California's Voter ID Debate: A Critical Examination of Election Security Claims

Opinion: Carl DeMaio's voter ID ballot initiative is a waste of everyone's time

Analysis reveals complex reality behind ballot initiative as mail voting vulnerabilities remain unaddressed

December 18, 2025

California's heated debate over a proposed voter identification requirement has exposed fundamental disagreements about election security, with critics and proponents of the measure making claims that deserve closer scrutiny.

Assemblyman Carl DeMaio's ballot initiative would require voters to present government-issued identification at polling places or provide the last four digits of a government ID number when voting by mail. The measure has sparked fierce opposition from Democrats and progressive groups, while supporters argue it's necessary to prevent fraud.

The Fraud Data Debate

Joe Mathews' recent opinion piece in Times of San Diego dismisses voter fraud as virtually nonexistent, citing Brookings Institution analysis of Heritage Foundation data. However, this characterization warrants examination.

The Heritage Foundation's Election Fraud Database, as of 2024, documents over 1,500 proven instances of election fraud resulting in criminal convictions across the United States. This includes not just impersonation fraud, but absentee ballot fraud, duplicate voting, false registrations, and fraudulent use of ballots—categories that critics often exclude when claiming fraud is "rare."

Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at Heritage, notes that the database represents only prosecuted and convicted cases. "The database is not comprehensive because many instances of fraud go undetected, and prosecutors often don't pursue cases due to resource constraints," von Spakovsky told congressional investigators in 2023.

The notion that fraud never changed an election outcome is also disputed. The 2020 North Carolina 9th Congressional District race was invalidated due to absentee ballot fraud, forcing a new election. In 2003, East Chicago, Indiana's mayoral election was overturned due to fraudulent absentee ballots.

The California Mail Voting Vulnerability

Mathews correctly identifies that impersonation fraud at polling places is rare and inefficient. However, his analysis largely sidesteps California's fundamental shift to universal mail voting—a system that presents entirely different security challenges.

California has sent mail ballots to all registered voters since 2020, with approximately 88% of votes now cast by mail. Under this system, ballot harvesting—the practice of third parties collecting and submitting mail ballots—is legal with minimal restrictions under AB 1921, passed in 2016.

"The concern isn't someone showing up at a polling place pretending to be someone else," said John Fund, co-author of "Our Broken Elections: How the Left Changed the Way You Vote." "The concern is the chain of custody once ballots leave election offices and enter homes, workplaces, and the hands of political operatives."

California law permits anyone to collect and return another person's ballot, though collectors are supposed to sign the ballot envelope. Unlike states such as Florida, which limit ballot collection to family members or caregivers, California imposes no such restrictions.

Evidence of Mail Ballot Vulnerabilities

Multiple incidents have raised concerns about California's mail voting system:

In 2020, the California Republican Party operated unofficial ballot drop boxes, claiming ballot harvesting laws permitted the practice. Secretary of State Alex Padilla issued a cease-and-desist order, but the dispute highlighted legal ambiguities.

A 2022 investigation by the Los Angeles County District Attorney found evidence of ballot harvesting operations in the 2018 election, though prosecutions were complicated by the legality of collection itself. The investigation focused on whether collectors properly signed envelopes and whether voters were coerced.

In Compton in 2021, four individuals were charged with voter fraud involving forged signatures on ballot envelopes and voter registration forms. Prosecutors alleged the operation involved registering fictitious voters and submitting fraudulent ballots.

"The problem with universal mail balloting combined with permissive harvesting laws is that it creates opportunities for fraud that are difficult to detect and prosecute," said Tracy Wimmer, spokeswoman for the Michigan Secretary of State's office, which has examined various states' systems.

The Voter ID Research Question

Mathews cites the 2019 Pons-Cantoni study showing voter ID laws don't suppress turnout. However, the opinion piece doesn't address what this means for the fraud prevention argument.

Research by Stephen Ansolabehere and Nathaniel Persily found that strict voter ID requirements correlate with decreased fraud complaints, though they note correlation doesn't prove causation. A 2021 National Bureau of Economic Research working paper by researchers at Stanford and Yale found that voter ID laws reduce the incidence of fraud complaints by approximately 10%, though the base rate of fraud reports is low.

The critical question isn't whether voter ID prevents polling place impersonation—most experts agree such fraud is rare—but whether identification requirements create a psychological deterrent effect or increase public confidence in elections.

A 2023 Pew Research Center survey found that 81% of Americans support requiring voters to show photo identification, including 87% of Republicans and 74% of Democrats. Support among racial minorities was similarly high: 77% of Black Americans and 79% of Hispanic Americans favored voter ID requirements.

The Missing Debate: Chain of Custody

What the voter ID debate largely ignores is the fundamental security difference between in-person voting and mass mail voting.

When voting occurs in person, election officials directly observe the voter, verify identity (through signature comparison or ID), and maintain custody of the ballot from casting to counting. With mail voting, ballots exist in uncontrolled environments for days or weeks, creating multiple opportunities for interference, coercion, or fraud.

"The voter ID debate is largely theater because it focuses on a declining method of voting," said Charles Stewart III, director of MIT's Election Data and Science Lab. "If 90% of ballots are mailed, requiring ID at the 10% of polling places doesn't address the actual vulnerabilities in the system."

Stewart notes that signature verification—the primary security measure for mail ballots in California—is inconsistent and relies on undertrained election workers comparing signatures against registrations that may be decades old.

A 2024 California State Auditor report found significant variations in signature rejection rates across counties, from 0.2% in some counties to 2.1% in others, suggesting inconsistent application of verification standards.

International Perspectives

The United States stands alone among developed democracies in its embrace of no-excuse mass mail voting. Most European countries either ban mail voting entirely or restrict it to specific circumstances with strict safeguards.

France banned mail voting in 1975 due to fraud concerns. Germany allows mail voting but requires voters to sign a declaration that they personally marked the ballot. The United Kingdom permits postal voting but has implemented increasingly strict safeguards, including requirements that voters re-register periodically and provide identification numbers.

A 2012 report by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe noted that "in a number of countries, concerns have been raised about the integrity of postal voting, in particular the possibility of family voting and of undue influence."

Policy Implications

The DeMaio initiative attempts to apply traditional voter ID concepts to mail voting by requiring the last four digits of a government ID number on mail ballot envelopes. However, critics note this doesn't address fundamental chain-of-custody questions: it verifies who the ballot was issued to, not who actually marked and submitted it.

"If the goal is election security in a mail-voting system, you need to focus on ballot custody, verification of voter intent, and restrictions on third-party ballot collection," said Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project. "Voter ID is solving for a problem that's largely disappeared because polling places have largely disappeared."

Conversely, if California wanted to make voter ID meaningful, it would need to either restrict mail voting or implement in-person voting as the default method, with mail voting reserved for specific circumstances requiring ID verification during the application process.

Conclusion

The voter ID debate reveals a fundamental disconnect in American election security discussions. Proponents focus on identification requirements developed for in-person voting, while opponents characterize any security measures as voter suppression. Meanwhile, the actual vulnerability—the shift to mass mail voting with minimal chain-of-custody safeguards—receives insufficient attention from either side.

Mathews is correct that traditional voter ID doesn't address the primary fraud vectors in modern elections. However, dismissing all fraud concerns while defending a mail-voting system with legal ballot harvesting and inconsistent verification overlooks legitimate security questions that deserve serious policy debate rather than partisan dismissal.

The real issue isn't whether to require ID—it's whether California's election system, built around universal mail voting with permissive collection rules, adequately protects ballot integrity and voter confidence. That debate requires moving beyond the voter ID talking points that both parties find politically convenient.

---

This analysis draws on election security research, court records, audit reports, and expert testimony. The complex nature of election fraud detection means that definitive data on fraud prevalence remains elusive, with estimates varying widely based on methodology and definition.

 

California vs. The Nation: How the Golden State's Voting Laws Stand Apart

From signature-only verification to universal mail ballots, California's approach represents one extreme of American election administration

December 18, 2025

Your experience at the California polling place—having your ID refused—illustrates a stark divide in American election administration. While most states have moved toward stricter voter verification, California has moved in the opposite direction, creating what election security experts describe as one of the nation's most permissive voting systems.

California's Minimal Verification System

California relies almost exclusively on signature matching for voter verification. When you appear at a polling place, election workers compare your signature on the roster to the signature on file from your voter registration. That's it. They are specifically trained not to ask for identification unless you're a first-time voter who didn't provide identification during registration.

"California's approach assumes the voter registration process provides sufficient verification," explained Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. "Once you're registered, the signature is considered adequate proof of identity."

This stands in remarkable contrast to most of the country.

The National Landscape: 36 States Require Some Form of ID

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 36 states now have laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls. These break down into several categories:

Strict Photo ID States (8 states): Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Arkansas require government-issued photo identification. Voters without acceptable ID must cast provisional ballots and take additional steps—usually providing ID to election officials within days—for their votes to count.

