California
California’s Voter ID Initiative is Way More Chill Than Trump’s SAVE Act
Sources: California Voter ID Initiative text (proposed); H.R. 7296, Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, 119th Congress, 2d Session (introduced January 30, 2026); Congressional Research Service Bill Summary; California Secretary of State; National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).
Background: How California Currently Handles Voter Identification
Under current California law, U.S. citizenship is required to vote, but the state relies on voters to simply attest to their citizenship when registering. California does not generally require voters to show identification at the polls. The limited exceptions apply only to first-time federal election voters who registered by mail or online without providing a California ID or Social Security number, and even then, the state allows a broad range of documents, including utility bills, bank statements, paychecks, or official government mail.
In 2024, Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation explicitly banning local jurisdictions from requiring voter ID, following Huntington Beach voters’ approval of a local measure to do so. California currently has among the most permissive voter identification rules in the nation.
The California Initiative: A Targeted, Inclusive Reform
A proposed California ballot initiative would amend the state constitution to add a new Section 3.1 to Article II. The initiative states three purposes: to “promote public confidence and trust in the electoral process,” to “deter and detect voter fraud by maintaining accurate voter registration records and confirming eligibility to vote,” and to “minimize the risk of voter impersonation by requiring proof of identity to vote.”
The measure is notable for what it does and, just as importantly, for what it does not do.
For in-person voting, the initiative requires that “each time a voter casts a ballot in person in any election in the State, the voter shall present government-issued identification.” The initiative defines government-issued identification as “documentation that allows conclusive verification of the voter’s identity.”
For mail voting, the requirement is far more limited. The voter needs only to provide “the last four digits of a unique identifying number from government-issued identification that matches the one designated solely by the voter for their voter registration.” Importantly, the type of ID designated by each voter “must be indicated in their voter registration record, noted on the mail ballot envelope provided to them, and available to them on request by phone or electronically,” so voters are never caught off guard.
On the question of cost, the initiative is explicit: “Upon request by an eligible voter, the state shall provide, at no charge, a voter ID card for use in casting a ballot.” This is perhaps the most important provision in the measure. One of the most common and legitimate criticisms of voter ID laws is that they can function as a de facto poll tax. This initiative addresses that concern directly by guaranteeing that the means of compliance are freely available to every eligible voter.
On citizenship verification, the initiative directs the Secretary of State and county elections officials to “use best efforts to verify citizenship attestations using government data” and to “annually report what percentage of each county’s voter rolls have been citizenship-verified.” This is a transparency measure, not a documentation barrier.
On accountability, the initiative requires that “during every odd-numbered year, the State Auditor shall audit the State’s and each county’s compliance with this section and report its findings and recommendations for improving the integrity of elections to the public.” Citizens may also “seek judicial review and remedy of the State’s or any county’s compliance with this section.”
What the initiative does not do is equally important. It does not require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. It does not require voters to submit citizenship documents with mail ballots beyond the last four digits of an ID number. It does not impose criminal penalties on election officials. It does not create unfunded mandates. It does not establish a private right of action against election workers.
In short, the California initiative is a narrowly drawn measure. It asks voters to confirm who they are while ensuring that the tools to do so are freely available to all.
The Federal SAVE Act (H.R. 7296): A Sweeping and Problematic Mandate
Introduced in the House on January 30, 2026, by Rep. Chip Roy and referred to the Committee on House Administration, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act amends the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. Unlike the California initiative, which works within existing systems, the SAVE Act would fundamentally restructure how Americans register to vote and cast ballots in federal elections, with requirements that, in many cases, are practically impossible for millions of eligible citizens to meet.
Here is what the bill actually requires, provision by provision, and why each raises serious concerns.
1. Documentary Proof of Citizenship Required to Register
The bill is unambiguous on this point. It states that “a State may not register an individual to vote in elections for Federal office held in the State unless, at the time the individual applies to register to vote, the individual provides documentary proof of United States citizenship.”
