as the
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers to present a photo ID before voting for their
contracts. New York lawmakers are seriously considering
"Digital DNA" ID's to combat test taking fraud, after
several highly publicized incidents of cheating on the SAT
and ACT tests. Somehow requiring identification for things
of this nature are not viewed in a negative light, in fact
it is usually considered necessary, whereas trying to
create a security system for one of our most sacred rights,
voting, is viewed as wrong by a few.
This nationwide problem pertaining to violations of our
voting system is cast aside and labeled unjust. Some
groups charge that laws requiring photo IDs suppress the
ability of minority groups to vote. The facts say
otherwise. One such example is in Georgia,
African-American voter turnout for the midterm election in
2006 was 42.9 percent. After Georgia passed a photo ID
law, African-American voter turnout in the 2010 midterm,
rose to 50.4 percent. African-American turnout also rose
in Indiana and Mississippi after photo IDs were required.
A June 2011 Rasmussen Poll showed that over 75% of
respondents are in favor of requiring photo ID to vote.
Another survey conducted by Resurgent America show that a
large majority of Hispanic voters are also in favor. In
Florida, 88 percent of those surveyed said they support the
laws, while just ten percent oppose them. In Colorado 71
percent support the law, while 26 percent oppose, and in
New Mexico, 73 percent support the law, while 25 percent
oppose.
With no safeguards in place to ensure a secure election
process, we leave a gaping hole that is an invitation to
fraud by non-eligible individuals. It is important that we
do everything we can to preserve the fundamental right of
every legal citizen, to cast their ballot with the
knowledge that the state of California has this basic right
protected. AB 1716 will ensure the security of our voting
process, while protecting the vote of legal California
voters, from the fraud and abuse our current system allows.
AB 1716
Page 6
2)Is This Bill Necessary ? In the background information
provided by the author's office, the author argues that the
current election system has no safeguards and leaves a gaping
hole that is an invitation for fraud and abuse. However, the
author has not provided any evidence that voter fraud of the
type that would be prevented by identification requirements at
the polls and on VBM ballots is a problem in need of a
solution.
California law already requires the elections officials to
compare the signature on a VBM ballot envelope with the
signature on that voter's affidavit of registration before the
VBM ballot may be counted. If those signatures do not match,
the ballot will not be counted. A person who casts a
fraudulent VBM ballot at an election can be charged with a
number of different felonies, any one of which is punishable
by up to three years in state prison. Given that a signature
comparison is already done on every VBM ballot before the
ballot is counted to protect against fraud, and given that
casting a fraudulent VBM ballot is a felony, it is unlikely
that VBM ballot fraud is widespread.
In addition, a voter who wishes to vote at the polls on election
day must have and confirm his or her name and address on the
roster of voters. If a voter's name is not on the roster,
that person is allowed to vote a provisional ballot, which is
later reviewed by the elections official to determine the
person's right to vote, before being included in the official
canvass. As such, the roster of voters plays a big role on
election day to minimize the occurrence of fraud. Current law
requires county elections officials to take several steps to
ensure that the voter rolls are accurate, such as continuous
review and maintenance of the rolls to remove obsolete,
duplicative, and non-eligible names.
Other efforts required by law to reduce potential fraud include
a voter fraud hotline maintained by the Secretary of State
(SOS), the ability of a member of the precinct board to
challenge any person attempting to vote at the polls if the
voter's qualifications to vote are in question, and vigorous
prosecutions by local law enforcement agencies working
together with the SOS's office.
Furthermore, according to information provided by the SOS's
Election Fraud Investigation Unit, from 1994 to 2010, there
AB 1716
Page 7
have been 23 convictions for double voting, 6 convictions for
fraudulent voting, and 4 convictions for non-citizen voting.
However, it is unclear whether these acts occurred while
attempting to vote at the polls or if the violations occurred
by a VBM voter. However, given the small amount of
convictions in the past decade, it is reasonable to believe
that the current efforts to thwart voter fraud are working.
3)Voters Who Lack ID : 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 this figure is reflective of the California electorate,
it is possible that a significant number of Californians who
are eligible and registered to vote do not have a form of
identification that would meet the requirements of this bill.
This same survey also demonstrated that certain groups -
primarily poor, elderly, and minority citizens - are less
likely to possess these forms of identification.
Although this bill allows an individual to obtain an
identification card at no cost from the DMV, it does not
provide any assistance to those individuals to meet the
sometimes difficult requirements of obtaining an
identification card. For example, in order to be issued a
card, an individual must go to a DMV office during business
hours and provide, among other things, verification of birth
date by submitting documents such as a certified copy from the
state or local vital statistics office of the individual's
birth certificate. Such documentation may be difficult to
obtain and typically requires an additional fee.
