Election integrity won’t be coming to California anytime soon, so Republicans who think they can someday ‘flip’ the state back to the red column can forget about that – for now, anyway.
California voters rejected a proposed constitutional amendment Tuesday that would have required government-issued identification to vote, handing Proposition 39 a decisive defeat.
With ballots still being counted, approximately 59% of voters opposed the measure while roughly 41% supported it.
The Associated Press called Proposition 39 for the “No” side, meaning California’s existing voter-verification system will remain in place.
Proposition 39 would have required voters casting ballots in person to present government-issued identification before voting.
Californians voting by mail would have been required to provide the final four digits of an approved government-issued identification number.
Election officials would then have matched that information against records connected to the voter’s registration.
The proposed constitutional amendment also included reporting requirements intended to provide additional information about citizenship verification among California’s registered voters.
Supporters argued those changes represented basic election-security protections already used in various forms across much of the country.
Republican Assemblyman Carl DeMaio and his Reform California organization were among the leading forces behind the measure.
The California Republican Party and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association also supported Proposition 39.
Backers maintained that requiring voters to establish their identity would strengthen election security and improve public confidence in election results.
“Prop. 39 failed this year, but we are confident that commonsense voter ID is still in California’s future,” campaign spokesperson Meredith Shields said after the results.
Opponents argued the proposal was unnecessary and could create additional obstacles for legally registered voters.
California Democratic leaders and several progressive organizations mounted a substantial campaign to defeat the measure.
The opposition included the California Democratic Party, ACLU California Action, Common Cause and the League of Women Voters of California.
Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, Sen. Adam Schiff and Gov.-elect Xavier Becerra also opposed the amendment.
“It was an absolutely unnecessary ballot measure,” ACLU California Action Executive Director David Trujillo said following its defeat.
California currently does not generally require voters to show identification when casting ballots at polling places.
Voters provide identifying information when registering, while election officials use signature verification as a central component of authenticating ballots.
Mail-ballot signatures are compared against signatures contained in voters’ registration records before ballots are accepted.
Proposition 39 would have significantly changed that system by placing an explicit voter identification requirement in the California Constitution.
The campaign consequently became one of the more expensive ballot-measure battles of the election.
Supporters raised approximately $37 million, according to CalMatters, while opponents collected roughly $35 million.
Billionaire Republican donor Richard Uihlein contributed approximately $17 million to supporters, while Airbnb co-founder Joe Gebbia provided approximately $8 million.
The California Democratic Party contributed nearly $6.5 million to the campaign opposing Proposition 39.
State analysts also warned that implementing the measure would carry substantial costs.
California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated state and local expenses could range from tens of millions into the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
California’s decision stood in contrast with voters elsewhere Tuesday.
Voters in Nevada, North Carolina and Ohio approved measures establishing or strengthening voter identification requirements, according to Ballotpedia.
Colorado voters rejected a separate proposal dealing with identification requirements for mail voting.
Those results demonstrated the continuing divide surrounding voter identification laws nationally.
Supporters generally argue identification requirements provide another safeguard against improper voting and can increase public confidence in elections.
Opponents contend voter impersonation is extremely rare and argue additional identification requirements can disproportionately burden eligible voters who lack qualifying documents.
California voters ultimately sided decisively with opponents.
The nearly 19-point margin also showed Proposition 39 failed to make significant inroads despite tens of millions of dollars in campaign spending.
For voter-ID supporters, however, the issue is unlikely to disappear.
The campaign behind Proposition 39 indicated immediately after Tuesday’s defeat that it intends to continue pursuing voter identification requirements in California.
