AB 1077 directs the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to electronically transmit specified applicant records to the Secretary of State and requires an interagency agreement governing the transfer. It lists exact data elements to be shared, creates deadlines for transmitting completed voter registration applications, and defines several exclusions and use restrictions.
This bill matters because it codifies the mechanics that make a "New Motor Voter" system operational: what data moves, when it must move, who may see it, and which applicants are excluded. For compliance officers, elections administrators, and privacy teams, the bill converts broad policy goals into discrete IT, workflow, and legal obligations — and ties implementation to an existing state IT project and statutory conditions for startup.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires the DMV to provide the Secretary of State specified applicant data (name, birthdate, addresses, digitized signature, contact info, party preference, vote-by-mail choice, and attestations) and to transmit accepted voter registration applications within statutory deadlines (generally 10 days, five days in narrow timing windows). It mandates an interagency agreement and limits third-party access and certain transfers of data.
Who It Affects
DMV operations and IT teams, the Secretary of State’s elections and outreach units, county elections officials who will receive registrations, voter outreach organizations tied to educational efforts, and applicants for driver’s licenses or IDs — especially those applying near registration deadlines.
Why It Matters
The bill turns an administrative promise into enforceable obligations — clarifying data scope, timing, and exclusions that determine accuracy, privacy exposure, and resource needs. It also ties operation to a state IT platform and to funding and regulatory conditions, making implementation a managed technical and budgetary project.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1077 prescribes how the DMV must electronically provide applicant records to the Secretary of State to support California’s New Motor Voter Program. The bill lists the specific data fields the DMV will transmit for each person submitting a driver’s license application — from name and date of birth to digitized signature, contact details, language and party preference, and whether the person chose permanent vote-by-mail.
The statute also requires the DMV and Secretary of State to develop and publish an interagency agreement describing schedules and methods for those transfers (with security-sensitive parts withheld).
The bill creates firm timeframes for sending completed voter registration applications to the Secretary of State: generally within 10 days of DMV acceptance and within five days when accepted within five days of the registration deadline for a federal or statewide election. It clarifies when an application counts as "accepted" (for federal deadlines), and makes certain provisions operative upon completion of a named state IT project or by a set calendar date, whichever is earlier.AB 1077 narrows who can be included in data transfers: applicants who present documentation showing they are not U.S. citizens, and applicants covered by Section 12801.9 (individuals unable to show authorized presence) cannot be transmitted.
The Secretary of State may receive records before full certification of implementation conditions, but then may use them only for outreach and education; broader use requires satisfying statutory start conditions including a compliant statewide registration database, funding, and adopted regulations.Finally, the bill places limits on downstream use and disclosure: the Secretary of State cannot sell or otherwise permit third-party access to DMV-acquired records without the DMV’s approval, and the DMV must withhold records that contain confidential home addresses. The Legislature also expresses an intent that DMV continue sending notices to applicants when there are delays in processing registrations and that outreach materials be produced in required languages.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The DMV must transmit specific applicant data fields — including digitized signature, language preference, political party, and vote-by-mail choice — to the Secretary of State.
Completed voter registration applications accepted by the DMV must be sent to the Secretary of State within 10 days, or within five days if accepted within five days of the federal/state registration deadline.
Several exclusions prevent transmission: applicants who present documents proving non-citizenship, applicants covered by Vehicle Code Section 12801.9 (unable to prove authorized presence), and records with confidential home addresses.
Records may be provided to the Secretary of State before the program’s statutory start conditions are certified, but those pre-certification records can only be used for targeted outreach and education; broader use requires certification, funding, and adopted regulations.
The Secretary of State is prohibited from selling, transferring, or granting third-party access to DMV-provided records without DMV approval; the interagency agreement must be published online except where security would be compromised.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Interagency agreement and schedule for electronic transfers
Requires the DMV, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to develop a schedule and method for electronic transfers and to enter into an interagency agreement describing cooperation and responsibilities. The current agreement must be published on the Secretary of State’s website, with limited redactions for security-sensitive content. Practically, this forces both agencies to nail down operational workflows, timing, and responsibilities before routine data exchange begins.
Required data elements to transmit with driver’s license applications
Specifies the exact fields the DMV must provide for each applicant: name, date of birth, residence and/or mailing address, digitized signature, phone and email (if available), language preference, party preference, vote-by-mail election choice, and whether an applicant declined registration — plus a notation that the applicant attested to meeting voter eligibility requirements. These specifics limit ambiguity for IT design and define the data footprint of the program, which matters for privacy assessments and data-matching logic at the Secretary of State.