The bill defines acceptable proof narrowly. It includes a REAL ID-compliant document “that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States,” a valid U.S. passport, or a military ID combined with “a United States military record of service showing that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States.” For voters who cannot provide those documents, the bill allows a government photo ID paired with a certified birth certificate, but that birth certificate must meet an exacting list of requirements: it must include “the full name, date of birth, and place of birth of the applicant,” must list “the full names of one or both of the parents of the applicant,” must carry “the signature of an individual who is authorized to sign birth certificates,” must include “the date that the certificate was filed with the office responsible for keeping vital records in the State,” and must bear “the seal of the State, unit of local government, or Tribal government that issued the birth certificate.”
This is an extraordinarily demanding standard. Birth certificates are lost, damaged, or were never properly recorded, particularly for older Americans, rural residents, and low-income citizens.
The bill does include a fallback process for applicants who cannot produce these documents. They may “sign an attestation under penalty of perjury that the applicant is a citizen of the United States” and “submit such other evidence to the appropriate State or local official demonstrating that the applicant is a citizen.” The official then makes a personal judgment and must sign a sworn affidavit “swearing or affirming the applicant sufficiently established United States citizenship.” This places an unusual and significant legal burden on individual election workers who are simply trying to help voters register.
2. A Photo ID Requirement That Specifies Citizenship on the Face of the Document
The bill requires that every voter in a federal election present an “eligible photo identification document.” The bill defines that document as one containing “a photograph of the individual identified on the document,” “an indication on the front of the document that the individual identified on the document is a United States citizen,” and either an ID number or “the last four digits of the social security number of the individual identified on the document.”
The citizenship indicator requirement is the critical problem. Currently, only a handful of states denote citizenship status directly on driver’s licenses. Even REAL ID-compliant cards display the same gold star insignia for citizens and lawfully present non-citizens alike. The bill does include a limited workaround: a voter may present a non-compliant ID “together with another identification document that indicates the individual is a United States citizen.” But requiring two documents at the polls is itself a significant additional burden, and it would disqualify the standard ID held by the vast majority of Americans unless paired with a second document.
The bill also specifies that for in-person voting, the eligible photo identification document “shall be a tangible (not digital) document,” closing off the possibility of using a digital ID on a smartphone, a technology that several states have begun adopting.
3. Double Documentation Required for Absentee Voting
For voters casting absentee ballots, the bill requires that a copy of the eligible photo identification document be submitted both “with the request for an absentee ballot” and again “with the submission of the absentee ballot.” This double documentation requirement, which most states do not currently impose at any stage, would add substantial friction to the process that millions of Americans, including elderly, disabled, and overseas military voters, rely upon as their primary means of voting.
4. Immediate Effective Date, No Funding, No Phase-In
The bill states plainly that its provisions “shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this section.” There is no phase-in period. There is no federal funding provided to help states implement new documentation systems, train election workers, update voter registration forms and databases, or communicate requirements to the public. The Election Assistance Commission is given just 10 days after enactment to “adopt and transmit to the chief State election official of each State guidance with respect to the implementation of the requirements.” States are given 30 days to “establish a program” for identifying non-citizens on voter rolls. These are the conditions under which states would be expected to overhaul their entire voter registration and election administration infrastructure.
5. The Risk of Bifurcated Elections
States that cannot comply with the law’s requirements could be forced to maintain two separate voter rolls: one for voters who have provided documentary proof of citizenship and are eligible to vote in federal elections, and one for voters who have not. Arizona has operated under just such a bifurcated system since 2004, resulting in nearly two decades of continuous litigation. The SAVE Act would risk spreading that legal and administrative chaos to all 50 states simultaneously, with no funding and no preparation time.
6. Mandatory Federal Database Cross-Checks and Data Sharing
The bill requires states to establish programs to identify non-citizens on voter rolls using information from the Department of Homeland Security’s SAVE system, the Social Security Administration, and state driver’s license agencies. Federal agencies must respond to state requests within 24 hours and are directed to “share information with each other with respect to an individual who is the subject of a request.”
