WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 459

Relating to: county public works notice and competitive bidding thresholds. (FE)

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Todd Novak and 1 co-sponsor

AB 459 would let voters sign petitions electronically via SOS, counting e-signatures the same as handwritten ones to qualify measures for the ballot.

Published 3-28-2026
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 459

AB 459 (DeMaio) — Initiatives: qualification: electronic signatures

Status: In committee (Assembly Elections). Set for first hearing 4/30/2025 — failed passage; reconsideration granted. Introduced: February 6, 2025.

Purpose / Intent

AB 459 would modernize the initiative, referendum, and recall petition process by creating an official online system — run by the Secretary of State (SOS) — that allows voters to view petitions and sign them electronically. The bill seeks to treat verified electronic signatures as equivalent to handwritten signatures for the purpose of qualifying measures for the ballot.

Key provisions (by added Elections Code sections)

  • Section 109

    • Requires the Secretary of State to develop an internet system where voters can:
    • View state or local initiative, referendum, or recall petitions.
    • View proponent/opponent arguments (or recall reasons and responses).
    • Provide identifying information and electronically sign the petition.
    • SOS must post an ongoing tally of electronic signatures for each petition.
    • Specifies that electronic signature totals are to be added to handwritten signature totals when determining whether a petition has met the minimum number of registered voter signatures needed to qualify for the ballot.
    • Requires the system to enable SOS to verify the authenticity of electronic signatures.
    • Treats electronic signatures as “personally affixed” and as “signatures” under existing definitions; exempts electronic signatures from circulator affidavit/declaration requirements.

  • Section 9023 (state petitions circulated under SOS system)

    • If proponents opt in, SOS must post petition text and arguments, enable e-signing, post signature tallies, and provide proponents with lists of electronic signers during circulation.
    • Repeats that electronic signatures are not required to be accompanied by a circulator affidavit.

  • Section 9036 (verification and certification for state petitions)

    • After circulation closes, SOS must verify electronic signatures and determine the number of valid electronic signatures, then add that number to the count of valid handwritten signatures.
    • If total valid signatures meet or exceed the required number, SOS certifies the measure; if not, SOS notifies proponents and takes no further action.

  • Sections 9107.5 and 9118.1 (local/county petitions — county coordination)

    • Allow county-level petitions to be circulated via the SOS system if proponents opt in and require county officials to coordinate (county notifies SOS; SOS posts materials and provides ongoing lists/tallies).
    • Upon close, county elections officials request electronic signature data from SOS and examine/validate signatures (document text for full county validation steps is partially truncated in the source).

Who would be affected

  • Secretary of State: must develop, host, and operate the e-signature system; verify and report electronic signature counts for state petitions.
  • County and local elections officials: would coordinate with SOS; receive electronic signature data; examine and validate electronic signatures for local petitions; increased administrative duties.
  • Initiative proponents and opponents: gain an option to circulate and sign petitions electronically; receive ongoing signer lists and tallies.
  • Voters: gain the ability to view and electronically sign official petitions via SOS’s website.

Procedural / timeline notes

  • Bill progressed through Assembly committee amendments in March–April 2025. It failed passage in the Assembly Elections Committee on April 30, 2025; the committee granted reconsideration.
  • If enacted, the law would require SOS to develop and implement the online system before proponents could use it.

Fiscal and legal effects

  • The measure imposes additional duties on local election officials (a state-mandated local program). The bill includes a provision that if the Commission on State Mandates finds costs are mandated, reimbursement shall be made under existing statutory procedures.
  • The text contains multiple “notwithstanding” clauses to ensure electronic signatures and the omission of circulator affidavits are recognized notwithstanding existing code sections (e.g., Government Code §16.5, Elections Code provisions).

Potential implications / issues to consider

  • Accessibility and convenience: could broaden access for signers and lower logistical barriers.
  • Security & verification: requires robust identity-verification methods and auditability to ensure signature authenticity; the bill directs SOS to verify but does not specify methods in the text provided.
  • Workload & cost: SOS and county officials would incur new technical and administrative responsibilities; fiscal impacts depend on implementation choices.
  • Legal questions: treating e-signatures as “personally affixed” and removing circulator affidavits raises procedural and evidentiary issues that could be subject to legal challenge.

Note: Some county-level validation language in Section 9118.1 was truncated in the supplied document; summary reflects the available text.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.