SB 398 adds Section 18107.5 to the California Elections Code and makes it a crime to knowingly or willfully pay or offer to pay money or other valuable consideration to another person with the intent to induce them to vote or register to vote. The prohibition expressly covers payments that are contingent on whether the person voted or on the person’s voter registration status and specifically lists prize-drawings (for example, lotteries or raffles) as included forms of “other valuable consideration.”
The law creates criminal exposure — fines up to $10,000 and potential imprisonment (in state prison under Penal Code 1170(h) or up to one year in county jail) — and includes narrow exceptions (transportation to polling places, government compensation, and granting time off to vote). Sponsors frame it as anti–vote-buying; for practitioners it raises immediate compliance questions for campaigns, civic groups, voter-registration vendors, and counties about permissible incentives and how intent will be proved in enforcement.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill makes it a felony or misdemeanor to pay or offer payment to another person to induce them to vote or register, or to make payment contingent on whether they voted or their registration status. It defines “other valuable consideration” broadly and cites prize drawings as an example.
Who It Affects
Paid canvassers and firms that compensate people per sign-up or per vote, nonprofit voter-engagement programs that use incentives, campaigns and political operatives, and county election officials and prosecutors who will enforce the new offense.
Why It Matters
SB 398 changes the compliance landscape for get-out-the-vote and voter-registration activities by drawing a bright line against monetary incentives tied to voting behavior, while leaving ambiguities about common outreach practices (food, raffles, transportation) that organizations will need to resolve.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 398 amends the Elections Code by adding Section 18107.5, which targets payments intended to induce voting or registration. The statute requires a culpable mental state — the person must act “knowingly or willfully” — and it reaches both actual payments and offers to pay.
It also covers payments that are conditional on whether the recipient voted or on their registration status, which is a central enforcement hook for detecting pay-for-vote schemes.
The bill explicitly treats “other valuable consideration” as including prize-drawing contests and lotteries, signaling that common incentive strategies — for example, raffles offered at a registration table — can fall within the prohibition if the prize is tied to voting or registration. To avoid overbreadth, the statute carves out three specific exceptions: providing transportation to or from a voting location, compensation paid by a governmental entity, and granting an employee time off to vote.
Those exceptions are narrow and leave many other incentive practices unaddressed.SB 398 sets criminal penalties: fines of up to $10,000, and imprisonment either under Penal Code 1170(h) (16 months, 2 or 3 years) or in county jail for up to one year; fines and custody can be imposed together. The combination of significant fines and possible state prison exposure means prosecutors can treat serious violations as felonies.
The statute also includes a fiscal clause stating that no state reimbursement to local agencies is required because the measure creates a new crime or changes penalties.Practically, the law will force organizations that do voter-contact work to reassess compensation models and outreach tactics. Payment structures that tie pay to outcomes (for example, per-registration commissions or contingent bonuses) look especially vulnerable.
Enforcement will turn on proof of intent and willfulness, which raises evidentiary issues: how will prosecutors show the payer intended to induce voting rather than to reimburse work? The statute gives counties and prosecutors authority to pursue violations but leaves room for guidance from the Secretary of State or Attorney General to clarify what kinds of non-monetary encouragement remain lawful.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB 398 adds Elections Code §18107.5 making it a crime to knowingly or willfully pay or offer to pay another person to induce them to vote or to register to vote.
The prohibition covers payments that are contingent on whether the person voted or on the person’s voter registration status (i.e.
outcome-conditioned payments).
The statute expressly includes “other valuable consideration,” with prize-drawing contests or lotteries given as an explicit example that falls within that definition.
Three narrow exceptions apply: transportation to or from a voting location, compensation by a governmental entity, and granting employees time off to vote.
Violators face up to $10,000 in fines and imprisonment (state prison per Penal Code 1170(h) — 16 months, 2 or 3 years — or county jail up to one year); the bill also declares no state reimbursement is required for local agencies.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Prohibition on paying or offering payment to induce voting or registration
Subdivision (a)(1) creates the core offense: a person who knowingly or willfully pays or offers to pay money or other valuable consideration to another person with the intent to induce that person to vote or to register to vote is guilty of a crime. The provision captures both completed payments and mere offers, expanding the statute’s reach to preparatory conduct that facilitates inducement schemes.