The bill goes further: it directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to “conduct an investigation to determine whether to initiate removal proceedings” against any non-citizen found to be registered to vote. This means voter registration data would become a direct input into federal immigration enforcement. The scope of personal voter information flowing between state election systems and federal agencies raises significant privacy concerns that the bill does not address.
7. Criminal Penalties for Election Officials
The bill amends the existing criminal penalties section of the National Voter Registration Act to make it a federal crime for an election official to register “an applicant to vote in an election for Federal office who fails to present documentary proof of United States citizenship.” The bill also criminalizes “providing material assistance to a noncitizen in attempting to register to vote or vote in an election for Federal office” for executive branch officers and employees.
Critically, the bill does not limit criminal liability to knowing or willful violations. An election official who makes an honest administrative mistake could face federal criminal prosecution. This provision could have a severe chilling effect on election administration, discouraging qualified people from serving as election officials and causing those who do serve to deny registration to borderline applicants out of fear of personal legal consequences.
8. A Private Right of Action Against Election Officials
The bill expands private right of action provisions under the National Voter Registration Act to include “the act of an election official who registers an applicant to vote in an election for Federal office who fails to present documentary proof of United States citizenship.” This means private individuals may sue election officials directly for compliance failures, compounding the chilling effect of the criminal penalties and creating a hostile legal environment around the routine work of election administration.
Side-by-Side Comparison
The Bottom Line
Both proposals share a stated goal: ensuring that only eligible U.S. citizens cast ballots in American elections. But they represent fundamentally different visions of how to pursue that goal, and the differences matter enormously for millions of American voters.
The California initiative works within existing systems. It asks voters to confirm who they are, provides free IDs to those who need them, and builds in transparency and accountability through annual audits and public reporting. Its requirements are clearly defined, its burdens are modest, and its protections for voters are explicit.
The SAVE Act, as written in H.R. 7296, would impose requirements that tens of millions of eligible American citizens cannot currently meet, without providing a dollar in funding, a meaningful period of preparation, or protection for the election officials expected to carry it out. It takes effect the day it is signed. It gives states 30 days to overhaul their voter rolls. It exposes election workers to both criminal prosecution and private lawsuits for honest mistakes. It routes voter registration data into federal immigration enforcement. And it threatens to force all 50 states into the kind of bifurcated election chaos that Arizona has lived with for two decades.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether voter ID requirements are necessary or wise as a matter of policy. But the contrast between these two proposals is instructive. One is a carefully drawn, incremental reform that takes eligible voters’ concerns seriously. The other is a sweeping federal mandate that, as written, would make voting harder for millions of lawful American citizens while creating new legal and administrative burdens that states are given neither the time nor the resources to meet.
-
Now Playing
Kars4Kids ordered to pull ads in California over claims donors were misled
01:35
-
UP NEXT
Deadly shooting at San Diego Islamic center
02:45
-
New video shows shocking moments at air show disaster
01:18
-
American tests positive for Ebola as outbreak spreads in Africa
02:02
-
Judge rules on whether key evidence can be used in Luigi Mangione’s state trial
00:55
-
Sixth grader scores inspiring basket in front of his classmates
01:12
-
Man on death row fights conviction after testimony from hypnotized witness
03:41
-
Good News: Wrong number leads to unlikely friendship
01:51
-
Multiple commencement speakers booed for AI comments during graduation speeches
01:35
-
Midair jet collision forces lockdown at Idaho Air Force base show
01:29
-
Millions on alert for severe weather with dangerous conditions expected
02:02
-
WHO declares global health emergency over new Ebola outbreak
01:36
-
Thousands attend prayer rally in Washington
00:43
-
Trump targets political rivals ahead of midterms
02:01
-
Mass casualty explosion at Maine lumber mill
01:33
-
Reflecting on high stakes week in Beijing
01:39
-
Chinese young adults talk about views on America
03:20
-
Trump’s high-stakes summit in China
02:28
-
U.S. seeks to indict Cuba’s Raul Castro
01:52
-
Iran-linked suspect accused of terror plots on Jewish sites in U.S.
