The conditions attached to Proposition 39 are not unduly burdensome, merely superfluous.
Advocates of Proposition 39 describe the statewide ballot measure as a practical reform aimed at restoring public confidence and boosting participation in California elections. Its sponsor, Assembly member Carl DeMaio (R–San Diego), highlights broad support for such measures across Democratic, Republican, and independent voters.
Nevertheless, the latest polling suggests trouble for the proposal, with a Public Policy Institute of California survey released last month showing a 55 percent to 43 percent tilt against it—stark numbers this late in the campaign cycle. The official ballot arguments shed some light on the reasons behind the sentiment. While supporters cling to their claim of being “nonpartisan,” opponents frame the measure as aligned with President Donald Trump’s election-denial rhetoric.
“Stop Trump from rigging our elections. Don’t believe the lies. Prop. 39 MAKES VOTING HARDER, MORE EXPENSIVE, AND LESS SAFE for Californians,” reads the “no” argument. It points to the measure’s funding from “MAGA rightwing billionaires.” That argument is reinforced by a recent CalMatters report detailing substantial contributions from wealthy Republican donors. The outlet describes this as a signal that conservatives view Prop. 39 as a barometer for backing broader voter-restriction efforts in forthcoming battleground states—part of Trump’s broader push to tighten access to the ballot.
That assessment rings true. In a state where the president’s approval rating hovers in the low twenties, it’s unlikely many voters will dive into the nuances of election policy and weigh the measure on its particulars. They’re likely to see it as, for the most part, a Republican Party maneuver designed to support Trump’s baseless election theories. That said, its requirements aren’t particularly onerous; they’re simply unnecessary.
Under current California rules, voters must present a state-issued ID or provide the last four digits of their Social Security number when registering. While in-person voting requires no ID, election workers verify signatures on vote-by-mail envelopes. With roughly 90 percent of ballots cast by mail, the central concern becomes the outside-placement requirement of the last four digits from a government ID—adding an extra checkpoint and, regrettably, an added avenue for identity theft.
There’s little concern about compliance costs for election offices, since administering elections is part of their remit. The measure would likely marginally depress turnout by disqualifying ballots from eligible voters who forget the ID they used at registration, while offering only a marginal uptick in security. It would compel many Californians to re-register, creating extra headaches, and it would almost certainly slow the already tedious process of tallying ballots.
I don’t oppose the idea of requiring ID to vote in principle, but California’s election system is exceptionally secure. There’s scant evidence of widespread fraud. In essence, there’s little risk of someone pretending to be another voter on a ballot. This isn’t about correcting a real problem.
Since his 2020 defeat, Trump has leaned into election conspiracy theories. The latest GOP strategy appears to be resurfacing claims of fraud whenever they lose. We shouldn’t indulge such narratives. Despite the appearance of nonpartisan rhetoric, Prop. 39 represents the state GOP’s alignment with Trump’s priorities and, as noted by CalMatters, could help generate momentum for broader nationwide restrictions—an approach Republicans hope will foster a durable nationwide majority. The measure may cause limited disruption in California because it is modest in scope, but it awakens some of the party’s more troubling impulses.
Reflect on DeMaio’s 2024 articulation of his seven-point plan to revive the state GOP: “Do you recall a time when Republicans controlled most statewide offices in California and held sway in the state Legislature and in the congressional delegation?” He blames the party’s own shortcomings and then places the first plank on the platform: “Make election integrity the top ballot issue for the California Republican Party.” I would also like to see California elections become more competitive, but my first suggestion would be for the GOP to present a stronger case for fixing California’s ongoing problems.
Others view the measure as a tool to boost Republican turnout for a November election that will largely serve as a referendum on Trump by giving the party a highly charged issue to mobilize around. Yet some knowledgeable political observers worry it could have the opposite effect. We shall see, but it underscores the California GOP’s tendency to rely on catchy strategies rather than fielding strong candidates.
As for the core claim that Voter ID is essential to restore voters’ faith in election integrity, consider who is most skeptical of our electoral system—and that skepticism stems largely from Trump’s six-year narrative. Would the public’s confidence be restored if Prop. 39 were enacted by those who believe MAGA adherents like Spencer Pratt could have lost a Los Angeles mayoral primary (where Republicans are a minority) due to fraud? The answer is probably not.
Republicans could regain credibility by acting in a normal, responsible manner. The rest of us should not enable them by backing a measure rooted in a fantasy about election integrity.
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
