AB 1040 amends Elections Code Section 2021 to specify that a person who leaves their home temporarily because of a natural disaster does not lose domicile at that home if they intend to return to that home or to another address within the same jurisdiction. The bill also expressly allows a displaced person to provide a temporary mailing address without losing domicile.
This change targets voters displaced by wildfires, floods, earthquakes and similar events, creating a statutory safe harbor that reduces the risk displaced people will be removed from voter rolls or lose access to ballots tied to their home precinct. Practically, it shifts some administrative responsibility to county election officials to accommodate temporary mailing addresses while maintaining precinct-based residency for voting purposes.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a new subsection to Section 2021 saying temporary relocation caused by a natural disaster does not change a voter's domicile if the voter intends to return to the same home or another address within the same jurisdiction. It also allows the voter to provide a temporary mailing address without altering domicile status.
Who It Affects
Displaced residents (for example, wildfire or flood evacuees), county election officials who process registrations and mail ballots, and organizations that assist evacuees with registration and ballot delivery. It leaves other domicile rules unchanged.
Why It Matters
By codifying a disaster-related exception, the bill reduces the chance that temporary evacuation will trigger loss of voting residence and related disenfranchisement. It creates an operational cue for election administrators to accept temporary mailing addresses while keeping voters tied to their original precincts.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill edits the existing domicile rule in California's Election Code to address an increasingly common fact pattern: people forced to leave home because of natural disasters. Under current law a domicile is the place where habitation is fixed and to which a person intends to return; leaving home temporarily with the intention of returning does not change that domicile.
AB 1040 inserts an explicit sentence clarifying that evacuation for reasons of natural disaster is a covered temporary relocation so long as the person intends to return either to their original home or to another address within the same jurisdiction.
A second, concrete change gives displaced voters permission to supply a temporary mailing address without that act being treated as evidence they changed their domicile. In practice, that means someone evacuated to an out-of-area shelter or staying with relatives can ask county elections officials to send ballots or election notices to a different address for the short term while remaining registered at their home precinct.The bill does not rewrite the other domicile rules: it keeps intact the prohibition on acquiring a new domicile by temporary presence in another precinct, and it does not create new procedures for proving intent to return.
Implementation therefore falls on county registrars to accept temporary mailing addresses, decide what documentation (if any) to require, and handle ballot delivery logistics while leaving the voter's registration and precinct assignment tied to the home address.Because the amendment is narrowly targeted to natural-disaster displacement and to return within the “same jurisdiction,” its practical reach will depend on how counties interpret “jurisdiction” (county, city, or other boundary) and how they operationalize temporary mailing addresses during emergencies.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 1040 adds a new subsection (c) to Elections Code §2021 explicitly covering temporary relocation caused by a natural disaster.
The new text preserves a voter’s domicile if the displaced person intends to return to their home or to another address within the same jurisdiction.
The bill allows displaced voters to provide a temporary mailing address without that action causing loss of domicile at their home.
Existing rules preventing acquisition of domicile by mere temporary presence in another precinct remain intact and are not changed by this bill.
The statute does not define “same jurisdiction” nor set standards for proving intent to return, leaving those determinations to election officials and potential guidance later on.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Retention of domicile during ordinary temporary absences
Subsection (a) restates the longstanding rule that a person who leaves home for temporary purposes with the intention of returning does not lose domicile. Practically, this leaves the preexisting bright-line for ordinary temporary moves (business travel, short-term stays) untouched—counties should continue existing practices for those cases.
No domicile gained by temporary presence
Subsection (b) preserves the rule that simply being in another precinct temporarily does not create a new domicile. That protects against accidental transfer of voting residence when someone temporarily stays across precinct or county lines; AB 1040 explicitly leaves this safeguard in place so temporary disaster relocation won’t suddenly create new domiciles elsewhere.
New natural-disaster exception and temporary mailing addresses
Subsection (c) is the substantive insertion: it treats evacuation for a natural disaster as a recognized temporary departure that does not change domicile if the person intends to return to the home or another address within the same jurisdiction, and it permits the person to give a temporary mailing address without losing domicile. The practical implications fall to county registrars—this provision enables ballot or notice delivery to temporary addresses while maintaining the voter's precinct assignment, but it does not prescribe verification steps, timelines, or whether mail forwarding or other ballot-handling procedures will apply.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Elections across all five countries.
Explore Elections in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Displaced voters (wildfire, flood, earthquake evacuees): they keep their voting residence and can receive mail at a temporary address, reducing the risk of disenfranchisement during emergency displacements.
- County election officials: they gain a statutory instruction to treat disaster-related moves as temporary, which can reduce legal uncertainty when processing registrations and contesting voter removals after emergencies.
- Nonprofit and emergency-relief groups that assist evacuees: clearer law helps these groups advise clients about voting options and arrange for temporary mail pickup or ballot assistance without triggering registration changes.
Who Bears the Cost
- County registrars of voters: they must adapt intake procedures, potentially verify displaced voters’ intent to return, and manage temporary-mailing logistics during crises—work that can require staff time and contingency planning.
- Local election operations budgets: increased administrative load for processing temporary addresses, coordinating with postal services or shelters, and managing ballot delivery could raise costs without dedicated funding.
- Neighbors and precinct administrators in receiving areas: accepting large numbers of temporary mailing requests could complicate local mail handling and require coordination with shelters and service providers to ensure ballots reach displaced voters.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between preventing disaster-driven disenfranchisement by keeping displaced people tied to their home precincts and preserving the integrity and administrability of residence-based elections: a simple, low-bar rule favors access but increases the administrative burden and potential for misuse, while stricter verification protects electoral integrity but risks denying timely access to voters who fled for their safety.
The bill solves an obvious fairness problem—evacuees shouldn't be stripped of home-based voting rights simply because they left for safety—but it leaves several operationally critical questions unanswered. First, “same jurisdiction” is undefined.
Is that the county, the city, a municipal boundary, or the election precinct? Counties will need to adopt a default interpretation that may differ across California, producing uneven outcomes for evacuees whose displacement crosses local lines.
Second, the statute does not establish how election officials should verify a voter’s intent to return or how long the temporary-mailing permission lasts. Without guidance, counties face a choice between minimal friction (accepting a temporary mailing address on the voter's assertion) and stricter verification (which could delay assistance).
Both choices carry trade-offs: lax verification invites potential abuse or confusion about where a voter should cast ballots; strict verification risks recreating the very barriers the bill intends to remove.
Finally, the law is silent on practical ballot mechanics—whether counties must forward ballots to temporary addresses, rely on mail forwarding, or issue replacement ballots—so implementing the statutory intent may require administrative rules, interagency coordination (postal authorities, emergency shelters), or local policy changes that carry cost and complexity.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.