Proposition 39: Prohibits Citizens from Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification

CalMatters' 2026 voter-guide entry for Proposition 39. It briefly explains the measure, summarizes each side's main argument, lists endorsements on each side, links paired commentaries and related news, explains its campaign-finance data methods, and reprints the official ballot text.

• CalMatters describes the measure as requiring ID at the polls, ordering officials to verify that all registered voters are citizens, and requiring the last four digits of a government ID on mail ballots.
• It says California currently requires ID and Social Security information to register but does not request ID at polling places.
• It says the measure was placed on the ballot by conservative groups.
• Supporters argue ID requirements will strengthen trust and note most states require ID.
• Opponents argue it will make voting harder for eligible voters without a driver's license or documents, disproportionately affecting people with disabilities, low-income people and recent movers.
• Listed endorsements: support from the California Republican Party, Reform California and Uline CEO Richard Uihlein; opposition from the ACLU, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, the California Democratic Party and The Sacramento Bee editorial board.

A Secretary of State 'Text of Proposed Laws' file that opens with the last part of Proposition 39's legal text (Sec. 2.1, which adds Article II, Section 3.1, and Sec. 3 severability) and then contains the full text of Proposition 40, the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act. Only the first page concerns Proposition 39, and that content duplicates the complete Prop 39 text stored separately.

• Repeats Prop 39's new Article II, Section 3.1(a)-(c): citizenship-verification duty and annual reporting, ID at the polls and matching last-four digits for mail ballots, a free voter ID card, a self-executing clause, citizen judicial review, and odd-year State Auditor audits.
• Repeats Prop 39's severability clause.
• The rest of the document is the text of Proposition 40, a separate measure.

Long document: only the first 6,000 characters were summarized.

The Secretary of State's 'Text of Proposed Laws' pages (pages 133-134 of the Voter Information Guide) containing the complete legal text of Proposition 39, preceded by the end of Proposition 38's text and followed by the start of Proposition 40's. Prop 39 has three sections: findings and purposes; Sec. 2.1, which adds Section 3.1 to Article II of the California Constitution; and a severability clause.

• Sec. 1 states the purposes: enforcing existing voter qualifications including U.S. citizenship, promoting public confidence, deterring and detecting fraud by maintaining accurate rolls, and minimizing impersonation by requiring proof of identity.
• New Art. II, Sec. 3.1(a): the Secretary of State and county officials must maintain accurate registration lists, use 'best efforts' to verify citizenship attestations using government data, and annually report the percentage of each county's rolls that is citizenship-verified.
• Sec. 3.1(b): in-person voters must present government-issued ID each time; mail voters must provide the last four digits of a unique number from government-issued ID that matches the one they designated for their registration.
• Sec. 3.1(b): the designated ID type must be in the registration record, noted on the mail-ballot envelope and available by phone or electronically; officials may count a regular or provisional ballot only after verifying identity and that the person cast only one ballot.
• Sec. 3.1(b) defines government-issued identification as 'documentation that allows conclusive verification of the voter's identity' and requires the State to provide a free voter ID card on request.
• Sec. 3.1(c): the section is self-executing; the Legislature must promptly enact implementing laws, provide for military and overseas voters, and ensure compliance; citizens may seek judicial review; the State Auditor must audit compliance every odd-numbered year.
• Sec. 3 is a standard severability clause.

The Proposition 39 section of the official state Voter Information Guide (pages 48-53). It contains the Attorney General's official title and summary, the Legislative Analyst's fiscal summary and full analysis, pointers to campaign-finance information, and the official arguments and rebuttals for and against. Despite being catalogued as official text, it does not contain the measure's legal text, which the guide says is on page 133.

• Attorney General's summary: prohibits voting by mail unless the voter designates a government-issued ID number for their registration.
• Invalidates a mail ballot if the envelope lacks the last four digits of an ID number matching the designated one; the summary's example is a voter who designates a Social Security number but writes a driver's license number, whose ballot would not count.
• Prohibits voting in person without presenting government-issued identification.
• Requires elections officials to report annually the percentage of each county's voters whose citizenship status they have verified.
• LAO estimate: state and local costs of tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars per year, depending on future decisions; possible savings likely would not exceed costs.
• Includes the same official arguments and rebuttals that are stored as a separate source.