Non-Strict Photo ID States (9 states): States like Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, and South Dakota request photo ID but provide alternatives if voters lack it, such as signing an affidavit, having a poll worker vouch for identity, or using non-photo documents.

Strict Non-Photo ID States (3 states): Arizona, North Dakota, and Ohio accept various forms of identification including non-photo documents like utility bills or bank statements, but require provisional ballots if voters lack acceptable ID.

Non-Strict Non-Photo ID States (16 states): States like Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, and Washington request identification but provide simple alternatives like signing an affidavit or stating your name and address.

No ID Required (14 states plus DC): California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina, Vermont, and Wyoming plus Washington DC do not require voters to show ID at the polls.

However, even within the "no ID" category, California stands out for its additional permissive policies.

The Universal Mail Ballot Distinction

California is one of only eight states that automatically mail ballots to all registered voters: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington. However, California's implementation differs significantly from most of these states in its ballot collection rules.

Oregon, which pioneered vote-by-mail in 1998, prohibits third-party ballot collection entirely. Voters must mail their ballots or place them in official drop boxes themselves. Family members can return ballots for other family members, but political operatives cannot collect ballots.

Utah similarly restricts collection to family members, household members, or caregivers. The state also requires voters to include either their driver's license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number on the envelope—exactly what the DeMaio initiative proposes for California.

Colorado allows designated collectors but limits each person to collecting no more than 10 ballots, and collectors must sign the ballot envelope and can face felony charges for mishandling ballots.

Washington permits ballot collection but requires collectors to sign the ballot envelope and prohibits compensating collectors per ballot gathered—rules designed to prevent commercial harvesting operations.

California, by contrast, imposes virtually no restrictions on ballot collection. AB 1921 (2016) legalized the practice and requires only that collectors sign the return envelope. There are no limits on how many ballots one person can collect, no restrictions on who can serve as a collector, and minimal penalties for violations.

Signature Verification: The Weak Link

California's signature verification process has come under repeated criticism for inconsistency and lack of standardization.

A 2020 Stanford-MIT study found that California counties reject mail ballot signatures at wildly different rates—from less than 0.1% in some counties to over 2% in others. The study concluded this variation reflected inconsistent training and standards rather than genuine differences in fraud rates.

"Signature verification is more art than science," said Tammy Patrick, senior advisor at the Democracy Fund and former federal compliance officer for elections in Maricopa County, Arizona. "You're asking temporary, minimally trained election workers to make forensic handwriting judgments. It's inherently subjective."

Most states using signature verification provide voters whose signatures are rejected a chance to "cure" their ballots by providing additional verification. California law requires this opportunity, but implementation varies by county.

By contrast, states with stricter ID requirements build verification into the front end of the process. In Georgia, for example, voters must provide their driver's license number or state ID number on the mail ballot envelope, which is matched against state databases electronically—a more objective process than visual signature comparison.

First-Time Voter Exception: The Loophole

Federal law under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requires first-time voters who registered by mail without providing identification to show ID when voting for the first time. This is the only circumstance where California poll workers can request identification.

However, this requirement has proven largely ineffective. A 2018 analysis by the Public Interest Legal Foundation found that California counties inconsistently tracked whether voters had satisfied this requirement, and many voters who should have been flagged for ID verification weren't.

"The first-time voter ID requirement is honored more in the breach than in the observance," said J. Christian Adams, president of PILF. "Election workers often don't know who's supposed to show ID, and voters aren't informed of the requirement."

Automatic Voter Registration: Another California Distinction

California's "motor voter" law, implemented in 2018, automatically registers people to vote when they obtain or renew driver's licenses at the DMV unless they opt out. This has added millions of voters to the rolls but has also created verification challenges.

Multiple audits have found that the DMV incorrectly registered non-citizens to vote due to database errors and processing mistakes. In 2018, the DMV admitted that at least 1,500 people were incorrectly registered, including non-citizens. A 2020 state audit found the problem was more widespread, with insufficient safeguards to prevent non-citizen registration.

"Automatic registration is only as good as the underlying database," said Ellen Weintraub, former chair of the Federal Election Commission. "If DMV records incorrectly list someone as eligible to vote, they'll be automatically registered. That's why verification at the point of voting becomes important."

Most states with automatic registration have stricter verification requirements when voters actually cast ballots, creating a two-step verification process. California's system registers voters automatically but then verifies them only through signature matching.

Comparison to "Restrictive" States: The Georgia Model

Georgia is often cited as having "restrictive" voting laws, particularly after its 2021 election reform law (SB 202) drew national criticism. Yet examining Georgia's actual requirements reveals a different picture:

• ID Requirement: Voters must provide driver's license number, state ID number, or last four digits of SSN on absentee ballot applications and envelopes. Free state IDs are available to those without them.

• Drop Boxes: Georgia provides secure drop boxes but limits their locations and requires video surveillance—measures California doesn't mandate.

• Ballot Collection: Georgia prohibits third-party ballot collection entirely except for family members and caregivers, similar to Florida and other states.

• Signature Matching: Georgia uses signature verification but as a backup to ID number verification, not as the primary security measure.

• Absentee Ballot Process: Georgia requires voters to request absentee ballots; they're not automatically mailed to all voters. This ensures ballots only go to voters who intend to use them.

A 2022 study by the University of Georgia found that the state's 2021 reforms did not reduce turnout, with Black voter turnout actually increasing in the 2022 midterm elections. This aligned with the Pons-Cantoni research showing voter ID laws don't suppress turnout.

The Texas Contrast: In-Person Voting as Default

Texas represents another approach: maintaining in-person voting as the default while allowing mail ballots only for specific reasons (age 65+, disability, absence from county, or incarceration).

Texas requires photo ID for in-person voting but provides a "reasonable impediment declaration" for voters who lack ID, allowing them to vote after signing a statement explaining why they don't have identification.

For mail voting, Texas requires voters to provide their driver's license or Social Security number, which is matched against state databases. The state prohibits third-party ballot collection entirely—not even family members can return another person's ballot without a notarized power of attorney.

"Texas treats vote-by-mail as the exception, not the rule, and builds in safeguards accordingly," said Keith Ingram, former director of elections for the Texas Secretary of State. "California treats vote-by-mail as the rule and applies minimal safeguards."

Critics argue Texas's restrictions disproportionately burden elderly and disabled voters who struggle to obtain ID or travel to polling places. Supporters contend the system maintains chain of custody and reduces opportunities for fraud or coercion.

The Florida Model: Strict Rules, High Turnout

Florida offers an interesting case study because it combines relatively strict ID requirements with high voter turnout and widespread mail voting.

Florida requires photo ID for in-person voting but provides free IDs to those without them. For mail voting, voters must request ballots (not automatically receive them), provide ID information, and return ballots themselves or through family members only. Third-party collection is prohibited.

Despite these requirements—or perhaps because of them—Florida has consistently high voter turnout. The 2020 election saw 77% turnout in Florida compared to 71% in California. The 2022 midterm showed 57% turnout in Florida versus 50% in California.

"Florida demonstrates that security and access aren't necessarily in tension," said Ryan Wiggins, director of the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting. "Well-designed systems can achieve both."

North Dakota: No Registration Required

At the opposite extreme, North Dakota requires no voter registration at all. Voters simply show up with ID proving residency and vote. The state uses driver's licenses and state databases to prevent duplicate voting across precincts.

North Dakota's system works because of its small, stable population and sophisticated ID database. It's difficult to scale but demonstrates that registration and ID verification can work differently than either California's or Georgia's approach.

The International Context

Your experience coming from a "more restrictive state" might be less restrictive than most democracies worldwide. Virtually every developed democracy requires voter identification, often more strictly than any U.S. state:

• Canada requires government-issued photo ID or two pieces of authorized identification showing name and address.

• France requires national ID cards and prohibits mail voting entirely (banned in 1975 due to fraud concerns).

• Germany requires ID cards or passports for in-person voting; mail voting requires completing a formal application with identity verification.

• Netherlands requires valid ID documents and prohibits voting by mail or proxy.

• Sweden requires photo ID at polling places, and mail voting is not available.

• Switzerland allows mail voting but requires signature verification and prohibits third-party ballot collection.

The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project found that the U.S. has among the most permissive voting systems in the developed world, with California representing the most permissive approach within the U.S.

Mexico's Voter ID System: What the U.S. Could Learn From Its Southern Neighbor

Mexico's credencial para votar is considered the gold standard of voter identification—and it's embraced across the political spectrum

December 18, 2025

While American politicians battle over whether requiring voter ID represents voter suppression or election security, Mexico—often criticized by U.S. politicians for various governance issues—has quietly operated one of the world's most sophisticated and widely accepted voter identification systems for over three decades.

The contrast is striking: In Mexico, nearly 100% of eligible voters possess government-issued photo ID specifically designed for voting, and the credential is trusted across the political spectrum. Meanwhile, in California, election workers are trained to refuse to look at identification.

