Does Initiative 25-0007A1 implement voter roll clean-up?

Article Series

1. Does Initiative 25-0007A1 implement voter identification?
2. Does Initiative 25-0007A1 implement citizenship verification?
3. Does Initiative 25-0007A1 implement voter roll clean-up?

What parts of the text pertain to voter roll clean-up?

The only reference to voter roll clean-up in the proposed amendment is (a)[1][i]. The subjects are the Secretary of State and county elections officials.

It's possible that (c)[4] relates to voter roll clean-up because it requires the State Auditor to "audit" and "report" on "compliance with this section".

The duty imposed by (a)[1][i] is "to maintain accurate voter registration lists." The subjects already have that duty by accepting federal bribes under existing congressional acts. They also already have that duty under the Elections Code.

A Word About Self-Executing

Fundamentally, self-executing refers to a constitutional provision that does not require another law, like a statute, to implement.

In (c)[1], it states that the entire section is self-executing. If it were, the statement would be superfluous. If it weren't, the statement cannot make it so. Its existence signals that it's not.

For comparison, Proposition 7 (1911) was almost completely self-executing. You can see the current versions of the self-executing provisions for initiatives and referenda in Article II, section 8, section 9, and section 10. Even so, over time, however, the Legislature has found it necessary to enact statutes to implement some of the procedures.

Are Any Voter Roll Clean-Up Provisions Self-Executing?

Self-evidently, the answer is no.

In fact (a)[1][i] does nothing. Existing law already covers it.

The reason why the voter rolls are such a mess is due to the way existing law is implemented. The mess will continue.

As for (c)[4], it lacks any kind of direction to the State Auditor. Which parts of the section are to be audited? What does compliance mean? What is the period to be covered by the audit? When is the audit to be completed? What auditing standards should be used? Or more fundamentally, do any auditing standards exist? If the auditor has to figure it all out, then the auditor can do anything it wishes and call it compliance with the section. But who makes sure the auditor complies? Can the auditor be sued? Who has standing? It's just a rat's nest of questions without answers.

Conclusion

The section will have no effect on voter roll clean-up.

# # #

Copyright 2025, Richard Michael. All rights reserved.

Does Initiative 25-0007A1 implement citizenship verification?

Article Series

1. Does Initiative 25-0007A1 implement voter identification?
2. Does Initiative 25-0007A1 implement citizenship verification?
3. Does Initiative 25-0007A1 implement voter roll clean-up?

What parts of the text pertain to citizenship verification?

In subdivision (a), there are two provisions. The subjects are the Secretary of State and county elections officials. Clause (a)[1][ii] requires the subjects to attempt to verify citizenship. Clause (a)[1][iii] requires the subjects to report progress annually.

It's possible that (c)[4] relates to voter citizenship because it requires the State Auditor to "audit" and "report" on "compliance with this section".

A Word About Self-Executing

Fundamentally, self-executing refers to a constitutional provision that does not require another law, like a statute, to implement.

In (c)[1], it states that the entire section is self-executing. If it were, the statement would be superfluous. If it weren't, the statement cannot make it so. Its existence signals that it's not.

For comparison, Proposition 7 (1911) was almost completely self-executing. You can see the current versions of the self-executing provisions for initiatives and referenda in Article II, section 8, section 9, and section 10. Even so, over time, however, the Legislature has found it necessary to enact statutes to implement some of the procedures.

Are Any Voter Citizenship Provisions Self-Executing?

Reading clause (a)[1][ii], "shall use best efforts to verify citizenship attestations using government data," a fair question is what constitutes "best efforts?" Next comes what is "government data?" Does it include federal government data, state government data, or both? Does it include foreign government data? Does the state store any data that "verifies" citizenship? Do the subjects have the authority to access the "government data?" Clearly, the clause does not include any procedures nor any decision-making rules to use to make a concludion one way or another whether citizenship is verified.

Clause (a)[1][iii], "shall annually report what percentage of each county's voter rolls have been citizenship-verified" is much more specific, but still lacking. Does the Secretary of State do a separate report based on independent verification or does it just aggregate county reports? What is required to be reported? Is a report that states "Marin County 23.5%" sufficient? (That's all that's required by the language.) What happens if any of the subjects don't make a report? Is the report required for a calendar year, a fiscal year, or at any point in time the subjects individually decide?

