California Senate Bill SB46

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/29/25
• Introduced: 12/12/24
• Refer: 1/29/25
• Refer: 1/5/26
• Report Pass: 1/13/26
• Refer: 1/13/26
• Report Pass: 1/14/26
• Refer: 1/14/26
• Report Pass: 1/22/26
• Engrossed: 1/27/26

Caption

An act to amend Sections 6041, 6340, 6520, 6720, 6722, 6851, 6852, 6901, and 13314 of, and to add Section 6901.7 to, the Elections Code, relating to elections.

Impact

This bill expands the authority of the Secretary of State to investigate candidates if there is reasonable suspicion that they do not meet the qualifications. It allows for elector-driven challenges to a candidate's qualifications, enabling residents to contest decisions regarding ballot placements through a petition process in the County of Sacramento superior court. These changes are significant as they shift some power to the electorate while also establishing stricter qualifications that candidates must adhere to before appearing on the ballot.

Summary

Senate Bill 46, introduced by Senator Umberg, aims to amend various sections of the Elections Code and the Evidence Code concerning the qualifications for candidates seeking the office of President or Vice President. The bill stipulates that the Secretary of State must not place a candidate's name on the ballot unless the candidate affirms, under oath, that they meet all constitutional requirements for the office. This is designed to ensure that only qualified candidates are eligible for election, thereby making the electoral process more accountable.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 46 is mixed, reflecting a divergence between those who believe in stricter electoral integrity measures and those who argue these measures could lead to disenfranchisement. Proponents argue it fortifies candidate eligibility and public trust in the electoral process. However, opponents raise concerns over potential misuse of the investigative authority and the implications for candidates, particularly those from less recognized backgrounds who may struggle to affirm compliance under the new stipulations.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the implications of perjury for candidates based on the requirement for sworn statements regarding qualifications, alongside the challenges that could arise for individuals seeking to contest candidates' qualifications. The dichotomy of candidate access and integrity assurance presents a critical issue, with advocates on both sides arguing passionately over their views on electoral fairness and security.