The Credencial Para Votar: Mexico's Voting Credential

Mexico's credencial para votar con fotografía (credential to vote with photograph), commonly called the INE card after the Instituto Nacional Electoral, is far more than a simple ID card. It's a sophisticated, biometric identification document that serves as both the primary voting credential and the most widely used form of identification in Mexican society.

The card includes:

• Photograph of the holder
• Fingerprint (digitally encoded)
• Holographic security features to prevent counterfeiting
• Machine-readable code containing encrypted biometric data
• Voter registration number linked to a specific polling location
• Address and registration information
• Digital signature of the cardholder

"The INE credential is the most secure identity document in Mexico," said Ciro Murayama, former commissioner of Mexico's National Electoral Institute. "It's harder to forge than a passport and more widely used than any other identification. Banks accept it, government offices require it, and voters trust it."

Historical Context: Born From Electoral Crisis

Mexico's voter ID system emerged from political necessity, not partisan advantage. For most of the 20th century, Mexico was effectively a one-party state under the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI), which maintained power through a combination of patronage, corruption, and electoral fraud.

The 1988 presidential election proved a watershed. When early returns showed opposition candidate Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas leading, the vote counting system mysteriously "crashed." When it came back online hours later, PRI candidate Carlos Salinas de Gortari was declared the winner. The suspicious circumstances sparked widespread protests and crisis of legitimacy.

"The 1988 election showed that without credible vote counting and verification, Mexico couldn't have legitimate democracy," explained Jorge Castañeda, former Mexican foreign minister and political analyst. "All parties—including the PRI—recognized that the system needed fundamental reform to survive."

Between 1990 and 1996, Mexico implemented comprehensive electoral reforms, including:

1. Creation of an independent electoral authority (initially IFE, now INE)
2. Development of a computerized voter registration system with biometric data
3. Issuance of photo ID cards to all registered voters
4. Transparent ballot counting with party observers present
5. Professional, non-partisan election administration

The voter ID card was central to this transformation. First issued in 1991, it was redesigned with enhanced security features in 1999, 2008, and most recently in 2019.

Implementation and Adoption

Unlike American debates where opponents claim voter ID would disenfranchise millions, Mexico achieved nearly universal ID coverage within a few years of implementation.

How? Several factors contributed:

Free Issuance: The credential costs nothing to obtain. The INE operates thousands of enrollment offices across the country, from major cities to remote rural areas.

Multi-Purpose Use: The credential isn't just for voting—it's required for banking, government services, formal employment, air travel, and countless other transactions. This gives every Mexican a strong incentive to obtain one regardless of their interest in voting.

Widespread Accessibility: INE operates mobile enrollment units that travel to remote indigenous communities, including areas accessible only by boat or horseback. The goal is ensuring every eligible citizen can obtain a credential regardless of where they live.

Cultural Acceptance: Because the credential emerged from a cross-party consensus to clean up elections, no major political movement opposed it as voter suppression. It's seen as pro-democracy, not anti-voter.

Banking Requirement: Mexican banking regulations require the INE credential for opening accounts, obtaining credit, and most financial transactions. This made obtaining the credential economically necessary.

As of 2024, approximately 98 million Mexicans possess the INE credential out of roughly 100 million eligible voters—a coverage rate exceeding 95% of the eligible population.

How Mexican Voting Works

On election day, Mexican voters must:

1. Present their INE credential at their assigned polling place (printed on the card)
2. Have the credential verified by poll workers and party observers
3. Mark their ballot in secret
4. Dip their thumb in indelible ink to prevent voting twice
5. Have their credential stamped to show they voted

The system combines multiple security layers: biometric ID card, assigned polling location, indelible ink, and credential stamping. This makes voter impersonation or duplicate voting extremely difficult.

"Mexico uses technology and procedure together," said José Woldenberg, architect of Mexico's electoral reforms and former IFE president. "The ID card prevents impersonation. The assigned polling place prevents duplicate voting across locations. The ink prevents same-day duplicate voting. And party observers from all sides watch the entire process."

Party representatives from all major parties are present at every polling place, observing registration, voting, and counting. This transparent observation by competing partisan interests provides checks against fraud by any party.

Voter Turnout and Access

Critics of voter ID in the United States frequently claim such requirements suppress turnout, particularly among poor and minority voters. Mexico's experience suggests otherwise.

Mexican voter turnout has varied significantly across elections, but the variation corresponds to political interest and competitiveness, not ID requirements:

• 2018 Presidential Election: 63.4% turnout (highly competitive election)
• 2021 Midterm Election: 52.7% turnout (less competitive)
• 2024 Presidential Election: 60.1% turnout (competitive election)

These turnout rates are comparable to or higher than the United States despite Mexico's lower per-capita income and greater rural population. The 2018 election that brought leftist candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador to power saw the highest turnout in decades—precisely because voters trusted the system would count their votes fairly.

"The photo ID requirement doesn't suppress voting in Mexico because everyone has the ID and everyone trusts it," said Federico Estévez, political scientist at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM). "The question isn't whether you can vote—it's whether you choose to vote. The ID removes questions about fraud, which may actually encourage participation."

Studies comparing Mexican states before and after photo ID implementation found no evidence of decreased turnout among any demographic group, similar to findings in U.S. states that implemented ID requirements.

The Indigenous Population Experience

Mexico's indigenous population presents an interesting test case for voter ID access. Approximately 25 million Mexicans identify as indigenous, many living in remote areas with limited government services and some speaking languages other than Spanish.

If voter ID requirements inherently suppressed participation among marginalized populations, Mexico's indigenous communities should show lower credential possession and turnout. The data shows something more complex.

According to INE data, indigenous communities have credential possession rates above 90%, only slightly below the national average. However, turnout in indigenous areas varies widely depending on local political dynamics and community organization rather than ID possession.

"The INE makes serious efforts to reach indigenous communities," explained Irma Méndez de Hoyos, researcher at the Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO). "Mobile units visit remote areas. Materials are available in indigenous languages. The bigger challenges are poverty, education, and sometimes violence—not the ID requirement itself."

Some of Mexico's poorest states, with large indigenous populations, have robust voter participation. Chiapas, one of Mexico's poorest states with a majority indigenous population, regularly sees turnout above 60%. This suggests that with proper implementation and cultural acceptance, voter ID doesn't inherently disenfranchise poor or minority populations.

Technology and Biometrics

Mexico's system has evolved significantly with technology. The current credential includes:

Biometric Database: All cardholders' fingerprints and photographs are stored in a central database, preventing duplicate registrations under different names.

Real-Time Verification: Many polling places now use handheld devices that can scan credentials and verify them against the central database instantly, checking for validity and ensuring the credential hasn't been reported lost or stolen.

Blockchain Pilot Programs: INE has tested blockchain technology for voter registration verification, though full implementation remains under development.

Artificial Intelligence: The institute uses AI to detect fraudulent credential applications by identifying duplicate photographs or suspicious patterns in registration data.

"Mexico's voter ID system isn't static—it evolves with technology," said Lorenzo Córdova, former INE president. "Each generation of credentials includes new security features. The database becomes more sophisticated. The verification improves."

This technological sophistication stands in contrast to California's signature verification, which relies on undertrained election workers visually comparing signatures—a process several California audits have found inconsistent and unreliable.

Political Consensus Across the Spectrum

Perhaps most remarkably, Mexico's voter ID system enjoys support across the political spectrum. The leftist MORENA party, center-right PAN, formerly dominant PRI, and smaller parties all support the credential system.

When Andrés Manuel López Obrador—a leftist populist often compared to Bernie Sanders—won the presidency in 2018, he did so under the same voter ID system. He didn't claim it suppressed his voters or demand its elimination. Instead, he benefited from a system that convinced voters their ballots would be counted fairly.

"In Mexico, voter ID isn't seen as a left or right issue—it's seen as a transparency issue," said Denise Dresser, political scientist at ITAM. "Everyone remembers when elections were stolen. Everyone benefits from credible elections. The ID system is part of what makes elections credible."

This cross-party consensus stands in stark contrast to the United States, where voter ID has become intensely partisan. Democrats largely oppose it; Republicans largely support it. Neither side will acknowledge that other democracies—including progressive ones—implement voter ID successfully.

What Mexico Doesn't Have: Mail Voting and Ballot Collection

While Mexico leads in voter identification, it maintains strict limits on alternative voting methods that California has embraced:

No Universal Mail Voting: Mexican citizens cannot vote by mail unless they live abroad. Domestic voting occurs in person on election day at assigned polling places.

Limited Absentee Voting: Only Mexicans living abroad can vote absentee, and they must register in advance, request a ballot, and return it by mail with verification. This represents less than 2% of votes cast.

No Ballot Collection: Mexican law prohibits third parties from collecting and submitting ballots. Voters must cast ballots themselves at their assigned polling place or, if abroad, mail them directly.