01:46
Nightly News
-
Now Playing
Kars4Kids ordered to pull ads in California over claims donors were misled
01:35
-
UP NEXT
Deadly shooting at San Diego Islamic center
02:45
-
New video shows shocking moments at air show disaster
01:18
-
American tests positive for Ebola as outbreak spreads in Africa
02:02
-
Judge rules on whether key evidence can be used in Luigi Mangione’s state trial
00:55
-
Sixth grader scores inspiring basket in front of his classmates
01:12
Nightly News
Nightly News
Hallie Jackson NOW
Nightly News
Play All
By Alejandro Lazo, CalMatters
This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
California is considering handing oil refineries and other major polluters billions of dollars in free emission allowances just as the state says carbon reductions need to come faster than ever.
In the last six months, two refineries have closed and gas prices have topped an average of $6 a gallon as the Iran-Israel war sent oil markets into turmoil. The oil and gas sector spent $10.3 million lobbying Sacramento in the first three months of the year, according to lobbying filings, with the Western States Petroleum Association and Chevron accounting for the bulk of it.
The result is a new proposal before the California Air Resources Board that would provide as much as $4 billion in new free emission permits to companies with half slated for the fossil fuel industry in exchange for commitments to invest in clean energy.
Environmentalists warn the proposal is a giveaway to Big Oil that would weaken California’s “cap-and-invest” program just as the state is relying on it to cut emissions and fund climate, housing and other programs. Anthony Martinez, a spokesman for Gov. Gavin Newsom, said the changes are necessary to keep the state’s carbon market “durable” and “affordable” amid mounting refinery closures.
The fight over California’s carbon market has exposed the political tensions at the heart of Newsom’s energy transition agenda. California is trying to preserve its climate ambitions while keeping gasoline affordable for drivers already facing the highest prices in the country. Critics say the air board’s proposal accomplishes neither goal.
“We are really concerned that this would significantly kneecap the program,” said Chloe Ames, a policy adviser with NextGen Policy.
Weakening the backstop
Through California’s 13-year-old carbon market, major polluting companies must buy permits for every ton of greenhouse gases they emit, with the state capping total emissions year by year. Each permit is worth real money and companies can sell the ones they don’t use. The program is considered California’s climate backstop — the only state policy that sets a firm limit on greenhouse gas emissions.
At the heart of the dispute with environmentalists is a proposed subsidy program carved out of that carbon market. The air board, if it approves the proposal on May 28, would create a new pool of free pollution permits for refineries, cement plants and other big companies that pledge to invest in clean energy and efficiency projects.
The pool would be capped at 118.3 million permits — the same number the air board has said must come off the market for California to hit its 2030 climate target. Environmentalists say the proposal risks wiping out those reductions.
Berkeley energy economist Meredith Fowlie, who chairs an independent committee that oversees the carbon market, wrote in a recent analysis that the design would give qualifying refineries more free permits than they need to cover their emissions.
“One could use the word generous,” Fowlie said.
Rajinder Sahota, the air board official overseeing the program, said the proposal would ensure emissions reductions. The new permits, she said, would only go to companies undertaking clean energy and efficiency projects and would be limited, temporary and rescinded if companies misuse them. The plan is meant to help keep refineries operating in California at a time of uncertainty, she added.
“We want to make sure that there’s reliable, affordable fuel for California consumers while the demand persists,” Sahota said.
But environmentalists say the air board has built in almost no accountability for how companies invest in those projects. Katelyn Roedner Sutter, state director for the Environmental Defense Fund, said the proposal “is based on proposed investment, not any guaranteed reduction.”
“That’s a red flag,” she said.
A climate money crunch
Quarterly auction revenue for state programs could drop from roughly $4 billion a year to about $2 billion under the proposal, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.
Sen. John Laird, the state Senate budget chair and a co-author of California’s original 2006 climate law, warned at a May 6 hearing that the proposal “flies against many things we negotiated just last fall” with the governor and could put the carbon market deal “back on the table.”
