AB 1562 replaces the current volunteer/application model for precinct boards with a system that uses random selection. The bill requires (and in one provision authorizes) county elections officials to draw names from an eligible pool of residents, supplied in part by the Department of Motor Vehicles, assign them to precincts, notify them, and allow narrowly drawn excusals for undue hardship and for people age 70 and older.
The change is operationally significant: counties will receive DMV data, create randomized selection processes, manage excusal requests (including an automatic reselection rule), and retain selection records for fixed periods. The bill also introduces non-disclosure restrictions on DMV data and explicitly preserves language-assistance and pupil/nonvoter appointment authorities, making this both a logistics and privacy issue for local election administrators.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates a randomized method for choosing precinct board members and supplements the process by requiring the DMV to provide counties with lists of county residents age 18+ who hold a current driver’s license or ID. Counties must assign selected individuals to precincts, notify them, and allow excusals for undue hardship; citizens 70 or older may opt out.
Who It Affects
County elections officials (who must implement random-selection systems and handle DMV data), the Department of Motor Vehicles (which must provide lists), prospective precinct board members (every resident 18+ subject to enumerated exclusions), political parties and civic recruiters, and communities that rely on language assistance at polling places.
Why It Matters
By expanding the pool beyond volunteers, the bill aims to broaden participation and reduce reliance on ad hoc recruitment—but it also forces counties to build new data, privacy, and selection procedures, reconcile DMV lists with eligibility rules, and manage potential impacts on bilingual staffing and training.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1562 restructures how precinct board members are chosen. Instead of relying primarily on people who apply or are appointed, the bill directs elections officials to use randomized selection from an eligible population of local residents.
The Department of Motor Vehicles must provide county elections officials with current name, address, and identity data for county residents age 18 or older who hold a current driver’s license or identification card; counties must use that data as part of their selection process but are prohibited from disclosing the DMV data to outside parties.
The statute sets out who is and is not eligible: broadly, every resident adult is within the pool except categories specifically listed (nonresidents of the county, certain convicted persons, people serving as jurors, persons under conservatorship, people unable to read or write English, and a few other statutory exclusions). The bill keeps existing pathways for young pupils and lawful permanent residents to serve under supervision (pupils and certain nonvoters remain permitted appointments).
It also preserves requirements for assigning bilingual precinct staff where language needs meet statutory thresholds.Selected individuals must be assigned to specific precincts and notified. A selected person may apply to be excused for undue hardship; if excused for that reason, the person will be automatically selected in the next election provided they remain eligible.
Individuals age 70 or older may simply elect to be excused. Counties must also continue to meet timelines for defining precincts and notifying board members, and the bill amends how long selection records are kept—22 months for elections that include federal offices and six months for other elections.Operationally, counties will need to implement randomization tools, cross‑check DMV-supplied lists against eligibility criteria (citizenship/residency/conviction status), handle confidentiality and access rules for the DMV data, and update notification, training, and excusal procedures to reflect the new automatic reselection rule and age opt-out.
The bill is framed as creating a state-mandated local program, so its implementation may require reimbursement determinations under California law.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Department of Motor Vehicles must provide each county elections official with a current list of county residents age 18+ who hold a driver’s license or state ID, and the elections official may not disclose that DMV-provided information.
The bill makes every resident adult of the jurisdiction eligible for random selection as a precinct board member, subject to a detailed list of exclusions (nonresidents, certain convicted persons, jurors, conservatees, inability to read/write English, and similar statutory disqualifications).
A person selected may apply to be excused only for 'undue hardship' (a discretionary standard), and anyone excused for that reason will be automatically selected to serve in the following election—unless they are no longer eligible.
Individuals age 70 or older may elect to be excused from service without having to prove undue hardship.
The bill changes retention of selection records: lists of precinct officers and related orders must be preserved for 22 months where federal-office candidates appear on the ballot and for six months for other state or local elections.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Permissive authorization to adopt random-selection systems
This new provision explicitly authorizes an elections official to adopt a system that randomly selects people to serve as precinct board members. It establishes broad eligibility (every citizen resident 18+) and prohibits exclusion based on the protected characteristics listed in Government Code Section 11135. The section also authorizes excusal for undue hardship and allows assignment of selected individuals to precincts. Practically, this gives counties a statutory pathway to move away from an application-based appointment model toward a randomized pool.
DMV data feed and mandatory random selection language
This section requires the elections official to randomly select individuals from the pool defined in Section 12301 and directs the DMV to furnish counties with lists of county residents age 18+ who hold current driver’s licenses or IDs. It conditions the DMV service on Vehicle Code Section 1812 and bars counties from disclosing the DMV-supplied information. The provision creates the operational requirement to obtain, store securely, and use DMV identity data as an input for selection while raising the need to reconcile DMV records with voter-eligibility rules.