The Legislative Analyst's Office's impartial analysis of Proposition 39 for the November 3, 2026 ballot. It describes current California law on citizenship, registration, voter-roll maintenance and voter identification (signatures), then explains what the measure would require: citizenship verification of voter rolls using 'best efforts', designation of a government-issued ID for mail voting, ID at in-person voting, the last four digits of that ID on mail envelopes, a free state voter ID card, odd-year State Auditor compliance audits, and further legislation. It estimates annual state and local costs of tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars.

• Currently, voters identify themselves by signing the roster in person or signing the mail-ballot envelope; officials verify mail-ballot signatures but generally not in-person signatures.
• Prop 39 requires officials to use 'best efforts' with government data to verify that registered voters are citizens and to report yearly the share of each county's voters verified.
• Voters would have to select a government-issued ID in their registration to vote by mail and write the last four digits of that ID number on the envelope; in-person voters must present government-issued ID.
• The state must provide a free voter ID card on request.
• The State Auditor must report on state and county compliance every odd-numbered year.
• The Legislature would need to define details the measure leaves open, such as which IDs qualify and what counts as best efforts to verify citizenship.
• Fiscal estimate: state and local costs of tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars per year, depending on future decisions; possible savings from fewer registered voters likely would not exceed costs.

Complete official text of Proposition 39 from the voter guide's Text of Proposed Laws: findings, a new Article II, Section 3.1 of the California Constitution, and a severability clause.

• Sec. 1 purposes: enforce existing voter qualifications including citizenship, promote public confidence, deter and detect fraud through accurate rolls, and minimize impersonation by requiring proof of identity.
• Sec. 3.1(a): the Secretary of State and county officials must maintain accurate rolls, use 'best efforts' to verify citizenship attestations using government data, and report annually the percentage of each county's rolls that is citizenship-verified.
• Sec. 3.1(b): in-person voters must present government-issued ID each time; mail voters must give the last four digits of a government ID number matching the one designated in their registration; officials may count a regular or provisional ballot only after verifying identity and that the person cast one ballot.
• Government-issued ID is defined only as 'documentation that allows conclusive verification of the voter's identity'; the State must provide a free voter ID card on request.
• Sec. 3.1(c): self-executing; the Legislature must promptly enact implementing laws, including for military and overseas voters; citizens may sue over compliance; the State Auditor audits compliance every odd-numbered year.

The Secretary of State's online Voter Information Guide overview page for Proposition 39. It gives the ballot title, the Attorney General's short summary, the fiscal impact, the main supporters and opponents, what yes and no votes mean, one-paragraph pro and con statements from the campaigns, and campaign contact information.

• Official summary: invalidates mail ballots without the last four digits of the designated government-issued ID number on the envelope, and prohibits in-person voting without government-issued ID.
• Fiscal impact: costs of tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
• A yes vote means voters would present additional identifying information each time they vote; a no vote means identity would continue to be established by signature.
• Supporters listed: The Transparency Foundation, Latino American Political Assn, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn, CA Women's Leadership Assn.
• Opponents listed: ACLU California Action, Common Cause, League of Women Voters of California.
• The measure was put on the ballot by petition signatures.

A California Budget & Policy Center issue brief (September 2026, by Scott Graves, Alissa Anderson and Leslie A. Ortiz) that explains Proposition 39's provisions against current law and argues against the measure. It contends the measure addresses a nonexistent fraud problem, would create barriers for millions of eligible voters, increase identity-theft risk, lead to citizens being wrongly flagged as noncitizens, and impose unfunded state and local costs, and it places the measure within a national push to restrict voting.

• Explains each provision against current law: 'best efforts' citizenship verification with 'government data' (both undefined), ID at polls, designation of an ID for mail voting (which the Center says effectively requires existing voters to re-register), last four digits on the envelope, a free voter ID card, odd-year State Auditor audits, required implementing laws, and citizen lawsuits.
• Notes the measure defines government-issued ID only as 'documentation that allows conclusive verification of the voter's identity,' leaving acceptable ID types to the Legislature.
• Notes the citizen-suit provision does not specify what evidence is needed to sue.
• Cites Brookings, Brennan Center, Bipartisan Policy Center and Cato research that voter fraud and noncitizen voting are extremely rare.
• Cites a VoteRiders/CDCE survey: about 2.7 million (10.8%) voting-age citizen Californians lack a driver's license and more than 3 million (12.6%) have one that is expired, out of state or out of date.
• Argues ID digits on envelopes, which must be stored 6 to 22 months, raise identity-theft risk, citing NIST guidance on partial identifiers.
• Argues error-prone federal databases would cause some citizens to be wrongly flagged, and that the private right of action could be used to press officials to act on flawed data.
• Cites the LAO cost estimate and argues costs would come without new revenue, alongside federal H.R. 1 cuts.