4)Will This Bill Disenfranchise Voters Due to Inadvertent
Errors ? While it seems unlikely that this bill will provide
any meaningful protection against fraud, it also seems likely
that one consequence of this bill will be the invalidation of
a number of legally cast ballots. For instance, if a voter
transposed two of the digits from his or her driver's license
number, identification card number, or SSN on their VBM
envelope, his or her ballot would be rejected under the
provisions of this bill even if the signature on the ballot
was a match to the signature on that voter's registration
card. Similarly, to the extent that a person neglected to
provide the last four digits of his or her driver's license
number, identification card number, or SSN, or failed to
provide that information due to fear of identity theft, this
AB 1716
Page 8
bill would require that the ballot be invalidated even if
there was no question that the ballot was cast by the voter to
whom it was issued.
5)Changing Voting Procedures : This bill would change the
procedures that voters are currently used to when going to the
polls on election day. This bill allows any voter who is
unable to present a valid form of identification to cast a
provisional ballot. However, this bill also provides that the
provisional ballot will only be counted if the voter presents
the required form of identification to the county elections
official's office within 10 days following the election. This
could present a significant obstacle to these voters. Even if
the voter in question has valid photo identification, but does
not have that identification at the polling place on election
day, that voter could be forced, in some large counties, to
travel several hours to provide the county elections official
with valid identification in order to have his or her ballot
counted. In situations where the voter does not have valid
identification, it is highly unlikely that the voter would be
able to obtain such identification in the 10 days after the
election. Currently, a California identification card is
mailed within 60 days, if all information is valid. These new
requirements could lead to significant voter
disenfranchisement for those voters who are unable to obtain
the appropriate identification required under this bill and
for those voters who are not willing or are unable to travel
to show the required identification.
Additionally, due to the likelihood for increased voter
confusion as a result of these new requirements, there will
likely be significant delays in processing voters and
subsequently increased wait times at polling places. To the
extent that this bill results in longer lines at polling
places, this bill could result in reduced voter participation
by those voters who are not willing or able to wait in the
longer polling place lines.
Finally, it should be noted that this bill does not provide for
any outreach efforts to educate voters regarding the
significant changes to the voting procedures prescribed in
this bill. If the appropriate steps are not taken to inform
the public of these changes, many eligible voters will likely
be disenfranchised.
AB 1716
Page 9
6)Arguments in Opposition : The American Civil Liberties Union
of California, in opposition to this bill, writes:
No eligible citizen should have to pay to vote. This law
represents modern-day poll tax because individuals without
IDs must pay to obtain supporting documents necessary for a
state identification cardthe birth and marriage
certificates, for instance. On top of the monetary cost,
it is a heavy burden for many to obtain the IDs:
shift-workers, those without childcare, the disabled,
people without cars and people living in rural communities
will all encounter greater difficulty in traveling to a
government office, like a DMV, during business hours.
While the cost of identification documents may seem
negligible to some, it represents a significant cost to
many Californians.
7)State Mandates : The 2011-2012 state budget included the
suspension of various state mandates as a mechanism for cost
savings. Included on the list of suspensions were all six
existing elections-related mandates. All the existing
elections-related mandates have been proposed for suspension
again by the Governor in his budget for the 2012-2013 fiscal
year. The Committee may wish to consider whether it is
desirable to create new election mandates when current
elections-related mandates are suspended
8)Previous Legislation : AB 663 (Morrell) of 2011, would have
required a voter to present proof of identification before
being permitted to sign the roster of voters and receive a
ballot. AB 663 failed passage in this committee.
AB 945 (Donnelly) of 2011, which was substantially similar to
this bill, would have required a completed VBM ballot
identification envelope to contain the last four digits of the
voter's California driver's license number, identification
card number, or SSN in order for that ballot to be counted and
would have required a person desiring to vote to produce and
show a valid form of state-issued photographic identification
to the precinct worker at the polling place, among other
provisions. AB 945 failed passage in this committee.
SB 802 (Runner) of 2011, would have required a voter to present
proof of identity before receiving a ballot at the polling
place, among other provisions. SB 802 was not heard in the
AB 1716
Page 10
Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file.
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union of California
Asian Americans for Civil Rights & Equality
California Common Cause
League of Women Voters of California
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
NALEO Educational Fund
Service Employees International Union, California
Analysis Prepared by : Nichole Becker / E. & R. / (916)
319-2094