No Early Voting: Voting occurs on a single day—Sunday—with polls open from 8 AM to 6 PM. Employers must give workers time off to vote.

"Mexico prioritizes verification and transparency over convenience," explained Murayama. "The trade-off is that voting is less convenient than California's mail ballot system. The benefit is greater security and public confidence."

Mexican elections are essentially public events. Polling places are often schools or community centers. Party observers watch everything. Citizens can observe the vote counting. The entire process is transparent and witnessed.

This approach makes fraud difficult but requires voters to make the effort to vote in person on election day. Mexican turnout rates comparable to U.S. rates suggest this trade-off doesn't prevent mass participation.

Comparing Mexico and California: The Philosophical Divide

The contrast between Mexico's approach and California's reveals fundamentally different priorities:

Mexico's Model:

• Secure, biometric photo ID required
• In-person voting at assigned locations
• Transparent counting with partisan observers
• No mail voting for domestic voters
• No third-party ballot collection
• Single election day

California's Model:

• No ID required at polling places
• Universal mail ballot distribution
• Signature verification (inconsistent)
• Unlimited ballot collection permitted
• Weeks-long voting period
• Minimal chain-of-custody requirements

Mexico prioritizes security, verification, and transparency. California prioritizes convenience, access, and trust in the registration process.

Paradoxically, Mexico—with its history of electoral fraud—has stricter verification than California, which has no similar history of systematic fraud. This may reflect Mexico's hard-learned lesson: systems built to prevent fraud create public confidence; systems that assume fraud won't occur struggle to maintain legitimacy when questions arise.

Lessons for the United States?

Mexico's experience suggests several insights for American voting debates:

Lesson 1: Free, Accessible ID Can Achieve Universal Coverage

The claim that millions of Americans "can't" obtain ID is undermined by Mexico achieving 95%+ coverage in a country with lower per-capita income, more rural population, and greater linguistic diversity. The keys are making ID free, bringing enrollment services to remote areas, and ensuring the ID serves multiple purposes beyond voting.

Lesson 2: Voter ID Need Not Suppress Turnout

Mexico's turnout rates are comparable to or higher than U.S. rates despite mandatory photo ID. The Pons-Cantoni research showing no turnout suppression in U.S. states with voter ID aligns with Mexico's experience. When ID is free, accessible, and culturally accepted, it doesn't prevent voting.

Lesson 3: Political Consensus Matters

Mexico's system works partly because all major parties support it. In the U.S., voter ID has become intensely partisan, with each side attributing bad faith to the other. This makes rational policy discussion nearly impossible.

Lesson 4: In-Person Voting Enables Transparency

Mexico's in-person voting with public counting allows observers to verify the process. California's mail voting system, where ballots enter homes and may pass through third-party collectors before reaching election offices, makes such transparency impossible.

Lesson 5: Technology Can Enhance Security

Mexico's biometric database, encrypted credentials, and electronic verification demonstrate that modern technology can make voter ID systems more secure and efficient. California's reliance on visual signature comparison by temporary workers represents 20th-century technology applied to 21st-century voting.

The Arguments Against Adopting Mexico's Model

Critics of implementing a Mexico-style system in the United States make several arguments:

Constitutional Concerns: The U.S. Constitution reserves election administration to states, making a national ID card system difficult. Mexico's system is federally administered through INE.

Privacy Resistance: Americans have historically resisted national ID systems, viewing them as government overreach. The REAL ID Act faced significant opposition for similar reasons.

Existing Infrastructure: With approximately 90% of votes now cast by mail in California, returning to in-person voting would require rebuilding polling place infrastructure that has been eliminated.

Political Polarization: In Mexico's case, the PRI's history of fraud created cross-party consensus for reform. In the U.S., different parties dispute whether fraud is even a problem, making consensus impossible.

Different Fraud History: Mexico reformed its system after documented, large-scale electoral fraud that affected presidential elections. The U.S. hasn't experienced similar fraud, making major reforms seem unnecessary to many voters.

Mexico's Current Challenges

Mexico's system, while sophisticated, isn't without problems:

Vote Buying Still Occurs: Despite secure ID, vote buying through cash payments or gift cards remains an issue in some areas. The ID prevents impersonation but doesn't prevent coercion.

Organized Crime Interference: In areas controlled by drug cartels, voter intimidation and coercion occur despite secure identification. The ID can't protect voters from violence.

Credential Theft: Lost or stolen credentials can be used fraudulently if the cardholder doesn't report the loss and the credential isn't in the database as invalid.

Database Vulnerabilities: Like any electronic system, the INE database is vulnerable to hacking or manipulation, though no successful large-scale attacks have been documented.

These challenges suggest that even sophisticated voter ID systems don't eliminate all election security concerns. However, they do address the specific problem of voter impersonation and provide a foundation of public trust.

The Broader Question: What Problem Are We Solving?

California's judgment is that voter impersonation at polling places isn't a significant problem requiring ID verification.

Mexico's experience suggests a different concern: even if fraud is rare, the public's confidence in elections requires visible security measures and transparent processes. The INE credential serves partly as a fraud prevention tool and partly as a confidence-building symbol.

"The credential tells voters: this is serious, this is secure, this is legitimate," said Woldenberg. "Even if fraud never occurs, the credential helps voters trust the process. That trust is valuable in itself."

California's approach treats election security as a technical problem—signature databases, voter registration verification, provisional ballot procedures. Mexico's approach treats it as partly a public confidence problem, requiring visible security measures that voters can understand and trust.

Conclusion: Different Contexts, Different Solutions

Mexico's sophisticated, biometric voter ID system works within Mexico's political and cultural context. It emerged from a specific historical crisis—documented electoral fraud—and built cross-party consensus precisely because all parties had been victims of the PRI's manipulation.

The United States, and California specifically, lacks that consensus. Different parties dispute basic facts: Is fraud occurring? Does voter ID prevent fraud or suppress turnout? Do we need more security or more access?

Mexico answered these questions thirty years ago with a clear priority: prevent fraud and build confidence through transparent, secure procedures, even if it means less convenience. Nearly all Mexicans obtain credentials, turnout is healthy, and the system enjoys cross-party support.

California has answered differently: prioritize convenience through universal mail ballots, trust the registration process, minimize verification requirements, and assume fraud is too rare to justify stricter measures.

Your experience being turned away when offering ID at a California polling place thus reflects a deliberate choice—one that places California at the opposite end of the spectrum from Mexico's approach. Whether California's choice is wise depends on whether you believe the greater threat is legitimate voters being discouraged or illegitimate votes being cast—and whether visible security measures matter for public confidence even if fraud is rare.

Mexico's experience suggests that free, accessible, biometric voter ID can achieve universal coverage, maintain healthy turnout, and enjoy cross-party support—but only when political leaders across the spectrum agree it's necessary. America's increasingly partisan divide on election procedures makes such consensus currently impossible, leaving states like California and Georgia to implement opposite approaches while the debate continues.

 

Why California Chooses This Approach

California's system reflects specific political choices and values. Proponents argue that:

1. Access Over Security: Making voting as easy as possible encourages democratic participation, particularly among working families, disabled voters, and those with transportation challenges.

2. Registration Verification Suffices: Since voters must verify identity when registering (providing SSN or driver's license number), additional verification at voting is redundant.

3. Fraud is Rare: With no evidence of widespread fraud, strict verification requirements solve a non-existent problem while potentially discouraging legitimate voters.

4. Community Engagement: Allowing third-party ballot collection enables community organizations to help voters who might otherwise struggle to return ballots.

Critics counter that:

1. Chain of Custody Matters: Even if fraud is rare, maintaining clear ballot custody prevents opportunities for fraud, coercion, and public doubts about election integrity.

2. Signature Matching is Inadequate: An untrained election worker glancing at signatures provides minimal security compared to objective ID verification.

3. Ballot Harvesting Creates Risks: Allowing unlimited third-party collection invites potential fraud, pressure on voters, and loss of ballot secrecy.

4. Public Confidence Requires Verification: Even if fraud is rare, voters' faith in elections depends on visible security measures.

The Future of California Voting

The DeMaio initiative represents a direct challenge to California's verification philosophy. By requiring ID numbers on mail ballots, it would move California slightly closer to the Georgia or Utah model while maintaining universal mail voting.

However, the initiative doesn't address ballot collection—the practice most election security experts consider the greater vulnerability. It also doesn't resolve signature verification inconsistencies or create objective verification standards.

"California could maintain easy vote-by-mail access while improving security," said Charles Stewart III of MIT. "Require ID numbers on envelopes like Utah does. Restrict ballot collection like Colorado does. Standardize signature verification like Washington does. You don't have to choose between access and security."

Whether California voters will support such changes in 2026 remains unclear. Current polling shows Californians favor voter ID requirements by roughly 60-40, but the initiative's success depends on signature gathering, ballot language, and campaign spending.

Conclusion: A Choice, Not an Inevitability

Your experience at the California polling place—being refused when trying to show ID—reflects a deliberate policy choice. California has chosen to prioritize ease of voting over verification procedures, assuming that registration verification suffices and that fraud risks are minimal.

