Can someone explain Senate Bill 1174 to me? Enacted 9/29/24

I don't really like getting involved in politics, as it seems like a losing battle no matter what side of the river you're on.

However, I do like to keep my finger on the pulse just to keep a general awareness of the happenings in our country.

I decided to watch the Musk and Carlson talk that occurred recently, I paused shortly after hearing this, please excuse me if this has already been discussed at length.

There was a claim Musk made where he said "California just passed a law to make it illegal(?) to require voter ID for any election at all in the state of California" or in the words of the document sourced below

Prohibits a local government from enacting or enforcing any charter provision, ordinance, or regulation requiring a person to present identification for the purpose of voting or submitting a ballot at any polling place, vote center, or other location where ballots are cast or submitted, unless required by state or federal law.

So when I heard this, I wanted to see what this was about, because it sounds outlandish. I found the bill below after a brief search.

I'd like to get into the language of this bill because I don't quite understand what it's trying to accomplish or express to me... It's certainly peppered with a hearty amount of legalese.

Let's start here:

In California, an individual registering to vote declares under penalty of perjury that the information provided on the registration form is true and correct. The voter registration form includes questions related to a person's eligibility to vote, date of birth, California driver's license (DL) or identification card number, and the last four numbers of the registrant's social security number (SSN) if it is available.

How vague is that statement "If it is available" Uhhm what if its not? What does that even mean?

Anyways, doing a brief search as to what a California ID Card Number IS, their DMV website states it as such:

Identification (ID) cards are used to prove your identity or age (like driver’s licenses) but they do not allow you to operate a motor vehicle.

I've posted the link to this page below, moving forward, what is REQUIRED to get an ID? Three things in particular stick out
1: Have a Social Security Number
2: Have your photo taken
3: Have your thumbprint scanned

Now this seems pretty foolproof, I mean, how else would it be an ID guaranteed to confirm your identity without a photo? I would like to assume (please excuse me) that the process for getting a driver license is a little more complicated.

Sourced below is also the process for a non-citizen to get a SSN, again it seems fairly fool proof, I wont get into all the details here, please read the source below for more info.

This now brings me back to the bill that was recently passed, this is where I begin to get confused:

Under federal law, if a first-time voter does not provide a DL or state identification number or the last four digits of their SSN when they register to vote, they must provide identification prior to being eligible to vote in a federal election. If a first-time voter is voting in person they will be asked to show a form of identification when they go to a polling location. If a first-time voter is voting by mail and did not provide a form of identification with their vote by mail (VBM) ballot, a county elections official is advised to reach out to the voter to request and receive the required proof of identification prior to processing and counting the ballot.

Merriam Webster Defines ADVISE as: a transitive verb 1 a : to give (someone) a recommendation about what should be done
"Hey Chuck, you should maybe uh, reach out to that guy, he didn't provide any ID" "Yeah Bob, I'll get to that, don't worry"

Okay, so if your a first time voter, you have to show some form of identification... No problem, we listed the forms of ID they required to register to vote above... Sure, but at the same time you're saying that:

An overwhelming body of evidence proves that voter ID laws only subvert voter turnout and create barriers to law abiding voters. To register to vote in California, voters are already required to provide their driver's license number, California identification number, or the last four digits of their social security number.

Is the confusion starting to sink in yet? Or am I simply dense.

You're saying that to register to vote, you already MUST have shown some proof of identification, but at the same time, taking that same piece of ID TO the poll somehow subverts the turnout in general?

SB 1174 reinforces that voting rights are a matter of statewide concern, and ensures that cities cannot place the unnecessary burden of voter ID laws on law-abiding citizens

My brain can't take much more, so let me close out this with some of the arguments in support:

Studies by the Center for Democracy & Civic Engagement found that during the 2020 elections millions of voters nationwide did not have current government-issued photo identification, and that voters who lacked photo identification were more likely to be voters with disabilities and Latino, Black, young, and low-income voters. These communities of voters would be disproportionately harmed by requirements to show photo identification before voting...Locally imposed voter identification rules would also create a confusing voting experience for Californians and increase election administration costs.

Okay one more breath here. How could those people have registered to vote with their very legitimate IDs if they didn't have a current form of government issued photo identification? I might be trying to bite off more than I can chew here, but WHAT is this bill? What is it actually trying to accomplish because I am thoroughly confused, and glad I don't normally get this deep into policies.

Also are they trying to say it COSTS too much to employ such laws? Seriously? With something that is supposed to be important?

I will say I think it's unhealthy to attempt to understand the inner machinations of these systems as a whole, to any great length, because it feels like they are designed to confuse, mislead, and for those who care, simply upset.

Could I get some thoughts on this? And perhaps some elaboration? I would truly love to understand.

Thank you for reading my ramble.

