AB 1764 amends Elections Code Section 2206 to let the California Secretary of State negotiate an agreement with the federal Social Security Administration (SSA) to obtain death statistics, and — if such an agreement is reached — requires the Secretary of State to adopt regulations governing the electronic transfer of those statistics. The bill preserves the existing mechanism for using death data from the State Department of Health Care Services and explicitly requires state and county election officials to use the available datasets to cancel affidavits of voter registration for deceased persons.
The change is narrowly targeted at increasing the sources and the technical means by which California can identify deceased registrants. That matters to county elections offices (which will be asked to act on new data feeds), to the Secretary of State (who must negotiate and regulate the data transfer), and to local budgets because the bill creates a potential state-mandated local program eligible for reimbursement only if the Commission on State Mandates finds a mandate exists.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill authorizes the Secretary of State to enter into an agreement with the federal Social Security Administration by January 1, 2028, to obtain death statistics and, if an agreement is made, requires the Secretary of State to write rules for electronic transfers of that information. It also requires the Secretary of State and county elections officials to use data from both the State Department of Health Care Services and the SSA to cancel voter registration affidavits for deceased persons.
Who It Affects
County elections officials must consume and act on additional death-data feeds and update voter rolls accordingly; the Secretary of State must negotiate with a federal agency and adopt regulations for secure electronic transfers; vendors and IT teams supporting county voter registration systems will likely need to integrate new data formats and processes.
Why It Matters
By opening a path to SSA death data and mandating electronic-transfer regulations, the bill aims to create a more complete, faster feed for removing deceased registrants — improving roll accuracy but also shifting operational and compliance burdens to state and local administrators.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 2206 currently requires the Secretary of State to adopt rules that make death statistics from the State Department of Health Care Services available for canceling registrations of deceased voters. AB 1764 keeps that foundation and adds a second potential source of death data: the federal Social Security Administration.
The bill gives the Secretary of State until January 1, 2028, to enter into an agreement with SSA to facilitate access to federal death statistics, but it does not compel SSA to share data — it simply authorizes the state to seek such an arrangement.
If the Secretary of State signs an agreement with SSA, the bill obligates the Secretary of State to adopt regulations that govern the electronic transfer of death statistics from SSA. Those regulations will need to cover technical formats, frequency, security and authentication, and mapping SSA records into state and county voter-registration systems.
The statute is silent on specific formats or timelines for how often transfers will occur, and it leaves details of integration and matching logic to the forthcoming regulations and agency implementation.Operational responsibility for acting on the data remains with the Secretary of State and county elections officials: data obtained from DHCS and, where available, SSA must be used to cancel affidavits of registration for people who are deceased. That creates two practical tasks for counties — receive and process an electronic feed that may arrive in a new format, and apply matching rules to identify which registration affidavits to cancel.
Counties will also need to retain audit trails and follow any notice, appeal, or verification procedures required by existing state law or by the new regulations.The bill recognizes the increased local workload by including the standard California provision that, if the Commission on State Mandates finds the legislation imposes state-mandated costs on local agencies, reimbursement will be made under the Government Code procedure for mandated costs. The statute does not specify funding levels or an appropriation, so whether local costs are reimbursed will depend on a subsequent Commission determination and the established reimbursement process.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Secretary of State may enter into an agreement with the Social Security Administration to obtain death statistics, with a latest permissive date of January 1, 2028.
If the Secretary of State signs an SSA agreement, the bill requires the Secretary of State to adopt regulations governing the electronic transfer of death statistics from SSA.
The Secretary of State and county elections officials must use death data obtained under this section (from DHCS and SSA where available) to cancel affidavits of voter registration of deceased persons.
The bill amends Elections Code Section 2206 to add the SSA option while preserving the existing DHCS data channel.