Long document: only the first 42,000 characters were summarized.

A Times of San Diego republication of Bill Jones's CalMatters guest commentary supporting Proposition 39. Jones, California secretary of state from 1995 to 2003, argues the measure would make the election system 'harder to doubt' through ID requirements, free ID cards, and accurate voter rolls with citizenship verification, and criticizes the Attorney General's revised ballot title. The text is the same as the CalMatters original.

• Jones supports Prop 39, arguing that maximum participation and zero tolerance for fraud depend on each other.
• He describes the measure as requiring ID in person or the last four ID digits by mail, free state ID cards, and accurate voter rolls including citizenship verification.
• He argues it does not disenfranchise eligible voters or create a poll tax because the ID is free.
• He says it would bring California in line with 36 other states with some form of voter ID.
• He criticizes the Attorney General's July ballot-title revision.
• He says California's voter file has inactive records and the state mails ballots to people who have moved and allows ballot harvesting, while stating fraud is not rampant.

A short Election Law Blog post that excerpts the opening of a San Francisco Chronicle article by Bob Egelko. The excerpt reports that sponsors of Proposition 39 dropped, before a pair of court hearings, their claims that the measure would make voting easier, protect privacy and save the state millions of dollars. The stored text is only the excerpt; the full Chronicle article is linked.

• Per the excerpted Chronicle report, Prop 39 sponsors abruptly dropped claims that the measure would make voting easier, protect privacy and save the state millions of dollars.
• The excerpt says those arguments had been part of the text of Proposition 39 before a pair of court hearings.
• The excerpt describes Prop 39 as a state constitutional amendment backed by Assembly Member Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) and similar to voter-ID legislation supported by President Donald Trump.

A CalMatters guest commentary by Bill Jones, a former two-term California secretary of state, supporting Proposition 39. Jones argues the measure would make California's election system 'harder to doubt' by requiring ID, issuing free ID cards and requiring accurate voter rolls with citizenship verification. He criticizes the Attorney General's revised ballot title. CalMatters pairs it with an opposing commentary, which is linked but not included here.

• Jones says he supports Prop 39 and that maximum participation and zero tolerance for fraud depend on each other.
• He describes three changes: ID at the polls or last four ID digits by mail, free state ID cards, and accurate voter rolls including citizenship verification.
• He argues the measure does not disenfranchise eligible voters or create a poll tax, because the ID is free.
• He says it brings California in line with 36 other states that require some form of voter ID.
• He criticizes the Attorney General's July revision of the ballot title to say the measure 'prohibits citizens from voting' unless they show ID.
• He says California's voter file has inactive records, ballots are mailed to people who have moved, and ballot harvesting is allowed, while stating that none of this means fraud is rampant.

A Hoover Institution 'California Decides / Proposition Lab' explainer on Proposition 39. It describes the measure's ID requirements for in-person and mail voting, the citizenship-verification and reporting duty, the free state ID card, the self-executing clause, citizen suits and odd-year audits, and the ballot-title dispute. It then discusses trade-offs, focusing on mail voting, ballot harvesting and declining voter confidence. While saying it does not tell voters what to think, its conclusion characterizes the measure as addressing a real gap and argues the Legislature could limit rejected ballots through a cure process.

• Says the measure's largest effects would fall on mail voting, since over 80 percent of Californians vote by mail.
• States there is no credible proof of widespread or systematic election fraud in California, but that instances have been uncovered and confidence in elections has declined.
• Reports that the AG changed the title from 'Establishes Additional Voter Identification and Citizenship Verification Requirements' to the current title, and that the Sacramento Superior Court found the changed title and summary 'sufficient.'
• Compares the mail-ballot ID-number system to Minnesota's, which also requires a witness.
• Argues that in-person impersonation is the rarest form of fraud and that mail voting is the larger verification gap.
• Concludes that passage would bring California in line with most states, that voter ID has broad support, and that existing ballot-cure procedures could address rejected ballots.

