SB 1310 requires jury commissioners to send the Secretary of State and county elections officials any juror affidavit in which a prospective juror swears under penalty of perjury that they are disqualified from jury service for a reason that would also make them ineligible to vote. The bill then directs county elections officials to use that information to inactivate a registration, provide the registrant an opportunity to confirm eligibility, cancel the registration if the registrant does not respond, or update the registrant’s county address when the juror provides a different California county residence.
The measure creates a new, court-originated trigger for voter-roll maintenance and imposes operational duties on both jury administrators and local elections offices. That changes how list maintenance will be fed and managed in California, raising immediate questions about implementation, data accuracy, privacy, and the administrative cost of handling these cross-agency notices.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires jury commissioners to notify the Secretary of State and county elections officials when a juror affidavit contains a sworn statement that the prospective juror is ineligible to serve for a reason that also affects voting eligibility. Receiving elections officials must then determine eligibility, inactivate the registration and mail a confirmation notice, cancel the registration if the voter does not demonstrate eligibility, or transfer the registration to another county when the juror provides a current address elsewhere in California.
Who It Affects
County jury commissioners and clerks, county elections officials, and the Secretary of State will receive and process new data flows; registered voters who appear on juror affidavits are subject to inactivation or cancellation; counties face operational and potential fiscal impacts under the state-mandated local program rules.
Why It Matters
SB 1310 creates a formal pathway for courts to supply voter-roll maintenance leads, which could materially change the frequency and source of removals and address corrections. election administrators must design procedures and recordkeeping to avoid wrongful cancellations, while counties must absorb or seek reimbursement for the new workload.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1310 adds a short duty into two code sections. Under the new rules, if a person called for jury duty completes a juror affidavit and, under penalty of perjury, indicates they are disqualified for a reason that would also prevent them from voting (for example, not being a U.S. citizen or not being a resident of the jurisdiction), the jury commissioner must pass that affidavit information to the Secretary of State and the county elections official.
The bill treats the juror affidavit as a trigger for voter-roll follow-up rather than as an end in itself.
When a county elections official receives that court-originated information, the official must investigate to determine whether the registrant is ineligible to vote. If the official concludes the person is ineligible, the official must inactivate the voter’s registration and mail a notice that gives the registrant a chance to prove they remain eligible.
If the registrant does not respond with evidence of eligibility, the elections official must cancel the registration. The statute does not set specific deadlines for each step, so counties will need to adopt internal timelines to meet the statute’s intent while aligning with federal and state list-maintenance rules.The bill also covers cases where a juror indicates they live in a different California county: if the jury affidavit supplies a current residence in another county and no other ineligibility information is present, the county elections official must update the voter’s registration with the new address.
Finally, the measure includes the standard clause that treats these new duties as a state-mandated local program, which may trigger reimbursement proceedings before the Commission on State Mandates.Practically, elections offices will need to build processes to receive and securely store juror-sourced data, triage cases (noncitizen claims, out-of-county residence, incarceration/felon status), coordinate with courts for clarifications, produce and track mailed notices, and document responses to avoid wrongful cancellations. Jury administrators must train staff on what to include in notices to elections offices and on privacy safeguards for transmitting juror affidavits.
Because the statute uses juror affidavit attestations as the initial trigger, counties must decide how heavily to rely on the sworn statement versus seeking independent verification before changing a voter’s active status.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB 1310 adds Section 205.5 to the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 2215 to the Elections Code, establishing the legal duty for jury commissioners and elections officials.
A juror affidavit containing a prospective juror’s sworn attestation that they are disqualified for a reason that would also make them ineligible to vote is the statutory trigger that requires the jury commissioner to notify elections authorities.
Upon receiving court-provided information, a county elections official must determine ineligibility, inactivate the voter’s registration, and mail a notice that allows the registrant to confirm eligibility; the official must cancel the registration if no qualifying response is received.
If a juror affidavit gives a current California residence in a different county and provides no other disqualifying information, the elections official must update the voter registration with the new county address rather than cancel it.