Not all lawmakers are critical. Assemblymembers Jacqui Irwin and Cottie Petrie-Norris, who respectively chair climate and energy committees, said the proposal “reflects the Legislature’s focus on affordability,” and urged the board to proceed “without delay.”
They pointed to an increase in the Climate Credit, the twice-yearly rebate that the carbon market funds on Californians’ utility bills; a UC Santa Barbara analysis, however, found the new subsidy could shrink the credit by as much as $1.7 billion under the proposal.
A separate, bipartisan group including Assemblymember David Alvarez, a Democrat, and Senator Suzette Valladares, a Republican, argues the purpose of the carbon market is to cut emissions, not raise money for programs.
Newsom struck an eleventh-hour deal with lawmakers last year that extended the state’s carbon market through 2045 and set the order of which state programs get auction money first.
Under that plan, California’s high-speed rail project receives $1 billion a year before many other programs. Lawmakers also carved out a $1 billion annual pool for priorities they control themselves, but Newsom in January proposed committing that money to wildfire spending and other programs.
Last in line are programs lawmakers have spent years building into California’s climate agenda: affordable housing and transit-oriented development meant to reduce driving and climate pollution, rail and bus service, wildfire resilience, clean drinking water in poor communities and neighborhood pollution monitoring.
Newsom unveiled a revised state budget on May 14 that did not reflect the potential drop in carbon market revenue. Laird, in an interview, said the administration told him the revenue drop wouldn’t show up in the coming fiscal year.
Laird said he planned to “ground truth” that assessment in the weeks ahead. The hit “would still be a big hit the year after this budget year,” he added.
Big Oil’s biggest target
California’s carbon market became a central focus of the oil industry’s lobbying efforts after the air board released a January proposal sharply reducing free pollution permits for industry.
Seven of the 10 highest-spending oil and gas lobbying groups in California pushed state officials on the proposal, state filings show. The petroleum association and Chevron mounted some of the industry’s most aggressive lobbying, pressing lawmakers, the governor’s office, the air board and the California Energy Commission on the plan.
The April plan raised free permits for most industries through 2030 above the January version, but deferred decisions on permits after 2030 to a future rulemaking.
Jim Stanley, a spokesman for the petroleum association, said the group has been pressing lawmakers, regulators and the governor’s office about “the potential consequences of a poorly structured cap-and-invest program.”
Chevron spokesman Ross Allen declined to comment beyond letters Chevron filed with the air board. Chevron initially warned the proposal threatened refinery survival in California. After last month’s revisions, the company is continuing to push for additional protections.
Zach Leary, a lobbyist for the petroleum association, said California needs to go further than even its latest proposal. He wants California to lock in a higher level of free permits permanently.
“The state is acknowledging that affordability and ambition are not getting along very well right now,” Leary said.
Eddie Ahn, executive director of Brightline Defense, oversees community air sensors in San Francisco’s Tenderloin, Mission and South of Market neighborhoods funded through the state’s community air protection program. That program is among those that could lose state money if carbon market auctions decline under the proposal.
“If the funding is cut off, then convening groups of people on a monthly basis — that goes away,” Ahn said. “It means frontline communities get disconnected from environmental policy.”
This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.
City lights of bustling San Francisco shown dimly along the shore, while the headlights of cars making their morning commute streaked quickly along one of the towering bridges of the Bay. We floated below the cement city, rocking gently with the waves of the sea and sitting silently as the world woke up around us. As the sun rose with the people from its sleeping slumber, our group of hunters waited for our boat Captain, Melynda Dodds, to say the magic words: “Scoters on the horizon, get ready.”
San Fran Scoters
When hunters think of sea duck hunting, images of the snowy, blistering winter conditions of remote Alaska or coastal Maine come to mind. And while it’s true these destinations see their fair share of sea ducks migrating through, so do warmer climates.
