BILL ANALYSIS
AB 9
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 27, 2007
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Curren Price, Chair
AB 9 (Huff) - As Amended: March 8, 2007
SUBJECT : Voter identification: proof of identity.
SUMMARY : Requires a voter to present photo identification
before receiving a ballot at a polling place. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Makes findings and declarations about the right to vote and
voter fraud.
2)Requires a person who desires to vote in person at a polling
place to present proof of identity to a member of the precinct
board at the time of voting. Provides that any of the
following forms of currently valid picture identification may
be used:
a) A California driver's license;
b) A California identification card;
c) A United States military identification card;
d) A United States passport;
e) A tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal
identification; or,
f) A United States federal, state, or local government
issued identification.
3)Requires a precinct board member to visually confirm the
photograph and signature of the person desiring to vote, and
to record in the roster of voters the identifying number and
the form of identification presented.
4)Provides that any violation or attempted violation of the
identification requirement shall constitute fraud, a felony
punishable by imprisonment for 16 months or two or three
years.
AB 9
Page 2
5)Permits a voter who desires to vote in person to vote a
provisional ballot if he or she is unable to present one of
the forms of photo identification required by this bill.
Requires such a voter to provide valid photo identification to
the county registrar of voters within five business days of
voting.
6)Requires the voter identification requirement to be
prominently printed on all sample ballots near the location
where the voter's polling place is indicated.
7)Contains a severability clause.
AB 9
Page 3
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 voter roster 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.
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, "Current law
requires any person desiring to vote to announce his or her
name and address to a precinct board member and to write this
information on the roster of voters. Current law does not
require any proof of identity to be presented at the time of
voting in person or by absentee ballot. To deter potential
voter fraud and ensure the right of citizens to vote, it is
necessary that poll workers verify the identity of each person
desiring to vote to make certain that the person actually
AB 9
Page 4
casting the ballot is the person entitled to vote."
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 ensure against voter fraud.
However, the author has not provided any evidence that voter
fraud 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."
Similarly, since October 2002, the United States Department of
Justice has expanded efforts to address election fraud and
voting rights violations as part of its Ballot Access and
Voting Integrity Initiative (BAVII). Despite making election
fraud enforcement a priority within the Justice Department,
the BAVII resulted in only 24 people being convicted of or
pleading guilty to illegal voting in the first three years of
the program.
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
AB 9
Page 5
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
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 the last two year period in part due to
improved procedures for removing obsolete and duplicative
names from the voter rolls.
4)No ID Required for Absentee Voters : The identification
requirements in this bill apply only to persons intending to
vote at a polling place. Voters who cast absentee ballots
would not be subject to that provision of law. This double
standard may give rise to equal protection claims under the
United States Constitution.
5)Provisional Ballots : This bill allows any voter who attempts
to vote at a polling place but who is unable to present a
valid form of photo identification to cast a provisional
ballot. However, this bill also provides that the provisional
ballot will only be counted if the voter presents valid photo
identification to the registrar of voters within five business
days of voting. This could present a significant obstacle to
voters who were unable to present photo identification at the
polls on election day. 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 counties, to travel for several
hours to provide the registrar of voters with valid photo
identification in order to have his or her ballot counted. In
situations where the voter does not have valid photo
identification, it is highly unlikely that the voter would be
able to obtain such identification in the five days after the
election.
6)Help America Vote Act : The federal Help America Vote Act of
AB 9
Page 6
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.
7)Verification of Signatures and Photographs by Polling Place
Workers : This bill requires polling place workers to verify
the signature and photograph of a person desiring to vote
before providing that person with a ballot. It is not clear
that polling place workers have the training to perform this
task. Because polling place workers have no specific training
in handwriting analysis or photographic comparisons, the
application of this bill is likely to vary widely from
precinct to precinct.