Citizenship Verification Issues Not Addressed

Some charter cities already allow non-citizens to vote in some elections.

Clause (a)[1][iii] strongly implies that citizenship verification is a never-ending task in that 100% verification will never be attained. In fact, nothing in the text restricts the eligibility to vote to citizenship.

That's because it's presumed by the purposes section of Initiative 25-0007A1 which states "To enforce existing voter qualifications, including US citizenship, established by California's Constitution."

Here's what the constitution has "established" -- "A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote." (Article II, section 2(a). Notice the "may?" The California Supreme has already ruled that the our constitution does not prohibit non-citizens from voting. So it is not "established" that "only United States citizens" can vote in California. That appears to be a glaring "loophole." At least that's what supporters might call it.

There is nothing in Initiative 25-0007A1 that mandates "United States" citizenship verification. It says "to verify citizenship attestations." Without a statute directing the subjects, couldn't they just ignore it.

But there's more. Even if United States is presumed, and even if the provision were self-implementing, all it does is to direct "best efforts." Beyond that, even if the verification is done, it will just add (we presume, because it isn't specified) a Yes/No notation or a country notation, we presume (because it isn't specified), to the registration record. There is no mandate to the subjects on what course of action to take based on the verification. So guess what. They could presume whatever they want and comply yet foreigners could still receive a ballot and vote.

Conclusion

The citizen verification provisions are not self-executing. They are also not well thought out. While the purpose may be "to enforce" citizen-only voting, no new enforcement is implemented. If existing statutes don't prevent non-citizens from voting, then it is highly likely that nothing will change.

Overall, the section will have no effect on voter citizenship verification or on non-citizen voting.

# # #

Copyright 2025, Richard Michael. All rights reserved.

Does Initiative 25-0007A1 implement voter identification?

Article Series

1. Does Initiative 25-0007A1 implement voter identification?
2. Does Initiative 25-0007A1 implement citizenship verification?
3. Does Initiative 25-0007A1 implement voter roll clean-up?

What parts of the text pertain to voter id?

The five sentences in subdivision (b) directly or indirectly relate to voter identification.

In (b)[1], the voter is the subject. It states what the voter must do when casting a ballot. It is in the active voice. The voter (the subject) is causing the action.

In (b)[2], however, we have the passive voice ("must be") followed by a list of three "must be's" -- "indicated," "noted," and "available." The subject is the "type of identification." Obviously, the type of identification is not a person who can take an action. At best, the one who must act is implied. However, no single person is identifiable, even by implication. Does the voter "indicate" it? Is there a new checkbox on a registration form? Does the indication have to be in writing signed by the voter? Can some government official (we can only guess who), do the indicating? Might we presume that the voter is the actor because the voter is the actor in the (b)[1]. To these and many other questions, we cannot derive or even deduce an answer from the language of the sentence. So, we don't know.

In (b)[3], "election officials" are the subject. The sentence is in the active voice. "Elections official" is a term defined in the Elections Code. It might be reasonable to presume that that definition is intended here. However, a court might not be so lenient. After all "elections officials" is used in (a)[1]. The sentence imposes two duties on "election officials" -- count votes based on a condition and determine how many ballots the voter has cast.

In (b)[4], we are given a definition for the term "government-issued identification." That term is used twice in (b)[1]. But the plain word "identification" is used in (b)[2].

In (b)[5], the subject is "the state" (whoever that is). It is the active voice. It directs the state to issue a "voter ID card" (whatever that is) to an "eligible voter" (whoever that is) upon request.

So we have three different identifiable actors in this subdivision -- the voter, election officials, and the state.

A Word About Self-Executing

Fundamentally, self-executing refers to a constitutional provision that does not require another law, like a statute, to implement.

In (c)[1], it states that the entire section is self-executing. If it were, the statement would be superfluous. If it weren't, the statement cannot make it so. Its existence signals that it's not.