California is more than just movie stars and Los Angeles. It’s a state that is steeped in hunting heritage but often overlooked because of its Hollywood fame. The Pacific Flyway stretches some 4,000 miles north to south and encompasses The Golden State and the Pacific Ocean. The state is a waterfowl hunting destination as it sees thousands of birds migrate through including not only divers like goldeneyes and blue bills, but puddle ducks and sea ducks.
Instead of ice and snow, hunters are given a unique hunt in warm climates as surf scoters make their way south along the Pacific coast from their far north breeding grounds in Alaska and Canada.
The surf scoter is a unique species of sea duck. The drakes are often referred to as “Old skunkhead” because of the unique black and white patches that line its head, while a bright orange and white bill is florescent against its black plumage.
Although they may sometimes fly inland to lakes during migration, their primary range is wide open seas. Like all sea ducks, scoters do not respond well to calling. They are, however, excellent decoy and flagging birds. They fly fast and low along the water, making hunting and connecting on this fowl a test in skill as you battle shooting on rolling ocean seas.
Unlike most hunting, where you find yourself far off the beaten path, a healthy population of surf scoters passes through the San Francisco Bay area, making for a unique urban hunt. Sprawling cities with tall tech buildings and refineries line the skyline and sit as your backdrop, while cargo ships sail by your small, in comparison, hunting vessel. While you swing on fast flying scoters, city life is thriving just a few miles away on the shore.
Hunting Scoters with California Guide Service
It was 5 a.m. and in the middle of December as my friends and I pulled into the boat ramp in the San Francisco Bay. We expected to see a line to launch duck boats during prime hunting season. Instead, it was empty except for a lone Toyota Tundra hauling a 25-foot Bankes Titan boat and two women moving with purpose around the vessel.
With skilled precision from many mornings of this same routine, Melynda Dodds, owner of California Guide Service, and her deckhand Maddie Day, prepared the open water boat for launch as we stepped out to greet them.
One wouldn’t know Melynda was an adult-onset hunter. Her depth of knowledge regarding how to shoot California sea ducks and skills as a boat Captain gave off the conviction that she had been hunting these open waters since an early age. Instead, Melynda began her love for the outdoors as a young woman growing up in Texas, a far cry from the busy San Francisco area.
“I grew up in a hunting family, but I was never invited to hunt, they didn’t think I would be interested,” explained Melynda. “It wasn’t until I was 30 that I would shoot my first deer and hog. I was told I couldn’t do it…you don’t tell a Texas girl that.”
After taking her first big game animals, Melynda was hooked on hunting and would make it her career soon after. Relocating with her family to the Bay area, she experienced the thrill of hunting ducks along the Pacific Flyway and never looked back.
“I was at a crossroads after my kids were both in school,” said Melynda. “I could either go back to the corporate world or dive into guiding for fishing and hunting, two things that I was actually passionate about. So, I dove right in.”
Starting from the bottom, Melynda began by working as a deckhand on charter fishing boats to gain experience before applying for her Captain’s license. Once licensed, she set out to learn how to drive as many boats as possible, skippering seven different boats—from 50-foot Deltas, to Six-Pack boats, to 56-foot Westports. While mastering her Captain’s license, Melynda’s knowledge for hunting ducks in the Bay went from novice to expert, and California Guide Service was born.
Sea Duck Hunting in California
With the boat ready for launch thanks to our skilled guides, I watched as Melynda backed the 25-foot duck boat down the ramp with ease, her years of hard work and experience showing itself.
We were ready for our California sea duck adventure. With gear loaded, and Melynda’s black Lab, Nova, in her place next to deckhand Maddie, Captain Melynda Dodds steered us through the harbor, the city lights twinkling in the distance.
Having embarked on blistering boat rides for sea ducks in years past, it was satisfying not to have to hunker down for warmth on the short ride before Melynda slowed the throttle. Working as a proficient team, our Captain maneuvered the boat while Maddie prepared and launched multiple strings of scoter decoys.
