AB 2105 adds Section 3019.8 to the California Elections Code and creates a process for identifying geographic areas where ballots deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on election day may not receive a same-day postmark due to local collection and processing practices. The Secretary of State must identify such areas using objective criteria, publish the list online, and provide it to county elections officials.
County elections officials must include a prominent “Mail Early” notice card or insert in vote-by-mail packets sent to voters who live in identified areas. The notice must warn about next‑day postmarks, recommend alternate return methods (drop boxes, vote centers, or requesting a postmark at a post office counter), and provide instructions or QR links to more information.
The bill creates a state-mandated local program and includes the statutory mechanism for reimbursement if the Commission on State Mandates finds costs are imposed.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill directs the Secretary of State to identify postal service regions that carry a risk of next‑day postmarks using objective criteria and, at least 120 days before an election, publish and transmit that list to counties. Counties must place a prescribed ‘Mail Early’ notice in vote-by-mail packets for voters whose addresses fall inside those areas; the Secretary may supply a customizable template.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include the Secretary of State’s office (data collection and publication duty), county elections officials (address matching, printing and insert logistics), the U.S. Postal Service (as a data source), and vote-by-mail voters in remote or slow-processing postal zones who may otherwise see ballots rejected for late postmarks.
Why It Matters
AB 2105 targets a narrow but consequential administrative cause of late or uncounted ballots — USPS collection and processing timing — by shifting the policy lever from broad postmark rules to targeted voter advisories. For elections administrators, it replaces ad hoc outreach with a statutorily required, location-based notification regime and creates new compliance and cost considerations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2105 creates a two-step system: identification and notification. First, the Secretary of State must identify geographic areas where ballots dropped into the U.S. Postal Service on election day risk receiving a postmark dated the following day.
The bill requires the Secretary to use objective criteria for those determinations — for example, the distance from a drop location to the USPS processing facility and USPS collection schedules — and to consult with the Postal Service to the extent possible. The output is a list of at-risk areas that the Secretary will publish online.
Second, counties must act on that list. For any voter whose residence falls inside an identified area, the county elections official has to include a prominent “Mail Early” notice card or insert in the mailed vote-by-mail packet.
The statute prescribes the content categories the notice must cover: a warning about next‑day postmarks, recommended alternatives (returning early, using a secure drop box or vote center, or requesting a postmark at a post office counter), and directions for where to find more information — including the option to use a QR code. The Secretary can supply a standard template; counties may customize it with precise local details like drop box and vote center addresses.The bill sets a timing requirement for distribution: the Secretary must provide the list to county elections officials at least 120 days before election day and as soon as practicable before special elections.
The measure does not change the legal standard for whether a ballot is timely cast or counted; it simply adds an informational requirement intended to reduce the risk that ballots mailed on election day arrive without a same-day postmark. Finally, the bill acknowledges this creates a state-mandated local program and references the Commission on State Mandates process for potential reimbursement.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Secretary of State must identify at-risk geographic areas using objective criteria that explicitly include the distance from a USPS deposit point to the USPS processing facility and USPS collection/processing information indicating next-day postmark risk.
The Secretary must publish the list of identified areas online and deliver it to county elections officials no later than 120 days before election day; special elections require the list as soon as practicable.
County elections officials must include a prominent 'Mail Early' notice card or insert in vote-by-mail mailings to any voter whose residence lies in an identified area.
The required notice must (A) warn that mailing on election day may produce a next‑day postmark and a ballot that is not counted, (B) recommend actions (mail early, use drop box or vote center, or request a postmark at a post office counter), and (C) provide instructions or a QR code linking to Secretary of State and county information.
If the Commission on State Mandates determines the bill imposes state-mandated costs, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts will be handled under existing Government Code procedures (Part 7 of Division 4 of Title 2).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Secretary identifies at-risk postal geographic areas
This subdivision directs the Secretary of State to map geographic areas where ballots deposited with the USPS on election day may not receive a same-day postmark. It requires the Secretary to consult with the USPS 'to the extent possible' and to rely on objective criteria — specifically distance to processing facilities and USPS collection/processing data indicating next-day risk. Practically, this creates a technical task for the Secretary’s elections and data teams: obtaining, interpreting, and operationalizing postal routing and collection schedules into a durable list of affected ZIPs or precincts.