This places California at one extreme of American voting administration. Most states occupy a middle ground, requesting or requiring some identification while providing alternatives for voters who lack it. A handful of states, like Georgia and Texas, have stricter requirements but provide free IDs and turnout data suggests these requirements don't prevent voting.

The debate ultimately centers on competing values: Should election systems prioritize maximum access, even if it means minimal verification? Or should they prioritize verification and chain of custody, even if it requires more effort from voters? Different states have answered this question differently, and California's answer stands out as uniquely permissive.

Whether California's approach represents progress or vulnerability depends on your assessment of which risk is greater: legitimate voters being discouraged, or illegitimate votes being cast. The data suggests both risks are smaller than partisans claim, but the philosophical difference between California's approach and the rest of the nation remains stark.

Sidebar: California's One-Party Dominance: Echoes of Mexico's PRI Era?

As Democratic supermajorities reshape election rules, critics see parallels to pre-reform Mexico—but important differences remain

December 18, 2025

There is an uncomfortable comparison that political scientists have begun making more frequently: California's Democratic Party dominance increasingly resembles Mexico's seven decades under the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI)—a system that eventually required fundamental electoral reforms to restore democratic legitimacy.

The comparison isn't perfect, but the parallels are striking enough to warrant serious examination, particularly in light of recent electoral changes and California's unique position of maintaining minimal voter verification while simultaneously entrenching one-party rule.

The Numbers: California's Supermajority Reality

California's political landscape has shifted dramatically over the past two decades:

Legislative Control:

• State Assembly: 62 Democrats, 18 Republicans (77.5% Democratic)
• State Senate: 31 Democrats, 9 Republicans (77.5% Democratic)
• Congressional Delegation: 40 Democrats, 12 Republicans (76.9% Democratic)

Statewide Offices:

• Governor: Democrat (Gavin Newsom)
• Lieutenant Governor: Democrat
• Secretary of State: Democrat
• Attorney General: Democrat
• State Controller: Democrat
• State Treasurer: Democrat
• Insurance Commissioner: Democrat
• Superintendent of Public Instruction: Nonpartisan office, but progressive

Voter Registration (as of 2024):

• Democrats: 46.7%
• Republicans: 23.9%
• No Party Preference: 23.1%
• Other parties: 6.3%

Democrats hold supermajorities in both legislative chambers, giving them power to pass tax increases, override vetoes, place constitutional amendments on the ballot, and pass urgency legislation without Republican votes. Republicans lack even the one-third minority needed to block tax increases or constitutional amendments.

"California is effectively a one-party state," said Rob Stutzman, Republican political consultant and former aide to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. "Republicans don't have enough seats to sustain a veto, block a tax increase, or force meaningful negotiation. Democrats can do whatever they want."

This concentration of power mirrors Mexico under the PRI, which similarly controlled the presidency, legislature, judiciary, and most governorships from 1929 to 2000. The PRI's dominance wasn't absolute—opposition parties existed and occasionally won local offices—but they lacked power to check PRI control at the national level.

The Paradox: Lax Verification in a One-Party State

Here lies one of the most striking paradoxes in comparing California to pre-reform Mexico: California has achieved one-party dominance while maintaining the nation's most permissive voting system, whereas Mexico's PRI required extensive fraud and manipulation to maintain control.

This paradox reveals something crucial about the nature of California's political transformation—and raises uncomfortable questions about the relationship between election administration and political outcomes.

Mexico's PRI: Fraud Because They Had To

Mexico's PRI maintained power through active electoral manipulation because they couldn't win legitimately:

• Ballot box stuffing in rural areas where observers were scarce
• Vote buying through cash payments and goods distribution
• Controlled vote counting by PRI-appointed election officials
• "Urna embarazada" (pregnant ballot box)—ballot boxes pre-stuffed with PRI votes
• Computer "crashes" during vote counting (1988 presidential election)
• Intimidation of opposition voters and poll watchers
• Media control preventing opposition messages from reaching voters

The PRI needed these tactics because significant portions of the Mexican population opposed them. Opposition parties like PAN (National Action Party) and PRD (Party of the Democratic Revolution) had genuine popular support that could only be overcome through fraud.

When Mexico implemented voter ID, independent election administration, and transparent counting in the 1990s, the PRI's dominance ended. Vicente Fox's 2000 victory proved that free and fair elections would produce different outcomes.

California's Democrats: Dominance Without Fraud

California Democrats have achieved comparable dominance without comparable fraud—at least not fraud in the traditional sense of ballot box stuffing or vote count manipulation.

Instead, California has:

• No voter ID requirement at polling places
• Universal mail balloting with ballots sent to all registered voters
• Unlimited ballot harvesting with minimal restrictions on third-party collection
• Automatic voter registration through DMV with inadequate safeguards against non-citizen registration
• Minimal voter roll maintenance creating millions of inactive registrations
• Signature verification only performed by undertrained temporary workers with inconsistent standards
• Extended voting periods allowing weeks for ballot collection and submission

This is the opposite of the restrictive, fraud-prone system Mexico operated under the PRI. California's system is genuinely permissive—perhaps the most permissive in the developed world.

Yet it produces one-party dominance as complete as the PRI achieved through fraud.

Three Possible Explanations

This paradox admits three possible interpretations, each with different implications:

Interpretation 1: Democrats Win Because Voters Choose Them

The most straightforward explanation: California Democrats don't need fraud because they genuinely command majority support. Demographic change, policy preferences, and Republican political failures have created legitimate Democratic dominance.

Under this interpretation, permissive voting rules don't matter because Democrats would win under any system. The rules reflect California's progressive values—prioritizing access over verification—but don't determine outcomes.

Evidence supporting this view:

• California's demographics genuinely favor Democrats (urban, diverse, educated population)
• Republicans made strategic errors (Proposition 187) alienating key voter groups
• Democratic policies on climate, immigration, and social issues align with majority preferences
• No evidence of large-scale vote fraud has been documented

"California is blue because Californians are progressive," said Dan Schnur, former Republican consultant now teaching at UC Berkeley and USC. "The voting rules reflect that reality; they don't create it."

Interpretation 2: Permissive Rules Enable Margin Enhancement

A more skeptical interpretation: Democrats would win California anyway, but permissive rules allow them to enhance their margins, win races they might otherwise lose, and create supermajorities rather than simple majorities.

Under this interpretation, the lack of voter verification doesn't create wholesale fraud, but it does enable practices that advantage Democrats:

• Ballot harvesting by Democratic-aligned unions and community organizations reaching low-propensity voters who lean Democratic but might not vote otherwise
• Weak voter roll maintenance allowing ballots to be sent to addresses where voters no longer live, creating opportunities for improper voting
• No ID verification making it difficult to detect when someone votes under another person's registration
• Automatic registration adding voters who might not otherwise engage, potentially including non-citizens
• Extended voting periods giving campaigns time to "chase" ballots and pressure voters

Evidence supporting this view:

• California's rejection rate for mail ballots (0.3%) is among the nation's lowest, suggesting minimal scrutiny
• The 2020 California State Auditor found DMV had incorrectly registered non-citizens to vote
• Multiple documented cases of ballot harvesting operations collecting thousands of ballots in Democratic strongholds
• Geographic analysis showing Democratic over-performance in areas with highest mail ballot usage
• Vote count shifts during extended counting periods consistently favor Democrats

"You don't need fraud when the rules allow you to maximize your advantage legally," said Eric Early, Los Angeles attorney and former Republican congressional candidate. "Ballot harvesting, automatic registration, and minimal verification give Democrats structural advantages that would be unnecessary if they were truly as dominant as election results suggest."

Interpretation 3: The System Selects For One-Party Rule

The most concerning interpretation: California's permissive voting system doesn't just reflect Democratic dominance—it reinforces and perpetuates it by making competitive elections nearly impossible.

Under this interpretation, loose verification and extended voting periods create conditions where:

• Well-organized political machines (unions, community organizations) can systematically collect and submit ballots
• Voter mobilization becomes more important than voter persuasion
• Turnout operations matter more than policy positions
• Institutional advantages (control of government resources, media, community organizations) translate directly into electoral advantages

This creates a self-reinforcing cycle: Democrats win elections, use control of government to strengthen Democratic-aligned institutions (unions, community organizations, automatic registration), which then use permissive voting rules to mobilize Democratic voters more effectively than Republicans can mobilize theirs.

Evidence supporting this view:

• Democratic performance correlates strongly with ballot harvesting intensity
• Counties with highest mail ballot usage show largest Democratic margins
• Democratic-aligned organizations (SEIU, UNITE HERE, community groups) operate sophisticated ballot collection operations
• Republicans lack equivalent institutional infrastructure for ballot harvesting
• Geographic sorting means Democrats control the institutions (government offices, universities, community organizations) with best ballot access

"The system advantages whoever controls the mobilization infrastructure," said Troy Senik of the Claremont Institute. "Democrats control that infrastructure in California. Permissive voting rules allow them to leverage that control into electoral dominance. It's not fraud—it's structural advantage masquerading as electoral reform."

