Voting: signature verification.

Assembly Member Berman, with Senator Cervantes as principal coauthor, frames this package as a reconfiguration of California’s mail-ballot signature verification, voter-notice practices, and ballot-tracking capabilities, paired with adjustments to canvass timing and privacy protections. The opening framing emphasizes a more structured, verifiable approach to signature verification and greater voter visibility into ballot processing, while maintaining existing confidentiality safeguards for voter data.

The core changes center on signature verification timelines and procedures. For regularly scheduled statewide elections, notice of a mismatched signature would be due no later than 14 calendar days after the election, and the voter would have until 5 p.m. 22 calendar days after the election to verify their signature. For elections that are not regularly scheduled statewide, notice would be provided no later than 8 calendar days before certification, and the verification deadline would be 5 p.m. 2 calendar days before certification. The bill would permit an elections official to accept a form used to verify signatures via a vote-by-mail ballot drop box. If a completed unsigned identification statement is timely submitted and the signatures compare, the signature may be added to the voter’s registration record for future elections. The framework allows use of signature verification technology, provides a presumption that the identified signature is valid if it matches or shares similar characteristics, and restricts consideration of a voter’s party preference, race, or ethnicity. If signatures do not compare, additional procedures require corroboration by two more officials beyond a reasonable doubt before rejecting the ballot. Notices to voters would be provided by mail, telephone, text, or email, with translations in required languages, and a combined form could satisfy multiple verification-related requirements. Data sharing is organized with confidentiality protections, daily updates for disclosures, and updated records when matches occur, while allowing limited disclosures to certain recipients under defined conditions. The bill also contemplates post-verification updating of the voter’s signature on file and restricts after-election use of unsigned identification envelopes, including post-election drop-box handling limited to receiving verification-related forms.

In parallel, the proposal creates a statewide mail-ballot tracking system and requires counties to use the system or a comparable system that meets or exceeds the state offering, with accessibility for voters with disabilities and options for email or text notification. Status updates include when the ballot is delivered to the postal service, when delivery is expected, when undeliverable, when the completed ballot is received by the county, and when it has been counted or rejected, with an explanation if rejection occurs due to signature issues and a link for verification forms if the voter opted in. The system, administered by the Secretary of State, is designed to be interoperable with county systems and is intended to enhance transparency around ballot processing and counting.

The bill also revises canvass timing to allow fewer than six hours per day if the only ballots remaining are those where voters have been given the opportunity to verify or provide a signature and where the certification deadline permits. In addition, there are contingent operative provisions tying the main changes to sequencing with related measures, so the substantive amendments may become operative only if those companion bills are enacted and in a specific order. The proposal designates the act as imposing a state-mandated local program and provides for reimbursement if mandated costs are found, with translations and accessibility requirements embedded throughout and with potential local IT and staffing implications for implementation.

The authors’ framing positions the measures as increasing transparency and consistency in the signature-verification process while protecting voter privacy, expanding notice and form standards, and providing end-to-end ballot-tracking capabilities. The targeted changes would expand duties for local elections officials, introduce new data-sharing and technology use protocols, and potentially affect how counties plan resources and governance around election administration, all within a framework that depends on the enactment and sequencing of related legislation to determine which provisions become operative.