Home>Articles>CA Assemblymen DeMaio and Essayli Introduce CA Voter ID Law

Voter at polls during presidential election, using paper ballots. (Photo: Rob Crandall/Shutterstock)

CA Assemblymen DeMaio and Essayli Introduce CA Voter ID Law

Restore public trust and confidence in elections

By Katy Grimes, January 28, 2025 6:59 am

With President Donald Trump demanding passage of a Voter ID requirement in California as a condition to receive federal wildfire aid, Assemblymen Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) and Bill Essayli (R-Riverside) announced they are introducing the California Voter ID and Election Integrity Act of 2025 (AB 25) to fulfill Trump’s requirement and of course, enhance election integrity in the State of California.

If enacted, the bill would require: Voter ID for in-person and mail-in ballots; citizenship verification and accurate maintenance of voter lists by each county; enhanced ballot signature review requirements; and imposing penalties on counties if they don’t finish counting their ballots within 72 hours of the election.

“There is a cancer growing in our democracy where too many California voters do not trust in our elections. California voters will not have the confidence they deserve that we have fraud-free elections — until we enact this common sense voter ID law,” said Assemblyman DeMaio.

“The California Voter ID and Election Integrity Act of 2025 will help restore confidence in our system by requiring election integrity reforms that will increase the security, speed, and accuracy of reporting in the future. We call on our colleagues to set aside partisanship and join us in adopting these common-sense steps that a majority of Californians agree on,” said Assemblyman Essayli, and Vice Chairman of the Assembly Elections Committee.

The California Voter ID and Election Integrity Act of 2025 (AB 25) would specifically enact the following:

  1. Voter ID Requirement: Provide language requiring a government-issued ID to vote (Driver’s License) in person – and use of last 4 digits of Drivers License on Mail-in Ballots
  1. Accountability for Citizenship Verification: Provide language requiring a verification of citizenship before adding an individual to voter rolls – and verification of existing voter registrations. Verification cannot be a person’s own attestation – but must be proven by appropriate identification documentation to prove they are a US Citizen.
  1. Accountability for Maintaining Accurate Voter Lists: Provide language requiring the state auditor conduct a random sample of voter lists for a county to ensure at least 98% accuracy on the list – identifying any individuals that are not citizens, deceased, moved out of state, moved from address, etc as inaccuracies. Any county that fails to meet this standard may not automatically mail ballots to everyone on their voter list for that election cycle, but may provide mail-in ballots to individuals who request them.
  1. Accountability for Timely Counting of Ballots: Provide language suspending a county’s ability to automatically use mail ballots for the following election if they do not count all mail-in ballots within 72 hours of the election – not counting provisional ballots and ballots rejected due to signature mismatch. Counties that lose the ability for an all-mail in election shall still provide mail-in ballots to individuals that request them.
  1. Integrity of Signature Review Process: Provide language requiring the state auditor to audit using random sample the signature reviews of county election offices to ensure proper vetting of signatures occurs and to report findings of audit within 90 days of each election. For any county office that fails an audit of their signature reviews, that county Registrar of Voters shall submit a remediation plan to the Secretary of State for improvements.

DeMaio and Essayli said following the November 2024 election, California’s month-long election process was displayed to the entire country, and the significant delays to counting and reporting on election results exposed weaknesses of and undermined public trust and confidence in the system. Their proposal fixes the problems and should be enacted on a bipartisan basis given the importance of restoring election integrity to ensure the health of our democracy.

Here is the proposed bill.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Spread the news:

 RELATED ARTICLES

8 thoughts on “CA Assemblymen DeMaio and Essayli Introduce CA Voter ID Law

  1. Just what the doctor ordered for California’s corrupted election process. Will the ill supermajority in Sacramento sign off on prescription AB25?

    I sure hope so!

  2. Republican Assemblymen Carl DeMaio and Bill Essayli have introduced common sense voter identification legislation that many states and sovereign nations around the world employ to ensure fair and honest elections. You can guarantee that Gov. Gavin “Hair-gel Hitler” Newsom and the criminal Democrat thug mafia in the legislature won’t vote for it? Why would they when they can currently steal elections with impunity?

  3. There needs to be penalities not only to counties that fail to comply, but imprisonment and fines to the registrar of voters of those counties for failing to comply. I recently found the Board of Supervisors of my county of residence merely serves as an enforcer of Sacramento’s dictats and it appears the Board DOESN’T EVEN KNOW HOW THE DEPARTMENT HEADS OF THE VARIOUS COUNTY DEPARTMENTS ARE SELECTED AND OR HIRED, AND THOSE COUNTY DEPARTMENTS ARE FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES INDEPENDENT OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, WHICH HAS NO MEANS FOR OVERSIGHT OF THOSE DEPARTMENTS, INCLUDING THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS. This, of course, desperately needs to change, but in the meantime…

  4. I appreciate the effort and like this proposed law but would definitely add a paper ballot requirement. No more voting machines. What good are all these points if the machine vote can be easily manipulated. My vote is for banning the voting machines altogether. Back to basics.

    1. I understand that some legal cases targeting voting fraud via vote counting machines were lost due to semantics, that the suits addressed the machines rather than the software operating the machines – the machines do nothing without the instructions provided by the software. The software is additionally closed source, which means it can’t be independently audited to determine what it actually does. Then the machines are connected to the internet, which leaves them open to manipulation by entities who have an interest in the outcome of an election, whether by direct access or illicit penetration of the system – malicious hacking. There is much more to “the machines” than the machines themselves.

      1. @Alex Von Dergarten. Yes, we have discussed the problems with voting systems like Dominion extensively on this forum. The bottom line is that NO electronic voting system can be guaranteed to be safe from outside or internal manipulation. The best example that I gave for this was the Volkswagen manipulation of their internal emissions software to avoid detection by smog control auditing stations. The Volkswagen engineers created a program on their diesel powered vehicles that would fool the smog stations and indicate much fewer pollutants than actually produced by the car. Tabulators (counting machines) are fine so long as the paper ballots are kept for random verification and/or recounting.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal

  5. Boy, do we need this. It should have 100% support. If democrats vote against it, you know for sure they cheat. Thank you Carl DeMaio and Bill Essayli.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *