Santa Barbara residents who are registered or eligible to vote are being encouraged to participate in the upcoming election.
“The Santa Barbara County Registrar of Voters office is here to help,” Joe Holland, Santa Barbara County Registrar of Voters, said in the press statement released on October 15, 2025.
Voter Eligibility and Information
Residents who are U.S. citizens and at least 18 years old on or before Election Day are eligible to vote, provided they are registered by the state’s deadline.
Voting is a fundamental right, and citizens are encouraged to participate in the democratic process.
Voting is a fundamental right, and citizens are encouraged to be a part of this democratic practice.
Eligible citizens can register online at sbcvote.com or registertovote.ca.gov, where they can verify their voter registration or update their information, such as a change of address, and also at voterstatus.sos.ca.gov.
Voter registration applications are also available at most post offices and can be returned postage-free to the Santa Barbara County Elections Office.
Citizens can verify their voter registration or update their information, such as a change of address, at voterstatus.sos.ca.gov, sbcvote.com, or registertovote.ca.gov.
Key dates for the election:
- October 6, 2025 – Vote-by-mail ballots started being sent to registered voters.
- October 20, 2025 – Deadline to register to vote for the November 4 election.
- November 4, 2025—Election Day.
Returning Ballots for Military and Overseas Voters
According to the website of the County of Santa Barbara Elections, military and overseas voters can return their ballots by mail.
Those living outside the country also have the option to fax their ballot back.
One can check for detailed instructions on the election’s official website, which also provides language assistance in four languages—Spanish, Korean, Chinese, and Tagalog.
For voting in person or sending votes through ballots, acceptable forms of personal identification are as follows:
- A copy of a recent utility bill.
- The county Voter Information Guide received from the county elections office or another document sent by a government agency.
- Identification cards such as a copy of a passport, driver’s license, student identification card, or California identification card.
Santa Barbara County officials issued an important reminder on their official X page: “Sign your envelope—ballots without a matching signature won’t count.”
When returning a mail-in ballot, voters should sign the return envelope, and their signature must match the one on file with the county elections office.
If the signature is missing or does not match, the ballot may be rejected and not counted.
Also Read
- Mountain Fire Caused by Debris from Earlier Fire and Extreme Winds, Arson Investigators Report
- Community Rallies Around SLO County Officer in Coma After Medical Emergency
- Three California Cities Rank Among America’s Safest, WalletHub Finds
- Santa Barbara Firefighters Rally Behind Captain’s Family After Daughter’s Cancer Diagnosis
- Oiled Seabirds Rescued After Slick Found Off Santa Barbara Coast
California’s environmental rollback: The dismantling of CEQA
https://california.surfrider.org/blog/californias-environmental-rollback-the-dismantling-of-ceqa-protections#:~:text=Assembly%20Bill%20130%20and%20Senate%20Bill%20131%20systematically,and%20vulnerable%20communities%20for%20over%20half%20a%20century.
California Governor Gavin Newsom signed two bills on Monday that environmental advocates are calling the most devastating attack on environmental protections in the state’s recent history. Assembly Bill 130 and Senate Bill 131 systematically dismantle core provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), eliminating environmental safeguards that have protected California’s landscapes, wildlife, and vulnerable communities for over half a century.
The End of Environmental Transparency
CEQA, signed into law by then-Governor Ronald Reagan in 1970, was designed to ensure government transparency and public participation in land-use decisions. The law required agencies to identify and mitigate environmental impacts, protecting ecosystems, preserving scenic vistas and waterways, and safeguarding community health throughout the state.
These new bills effectively gut these protections, allowing developers to bypass environmental review for vast categories of projects. The legislation represents what more than 100 environmental organizations have condemned as “an unprecedented rollback to California’s fundamental environmental and community protections.”
Coastal Zone Impacts
The legislation’s impact on California’s Coastal Zone presents particularly troubling implications for habitat protection. While SB 131 does not affect the Coastal Act itself, its CEQA exemptions apply throughout the Coastal Zone, leaving projects with no environmental review unless they fall within the bill’s limited exclusions.
The legislation’s carveout for “environmentally sensitive habitat areas” (ESHA) provides inadequate protection, as many important habitats—including coastal sage scrub and chaparral—may not meet ESHA designation criteria despite their critical role in wildlife movement and ecosystem function. This means SB 131 projects can proceed in the Coastal Zone without environmental review or mitigation, destroying important habitat lands that previously would have received protection.
Furthermore, as CEQA has historically prepared project proponents for successful Coastal Development Permits, its elimination may lead developers to view the Coastal Act as their primary obstacle, potentially setting the stage for future attacks on coastal protections.
Eliminating Protections for Vulnerable Communities
Perhaps most concerning is the legislation’s impact on environmental justice. The bills remove critical safeguards that have historically protected low-income communities and communities of color from disproportionate environmental burdens. Advanced manufacturing facilities—including semiconductor plants, nuclear facilities, and industrial factories handling hazardous materials—can now be permitted in vulnerable communities without any environmental review.
The risks are not theoretical. Silicon Valley’s Santa Clara County already hosts 23 active Superfund sites—more than any other county in the nation—largely from semiconductor facilities that have contaminated groundwater with chemical solvents. With these facilities now exempt from both federal NEPA requirements and state CEQA review, they will receive virtually no environmental oversight.
Abandoning Wildlife and Habitat Protection
The environmental consequences extend far beyond human communities. The legislation contains no protections for sensitive and endangered species, potentially exposing hundreds of thousands of acres of forests, chaparral, deserts, and coastal areas to unregulated development.
Undermining Democratic Processes
The legislation also weakens public participation in environmental decision-making. New provisions allow agencies to exclude staff notes and internal communications from public records requests, enabling government employees to pick and choose what information becomes public while obscuring concerns or risks about projects. This directly undermines CEQA’s original purpose of ensuring transparency in government decision-making.
The rushed legislative process itself exemplifies this erosion of democratic norms. SB 131 was introduced on Friday and passed on Monday, with virtually no time for public input or amendments. Environmental groups were excluded from meaningful participation in developing legislation that will fundamentally reshape California’s environmental landscape.
The Political Poison Pill Strategy
Governor Newsom’s decision to tie these bills to the state’s $320 billion budget deal represents an unprecedented abuse of the legislative process. This “poison pill” strategy would have invalidated the entire spending plan if the environmental rollbacks were rejected, forcing lawmakers to choose between funding essential services and protecting environmental safeguards.
This approach bypassed normal legislative deliberation and public engagement, allowing sweeping environmental deregulation to proceed without the scrutiny such consequential changes deserve.
The Housing Crisis Rationale
All of this came about because developers and some politicians have long argued that CEQA reform is essential to address California’s severe housing shortage, which has contributed to soaring costs and persistent homelessness affecting nearly 40 million residents. Development experts predict the changes will speed up the building process by allowing urban core projects to skip environmental review, which can take several months. However, some question whether this will significantly increase total housing production given ongoing challenges with construction costs, insurance, and interest rates.
A National Precedent for Environmental Retreat
California’s actions may signal a broader retreat from environmental protection among Democratic-led states. With similar environmental laws in Massachusetts, New York, Minnesota, and other states, California’s rollback could embolden other governors to weaken their own environmental protections in the name of development.
This represents a fundamental shift for a state that has long been at the forefront of environmental protection, potentially undermining decades of progress in preserving natural resources and protecting vulnerable communities from environmental harm.
The Fight Continues
Environmental groups have vowed to continue their opposition, calling for “clean-up legislation” to restore some protections. However, the damage to California’s environmental framework is profound and may prove difficult to reverse. The legislation has already eliminated crucial safeguards that took decades to establish, potentially setting the stage for irreversible environmental and public health consequences.
By gutting CEQA, the legislature has effectively cleared the path for future attacks on the Coastal Act, which has already faced repeated legislative assaults in recent years. With CEQA’s protective framework dismantled, the Coastal Act now stands as the primary remaining barrier to unchecked development along California’s coastline.
Environmental advocates – including Surfrider and our ActCoastal allies – fear that developers, having successfully eliminated one major environmental law, will inevitably target the Coastal Act next in their campaign to remove all regulatory obstacles to profitable development.
……………………………………………………
Here are the politicians responsible for dismantling CEQA and undermining our democratic process. Their actions have eroded public trust and compromised the values we hold dear. We deserve leaders who will restore integrity and reverse the damage. It’s time to vote for change—and elect representatives who will protect our communities and uphold the principles of democracy.
AB 130
https://legiscan.com/CA/votes/AB130/2025
Assembly vote
https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/AB130/id/1596762
Senate vote
https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/AB130/id/1596761
SB 131
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB131/id/3259518
Assembly vote SB 131
https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/SB131/id/1596747
SENATE vote SB131
https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/SB131/id/1596745
Gavin’s big Delta Tunnels pet project looks to absolutely ruin that entire ecosystem, which is barely hanging on currently, so that water can be pumped south towards SoCal for more and more development. He’s a total hypocrite.
You are all of a sudden worried about the environment? Laughable incel.
CRT, DEI, Charlie Kirk assassin – all of those boogeymen got worn out – so you’re going after “big Delta Tunnels” now.
@general tree, you’re a real con man…you see the politicians responsible for dismantling CEQA and undermining our democratic process and look the other way. They are so corrupt, carving out favoritism for
the mission, gavin just signed off on a bill . They have created hardships for homeowners, taken away protections, just a shameful bunch…I hope a class action lawsuit is pursued immediately for the people of California.
Put down the bottle. Try using Grammarly
Undermining our Democratic process? You voted for Trump so STFU
@ general tree, anything for a distraction from the truth..
SUN – you are really a troll. GT was not talking to you initially and you laid into him/her nevertheless. Learn how the thread works and look at who he was talking to.
Your insults and constant AI/Chat GPT bs is tiresome. You come here to pick fights over minutia with people who have repeatedly said they agree with you in general, such as myself.
Please find a more appropriate place to lash out.