AB 1764 includes the standard state-mandated local program clause: if the Commission on State Mandates determines the bill imposes costs, reimbursement will follow Government Code Part 7 procedures.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Existing DHCS data requirement
This subsection retains the current duty: the Secretary of State must adopt regulations to make death statistics from the State Department of Health Care Services available, and those statistics are to be used by state and county officials to cancel deceased registrants. Practically, this preserves the existing legal pathway and places the baseline data-source obligation on the Secretary of State while leaving operational execution to counties.
Optional agreement with the Social Security Administration
This new paragraph gives the Secretary of State affirmative authority — but not an absolute mandate — to negotiate an agreement with the SSA to facilitate access to federal death statistics, and it ties that authority to a date: on or before January 1, 2028. The clause is permissive: the Secretary of State may enter into an agreement, which means implementation depends on negotiation outcomes with a federal agency that controls its own disclosure rules.
Rulemaking for electronic transfers from SSA
If the Secretary of State reaches an agreement with SSA, this paragraph requires the Secretary of State to adopt regulations that govern the electronic transfer of SSA death statistics. That triggers a rulemaking obligation covering data format, security, frequency, and other transfer mechanics; the statute does not prescribe technical standards, leaving those choices to administrative regulations and implementation decisions.
Use of obtained data to cancel registrations
This subsection makes explicit that data obtained under the section — whether from DHCS, SSA, or both — must be used by the Secretary of State or county elections officials to cancel affidavits of registration for deceased persons. The operational import is that counties must integrate whatever feeds become available into their cancellation workflows and must develop matching and verification practices consistent with state law and any new regulations.
State-mandated local program and reimbursement
This provision states that if the Commission on State Mandates finds the bill imposes costs on local agencies, reimbursement will be made pursuant to the Government Code procedures for mandated costs. It does not itself provide funding or create a guaranteed appropriation; it simply preserves the legal path for counties to seek reimbursement under California’s established mandate process.
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
- California voters concerned with roll accuracy — they benefit from a cleaner registration list that reduces the presence of deceased registrants and the administrative errors that can flow from outdated rolls.
- Secretary of State’s office — gains authority to pursue a federal data source (SSA) and to standardize electronic transfers, potentially improving statewide consistency in how death data are delivered and processed.
- Counties with robust IT systems — those that can integrate new electronic feeds quickly will see faster automated cancellations and reduced manual workload over time, improving operational efficiency.
Who Bears the Cost
- County elections officials — must receive, match, and act on additional death-data feeds, invest in IT integration, update procedures, and maintain audit records; these are tangible operational and personnel costs.
- Secretary of State — must negotiate with a federal agency and run a rulemaking to adopt electronic-transfer regulations, which consumes staff, legal, and technical resources.
- Vendors and IT contractors supporting county voter registration systems — will face new work to map, ingest, and reconcile SSA-format data with existing databases, incurring development and maintenance costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between improving voter-roll accuracy quickly by expanding automated access to federal death records and protecting voter rights and privacy: more aggressive, automated cancellation reduces stale registrations but heightens the risk of mistaken cancellations, data-privacy exposures, and unfunded local costs — and the bill delegates many of the technical choices that determine which outcome will predominate.
The bill leaves several consequential implementation choices to administrative action and intergovernmental negotiation. It authorizes the Secretary of State to seek SSA data but does not guarantee access: SSA controls its disclosure rules and may require legal, privacy, or security terms that affect feasibility or delay implementation.
The required regulations for electronic transfer will be the operational heart of this change, yet the statute is silent about key design elements — matching thresholds, frequency of updates, notice to affected registrants or heirs, and error-correction processes — all of which determine whether the feeds reduce errors or introduce new ones.
Another unresolved issue is the balance between automated cancellations and procedural safeguards. The statute mandates use of death-data to cancel affidavits, but it does not specify verification steps or retention of provisional holds to prevent erroneous cancellations.
Counties with limited technical capacity may default to conservative matching (slower removal) or risk overbroad cancellations if they adopt permissive matching rules. Finally, the reimbursement clause leaves practical funding questions open: eligibility to seek reimbursement does not equal immediate or sufficient funding, and the Commission on State Mandates process can be slow and narrow in what it finds compensable.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.