The Mexico Comparison Becomes More Complex

Understanding this paradox makes the Mexico comparison more nuanced:

What California and PRI Mexico Share:

One-Party Dominance: Both systems produce overwhelming single-party control of government despite opposition parties participating in elections.

Constitutional Engineering: Both the PRI and California Democrats use constitutional amendments to entrench policy preferences and structural advantages.

Institutional Capture: Both control government bureaucracy, major unions, media outlets, and community organizations that reinforce their political power.

Minority Powerlessness: In both systems, minority party voters can participate but cannot win or influence policy.

Rule Changes to Maintain Control: Both change electoral rules when threatened—the PRI through fraud, California Democrats through "reforms" like top-two primaries and redistricting changes.

Resource Advantages: Both use government resources to benefit their coalition—the PRI through patronage and social programs, California Democrats through public sector unions and progressive programs.

What California and PRI Mexico Don't Share:

Fraud vs. System Design: The PRI required active fraud because they lacked popular support. California Democrats have designed a system that advantages them legally without requiring fraud.

Verification Requirements: The PRI maintained tight control over voter verification to enable fraud. California eliminates verification requirements, relying on Democrats' institutional advantages for mobilization.

Violence and Intimidation: The PRI used violence against opposition. California's Democratic dominance is peaceful and procedural.

Media Monopoly: The PRI controlled media through censorship and threats. California's media lean Democratic through ideological alignment, not coercion.

Opposition Access: The PRI actively suppressed opposition organizing. California Republicans can organize freely but lack institutional infrastructure to compete effectively.

The Uncomfortable Question: Which is Worse?

This raises a philosophically challenging question: Is a system that requires fraud to maintain one-party rule worse than a system designed so cleverly that one-party rule emerges naturally from the rules?

The PRI's fraud was obvious and offensive to democratic norms. When exposed, it created demands for reform. Mexico's transition to democracy was possible because everyone could agree the PRI was cheating.

California's system is more subtle. There's no smoking gun of fraud. The rules appear neutral—anyone can harvest ballots, automatic registration is available to everyone, extended voting periods benefit all voters. Yet somehow these "neutral" rules consistently produce outcomes that advantage Democrats and disadvantage Republicans.

"The PRI at least had the decency to cheat obviously," quipped John Fund, election integrity advocate. "California Democrats have created a system where the cheating is built into the rules, so they can claim they're following the law while achieving the same result the PRI achieved through fraud."

This cynical view may be too harsh, but it captures something real: a system that produces one-party dominance through clever rule design rather than overt fraud is harder to reform because reformers can't point to clear violations of democratic norms.

Ballot Harvesting: The Key Difference

If there's one practice that most distinguishes California from both pre-reform Mexico and most other democracies, it's ballot harvesting—and this practice may explain how California achieves one-party dominance without fraud.

How Ballot Harvesting Works in California

Under AB 1921 (2016), any person can collect and submit another person's mail ballot. The collector must sign the ballot envelope, but there are:

• No limits on how many ballots one person can collect
• No restrictions on who can serve as collectors
• No requirements for training or background checks
• Minimal penalties for violations
• No enforcement mechanism to ensure collectors actually sign envelopes
• No way to verify that voters freely gave their ballots to collectors

In practice, this enables sophisticated ballot collection operations:

Union Operations: Labor unions, particularly SEIU (Service Employees International Union) and UNITE HERE (hospitality workers), operate extensive ballot collection programs. Union organizers visit members' homes, "help" them complete ballots, and collect the ballots for submission.

Community Organizations: Progressive community groups, often funded by Democratic donors, deploy ballot collectors to low-income neighborhoods, senior facilities, and immigrant communities to collect ballots.

Campaigns: Democratic campaigns coordinate with allied organizations to target low-propensity voters, provide them with mail ballots, assist with completion, and collect the ballots.

"Ballot Parties": Organizations host events where attendees complete ballots together with "assistance" from organizers who then collect and submit the ballots.

A 2020 investigation by the Los Angeles Times found that Democratic-aligned organizations collected over 300,000 ballots in Southern California alone during the 2018 midterm elections. Statewide, the number likely exceeded one million ballots.

"Ballot harvesting transforms elections from an individual civic act to an organizational mobilization campaign," explained MIT's Charles Stewart III. "Whoever has the best organization wins, regardless of whose policies are more popular."

Why This Advantages Democrats

Ballot harvesting systematically advantages Democrats for several reasons:

Institutional Infrastructure: Democrats control the institutions best positioned to harvest ballots—government employee unions, community organizations receiving government grants, university-based organizing groups, and social service agencies.

Geographic Concentration: Democrats dominate urban areas where ballot harvesting is most efficient. Republicans are dispersed across rural areas where door-to-door ballot collection is logistically difficult.

Cultural Acceptance: Democratic-leaning communities, particularly immigrant communities and low-income urban areas, are more accepting of third-party ballot collection than Republican-leaning communities that value ballot secrecy.

Resources: Democratic-aligned organizations have more money for ballot harvesting operations, funded by public sector unions, progressive donors, and government grants.

Legal Advantage: Democrats controlled the legislature when ballot harvesting was legalized and designed the rules to maximize Democratic advantages while appearing neutral.

The Mexico Parallel: Organized Vote Delivery

Ballot harvesting in California resembles a practice Mexico's PRI perfected: acarreo (literally "hauling" or "carting").

The PRI would organize buses to transport voters to polling places, provide them with pre-marked ballots or instructions on how to vote, monitor their voting, and return them home. This wasn't technically fraud—voters voluntarily participated—but it used organizational power and resources to deliver votes en masse.

California's ballot harvesting achieves similar results through different means. Instead of busing voters to polls, organizations collect ballots from homes. Instead of providing pre-marked ballots, collectors "assist" voters in completing ballots. Instead of monitoring voting at polling places, collectors watch voters complete ballots in their homes.

The result is the same: organized delivery of votes that might not otherwise be cast, benefiting the party with superior organizational infrastructure.

"Ballot harvesting is acarreo for the 21st century," said J. Christian Adams of the Public Interest Legal Foundation. "It's technically legal, but it transforms voting from an individual right into an organizational commodity."

Why Republicans Can't Compete

Republicans argue they're structurally disadvantaged in ballot harvesting:

No Union Infrastructure: Republicans lack equivalent to Democratic public sector unions with members' contact information and workplace access.

No Community Organization Network: Progressive groups receive government and foundation grants; conservative organizations don't have comparable resources.

Cultural Resistance: Republican voters are more likely to view ballot harvesting as suspicious and refuse to participate.

Geographic Disadvantage: Republican voters in rural areas are harder to reach for door-to-door ballot collection.

Legal Restrictions: When Republicans attempted ballot harvesting in 2020 through unofficial drop boxes, Secretary of State Alex Padilla ordered them to cease, while Democratic ballot harvesting continued unabated.

"Democrats wrote the ballot harvesting rules to advantage themselves, then cry foul when Republicans try to compete under the same rules," said California Republican Party chairwoman Jessica Patterson. "It's a rigged game."

The Verification Gap: What Mexico Learned That California Ignores

The most striking difference between post-reform Mexico and current California is their opposite conclusions about voter verification.

Mexico's Lesson: Verification Creates Confidence

After the fraudulent 1988 election, Mexico concluded that credible elections require:

• Verified voter identity through biometric photo ID
• Transparent processes observable by all parties
• Chain of custody maintaining ballot security from distribution through counting
• In-person voting at assigned locations where identity can be verified
• Same-day voting minimizing opportunities for manipulation
• Independent election administration free from party control

These reforms didn't eliminate all election problems—vote buying and coercion still occur—but they created a framework all parties accept as legitimate. When MORENA's Andrés Manuel López Obrador won in 2018, conservatives accepted the result because they trusted the process.

"Mexico learned that verification isn't about preventing fraud—it's about creating confidence," said former INE president Lorenzo Córdova. "Even if fraud is rare, voters need visible security measures to trust the system."

California's Conclusion: Verification Threatens Access

California has reached the opposite conclusion:

• ID verification is unnecessary and potentially suppressive
• Signature matching by undertrained workers suffices for verification
• Universal mail voting increases participation
• Extended voting periods accommodate busy voters
• Ballot harvesting enables participation by voters who might not vote otherwise
• Automatic registration ensures maximum enrollment

This approach prioritizes participation over verification, access over security, convenience over chain of custody.

"California treats verification as voter suppression," said Kim Alexander of the California Voter Foundation. "The assumption is that barriers to voting are more dangerous than risks to election security."

The Paradox: Why Does One-Party California Fear Voter ID?

This creates a genuine puzzle: If California Democrats win legitimately due to demographic advantage and popular policies, why do they so fiercely resist voter verification measures?

