Prohibits Excluding Eligible Voters

Summary#

ACA-24, “Elections: prohibition of exclusion of eligible voters,” is a proposal to amend the California Constitution, not a new statute. It would add a rule against excluding eligible voters from meaningful participation at any integral stage of a publicly funded election; the stated goal is to protect participation, including regardless of political party preference. It has only been introduced, so it is not law.

  • The proposal would apply to publicly funded elections, including primary elections.
  • It would bar exclusion on any basis, with political party preference named as one example.
  • It keeps the Constitution’s stated voter-eligibility rule and provision restoring voting rights after a state or federal prison term, without stating a change to either.
  • The proposal does not spell out how the new rule would work alongside existing election rules, including California’s voter-nominated primaries for congressional and state offices.

What it means for you#

  • Voters: If adopted, the Constitution would prohibit excluding an eligible voter from meaningful participation at an integral stage of a publicly funded election. The text does not define what counts as “meaningful participation” or an “integral stage.”
  • People who are not eligible to vote: The proposal does not change the stated eligibility rule: a U.S. citizen who is at least 18 and a California resident may vote, subject to the stated exceptions.
  • Election officials and governments: The proposal does not assign a specific agency to carry it out or set out procedures, deadlines, appeals, or penalties.

Money#

No appropriation or cost estimate is included in the supplied material.

  • The bill’s digest says it does not require an appropriation. No publicly available information is provided here about possible implementation costs.

What is unclear#

  • The proposal does not define “eligible voter,” “meaningful participation,” “integral stage,” or “publicly funded election.”
  • It does not explain how the rule would interact with existing election rules, including the different primary-election arrangements described in the bill’s digest.
  • It does not specify who would decide whether an exclusion violates the rule, or what remedy or enforcement process would apply.
  • The proposal would need approval by two-thirds of each house of the Legislature before it could be put to voters. It has no start date in the supplied text.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to prevent eligible voters from being shut out of important parts of publicly funded elections.
  • Applying the rule at every integral stage, and not only on the basis of party preference, could address forms of exclusion the proposal does not list individually.
  • Putting the rule in the Constitution could make the protection apply broadly across publicly funded elections.

Case against#

  • The key terms are undefined, leaving uncertainty about which election stages and forms of participation the rule covers.
  • The proposal does not explain how the rule would fit with existing election procedures, which could make its practical effect unclear.
  • It creates a broad prohibition without specifying who enforces it or what process voters and election officials would use to resolve disputes.