California Voter ID Initiative Just Made the Ballot
Shawn GriffithsSACRAMENTO, Calif. - California voters are set to decide whether to add voter ID to the state constitution, after election officials announced the California Voter ID Initiative cleared the signature threshold needed for the 2026 ballot.
The proposed constitutional amendment needed 874,641 valid petition signatures to qualify for the statewide ballot, which is equal to 8% of the votes cast for governor in 2022.
There is another way the state can determine if an initiative will make it to November. It needs 962,106 projected valid signatures to qualify through random sampling.
Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s office announced on April 24 that the California Voter ID initiative exceeded this mark. The measure is scheduled to be formally certified June 25 unless withdrawn by its proponents, Reform California.
"The California Voter ID Initiative is a common-sense and bipartisan way to restore the trust and confidence all voters should have in our election system,” said Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, who is also the chair of Reform California.
“Our measure simply holds government officials accountable to maintain accurate voter lists and verify the identity of individuals casting ballots in our elections.”
He added that proponents collected 1.35 million signatures and argued that support for the measure crosses party lines.
The California Voter ID Initiative would amend the state constitution to require voters to present a government-issued ID when voting in person or provide the last four digits of their ID number when voting by mail.
It would also require the state to provide voter identification cards upon request and require election officials to annually report the percentage of voters in each county whose citizenship has been verified.
Supporters say this is about election integrity and assert that the proposal is designed to increase public confidence, tighten voter-roll maintenance, and bring California closer to states that require some form of voter identification.
Opponents argue the initiative could make voting harder for eligible voters who lack documents or have difficulty navigating new requirements. This includes poor voters, elderly voters, students, people with disabilities, and voters of color.
Check out a comprehensive breakdown from IVN author Cara Brown McCormick on the differences between the California Voter ID initiative and what is being proposed at the federal level.
Research shows that the most hyperbolic claims from both sides don’t hold up.
A paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that voter ID does not have a noticeable effect on voter turnout. Participation in elections doesn’t decline, but it also doesn’t increase as DeMaio claims.
“Other states that have implemented Voter ID programs have seen an increase in participation in their elections, including an increase in minority voting,” he said, though he did not provide evidence to support his statement.
Research out of Harvard also disputes claims that voter ID has any impact on election security because the types of fraud supporters claim the reform solves statistically don’t exist. And, in the few cases they’ve occurred, it had no impact on the election.
So, it doesn’t suppress the vote and it doesn’t save elections.
At the end of the day, this issue comes down to public confidence and perception. DeMaio is right that voter ID is a 70-30 issue, even an 80-20 issue depending on what public opinion polls people examine.
The argument that tends to reach voters is that people need a government-issued ID for so many things in their daily lives. Requiring one to vote doesn’t seem like a big deal. Republicans, Democrats, and independents largely agree on this.
The matter will now be decided by California voters, and the outcome will come down to how supporters and opponents focus their messaging.
The California Voter ID initiative is part of a crowded and expensive 2026 California ballot environment, and the measure will likely bring in a ton of money – both in support and opposition – now that it has qualified for the ballot.
Cara Brown McCormick
In Other Reform News…
Maine’s Super PAC Cap Passed With 74% Support ; Now Dark Money Wants It Gone
When Maine voters approved a cap on contributions to super PACs, supporters knew the law was likely headed to court. What emerged isn’t just a constitutional fight over money in politics – it also highlights how dark money networks shape the rules that govern campaign finance.
In 2024, End SuperPACs put a measure on the November ballot in Maine under Question 1 that was approved by 74% of voters. What the measure did was cap contributions to super PACs at $5,000, effectively banning these cash behemoths in the state.
The measure targeted independent political committees that can raise and spend unlimited sums to support or oppose candidates, while remaining legally separate from the campaigns themselves.
In December 2024, two conservative political committees, Dinner Table Action and For Our Future, along with Alex Titcomb, leader of both groups, sued to block the law. They argued that limiting contributions to independent expenditure committees violates the First Amendment.
If this sounds familiar, it is because they used the legal framework established by Citizens United v. FEC and the lower-court decision in SpeechNow.org v. FEC.
A federal judge sided with the plaintiffs in 2025 and blocked the law. Appeals were later filed in the First US Circuit Court of Appeals, keeping alive a case that could have national consequences for campaign finance law.