For comparison, Proposition 7 (1911) was almost completely self-executing. You can see the current versions of the self-executing provisions for initiatives and referenda in Article II, section 8, section 9, and section 10. Even so, over time, however, the Legislature has found it necessary to enact statutes to implement some of the procedures.

Are Any Voter ID Provisions Self-Executing?

In relation to the voter id issue, (b)[1] is detailed enough to be self-executing, but it has other problems which we'll discuss below.

However, (b)[2] cannot be self-executing because it does not specify who (which actor) is tasked with performing the duties.

While (b)[3] is most specific about the actors, and the actors are government officials, it's somewhat vague about what the "requirements of this section" are. It's in a subdivision that is exclusively about voter identification, but refers to the entire section for the requirements. Looking at the entire sentence, it could be referring to just the voter identification of the section. The second requirement -- only one ballot -- is not clear at all. Right now, the Elections Code specifies that a subsequent ballot is discarded or not allowed. The language does not change anything in the Elections Code itself. Does this requirement mean that any time more than one ballot from the same voter is detected (however that might happen) that all ballots by that voter are discarded? The language does not describe a procedure for elections officials to follow. Are they supposed to create a procedure? How would they create a procedure if the language doesn't give them guidance as to what the language intends to accomplish?

One example of a problem raised, but not solved, by this language is what if the first ballot cast is not by mail? Since all ballots are supposed to be secret, how could anyone identify the specific ballot that was cast without an envelope with the voter details on it? Even if both ballots were by mail, once the ballot is removed from the envelope, it shouldn't be able to be connected to a particular voter. There're also the mystery actors of (b)[2] who are given duties that are part of the "requirements."

Overall, (b)[3] is a mess.

When it comes to the definition in (b)[4], while it does define the term, the definition requires a decision by someone that the "documentation" is sufficient. We're not sure if it's the voter in (b)[1] where the term is used, or the election officials in (b)[3] where the term is not used. The definition does not provide any hints of what makes a a government-issued identification documentation suitable for "allow[ing] conclusive verification of the voter's identity?" If it's documentation with a picture, how does an elections official "verify[ing] the identity of the person voting" without comparing the photo to a person within their view? It appears self-evident that the act of verifying someone's identity is different than "documentation" that is "conclusive."

On it's face, (b)[5] is not self-executing. It doesn't identify the actor (the state can only act through officials). It also doesn't describe what is necessary to provide with the "request" or what the "voter ID card" "documentation" will contain.

So with respect to the "self-executing" nature of this section, the critical aspects are not fleshed out enough to be self-executing.

The proponent understands this implicitly. He proposed AB-25 (2025) -- California Voter ID and Election Integrity Act of 2025. With the help of the Legislative Counsel's office, AB-25 adds, amends, or repeals 16 statutes (and that's without any committee hearings). If that's what the Legislature would have to do to implement voter identification, how could these five sentences possibly implement it?

Can the voter be an actor governed by the constitution or a statute?

This discussion is about (b)[1]. The voter is the actor that must do one of two things.

What happens if the voter doesn't do those things and still casts a ballot, especially a mail ballot?

One obvious question to raise is: Should a voter even be given an in-person ballot or sent a mail ballot if the voter has not met the purported requirements of this section?

The Elections Code directs elections officials to mail "everyone" a ballot. This section doesn't amend any statutes.

All the questions that could be raised in connection with the voter being the actor could have been avoided by making some government official, like an elections official, be the actor. However, doing that in the constitution would likely conflict with many existing statutes.

Conclusion

The voter identification specifications of this section are not in any way on the same level as the self-executing provisions for voter-initiatives and voter-referenda.

Although some individual provisions have self-executing properties, voter identification requires a cohesive set of rules that cover, at least, the most common scenario. The section will have little, if any, effect on voter identification.

As written, it conflicts with existing statutes. To force any potential actors to interpret the constitution, self-implementing or otherwise, is outside the jurisdiction of actors in the executive department. Only a judicial body can make those kinds of interpretations. Given the poorly written text, courts are not likely to peer into the mind of the proponent or the voters. Nor are the courts likely to add missing language or change ambiguous language to satisfy the purpose.

# # #

Copyright 2025, Richard Michael. All rights reserved.