The bill creates a state-mandated local program and directs reimbursement to be determined by the Commission on State Mandates under existing Government Code procedures.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Court duty to pass juror affidavit information to elections authorities
This short addition compels jury commissioners to provide information from juror affidavits to the Secretary of State and county elections officials when the affidavit contains a sworn attestation that the prospective juror is not qualified for jury service for a reason that would also make them ineligible to vote. The clause creates the interagency data flow that underpins the rest of the bill; it does not prescribe a transmission method, timing, or data-security standard, so courts and counties will need to agree on logistics.
Notice requirement and content
Subdivision (a) requires the jury commissioner to notify the Secretary of State and the county elections official and to include the information from the juror affidavit that demonstrates the prospective juror’s alleged voting ineligibility. Practically, this means elections offices will receive court-originated leads that identify a registered voter and state the factual basis for ineligibility (for example, noncitizen status or out-of-county residence). The statute’s silence on format and secure transmission creates immediate implementation questions.
Inactivation, notice, and cancellation process
Subdivision (b) directs the elections official to determine whether the person is actually ineligible. If the official finds ineligibility, the official must inactivate the registration and mail a notice giving the registrant an opportunity to confirm eligibility; failure to respond with proof leads to cancellation. The provision aligns with the idea of a confirmation-before-removal safeguard, but it does not specify how long officials must wait, what constitutes adequate proof of eligibility, or how to handle returned mail, creating operational gray areas.
Residence updates across counties and state-mandate clause
Subdivision (c) requires an elections official to update a registrant’s address when a juror affidavit supplies a current residence in another California county and there is no other information indicating ineligibility. Separately, the bill includes the standard Commission on State Mandates language directing reimbursement if the commission finds a state-mandated cost. Together, these provisions force local administrators to handle cross-county transfers and to consider whether the added responsibilities will be funded through the state reimbursement 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
- County elections officials — receive a new, court-supplied source of information that can help identify noncitizen registrants or out-of-county addresses and thus improve the accuracy of voter rolls.
- Secretary of State — gains standardized notice of potential ineligible voters from courts, which can assist statewide list-maintenance oversight and coordination across counties.
- Voters who have moved between California counties — benefit when a juror affidavit provides a current address in another county because the law requires the registration to be updated rather than canceled, preserving their access to voting in their new county.
Who Bears the Cost
- County elections offices — must receive, review, verify, and act on juror-originated leads, run notice-and-response processes, and document outcomes; those operational costs may be substantial and will fall to counties unless reimbursed.
- Jury commissioners and court staff — must identify qualifying juror affidavits, compile required information, and transmit it securely to elections officials, adding administrative burden to court operations.
- Prospective jurors who misstate or are misunderstood on affidavits — risk temporary inactivation or permanent cancellation of their registration if they do not receive or respond to the notice, exposing vulnerable registrants to disenfranchisement.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill confronts a classic trade-off: improve voter-roll accuracy by using court-sworn juror affidavits as a maintenance trigger, or protect against erroneous removals and the chilling of civic participation by imposing stronger procedural protections and resource commitments—choices that push elections officials and courts in opposite fiscal and operational directions.
SB 1310 aims to tighten roll maintenance by adding juror affidavits as a formal feed to elections officials, but it leaves crucial implementation details unresolved. The statute does not prescribe transmission protocols, verification standards, timelines for inactivation-cancellation steps, or what counts as acceptable proof of continued eligibility.
Those gaps increase the risk of inconsistent application across counties and create exposure to wrongful cancellations if notices are not received or processed correctly.
The bill trades a new source of potentially high-quality data (a sworn juror affidavit) for heightened privacy and administrative concerns. Juror affidavits can contain sensitive personal information; the statute imposes no explicit data-minimization, retention, or access controls, nor does it require courts and elections offices to harmonize on secure transfer methods.
There is also a practical tension between relying on a sworn statement (which has legal gravity) and protecting voters from errors, misunderstanding, or misreporting—especially when the only statutory remedy is a mailed notice and a voter response that the law does not timebound or define.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.