New eligibility and excusal framework
This rewritten eligibility section enumerates who may not serve (noncitizens except where other provisions allow, under-18s except for pupil exceptions, nonresidents of the county, certain convicted persons, jurors, conservatees, and people unable to read or write English, among others). It narrows excused service to undue hardship, provides an opt-out for those 70 and older, and contains a severability clause. Importantly, it also specifies that eligibility rules should not be applied to exempt people based on occupation, economic status, or protected characteristics under Section 11135, which will affect how counties screen candidates.
Timing, precinct assignment, and notification
This amendment keeps the existing administrative timeline: at least 29 days before an election the elections official must establish precincts, define boundaries, designate polling places, select precinct board members under Chapter 4, and notify appointees. The practical effect is that random selection must be completed, and assignments communicated, within the same pre-election window that applied to appointment-based systems—adding scheduling pressure on counties newly using randomized selection.
Pupil/nonvoter appointments and language-assistance duties preserved
The bill retains authority for elections officials to appoint up to five pupils (16+, with GPA and school approval) and up to five nonvoter lawful permanent residents per precinct under supervision; neither group may perform certain chief duties like tallying. It also keeps the existing language-assistance trigger (approx. 3 percent voting-age residents) and requires visible identification of staff language skills at polling places. Those provisions constrain how randomly-selected pools are used: counties must still ensure bilingual coverage where legally required and may continue targeted appointments for civic engagement.
Record-retention for selection records
The bill revises retention periods for records reflecting selection of precinct officials: where federal offices are on the ballot, counties must preserve selection records for 22 months; for other state or local elections, the preservation period is six months. The change affects how long counties must maintain lists, orders, and declarations connected to precinct staffing and has practical implications for public access requests, audits, and litigation timelines.
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
- County elections officials — gain a structured, statutory method to expand the pool of precinct workers and reduce sole reliance on volunteer recruitment efforts, which can simplify scheduling and forecasting of staffing needs.
- Residents who do not typically respond to poll-worker recruitment — random selection may draw in people who would not otherwise apply, increasing participation opportunities for less-engaged citizens.
- Communities needing language assistance — the bill preserves the language-assistance trigger and requires visible identification of staff language skills, which helps ensure bilingual staffing where demographic thresholds are met.
- Election oversight and audit functions — clearer record-retention windows for selection-related records create predictable preservation periods for post-election review and potential audits.
Who Bears the Cost
- County elections offices — must build or procure randomization tools, securely receive and reconcile DMV data with eligibility rules, handle increased notice and excusal adjudication workloads, and maintain records for the statutory retention periods.
- Department of Motor Vehicles — tasked with supplying county-specific identity lists in compliance with Vehicle Code constraints; this creates an ongoing operational obligation and coordination burden with counties.
- Selected individuals — will bear the time and logistical costs of serving at the polling place and face statutory penalties for failing to serve; the automatic reselection rule after an excusal can impose recurring burdens.
- Organizations that recruit poll workers (including civic groups and political parties) — may see reduced ability to target recruitment as random selection expands the pool, and will need to adapt outreach strategies.
- Local budgets — the bill creates a state-mandated local program; absent clear reimbursement, counties may absorb initial implementation costs for systems, training, and data security.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill trades a more inclusive, randomized approach to staffing precincts—intended to broaden participation and reduce ad hoc recruitment—for increased administrative complexity, data-privacy risk, and possible degradation of targeted staffing (bilingual coverage, experienced inspectors) unless counties invest in matching, training, and secure data processes; the question is whether broadening the pool is worth the operational and privacy costs imposed on local election officials.
The bill blends permissive and mandatory language in ways that create implementation ambiguity. One section expressly authorizes elections officials to adopt randomized selection, while another states that the elections official "shall" randomly select individuals—county counsel and election administrators will need to reconcile whether randomized selection is optional or required and under what timeline.
That drafting tension matters because counties currently vary in staffing capacity and systems; a mandatory pivot would impose uniform operational demands.
The DMV data provision raises several practical and legal wrinkles. The DMV list will include all license/ID holders (including noncitizens), yet eligibility is limited to citizens and other enumerated categories; counties must therefore cross-check DMV records against voter rolls or other citizenship indicators, a nontrivial matching exercise that creates privacy and accuracy risks.
The statute bars disclosure of DMV-supplied information, but it also requires notification of selected individuals and makes selection lists available to parties after identity verification—counties will need clear data-handling protocols and likely IT investment to meet both confidentiality and public-record obligations.
Finally, the excusal mechanics could produce unintended cycles. Excuse for undue hardship is narrow, but anyone excused under that standard is automatically selected for the next election; that approach may penalize people who genuinely faced temporary hardship and create administrative churn if many opt out or if counties must repeatedly process the same people.
The bill also leaves the standard of "undue hardship" undefined, delegating heavy discretion to local elections officials and inviting inconsistent application across counties. Funding is flagged via the state-mandate language, but whether and how reimbursements will be made remains a separate administrative question that affects timely implementation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.