Now, new reporting from OpenSecrets adds another layer to the story: the financial trail behind the lawsuit runs in part through a dark-money network connected to Leonard Leo.
Leo is a conservative legal activist and co-chairman of the Federalist Society. He has been central to the rightward shift of the federal judiciary, including the US Supreme Court.
He has long been associated with a network of nonprofits and advocacy groups that influence judicial nominations, legal strategy, and election-related policy fights.
In this case, OpenSecrets found a financial pipeline connecting the plaintiffs challenging Maine’s law to the Concord Fund, formerly known as the Judicial Crisis Network.
Here's why it matters.
Dinner Table Action has reported just over $1 million in contributions since registering with the Maine Ethics Commission in 2021. Most of its contributions were small-dollar donations (80% up until December 2025 were under $200).
But its two largest contributions came from For Our Future: $50,000 in August 2024 and another $50,000 in October 2024. For Our Future also provided $58,300 in support between July 2023 and March 2025, mostly described as personnel time (this is called an in-kind contribution).
These two groups are linked. They list the same phone number. Both identify Titcomb as principal officer and Mary Alioto as treasurer. The email address For Our Future used to register with the Maine Ethics Commission is hosted on Dinner Table Action’s domain.
For Our Future, in turn, raised more than $410,000. Its largest funder by far was the Concord Fund, which contributed $375,000 across three payments: $50,000 in May 2023, $100,000 in August 2023, and $225,000 in February 2024.
That is where the lawsuit’s money trail intersects with Leo’s broader political network.
Maine Public reported in 2023 that the Concord Fund donated $50,000 to a Maine PAC associated with a network of nonprofits connected to Leo. The article noted that the donation appeared to be the group's first publicly disclosed contribution.
OpenSecrets also reported overlapping personnel and addresses among Leo-linked entities.
For example, the Concord Fund has been associated with the Judicial Education Project, now known as The 85 Fund. Carrie Severino, a Leo associate, has been listed as president of the Judicial Crisis Network and as director and secretary of The 85 Fund.
Gary Marx, president of the Concord Fund, has also been listed as a director and treasurer of The 85 Fund.
This organization shares a Fort Worth, Texas, mailing address with the Lexington Fund, which donated $1 million in June 2025 to a super PAC supporting US Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), according to OpenSecrets.
A Maine campaign finance report filed in April 2024 listed the Concord Fund at the same address, but in a different suite.
Yes, it is a lot of dots to connect.
The Concord Fund is colloquially referred to as a “dark money” entity. It does not have to disclose its donors in IRS filings because it is designated as a 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organization.
That structure allows politically active nonprofits to spend money in elections and policy fights without revealing who is ultimately funding them. Another recent example was the huge flow of cash into the Virginia redistricting referendum, most of which cannot be tracked.
This is because 95% of the money was funneled through 501(c)(4) groups.
The Maine lawsuit raises a question that has hovered over American elections since 2010: If super PACs can spend unlimited amounts independently, can states still limit the size of contributions to those committees?
Supporters of Question 1 say Yes. They argue that contribution limits are different from spending bans. Put simply, the state has an interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption, especially when affected groups operate close to political power centers.
The rules say independent expenditure committees cannot directly coordinate with candidates, candidate committees, or political parties in elections, but they can still get close to them.
The dispute between supporters and opponents, who make a free speech case, is why Question 1 was designed not only as a reform, but also a legal test. Supporters hoped the case would force higher courts to revisit the legal framework that created the era of super PACs.
But there is also another issue here: This wasn’t a law passed through the state legislature. It was a citizen-driven and backed initiative that got support from three-quarters of the Maine electorate.
Voters approved a law meant to limit the influence of big money in elections. But the groups challenging that law are now linked, through campaign finance records, to the very kind of opaque funding network the measure was designed to confront.
The court will decide whether Maine’s cap survives. But the money trail already illustrates the central problem voters were trying to address: In modern US politics, the public can see the lawsuit, the PACs, and the legal arguments.
What they often cannot see is who is ultimately paying for the fight.