The official ballot arguments for and against Proposition 39, with rebuttals, as printed on pages 52-53 of the state Voter Information Guide. The argument in favor and the rebuttal to the argument against are signed by leaders of Californians for Voter ID and allied groups; the argument against and the rebuttal to the argument in favor are signed by ACLU California Action, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters of California, U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, the California Nurses Association and the California School Employees Association. The guide notes the arguments are the authors' opinions and were not checked for accuracy by any official agency.

• Supporters argue voter ID is a bipartisan, common-sense reform that increases trust and participation, and that the measure keeps mail ballots and other conveniences while guaranteeing a free voter ID.
• Supporters argue the current signature-check process is slow and that more than 100,000 ballots were rejected for signature mismatches in the last election.
• Supporters say the measure requires citizenship checks of voter rolls and an independent audit every two years.
• Opponents frame the measure as tied to Donald Trump and 'MAGA' billionaire funding and call it election rigging.
• Opponents argue it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, citing the LAO, and that putting ID digits on mail envelopes creates identity-theft risk.
• Opponents argue a single wrong digit, an out-of-date ID address or a misspelled name could cause a valid ballot to be rejected, and that voters who do not designate an ID may not get a mail ballot.
• Opponents argue 'free' IDs still impose costs such as travel, time off work and obtaining documents, hitting seniors, students, low-income workers, voters of color and women who changed names hardest.

An opposition fact sheet against Proposition 39 published by the League of Women Voters of California and paid for by No on Prop 39 - Californians for Voting Rights (sponsored by California Donor Table and ACLU of Northern California). It describes the measure's requirements and argues it would make voting harder, expose voters to identity theft, cause valid ballots to be rejected, slow counting and waste money, and frames it as backed by 'MAGA Republicans and billionaires.'

• Argues mail ballots could be rejected unless voters designate a personal ID number and perfectly match its last four digits each election.
• Says election officials would not be required to notify mail voters who make mistakes or omit the number.
• Says the measure is unclear on which kinds of ID would be accepted at the polls and which databases would be used for annual citizenship checks.
• Argues ID numbers on mailed materials create identity-theft risk.
• Argues seniors, students, low-income voters, people with disabilities, voters of color and people who changed names would be disproportionately blocked.
• Argues costs would include effectively re-registering over 26 million voters, changing registration systems, more staff, and defending lawsuits.

The Sacramento County Superior Court's minute order and ruling (Judge Jennifer K. Rockwell, Case 26WM000193, Californians for Voter ID, Yes on 39, et al. v. Weber) denying the proponents' petition for a writ of mandate against the Attorney General's ballot title, summary and label for Proposition 39. The court held that the title 'Prohibits Citizens From Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification' accurately describes the measure and that the Attorney General reasonably left out subdivision (a) duties that reflect existing law.

• Petitioners argued the title was false or misleading because Prop 39 regulates which ballots are counted rather than whether a citizen may cast one ('a verification rule, not a disqualification').
• The court rejected this, reasoning that the text requires voters to present ID when casting a ballot in person and to provide the matching ID digits when voting by mail, so it 'imposes substantive restrictions on the submission of ballots.'
• The court added that voting includes having one's ballot counted, citing Gould v. Grubb (1975), so a ballot that will not be counted does not accomplish a vote.
• On the petitioners' claim that the title omits subdivision (a)'s duties to maintain accurate rolls and verify citizenship, the court accepted the Attorney General's position that those duties largely reflect existing law and that annual citizenship reporting is the only new requirement.
• The court held that differences from the circulating title and the LAO's description are irrelevant under Elections Code section 9051, which allows the ballot title to differ.
• The court found petitioner Donald DiCostanzo had standing; the petition was denied.

The verified petition for writ of mandate filed July 29, 2026 in Sacramento Superior Court by Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate President pro Tempore Monique Limón (represented by Olson Remcho LLP) against the Secretary of State and State Printer, with the authors of the pro-Prop 39 ballot arguments as real parties in interest. It asks the court to strike statements in the Argument in Favor, the Rebuttal to Argument Against and the Ballot Argument Summary claiming that Prop 39 makes voting easier, contains privacy protections, makes sure every valid vote counts by improving on signature verification, and saves money.

