Skip to main content

BallotQuestions.vote is an independent, nonpartisan tracker. It is not a government website and not an election authority. For official ballot information, contact your state election authority.

Proposition 39

Prohibits Citizens from Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification

On the ballot

California · November 2026 general election · Constitutional amendment · Election day November 3, 2026
Topics: Civil rights, Elections and voting

In plain language

Proposition 39 would write voter identification requirements into the California Constitution. Voting by mail would require the voter to designate a government-issued identification number on their registration, and a mail ballot would be rejected if the envelope did not carry the last four digits of a number matching the one designated. Voting in person would require presenting government-issued identification. Elections officials would have to report each year the percentage of their county's voters whose citizenship status they have verified. California currently verifies most voters' identity by matching signatures.

Fiscal impact

Legislative Analyst's Office summary of the estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: "State and local government costs of between tens of millions of dollars and low hundreds of millions of dollars each year to implement new voting requirements. Costs depend on future decisions by the Legislature, state departments, local governments, and voters."

Summarized from the official fiscal analysis listed in the sources below. Figures are the state's, not this site's.

What supporters and opponents say

These are summaries of arguments made by the named organizations, drawn from the sources listed below. They are their claims, not this site's, and this site takes no position on the measure.

What supporters say

  • The ballot argument signed by Margit Whitlock, Tafa Jefferson, and Joe Green — the Democratic, Republican, and independent coalition chairs of Californians for Voter ID — describes the measure as a bipartisan California response to mistrust in elections rather than a national partisan fight.
  • Supporters state in the official argument that the measure would improve the accuracy of voter lists, require elections officials to check that only citizens are registered, and require an independent audit every two years.
  • Supporters state that states with voter ID laws have not seen decreases in voter participation, and argue that turnout rises when voters trust that elections are secure.

Attributed to Californians for Voter ID.

What opponents say

  • The ballot argument signed by David Trujillo (ACLU California Action), Darius Kemp (Common Cause), and Lorrel Plimier (League of Women Voters of California) says mail ballots would be rejected over mismatched or out-of-date identification details, including misspelled names or old addresses.
  • Opponents state in the official argument that "free" state IDs still cost voters money for transportation, time off work, childcare, and required documents, and that seniors, students, low-income workers, voters of color, and women who changed their names at marriage would be affected most.
  • Opponents cite the Legislative Analyst's Office estimate that the measure could cost hundreds of millions of dollars each year, and say Texas rejected 12 times more mail ballots than California under a comparable requirement.

Attributed to ACLU California Action, California Common Cause, League of Women Voters of California.

Sources

Everything on this page traces to these sources. Follow them to read the original documents.

Last updated . How this page is sourced and corrected is described in the correction policy.