SB-1174 Enacted 9/29/24

Californias DMV ID Registartion Info

How to get a SSN as a non citizen

Musk interview, comment made at 12:35

It’s accomplishing exactly what you say and allows all kinds of wiggle room lawyer speak and makes things even easier in front of a Cultifornia judge.

a reply to: AnnihilateThis

I think the law is saying, "California State voting law is supreme, so you little cities and counties, don't try to make your own voting laws to qualify California State voters on top of ours!"

Also, how does a poll worker know if a person is voting for the first time, in a federal election?

So the Feds state that anyone who votes illegally in a Federal election is guilty of a crime if they are discovered and they will pay a penalty for doing so, a fine and possible jail time. Now these people without ID claiming to be a legal voter are most likely not going to use their real name when they vote and they do not need to present Identification so they will most likely never be penalized since they will be using a fake name....the person who's name they used will be charged with a crime I suppose. It is not horrible to have a voter provide identification to vote, it will help protect the person who's name they stole.

That is how I see it, it is my opinion of what can happen. Innocent people might be charged with a crime or their vote won't count since someone stole their name for voting. I can see this happening in our country and it is not just illegals that are causing this problem....people infatuated with political polarization probably will capitalize on this fault. Right now it is probably a benefit to the Democrats because I was at one time a Liberal and do understand how some of those that are obsessed do things...I did not agree with some of the over zealous liberals who would do things like this just because they could. Conservatives do not do this kind of thing very often, but the far right is not conservative at all, any radical who does this kind of stuff is using anarchist actions, no matter what side of center they are on. a thousand people who abuse the voting system can alter a lot of votes.

To be factual, there has always been and always will be corruption in our voting system. Whether it is enough to change the outcome is the only issue that is important. I am seeing a lot of lies and twisted things in the political garbage we get in the mail, and although the Republicans do push a little twisting of evidence to thrash their opponents, most of the lies and misrepresentation of things is being done by Democrats locally...I mean vast majority of information is being twisted and I am kind of not liking this. The twisted evidence seems to be coming not directly from the politician but supporters of the politicians....I would like to see this stopped, the liberals are getting out of control. We need to pass laws that ban political affiliated groups from bashing candidates. I cringe at the mail these days, it is nothing but falsely interpreted rhetoric garbage.

a reply to: AnnihilateThis

There is an order of precedence in law in the US. Federal law takes precedence over state law, and state law takes precedence over local law.

The current federal law governing voter registration is the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. It specifies what forms of identification can and can't be required for registration and voting. Please note that registration and voting are two different actions. In order to get on the voter rolls in the first place, you have to provide multiple forms of identification, including SSN, driver's license numbers, a utility bill or bank statement showing a valid address, etc. And then you have to sign a statement under penalty of perjury that all your statements are true and correct. When you show up to vote, you have to give a signature and address that match the signature and address on your registration application.

All this bill is saying is that local governments cannot place heavier burdens on voting than what is specified by federal and state laws.

Interesting, and a very fair, level headed assessment.

I'm glad to be on a platform where peaceful intelligent discourse can occur.

I appreciate all the replies so far, though I am getting more tired by the second. I will revisit this thread tomorrow.

Goodnight ladies and gents.

a reply to: AnnihilateThis

Some states make it easy for anyone with a mailing address to register to vote and obtain a ballot. Citizens and Non-Citizens.

I started an ATS thread on the subject last month: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Biden-Harris don't care how many Americans are killed by illegal aliens, so long as those criminals are able to cast ballots.

It’s just an other power grab by the state.
The supermajority in Sacramento wants complete power over all the cities and counties in the state.
That’s how they keep their supermajority and their power.
Can’t have red cities and counties undermining their supermajority blue agenda.
As an example, they did the same thing with homeless funds.
They took control of all the money for the homeless away from the cities and counties.
Newsom and his minions do whatever they want.
2024 is year 18 of Newsom’s 10 year grand plan for homeless.
Billions of dollars later, the homeless population has tripled.

Eta: This bill was specifically tailored because Huntington Beach (a red city) planned to add voter ID starting in 2026.

originally posted by: Boomer1947
a reply to: AnnihilateThis

All this bill is saying is that local governments cannot place heavier burdens on voting than what is specified by federal and state laws.

No, that's not all it's saying.

First, it has nothing to do with federal laws. Second, as you already stated, voting and registration are not the same.

(a)The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(1)Under existing law, a person is entitled to vote in a local, special, or consolidated election who is registered in any one of the precincts which compose the local, special, or consolidated election precinct.

So, not Federal and obviously no existing law that prohibits it or they wouldn't be amending the law.

Not off to a great start.

The current federal law governing voter registration is the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. It specifies what forms of identification can and can't be required for registration and voting.

Be a dear and point out that part of the actual bill for me, would you? Just point out where it says exactly what you did.

I saved you the trouble of looking it up and you can find it here.

Requiring an ID at a voting place is not prohibited by federal law. California is amending the law to make it so that municipalities can't ask for ID even in their own local elections, which has nothing to do with federal elections or registration requirements.

I always know you're at least a half step removed from the truth.

Every time I look up a real source document related to your posts.

Every time.

**golf clap**