Broad definition of “other valuable consideration” (includes prize drawings)
Subdivision (a)(2) clarifies that “other valuable consideration” is broad and specifically includes, though is not limited to, chances to win lotteries or similar prize-drawings. By naming raffles/lotteries, the statute signals that incentive campaigns that tie prizes to voting or registration are squarely within the prohibition unless they fall under an exception.
Express, narrow exceptions
Subdivision (a)(3) provides three express exceptions: transportation to or from a voting location, compensation by a governmental entity, and granting employees time off to vote. These carve-outs protect routine logistical assistance and government payroll actions but do not broadly protect commercial payments, non-governmental compensation, or many commonly used incentive tactics.
Penalties and criminal classification
Subdivision (b) sets penalties: a fine up to $10,000 and imprisonment either under Penal Code 1170(h) (which provides for state prison terms of 16 months, 2 or 3 years) or in county jail for up to one year, or both fine and imprisonment. The language permits felony-level exposure depending on charging decisions and gives prosecutors discretion on severity.
Fiscal clause: no state reimbursement required
Section 2 declares that no state reimbursement to local agencies is required under Article XIII B, Section 6, because the act creates a new crime or changes penalties. That places the burden for any local costs (enforcement, prosecutions, corrections) on counties and local agencies unless the Legislature later provides funding.
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
- Voters susceptible to coercion or bribery — the statute reduces incentives that can distort voting choices, particularly among low-income or vulnerable groups targeted by pay-for-vote schemes.
- County election officials and registrars — clearer statutory authority to pursue inducement schemes should reduce administration burdens from contests and commercial incentive programs tied to ballots or registration tallies.
- Law enforcement and prosecutors — the law supplies a defined statutory offense with specific elements (intent, contingency, examples) to use against explicit vote-buying operations.
- Candidates and campaigns that play by the rules — they gain a cleaner playing field where monetary inducements tied to voting are explicitly criminal, reducing the risk of corrupt practices by opponents or third parties.
Who Bears the Cost
- Nonprofits and civic groups that use incentives (raffles, giveaways, conditional prizes) — they must reassess or redesign outreach to avoid contingent incentives and may need legal review and new compliance measures.
- Paid canvassing firms and individual contractors who compensate workers per-registration or per-commitment — per-outcome pay structures face legal risk and may need to switch to hourly or flat fees.
- Local governments and county prosecutors — while the bill says no state reimbursement is required, counties may incur enforcement and prosecution costs, including investigative resources and potential increases in caseloads.
- Campaigns and political committees that rely on small-scale incentive tactics — they’ll need to train staff and vendors on permissible activities and may face reputational risk or criminal exposure if practices cross the statutory line.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension: the state must prevent monetary inducement that corrupts electoral choice, but enforcing a broad ban risks chilling legitimate voter-engagement tactics and paid civic work; the statute prioritizes anti–vote-buying enforcement at the cost of creating ambiguity for everyday outreach and compensation practices.
The statute’s operative elements hinge on intent (“knowingly or willfully”) and on the phrase “with the intent to induce,” which raises predictable evidentiary questions. Prosecutors will need to prove not just that a payment occurred but that the payer intended to induce voting or registration — a factfinder’s inquiry that can rely on communications, payment structures, advertising language, or internal documents.
That means many cases will turn on context, and routine reimbursements or bonuses could be defensible if they lack indicia of inducement.
The statute’s inclusion of prize drawings as “other valuable consideration” and the contingency clause (payments conditioned on voting or registration status) create friction with common civic-engagement tactics. Organizers who offer refreshments, small gifts, or entry into a prize drawing often rely on those incentives to increase turnout; whether such practices violate the law will depend on how directly the incentive is tied to voting or registration.
The three listed exceptions are narrow and do not directly validate food, refreshments, or non-governmental stipends. The reasonable expectation is that enforcement and possible litigation will prompt administrative guidance from the Secretary of State or Attorney General to delineate safe harbors.
Finally, the fiscal clause displacing state reimbursement means counties and local prosecutors bear the up-front costs of enforcement. That dynamic can influence enforcement patterns: counties with limited resources may prioritize clear, egregious transactions (large-scale pay-for-vote operations) over marginal or ambiguous cases.
The combination of prosecutorial discretion, evidentiary difficulty proving intent, and the law’s potential chilling effect on benign civic outreach leaves several unresolved operational questions that are likely to be litigated or clarified through agency guidance.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.