Publication and timing requirements for the list
Once the Secretary compiles the list, subdivision (b) mandates two deliverables: publish the list on the Secretary’s website and provide it to county elections officials no later than 120 days before election day (with an earlier notice 'as soon as practicable' for special elections). That 120‑day deadline ties the mapping work to the standard election calendar and forces the Secretary to complete data collection and verification early enough for counties to incorporate notices into mass mailings.
County requirement to include a 'Mail Early' notice with mail ballots
This is the operational core: counties must insert a prominent notice card into vote-by-mail packets sent to voters in identified areas. The statute prescribes three content elements: the warning about next-day postmarks and potential noncounting, recommended alternative return methods including requesting a postmark at a post office counter, and instructions or a QR code linking to further information. Counties will need to match voter address records to the Secretary’s list, design and print inserts, and alter mailing workflows to ensure the insert reaches affected voters only.
Template authority and state-mandate reimbursement language
Subdivision (d) allows the Secretary to create a standard notice template that counties can customize with local dropbox and vote center details, reducing variance in messaging. Section 2 clarifies that if the Commission on State Mandates finds these duties impose costs on local agencies, reimbursement will proceed under the standard Government Code mechanism. That preserves a route for counties to recover printing and administrative costs, but only if the Commission makes an affirmative determination.
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
- Vote-by-mail voters in slow-processing postal zones — They receive targeted, actionable warnings that reduce the chance their ballots are rejected for late postmarks and offer alternatives (drop boxes, vote centers, post office counter postmarks).
- County elections offices focused on ballot integrity — The law gives them a uniform, legislated notice to reduce late-postmark risk and may lower the administrative overhead of correcting or defending rejected ballots.
- Voter outreach and advocacy groups — The geographic targeting allows more efficient use of limited outreach resources toward populations at measurable risk of losing ballots due to postal timing.
- Secretary of State’s office — The requirement centralizes the technical work of identifying postal risk areas at the state level, producing a single authoritative list counties can rely on instead of each county doing its own analysis.
Who Bears the Cost
- County elections officials — They must match voter addresses to the Secretary’s list, design and print a prominent insert for affected voters, and absorb postage/handling and staffing costs unless the Commission orders reimbursement.
- Smaller or resource-constrained counties — These jurisdictions will feel the burden more sharply because fixed costs for template adaptation, printing and mail‑house changes represent a larger share of their budgets.
- Secretary of State staff and budget — The office must obtain USPS data, set objective criteria, perform geographic analysis, publish and update the list, and create a template, all of which consume staff time and technical resources.
- Local taxpayers — If the Commission on State Mandates does not find a reimbursable mandate, counties will fund printing and administrative costs from local budgets, shifting the expense to county general funds or election budgets.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate aims that pull in opposite directions: protect the integrity of the count by deterring ballots that would be rejected for late postmarks versus the administrative burden and potential inequity of imposing targeted notifications and costs on counties and voters. In short, it chooses information intervention over changing the legal postmark rule — an approach that reduces procedural unfairness for some voters but shifts workload and expense onto local election administrators without guaranteeing behavioral change.
The bill's admirable precision on notice content hides several implementation and policy trade-offs. First, the Secretary’s identification task depends on receiving accurate, timely USPS collection and processing data and on a meaningful USPS consultation. 'To the extent possible' is permissive language; limited USPS cooperation or rapidly changing local schedules could produce stale or incomplete lists.
Second, the requirement to deliver the list 120 days before election day creates a hard deadline that may not align with last‑mile postal schedule changes, producing either overinclusive designations (more voters receive notices than necessary) or underinclusive ones (missed risk areas).
Operationally, counties must match voter files to the Secretary’s list and insert a separate card into affected mailings, which complicates batch production and increases printing and handling costs. Allowing counties to customize a template helps localize information but risks inconsistent messaging across counties.
The statute also leaves open whether the notices will meaningfully change voter behavior: voters who depend on household routines or lack easy access to drop boxes may still mail ballots on election day. Finally, the bill does not alter the legal standard for timely ballots; it offers no safe harbor for ballots that genuinely arrive postmarked the day after election day.
That limits the remedy to information provision rather than a substantive change to ballot-counting rules.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.