Possible explanations:

Explanation 1: Principled Opposition Democrats genuinely believe voter ID suppresses turnout among minorities and poor voters, even if research doesn't support this belief. They oppose it on principle, not political calculation.

Explanation 2: Margin Enhancement Democrats would win with or without verification, but permissive rules enhance their margins, turning narrow victories into supermajorities. They oppose verification because it would reduce their dominance, even if they'd still win.

Explanation 3: Coalition Maintenance Important Democratic constituencies—unions, community organizations—benefit from ballot harvesting operations. Democrats oppose verification to maintain these relationships, not because verification would change election outcomes.

Explanation 4: Non-Citizen Voting Verification would reveal that non-citizens vote in significant numbers through automatic DMV registration and lack of verification. Democrats oppose verification to prevent this exposure.

Explanation 5: Symbolic Politics Voter ID has become a tribal marker of partisan identity. Democrats oppose it because Republicans support it, regardless of policy merits—and vice versa.

The truth likely combines elements of all five explanations. But the result is clear: California maintains one-party dominance while fiercely resisting verification measures that would either confirm their legitimacy (if they win fairly) or expose problems (if they don't).

"If California Democrats are as popular as election results suggest, they should welcome verification," said Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation. "The fact that they don't raises questions about whether their dominance is as secure as they claim."

What Happens When the Rules and Results Don't Match Demographics?

Another dimension of the paradox: California's voting results show Democratic dominance exceeding what demographics would predict.

The Demographic Math

California's voter registration is:

• 46.7% Democrat
• 23.9% Republican
• 23.1% No Party Preference
• 6.3% Other

Yet Democrats routinely win 60-65% of statewide votes and 75%+ of legislative and congressional seats. This requires either:

1. No Party Preference voters breaking 70-80% Democratic (possible but unlikely)
2. Significant numbers of registered Republicans voting Democratic (possible but unlikely)
3. Differential turnout highly favoring Democrats (enabled by ballot harvesting)
4. Geographic sorting creating maximally efficient Democratic districts
5. Some combination of the above plus measurement error

Or, more skeptically:

6. Permissive voting rules enabling vote enhancement through ballot harvesting, inadequate verification, and weak roll maintenance

The Mexico Parallel: When Results Didn't Match Reality

The PRI faced a similar issue: election results showing overwhelming PRI support didn't match what Mexicans saw around them—opposition rallies with huge crowds, conversations with opposition-supporting neighbors, business community support for PAN.

This disconnect between official results and perceived reality eventually created a legitimacy crisis. Voters didn't trust that elections reflected actual preferences.

California may face a similar legitimacy challenge if Republican voters—representing 24% of registrations and likely 35-40% of actual voter preferences—conclude that their 15-20% share of elected officials doesn't reflect fair representation but rather systemic advantage built into voting rules.

"When a quarter of voters control 15% of seats, you have a representation problem," said Stutzman. "When those voters believe the system is rigged against them through permissive rules that advantage the majority party's organizational infrastructure, you have a legitimacy problem."

The Reform Impossibility: California's Catch-22

Mexico reformed because the PRI's legitimacy collapsed and even PRI leaders recognized change was necessary. California faces a different challenge: Democratic leaders see no crisis requiring reform, and they control all mechanisms for implementing reform.

This creates several interconnected problems:

Problem 1: Beneficiaries Control Reform

In Mexico, electoral reform required PRI cooperation, but opposition parties had enough power to force negotiations. In California, Republicans lack the power to force anything:

• Can't block constitutional amendments (need 1/3 of legislature)
• Can't pass ballot initiatives (need funding and signatures)
• Can't win statewide offices (need to win elections)
• Can't change voting rules (need legislative majorities)

Democrats control all paths to reform and benefit from current rules, creating no incentive to change them.

Problem 2: Verification Reform Requires Supermajority Support

Many meaningful reforms—changing the constitution, implementing voter ID, restricting ballot harvesting—require either:

• 2/3 legislative approval to place constitutional amendments on ballot
• Majority voter approval of ballot initiatives
• Subsequent court approval if challenged

With Democrats controlling 77% of the legislature and winning 60%+ of statewide votes, reforms Republicans support cannot pass through either legislative or initiative process.

Problem 3: The Mexico Solution Doesn't Apply

Mexico reformed through a grand bargain: the PRI accepted reforms in exchange for amnesty for past fraud and a transitional period maintaining some advantages. All parties had incentives to cooperate.

California Democrats have no equivalent incentive structure:

• They face no fraud accusations requiring amnesty
• They don't need a transition period—they're already winning
• They view Republican concerns as partisan whining, not legitimate grievances
• They believe demographic trends ensure permanent progressive majorities
• They see verification measures as voter suppression, not election security

"Democrats in California have no reason to negotiate with Republicans," said Dan Schnur. "They have the votes, they have the power, and they believe they represent the future. Why would they give up advantages?"

Problem 4: National Polarization Prevents State-Level Compromise

Mexico's reforms occurred in relative isolation from international partisan conflict. California's election debates occur within intensely nationalized partisan warfare.

Any Democratic legislator proposing voter ID, restricting ballot harvesting, or strengthening verification would face:

• Primary challenges from progressive activists
• Accusations of betraying immigrant and minority communities
• National progressive groups funding opposition
• Media criticism for "enabling Republican voter suppression"
• Loss of union and progressive organization support

"California Democrats can't compromise on voting rules because national progressive organizations won't let them," explained Thad Kousser, political scientist at UC San Diego. "These issues have become litmus tests of progressive loyalty. Any Democrat suggesting reforms would be destroyed politically."

Problem 5: The Demographic Inevitability Myth

California Democrats largely believe their dominance reflects permanent demographic changes making Republican victories impossible regardless of electoral rules.

This belief removes any incentive to build bipartisan consensus on election administration. If Republicans can't win anyway, why accommodate their concerns about verification and ballot harvesting?

"Democrats think they've won permanently," said Senik. "That's exactly what the PRI thought in 1980. Demography isn't destiny—it's a snapshot of current conditions that can change. But belief in permanent majority status creates hubris that prevents necessary reforms."

Warning Signs: When Does a System Become Illegitimate?

Mexico's pre-reform system became illegitimate not at any single moment but through accumulating warning signs:

• Decreasing competitiveness: Fewer opposition victories over time
• Increasing margins: PRI winning by implausible percentages
• Disconnect from reality: Election results not matching observed public sentiment
• Rule changes favoring incumbents: Constitutional amendments entrenching PRI advantages
• Institutional capture: PRI control of bureaucracy, unions, media
• Opposition powerlessness: Opposition parties unable to influence policy despite participation
• Public cynicism: Citizens viewing elections as predetermined regardless of their votes

California shows some of these warning signs:

• ✓ Decreasing competitiveness: Virtually no competitive legislative or congressional districts 
• ✓ Increasing margins: Democratic supermajorities exceed registration advantages  
• ? Disconnect from reality: Unclear—may reflect genuine preferences or systemic advantages  
• ✓ Rule changes favoring incumbents: Top-two primaries, redistricting, ballot harvesting  
• ✓ Institutional capture: Democrats control government, unions, media, universities  
• ✓ Opposition powerlessness: Republicans influence no significant state policies  
• ? Public cynicism: Mixed evidence—many Californians trust elections, but Republican voters increasingly view system as rigged

The critical question: Does California's one-party dominance reflect genuine public preferences expressed through fair processes, or does it reflect a cleverly designed system that produces one-party outcomes regardless of actual preferences?

The Counterfactual: What Would California Look Like With Mexico's System?

Imagine California adopted Mexico's electoral framework:

• Biometric voter ID required for all voting
• In-person voting at assigned polling places on election day
• Transparent counting with partisan observers from all parties present
• No ballot harvesting—voters must submit ballots themselves
• Independent election commission replacing partisan Secretary of State
• Professional, non-partisan election administration

Would Democrats still dominate California politics? Almost certainly yes—the state's demographics and policy preferences genuinely lean progressive.

But would they hold 77% of legislative seats with 47% of voter registrations? Probably not.

Would ballot harvesting operations delivering hundreds of thousands of votes continue? No—the practice would be illegal.

Would "blue wave" late-counting shifts consistently favor Democrats? Less likely—same-day counting would limit such shifts.

Would supermajorities be routine? Doubtful—more competitive elections would produce closer results.

"California would still be blue under Mexico's system, but it probably wouldn't be a one-party state," estimated Stewart of MIT. "You'd have healthy Democratic majorities, not overwhelming dominance. That's the difference between legitimate electoral advantage and systemic enhancement of that advantage."

Conclusion: A More Troubling Parallel Than It First Appears

A comparison to pre-reform Mexico initially seems hyperbolic—California doesn't engage in the ballot box stuffing and vote count manipulation that characterized PRI rule.