Soon after legal shooting light, flocks of scoters began flying. Unlike puddle ducks or divers that provide high in the sky shooting, sea ducks fly low and fast along the water, making it very difficult to connect on birds. If we were lucky, we could spot flocks of sea ducks off in the distance so we could prepare ourselves for shooting if we saw the birds turn towards our decoys. Other times, the ducks would zip into the decoys without notice, their black bodies blending in with the dark of the water.
Your positioning in the boat tested your skills as a shotgunner. At times, you were lucky, and the scoters would cup their wings for landing straight on in your shooting lane, while other times, you were dealing with hard crossing shots. Because they fly low on the water, it’s easy to determine whether your shots are behind or ahead thanks to your shot string making a visual splash.
My friends and I marveled at the scoters who humbled us for a time before we had our lead times tuned in. Soon, we were enjoying the cool California morning, picking our shots carefully on drakes while Captain Melynda and Maddie laughed with us at our epic hits and misses.
Nova sat patiently, waiting on us to get our sea legs so she could work. The drakes were easy to pick out of the flocks, the white paint on their heads serving as a makeshift target that was easily distinguishable from the all brown plumage of the scoter hens. Soon, Melynda gave Nova what she wanted, releasing her to dive into the dark seas to retrieve our quarry.
An All Women Guiding service
Melynda and Maddie worked as a smooth operating team during our two days hunting the San Francisco Bay. In fact, Melynda prides herself on being a Women Owned Small Business with a crew of only females for both her fishing charters and hunts.
“It’s important for me to provide opportunities to women and young girls,” said Melynda. “In this industry, ladies are generally guided by men—few are full female outfits. I want to show women that they really can hunt all on their own. I feel having a team comprised of all women helps to build confidence and expand possibilities for other ladies.”
Melynda and her crew had our respect long before the hunt began, but after days on the water together, that respect only grew. Her passion for hunting California burned bright, making this urban sea duck hunt one for the record books.
Gear For Hunting Surf Scoters
Sea ducks are tough fowl. Their plumage is made to withstand the harshest ocean conditions, making it hard for shot to penetrate. Additionally, close ranging shots on these fast flyers are rare—most of the time they’re zipping past the end of your decoy lines, typically 30 to 40 yards at the minimum.
Benelli Ethos A.I.
Scoters proved a fantastic opportunity to put an Ethos with the new Benelli Advanced Impact (A.I.) barrel technology to the test.
The new A.I. barrel is packed with enhanced features, making it one of the most advanced shotgun barrels of all time. The interior contours as it makes its way down the barrel, making an hourglass shape that is extremely long and tapered. This creates pressure in the barrel that not only increases velocity and energy at impact, but keeps shot strings compact and uniform. At 30 yards, velocity is 21 percent higher than a standard barrel, giving the Ethos 50 percent more penetration on target.
benelliusa.com
B&P Dual Steel
To bring down tough ocean scoters, a reliable steel shot load was needed. The B&P Dual Steel Magnum shot is made with two layers of pellets: steel and plated steel. This combination helps maintain consistent shot patterns, even at distance. The loads are also made with B&P’s Green Core wad, which is not only completely bio-degradable, but also made to withstand varying inclement weather and temperatures like those found when hunting sea ducks.
baschieri-pellagriusa.com
-
Alabama3 minutes agoCAMPAIGN 2026: Voters Guide for Alabama Primaries – WAKA 8
-
Alaska8 minutes agoMemorial Day travel plans shift as Alaska gas prices near record highs
-
Arizona14 minutes ago
Autopsy says the death of a Haitian man detained in Arizona was related to his dental woes
-
Arkansas21 minutes agoThree Reasons Arkansas Fans Should Be Optimistic for This Season
-
California27 minutes agoKars4Kids ordered to pull ads in California over claims donors were misled
-
Colorado33 minutes agoNorthern Colorado lake closed to motorized boating for 2026 due to low water projections
-
Connecticut39 minutes agoBody recovered from Connecticut River identified as missing Massachusetts man
-
Delaware44 minutes agoWoodbridge school counselor named 2026 Delaware Behavioral Health Professional of Year – State of Delaware News