• Petitioners argue it is false that Prop 39 'makes it easier to vote', since current law requires no ID to vote, and false that it 'requires no burdens' or that 'no additional documents' are required.
• Petitioners argue the measure contains no privacy provisions and instead requires mail voters to disclose part of an ID number through the mail.
• Petitioners argue nothing in Prop 39 mentions or changes signature verification, so the argument implying it replaces signature checks is misleading.
• Petitioners argue the measure would prevent otherwise valid ballots from counting when the ID digits do not match the designated number.
• Petitioners cite the LAO's estimate of costs between tens of millions and low hundreds of millions of dollars a year to dispute the claim that Prop 39 'saves money.'
• Petitioners describe current law: voters attest citizenship under penalty of perjury at registration; in-person voters sign the roster; mail voters sign the envelope (Elec. Code 2000, 3011, 14216, 14310).
• Petitioners note that voters who registered before HAVA took effect may not know whether they have a designated ID number.

The California Secretary of State's campaign-finance summary page for Proposition 39, listing the ballot-measure committees formed to support and oppose it and their total reported contributions through October 22, 2026. One support committee reported about $36.6 million; ten opposition committees together reported about $33.6 million.

• Support: Californians for Voter ID, Yes on 39 reported $36,561,050.
• Opposition total: $33,576,498 across ten committees.
• Largest opposition committee: No on 39 - Block Election Rigging (nurses, teachers, nonprofit labor and community health clinic organizations), $19,820,078.
• Other large opposition committees: United Against Prop. 39 - Stop the Rig ($7,051,189) and No on Prop 39 - Californians for Voting Rights, sponsored by California Donor Table and ACLU of Northern California ($4,809,410).

A brief Spectrum News 1 (Los Angeles) item introducing a video segment on Proposition 39. The text describes the measure's ID and citizenship-verification requirements and notes that the reporter spoke with a supporter from the Patriot Precinct Project and with League of Women Voters executive director Jenny Farrell, an opponent. Their views are in the video, which is not captured in the stored text.

• Describes Prop 39 as requiring government-issued ID at the polls and the last four digits of an ID, such as a driver's license, on mail-ballot envelopes.
• Says the measure would also require election officials to verify the citizenship of registered voters.
• Says the initiative qualified for the ballot in April.
• Names Cynthia Gabaldon (Patriot Precinct Project), who plans to vote yes, and Jenny Farrell (League of Women Voters), who plans to vote no, as interviewees.

A short KMPH Fox 26 (Fresno) news report on a Republican campaign event in Fresno supporting Proposition 39. It describes the measure's ID requirements, quotes congressional candidate Kyle Kirkland, paraphrases Assemblymember Carl DeMaio and unnamed opponents, and cites the LAO cost estimate.

• Republican leaders gathered in Fresno on a Tuesday to build support for Prop 39.
• The report describes the measure as spearheaded by Republican Assemblymember Carl DeMaio.
• It describes the requirements: government-issued ID for in-person voting; mail voters provide an ID number at registration and write the last four digits on the envelope.
• DeMaio argued the proposal would help restore public confidence in elections.
• Opponents, unnamed, argue the requirements could create barriers for eligible voters without ID and lead to rejection of valid mail ballots.
• Cites the LAO estimate of tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

A CalMatters news article by Nadia Lathan on the donors behind the Proposition 39 campaigns. This is an updated version of the article also republished by KPBS: it adds Airbnb co-founder and White House official Joe Gebbia's $8 million contribution and puts the Yes campaign's total at more than $36 million, $13 million more than opponents. It also covers the No-side donors, each side's arguments, expert comment, advertising and polling.

• Richard Uihlein has contributed $17 million to the Yes campaign; Joe Gebbia gave $8 million 'on Wednesday'; Steven Bray loaned more than $3 million and gave $50,000.
• Other Yes donors include Reform California, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss ($250,000 each) and Nicole Shanahan ($370,000).
• The Yes campaign has raised more than $36 million, $13 million more than opponents, a month from Election Day.
• No-side donors include the California Democratic Party (nearly $5.5 million), Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria ($2 million), Patty Quillin and Quinn Delaney ($1.5 million each) and SEIU ($1 million); Xavier Becerra and Speaker Robert Rivas formed a joint committee for the No campaign.
• Supporters compare voter ID to needing ID to fly or buy alcohol and note 36 states request or require ID (NCSL).
• Opponents say it would block citizens lacking ID, disproportionately affecting people who moved, changed names or are low income.
• Polling: an April UC Berkeley IGS poll found support fell below 50 percent with measure details; a September PPIC poll found 43 percent support.

