California 2025-2026 Regular Session

California Senate Bill SB3

Introduced
12/2/24  
Refer
1/29/25  
Refer
3/3/25  
Refer
3/12/25  
Refer
3/13/25  
Refer
4/21/25  
Report Pass
4/29/25  
Refer
4/29/25  
Refer
5/6/25  
Report Pass
4/29/25  
Refer
4/29/25  
Report Pass
5/23/25  
Refer
5/6/25  
Engrossed
6/4/25  
Report Pass
5/23/25  
Report Pass
5/23/25  
Refer
6/16/25  
Engrossed
6/4/25  
Refer
6/16/25  
Report Pass
7/16/25  
Refer
7/17/25  
Report Pass
8/29/25  

Caption

Elections: signature verification and results.

Impact

If enacted, SB 3 would significantly impact the procedures surrounding vote-by-mail ballots in California by enhancing voter engagement and protection against wrongful ballot rejection. The changes are designed to create a more transparent electoral process, requiring elections officials to offer clearer communication to voters regarding their ballot status. The requirement that updated election information be posted at least twice weekly could lead to increased accountability and public awareness of the election process. However, since it imposes additional duties on local elections officials, it may also raise questions about resource allocation and the need for state funding to comply with these new mandates.

Summary

Senate Bill 3, introduced by Senator Cervantes, aims to amend several sections of the Elections Code, focusing particularly on the processes involved in signature verification for vote-by-mail ballots. The bill establishes that elections officials are prohibited from considering certain identifying information, such as gender, name, and address, during the signature verification process. The intention is to ensure that the comparison is strictly based on the signatures themselves, hence removing potential biases that could affect a voter's ballot acceptance. Additionally, the bill mandates that elections officials notify voters when there is a discrepancy in the signature comparison, thereby providing chances for verification prior to rejection of the ballot.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 3 appears generally positive among those advocating for voter rights and election transparency. Proponents argue that the bill promotes fairness and inclusivity in the electoral process, ensuring that no voter's ballot is rejected based on improper considerations. However, opposition may arise from those concerned about the potential increase in administrative burdens and costs on local agencies to meet the new requirements, which could foster a sense of apprehension regarding the practical implications of implementation.

Contention

Notable points of contention regarding SB 3 may stem from the balance it seeks to strike between safeguarding voter rights and the operational capacities of elections officials. Critics might argue that the increased requirements could overwhelm local election departments, especially in larger counties where vote-by-mail usage is high. Additionally, the bill's allowances for third-party entities to assist in signature verification could raise concerns about security and the integrity of the voting process, necessitating careful monitoring and clear regulations on the extent and manner of third-party involvement.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

CA AB3184

Elections: signature verification statements, unsigned ballot identification statements, and reports of ballot rejections.

CA SB77

Voting: signature verification: notice.

CA AB1037

Vote by mail ballots: signature verification.

CA AB884

Elections: language accessibility.

CA AB1004

Initiative, referendum, and recall petitions: signatures: voter notification.

CA AB3284

Elections omnibus bill.

CA AB13

Elections: Election Day holiday: voting by mail.

CA SB718

Elections: official canvass: unprocessed ballots.

CA AB421

Elections: referendum measures.

CA AB2249

Elections: retention of election records.

Similar Bills

No similar bills found.