But examining the comparison more deeply reveals something perhaps more concerning: California has achieved one-party dominance comparable to the PRI without requiring fraud. Instead, California has designed a system where loose verification, universal mail voting, unlimited ballot harvesting, and extended voting periods create structural advantages for the party controlling government resources and community organizations.

This makes California's system harder to reform than Mexico's was. The PRI's fraud was obvious and offensive to democratic norms. When exposed, it created demands for reform that even PRI leaders couldn't resist.

California's system is more subtle. There's no clear fraud to expose. The rules appear neutral—anyone can harvest ballots, registration is available to everyone, mail voting accommodates all voters. Yet these "neutral" rules consistently produce outcomes advantaging Democrats far beyond what registration numbers would suggest.

Mexico learned that even without fraud, election systems require:

• Verification to ensure only eligible voters vote
• Chain of custody to protect ballot integrity
• Transparency allowing all parties to observe processes
• Limits on third-party ballot handling to prevent coercion
• In-person voting as default to maintain security

California has rejected every one of these principles, creating the nation's most permissive voting system while simultaneously achieving one-party dominance rivaling the PRI's peak.

The uncomfortable question is whether this is coincidence or causation—whether Democrats dominate California despite permissive rules or because of them. The answer likely lies somewhere between: Democrats would probably win California under any system, but current rules enhance their margins from majority status to supermajority dominance.

That enhancement—from competitive democracy to one-party state—may be California's most troubling parallel to pre-reform Mexico. The PRI needed fraud to achieve such dominance. California's Democrats have achieved it through clever system design that makes fraud unnecessary.

Which approach is ultimately more dangerous to democratic governance remains an open question—but it's one that deserves more serious consideration than California's political establishment currently gives it.

 

SIDEBAR: Could the Feds Change Things?

A quick guide to federal power over California's election system

The Short Answer

Yes, but it's complicated. Congress has clear constitutional authority to regulate federal elections (House, Senate, President), which means it could force California to implement voter ID, restrict ballot harvesting, and maintain accurate voter rolls. But actually making California comply would require overcoming substantial legal, political, and practical obstacles.

The Constitutional Basis

The Elections Clause (Article I, Section 4) explicitly gives Congress power to "make or alter" state regulations for congressional elections. This is one of the few areas where the Constitution clearly prioritizes federal authority over state sovereignty.

The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted this clause broadly. In Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council (2013), the Court held that federal voter registration requirements override conflicting state laws. In U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (1995), the Court affirmed Congress's paramount authority over federal elections.

The catch: This authority clearly covers House and Senate elections, but it's less certain for presidential elections, which are governed by a different constitutional provision (Article II) that emphasizes state control. Most scholars believe Congress can regulate presidential elections too, but the Supreme Court hasn't definitively ruled on this question.

What Congress Could Do

Federal legislation like the proposed American Confidence in Elections (ACE) Act could require California to:

Voter ID:

• Require government-issued photo ID or ID number for all federal elections
• Provide free IDs to voters who lack them
• Apply same requirements to mail voting (ID number on envelope)

Voter Roll Maintenance:

• Join interstate data-sharing systems to identify duplicate registrations
• Remove deceased voters within 30 days of death notification
• Verify citizenship before registration
• Conduct regular list maintenance to remove ineligible voters

Ballot Handling:

• Prohibit third-party ballot collection except by family members
• Require video surveillance of drop boxes
• Mandate signature verification standards
• Set deadlines for ballot receipt (not just postmark)

Enforcement:

• Condition federal election funding on compliance
• Authorize Department of Justice to sue non-compliant states
• Allow private citizens to sue states for violations
• Create federal oversight of election administration

The Political Reality

Current Status: Congressional Republicans support federal election standards; Democrats uniformly oppose them as "voter suppression." Neither party has the votes to pass or permanently block comprehensive legislation.

Legislative Path:

• House Republicans passed ACE Act in 2023 (along party lines)
• Senate Democrats blocked it
• Trump administration supports federal standards
• Could potentially pass through budget reconciliation (requiring only 51 Senate votes instead of 60)

Political Obstacles:

• Democratic filibuster in Senate (requires 60 votes)
• Questions about whether election provisions qualify for reconciliation
• Democratic states would resist implementation
• Media would frame as "federal takeover" of elections
• National polarization makes bipartisan reform nearly impossible

California's Defense Strategy

California wouldn't comply. The state would fight federal requirements using:

Legal Warfare:

• Immediate lawsuit challenging federal authority
• Seek preliminary injunction blocking enforcement
• Appeal adverse rulings through entire federal system
• Litigate for 2-4 years minimum

Constitutional Arguments:

• Tenth Amendment: Election administration is state function
• Anti-commandeering: Congress can't force states to implement federal requirements
• Presidential election distinction: Federal authority limited to congressional elections
• Equal sovereignty: Uniform national rules violate state sovereignty
• Voting Rights Act: Requirements could reduce minority participation

Most experts predict California would lose these arguments—the Elections Clause is explicit—but the litigation would consume years.

Administrative Resistance:

• Claim insufficient time/resources to implement
• Minimal compliance meeting letter but not spirit of requirements
• Counties refuse cooperation, citing state authority
• Challenge every implementation detail in separate lawsuits
• Delay, delay, delay

Political Resistance:

• Governor denounces "federal voter suppression"
• Legislature refuses to appropriate implementation funds
• Media campaign portrays requirements as racist attack on California
• Coordinate with other blue states for unified resistance
• Pressure Democratic Congress members to repeal legislation

Budgetary Resistance:

• Refuse federal election funding rather than comply
• Claim federal requirements are unfunded mandates
• Force feds to either provide funding or give up

The Timeline Problem

Even if federal legislation passed tomorrow and survived all court challenges, implementation would take years:

Optimistic Timeline:

• 2026: Legislation passes
• 2026-2027: California sues, seeks preliminary injunction
• 2027-2028: Federal courts rule (district court, appeals court)
• 2028-2029: Supreme Court review (if cert granted)
• 2029-2030: Final ruling; implementation begins
• First affected election: 2030 at earliest

Realistic Timeline:

• Add 1-2 years for additional litigation over implementation details
• Factor in Purcell principle (courts won't change election rules close to elections)
• Account for California's minimal compliance and continued resistance
• Meaningful changes: 2032 or later

Current Litigation: Changes Without Legislation?

Several lawsuits currently working through federal courts could force California to change specific practices:

RNC v. Fontes (Ninth Circuit): Challenges unlimited ballot harvesting as violating federal chain-of-custody requirements. Decision expected in early 2026. If plaintiffs win: California would need to restrict or track ballot collection.

PILF v. Weber (Ninth Circuit appeal): Challenges California's voter roll maintenance as violating National Voter Registration Act. If plaintiffs win: California would need to remove millions of inactive registrations and implement better list maintenance.

Arizona v. Biden (Supreme Court cert petition pending): Challenges whether federal law prohibits citizenship verification for voter registration. If Arizona wins: California could be required to verify citizenship for automatic DMV registrations.

Migliore v. Padilla (District Court): Challenges inconsistent signature verification standards as violating Equal Protection. If plaintiffs win: California would need uniform statewide verification standards and training.

Expected Outcome: Some plaintiffs victories producing incremental reforms over multiple years—not comprehensive transformation, but meaningful constraints on California's most permissive practices.

Most Likely Scenario: Gradual Erosion

Rather than dramatic federal takeover, California's system will likely become modestly more restrictive through:

1. Narrow court victories limiting specific practices (ballot harvesting limits, better roll maintenance, citizenship verification at registration)

2. Possible limited federal legislation requiring minimal standards that survive even California's legal challenges

3. California's minimal compliance implementing cheapest, narrowest acceptable interpretation of requirements

4. Incremental change over 5-10 years rather than sudden transformation

Analogy: Think of water eroding rock. Not a sudden earthquake, but gradual pressure over years eventually reshaping the landscape.

Bottom Line

Federal government has the constitutional power to force California to implement voter ID and better roll maintenance for federal elections.

Political and practical realities mean actually making California comply would take many years, face fierce resistance, and likely produce only partial reforms.

Most realistic expectation: California's system becomes somewhat more restrictive by 2030—maybe requiring ID numbers on mail ballots, maybe restricting ballot harvesting, probably improving voter roll maintenance—but still remaining among the nation's most permissive systems.

For truly comprehensive reform (Mexico-style voter ID, in-person voting as default, robust verification), you'd need either:

• Major election fraud scandal creating political consensus
• Republicans winning California state government (highly unlikely)
• Supreme Court dramatically expanding federal authority
• National crisis prompting bipartisan reform

None of these scenarios appears imminent, which means California's one-party dominance under a permissive voting system will likely persist through the end of this decade—albeit with federal courts gradually constraining the most problematic practices at the margins.

The uncomfortable parallel to pre-reform Mexico remains: The party benefiting from the current system controls all state-level mechanisms for changing it, leaving federal intervention as the only realistic path for reform—and that path is slow, uncertain, and likely to produce only incremental rather than transformative change.