A CalMatters news article by Nadia Lathan, republished by KPBS, on who is funding the Proposition 39 campaigns. It details the major Yes-side donors, led by Illinois billionaire Richard Uihlein's $17 million, and the major No-side donors, led by the California Democratic Party, and summarizes each side's arguments, expert commentary on fraud claims and strategy, campaign advertising, and polling.

• Richard Uihlein had contributed $17 million to the Yes campaign; other Yes donors include Steven Bray (more than $3 million loaned plus $50,000), Reform California, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss ($250,000 each) and Nicole Shanahan ($370,000).
• The Yes campaign had raised more than $28 million, $11 million more than opponents, about a month before Election Day.
• No-side donors: California Democratic Party (nearly $5.5 million), Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria ($2 million), Patty Quillin and Quinn Delaney ($1.5 million each), SEIU ($1 million).
• Assemblymember Carl DeMaio created Reform California and is spearheading the initiative after similar bills failed in the Legislature.
• Opponents including Common Cause and the League of Women Voters argue it would block citizens without ID and that fraud is rare; supporters compare ID to needing ID to fly or buy alcohol.
• Nearly 90 percent of Californians vote by mail per the Secretary of State, so most voters would write ID digits on envelopes.
• An April UC Berkeley IGS poll found broad support for ID that fell below 50 percent with specifics; a September PPIC poll found 43 percent support for Prop 39.

A KPIX report syndicated by KION 46 on a Proposition 39 opposition rally. It explains current California ID rules and the measure's requirements, quotes the LAO cost estimate, and gives quotes from Sen. Alex Padilla (opposed), Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (supporter), and CSU Long Beach professor Matt Lesenyie. It also cites an April UC Berkeley IGS poll.

• Current law requires ID and a Social Security number to register; IDs are not required at the polls and mail ballots are verified by signature.
• The report says that if passed, Prop 39 would require proof of citizenship to vote, ID at polling stations, and the last four ID digits on mail ballots.
• Quotes the LAO: costs could increase by tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars a year, less than 0.25 percent of the General Fund, with savings likely not exceeding costs.
• At the rally, Democrats called the proposal a Republican-led assault to disenfranchise voters; Sen. Padilla tied it to 'Donald Trump and the MAGA agenda.'
• DeMaio called it a bipartisan, common-sense reform and 'the most important ballot measure' in decades, and said 1.4 million signatures were collected, nearly half from Democrats and Independents.
• Election officials said audits show the mail system is secure with no evidence of widespread fraud; Prof. Lesenyie called the measure 'a solution in search of a problem.'
• An April UC Berkeley IGS poll found 56 percent of voters supported the measure.

A San Joaquin Valley Sun report on two Sacramento Superior Court rulings about how Proposition 39 is presented to voters: one judge upheld the Attorney General's ballot title, and another found several statements in supporters' ballot arguments false or misleading.

• Judge Shelleyanne Chang sided with Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate President pro Tem Monique Limón, finding all challenged supporter statements (easier voting, improved security and privacy, taxpayer savings) false or misleading; supporters agreed to remove or revise them.
• Chang reasoned an added ID step cannot reasonably be called making voting easier, and the privacy claim misled because mail voters put part of an ID number on the envelope.
• Judge Jennifer Rockwell rejected Californians for Voter ID's challenge to the title 'Prohibits Citizens From Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification,' noting provisional ballots still require ID before they count.
• Cites the LAO estimate of tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars a year in costs.

The Attorney General's PDF of Initiative 25-0007 Amendment 1, the filed text of the measure that became Proposition 39. The stored text contains only the header 'Initiative 25-0007 Amdt. 1'; the rest of the PDF appears to be a scanned image with no extractable text, so its contents could not be read.

• The document is identified as Initiative 25-0007 Amendment 1, the Attorney General's file number for the voter ID initiative.
• No operative text was extractable from the stored copy.