Additionally, requiring polling place workers to verify the
signatures and photographs of voters and to record the
identification numbers of the forms of identification
presented is likely to slow the processing of voters who
arrive at polling places to vote, and could significantly
increase wait times at polling places. To the extent that
this bill results in longer lines at polling places, this bill
could also result in reduced voter participation by those
voters who are not willing or able to wait in the longer
polling place lines.
8)Poll Tax ? This bill provides just six forms of acceptable
identification that a person may present if he or she desires
to vote - one of which is only available to members of the
United States military, and another of which is typically only
available to members of recognized Native American tribes.
The three forms of photo identification that are specifically
identified which a voter could use under the provisions of
this bill are not typically available free of charge (the most
common type of driver's license costs $27, a California
identification card is available for free to those 62 years of
age or older, but costs $7 or $22 for all other individuals,
and a new passport currently costs $97). As such, the
identification requirement created by this bill could be
considered a poll tax, in violation of the Twenty-Fourth
AB 9
Page 7
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
9)Arguments in Support : According to the Capitol Resource
Institute:
It is common sense to require any eligible citizen to
present proof of his or her identity to a member of the
precinct board before receiving a ballot. The legislature
must protect the voting system by making sure that those
who are not entitled to cast a ballot are prevented from
doing so. Furthermore, the legislature has a duty to
defend the democratic process against lawbreakers who may
not have the best interest of California in mind when they
try to vote.
Requiring proof of identification is a simple protection to
ensure the legality and authenticity of each vote cast.
Identification is already required for many activities
including traveling, making purchases with credit card or
check, and entering adult venues. AB 9 will further
protect the rights of legal voters in California and
safeguard the integrity of the democratic process.
10)Arguments in Opposition : According to the American Civil
Liberties Union:
AB 9 raises serious constitutional problems by potentially
imposing an undue burden on the fundamental right to vote.
By establishing an in-person photographic identification
requirement only for voters who cast their ballots at the
polls-a requirement not borne by voters who mail in
absentee ballots-AB 9 creates two different classes of
voters, and produces a potential Equal Protection problem
under both state and federal constitutions. . .
Furthermore, because a fee is charged to obtain the forms
of identification enumerated in this bill, AB 9 imposes a
fiscal cost on the eligible voter that some of the poorest
residents of the state may not be able to afford. Given
that the United States Supreme Court has held that even a
$1.50 poll tax is an unconstitutional burden on the right
of an individual to vote . . . the requirements established
by this bill are also unlikely to withstand constitutional
scrutiny. . .
AB 9
Page 8
By imposing restrictive identification requirements, AB 9
will also create long lines at polling places, dissuading
people from voting, and require substantial training of
seasonal elections workers to ensure that voters are not
improperly denied the right to vote.
11)Double-Referral : Because this bill creates a new felony, it
has been double-referred to the Assembly Committee on Public
Safety.
12)Related Initiative : This bill is substantially similar to an
initiative that was circulated in 2005 and failed to qualify
for the ballot.
13)Related Legislation : SB 173 (Harman) requires a voter to
present proof of his or her identity to a member of the
precinct board before receiving a ballot. SB 173 is pending in
the Senate Committee on Elections, Reapportionment and
Constitutional Amendments.
14)Previous Legislation : 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. AB 1855 (Walters) of 2006 would have
required a voter to present photo identification before
receiving a ballot at a polling place. All three of these
bills failed passage in this committee.
SB 226 (Cox) of 2005 would have required a voter to present
proof of identity and residency to a member of the precinct
board before receiving a ballot. SB 1682 (Cox) of 2006 was
substantially similar to SB 226. Both bills failed passage in
the Senate Committee on Elections, Reapportionment and
Constitutional Amendments.
AB 9
Page 9
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Federation of Republican Women
Capitol Resource Institute
Citizens Who Vote
Eagle Forum of California
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality
California Immigrant Policy Center
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
People For The American Way
Protection and Advocacy, Inc.
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094