SB 46 bars the Secretary of State from placing the name of any presidential or vice‑presidential candidate on California primary or general election ballots unless the candidate affirmatively swears under oath that they will ‘‘fully meet the qualifications’’ for the office as set by the U.S. Constitution. The bill empowers the Secretary of State to investigate a candidate’s eligibility when there is reasonable suspicion grounded in articulable facts and to request proof of constitutional eligibility before certifying a name for the ballot.
The measure also creates a fast‑track judicial process for challenges: an elector may file a verified petition in Sacramento County Superior Court within five days after the Secretary of State issues the certified list of candidates; hearings must occur within 5–10 days and the court must decide within 48 hours after the hearing. The bill allocates burdens of proof, expands the practical scope of perjury exposure for false oaths, and inserts Section 6901.7 as an exception into multiple Elections Code provisions that govern primary ballot placement.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires an oath from every presidential and vice‑presidential candidate affirming they meet the U.S. Constitution’s qualifications, allows the Secretary of State to investigate eligibility on articulable suspicion, and creates an expedited court challenge process in Sacramento County with tight filing and decision deadlines.
Who It Affects
Directly affects presidential and vice‑presidential candidates seeking placement on California ballots, the Secretary of State’s elections staff, political parties that submit slates of electors, and any elector or candidate who seeks to challenge eligibility. County election officials are affected indirectly through certification and potential last‑minute ballot changes.
Why It Matters
SB 46 shifts a portion of candidate‑screening from parties and the electorate to election administrators and courts, increases the Secretary of State’s gatekeeping role, and introduces criminal risk (perjury) tied to eligibility affirmations — all during compressed election timelines where administrative and judicial decisions can alter ballots close to Election Day.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 46 inserts a new statutory gatekeeping step before anyone’s name goes on California’s presidential or vice‑presidential ballot. The core requirement is an oath: a candidate must affirm under oath that they will ‘‘fully meet the qualifications to be elected to and hold’’ the office as defined by the U.S. Constitution on the date the term begins.
The bill gives the Secretary of State authority to refuse certification and ballot placement where a candidate will not provide that sworn affirmation.
Beyond the oath, the bill authorizes the Secretary of State to act when there is reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that a candidate may be constitutionally ineligible. In that scenario the Secretary can investigate and request documentary proof of eligibility before placing the candidate on the ballot.
The statute does not list a fixed evidentiary checklist; it establishes the investigatory trigger (reasonable suspicion based on articulable fact) and leaves proof standards and forms of acceptable documentation to implementation.SB 46 also creates a fast, court‑centered remedy and review track. An elector may file a verified petition in Sacramento County Superior Court challenging a candidate’s qualifications; a candidate excluded by the Secretary of State may file the same type of petition to contest exclusion.
Petitions must be filed within five days after the Secretary of State issues the certified list of candidates. The court must hold a hearing between five and ten days after certification and issue its decision within 48 hours after the hearing ends.
The statute assigns burdens: an elector challenging a candidate bears the preponderance‑of‑the‑evidence standard; the Secretary of State bears that same standard when defending an exclusion.The bill amends multiple Elections Code sections that govern which names the Secretary of State places on party primary ballots to add the new Section 6901.7 as an exception — meaning the oath and investigatory authority apply across party lines and to both primary and general election processes. Finally, SB 46 makes a minor technical amendment to the Evidence Code’s seal‑presumption language; that change is procedural and unrelated to the new eligibility mechanics.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires every presidential and vice‑presidential candidate to affirm under oath that they will fully meet the U.S. Constitution’s qualifications to be elected to and hold the office on the date the term begins; absence of that oath bars certification for the ballot.
If the Secretary of State has reasonable suspicion based on articulable fact that a candidate may be ineligible, the Secretary can investigate and demand proof of constitutional eligibility before placing the candidate’s name on the ballot.
An elector or an excluded candidate must file a verified petition in Sacramento County Superior Court within five days after the Secretary of State issues the certified candidate list; the court must hold a hearing within 5–10 days and decide within 48 hours after the hearing closes.
In a challenge brought by an elector the challenger bears the burden to prove ineligibility by a preponderance of the evidence; in a challenge brought by an excluded candidate the Secretary of State bears the burden to justify exclusion by a preponderance of the evidence.
The bill embeds Section 6901.7 as an exception in multiple Elections Code provisions governing primary and general ballot placement, and it adds a clarifying line to the writ‑of‑mandate standard that actions under Section 6901.7 will not be treated as substantially interfering with election conduct for purposes of issuing a writ.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Adds 6901.7 exception to party primary ballot rules
These amendments insert a cross‑reference to new Section 6901.7 into the code sections (6041, 6340, 6520, 6720, 6722, 6851, 6852) that set the Secretary of State’s criteria for placing names on party presidential primary ballots and for announcing candidate lists. Practically, the change preserves the Secretary of State’s existing selection and announcement schedule while making clear that no candidate will be placed on a primary ballot if Section 6901.7’s oath or investigatory requirements are not satisfied. Implementation will require election staff to add an eligibility‑screening step to the existing timeline for announcing and finalizing primary candidate lists.
Applies the new eligibility rule to certified party nominees for the general election
Section 6901 previously required placement on the general election ballot of nominees submitted by parties. The amendment carves out candidates who fail the Section 6901.7 eligibility conditions, meaning party‑certified nominees must comply with the oath/investigation process before their names are placed on the general election ballot. For parties used to submitting slates of electors late in the certification process, this adds a step where the Secretary of State can pause certification pending eligibility verification.