Transmission timing and acceptance rules, including operative trigger
Sets transmission deadlines: standard transmissions within 10 days of DMV acceptance and a compressed five-day deadline for applications accepted within five days of registration cutoffs. It defines when an application is ‘accepted’ for federal deadline purposes and makes these provisions operative upon completion of the state’s Digital eXperience Platform project or by July 1, 2025, whichever is earlier. It also requires the DMV to accept and transmit voter applications even when the driver’s license application is incomplete or the license is inactive for reasons unrelated to identity verification or elections administration — a choice that increases the pool of registrations the Secretary of State will receive and puts a premium on accurate downstream eligibility checks.
Pre-certification outreach use, non-citizen exclusion, and limits on disclosure
Allows the DMV to transmit records to the Secretary of State before full certification of start conditions but limits early-use to outreach and education. If an applicant submits documentary proof of non-citizenship during the DMV transaction, the DMV must not offer an attestation or transmit that person’s records. The Secretary of State must provide outreach materials in required languages under the Voting Rights Act. Separately, the Secretary of State is prohibited from selling, transferring, or permitting third-party access to the DMV-supplied information without DMV approval, narrowing downstream commercialization or broad sharing.
Exclusions for applicants without authorized presence, confidential addresses, and notice intent
Bars the DMV from transmitting records of applicants who are issued licenses under Section 12801.9 (applicants unable to show authorized presence). It also forbids transmitting records that contain a home address designated confidential under specified Vehicle Code sections. Finally, the Legislature expresses intent that the DMV keep sending delay notices to applicants and that those notices include options for alternative registration methods — preserving an existing customer-notification practice.
Conditions required before full implementation
Declares three conditions the Secretary of State must certify before full program start (except for limited provisions already operable): a HAVA-compliant statewide voter registration database, legislative appropriation of necessary funds, and adoption of implementing regulations under Section 2277. This creates a gate that ties technical readiness, budget, and rulemaking to real-world rollout timing.
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
- Eligible DMV applicants: They gain a streamlined path to voter registration because the DMV must transfer their registration data automatically and within short timeframes, reducing friction for those completing driver’s license transactions.
- Secretary of State’s outreach teams: Allowed to receive early record sets for outreach and education, giving them a broader and timelier pool of contacts for language-accessible voter information.
- Voters preferring vote-by-mail: Because the DMV will transmit whether an applicant chose permanent vote-by-mail, counties can more quickly update lists and send ballots to eligible voters.
- County elections officials: Receive digitally transmitted registrations in standardized formats and on statutory timelines, which can reduce manual data entry and speed processing if county systems are prepared.
- Civic and voter-engagement organizations: Gain clearer, time-bound windows for outreach when the Secretary of State uses preliminary records for education, enabling targeted language-accessible campaigns required under the Voting Rights Act.
Who Bears the Cost
- California DMV (department): Faces IT, workflow, and training costs to collect, validate, and transmit the specific data elements and to implement the required interagency agreement and schedule.
- Secretary of State’s office: Must upgrade intake systems, staff outreach and verification operations, and maintain security controls to comply with use and disclosure limitations.
- County elections offices: May see surges in incoming registrations and must ensure matching, duplicate prevention, and eligibility verification processes scale in compressed timelines.
- Privacy and compliance teams: Must develop policies, audits, and controls to restrict third-party access and to manage confidential-address and non-citizen exclusions, increasing legal and operational oversight workloads.
- State IT project managers and budget planners: Bear responsibility for meeting the Digital eXperience Platform and funding prerequisites tied to operative deadlines; delays shift implementation risk and costs to agencies.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate goals — maximizing opportunities to register voters at DMV transactions and protecting personal data and registration accuracy. Automating transfers widens registration access and timeliness but increases privacy exposure and places new verification burdens on election officials; the statute must trade off speed and scale against data protection, accuracy, and the administrative capacity to reconcile and verify large, rapid inflows of registrations.
The bill advances automated registration while leaving several operational and legal questions unresolved. First, accepting and transmitting registrations even when a driver’s license application is incomplete or a license is inactive (so long as identity documentation is approved) expands the universe of transmitted registrations but shifts the burden of detecting ineligibility and duplicates onto elections officials.
That will require robust matching logic and reconciliation workflows — and the statute does not create new funding for counties to absorb that burden beyond the general funding certification requirement.
Second, the statute imposes tight transmission deadlines, particularly the five-day window for last-minute registrations. Those deadlines are administrable only if DMV and the Secretary of State tightly integrate their IT systems and business processes.
The bill ties full operability to completion of a named state IT project and to legislative funding and rulemaking, but it leaves ambiguous which party bears the risk and cost of missed deadlines during phased rollout. Finally, the privacy regime is protective in some respects (ban on selling/transferring records, withholding confidential addresses, and non-citizen exclusions) but still creates exposure: the bill requires transmission of rich personal data, including digitized signatures and contact details, and it authorizes early, outreach-only use before full certification — a window during which control and audit mechanisms will be especially important yet are not specified in the text.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.