NYC Bill Would Ask Voters to Replace Party Primaries With Nonpartisan Ranked Choice Elections
A newly introduced New York City Council bill could eliminate partisan municipal elections and move the city to a single all-candidate and all-voter election that uses ranked choice voting.
The bill, introduced back in January by Republican Councilmember Frank Morano, would amend the New York City Charter to require nonpartisan ranked choice elections for every elective municipal office. This includes:
- Mayor
- Public advocate
- Comptroller
- Borough president, and
- City Council
The bill has three sponsors: Morano, Council Member Farah Louis, and Council Member Vickie Paladino, giving it bipartisan sponsorship. It is currently in the Council’s Committee on Governmental Operations, State & Federal Legislation.
While not much news has come out about the bill, the New York Forward Party reached out to IVN about it and its endorsement.
“Forward Party New York is proud to formally support this bill. Electoral and voting reform is central to our mission,” said Susan DiVito, who spoke on behalf of the group.
“We believe the system itself needs to change before we can expect better outcomes from it. Nonpartisan elections mean every voter has a voice in every race regardless of party registration, including the record 45% of Americans who now identify as independents.”
She added that “ranked choice voting ensures winners have broad support, not just plurality support from a narrow primary electorate.”
New York City currently uses ranked choice voting, but only in closed partisan primaries that shut out 1-in-5 voters registered unaffiliated with a political party. The proposal would eliminate partisan elections completely and move to a single nonpartisan general election.
Shawn Griffiths
It would be open to all voters, all candidates, and it would move ranked choice voting to a time when the most voters participate. Candidates would qualify through the independent nominating petition process already used for special elections.
The bill would not take effect automatically. Because it changes the city charter, voters would have the final say through a citywide referendum.
The city’s charter revision commission considered open primary reform in 2025. However, when the commission pursued a nonpartisan Top Two model, it was opposed by the city’s most powerful political groups.
Morano was among the opponents to Top Two reform, but he emphasized that he supported ranked choice voting and was not opposed to more inclusive elections. The question is, will the city council allow his proposal to go before voters?
Independent Voters Call Viral Video with George Bush and Michelle Obama a “Breath of Fresh Air”
When people think of the names Bush and Obama, they may think about two families that come to represent what the partisan establishment looks like in US politics. However, the civility and friendship between them is tapping into people’s nostalgia.
This is because many voters remember a time when political opponents were just that – opponents, not hated enemies. And even though people can disagree on issues, they can still be friends.
A video interview of President George W. Bush in which he talked about a moment between him and Michelle Obama at John McCain's funeral has gone viral. In it, he and Michelle joked together, and he handed her an Altoids mint while seated.
When IVN shared the video on its Facebook, it quickly reached 700,000 views.
“It turns out the country is starved to see a white, center-right Republican and an African-American, center-left Democrat having fun and being able to converse, not as political figures but as citizens,” said Bush.
Nearly 22,000 people liked the video and it has over 1,400 comments.
“Hell yes!! We are starved for just regular discussions,” said IVN Reader Michael J. Pritchett.
“Not hateful gotcha moments, just agree to disagree or perhaps learn something that may change your opinion. Not this out to destroy the enemy mentality just because the other person has a different opinion.”
“This was when the nation was normalizing ...but then, it went into relapse ...hopefully, next time it starts normalizing, there will be no more relapses,” said Gama Rivera.
Harvey Sprayberry said:
“Reminds me of John McCain responding to a woman who said Obama was an Arab to which McCain answered ‘No ma'am. He's a decent family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that's what this campaign is all about.’ At that point I felt that even if Obama lost we were still going to be governed by a decent man.”
George Bush and Michelle Obama may not be identified as independent-minded figures in the US. But they remind voters of a time when political division did not equal partisan warfare. To see that again is refreshing for millions of Americans.
Quick Hits
- A bill to close Tennessee primaries died in the legislature thanks in large part to the work of open primaries activists.
- The Virginia Legislature approved a bill that expands the local option for ranked choice voting, including making it permanent.
- The Cook Political Report shows the least competitive House races in modern US history are expected in this year’s midterms.
- IVN guest contributor and founder/CEO of Independent Veterans of America, Paul Rieckhoff, commented on CNN that the gerrymandering back and forth between the two major parties is what “a rigged political system looks like.”
You Might Also Like