Oath, investigatory authority, petition process, fast timelines, and burdens of proof
This is the operative provision. It defines who is eligible (must have constitutional qualifications on the date the term begins), requires the sworn affirmation, authorizes the Secretary of State to investigate on reasonable suspicion based on articulable fact, and creates the exclusive procedural path for challenges by electors or excluded candidates in Sacramento Superior Court. The mechanics are tight: petitions due within five days after certification, hearings in 5–10 days, and a decision within 48 hours of the hearing’s close. The statute assigns the preponderance standard differently depending on who brings the action (elector or excluded candidate), which allocates evidentiary risk in a predictable but compressed schedule.
Writs of mandate, venue, and non‑interference finding
The bill amends the writ‑of‑mandate standards to state that refusing to place a constitutionally ineligible presidential or vice‑presidential candidate on the ballot per Section 6901.7 does not ‘‘substantially interfere with the conduct of the election’’ for purposes of issuing a peremptory writ. It also confirms exclusive venue in Sacramento County for actions that name the Secretary of State or concern statewide candidates, channeling litigation to a single county and tying the writ analysis to the expedited calendar already set in 6901.7.
Perjury exposure and a technical seals change
Section 11 addresses fiscal effects and states that no reimbursement is required because the only potential local costs arise from criminalization changes. The bill’s language ties the oath requirement to existing perjury law — meaning a willfully false oath could trigger perjury prosecution — expanding the practical reach of perjury in the elections context. Separately, Section 1452 of the Evidence Code receives a technical, nonsubstantive edit to the list of seals entitled to a presumption of genuineness; that change does not affect the eligibility mechanics but is included in the same bill package.
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 concerned about constitutional eligibility — The bill creates an administrative and judicial filter intended to keep constitutionally ineligible individuals off the ballot, reducing voter confusion and downstream legal contests over an officeholder’s qualifications.
- Secretary of State and elections staff — The statute centralizes authority for preliminary eligibility screening and provides an explicit investigatory and legal framework for acting on eligibility questions, giving state elections officials clearer statutory tools.
- Political parties that vet nominees — Parties that want to avoid last‑minute disqualification of their nominees gain a formal mechanism to confirm eligibility before final certification, potentially sparing parties the political and administrative costs of scrambling to replace a disqualified nominee.
Who Bears the Cost
- Presidential and vice‑presidential candidates — Candidates who face inquiries must provide documentation and may be excluded from the ballot if they do not swear the required oath or cannot satisfy investigations; false affirmations expose them to perjury exposure.
- Secretary of State’s office and election administrators — The bill creates additional investigatory and administrative tasks on compressed timelines which can increase staff workload, require new procedures, and create the risk of litigation costs even though the bill states no state reimbursement is required.
- Electors and excluded candidates who litigate — The statute creates an expedited, high‑stakes litigation path with tight deadlines that will produce legal fees and require rapid evidence gathering; volunteer electors or small campaigns may struggle with the compressed process.
- Political parties and county election officials — Parties may need to coordinate additional verification steps for nominees; county officials may confront last‑minute ballot adjustments, voter notifications, and logistical complications if a certification is paused or reversed within the statutory windows.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to prioritize the removal of potentially ineligible candidates from ballots through administrative screening and expedited court review — protecting the integrity of officeholder qualifications — at the cost of empowering elected officials and private litigants to disqualify candidates quickly, possibly on thin evidence, thereby narrowing voter choice and inviting frequent, strategically timed challenges.
SB 46 presents multiple implementation and legal uncertainties. First, the statute uses terms that will require administrative definition: ‘‘fully meet the qualifications’’ and what constitutes ‘‘proof of constitutional eligibility.’’ Those phrases implicate various constitutional elements (natural‑born citizenship, age at term start, residency) and different types of proof (birth certificates, naturalization records, affidavits), but the bill does not supply an evidentiary checklist.
That gap gives the Secretary of State discretion to set procedural requirements — discretion that can itself be litigated under the expedited calendar the bill creates.
Second, the investigatory trigger — ‘‘reasonable suspicion based on articulable fact’’ — is a low bar that invites both legitimate enforcement and opportunistic, strategic challenges. The fast judicial timeline (5–10 day hearing window and 48‑hour decision clock) cuts both ways: it limits prolonged disruption of ballots but also compresses the time for thorough fact‑finding and appellate review.
Courts will face pressure to resolve complex constitutional status questions quickly, potentially relying on preliminary documents and hearsay exceptions; that heightens the risk of error or inconsistent rulings that could be appealed in parallel federal litigation.
Finally, tying ballot access to an oath that implicates perjury criminalization creates a chilling risk: candidates might decline to swear to a forward‑looking assertion about future capacity to ‘‘hold’’ office, or small campaigns might be deterred by the threat of criminal exposure for inadvertent statements. Conversely, the criminal overlay provides a deterrent against fraudulent claims of eligibility.
The statute leaves unresolved many procedural protections — such as the scope of discovery in the expedited hearing, standards for public release of investigatory materials, and interaction with federal constitutional litigation — which will determine whether the measure works as a narrow eligibility safeguard or becomes a new battleground for election contests.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.