Californians may be asked to weigh in on AI rules at the ballot box in 2026

Kate Wolffe, The Sacramento Bee on Dec 29, 2025

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

Proponents can now begin collecting signatures for a measure that would prohibit children from using smartphones in schools and clamp down on artificial intelligence products, like certain chatbots, that could harm kids.

The initiative, sponsored by Common Sense Media CEO Jim Steyer, was given the official title “Child Safety Requirements for Artificial Intelligence. Prohibits Smartphones in Schools Initiative Statute” on Friday, and is one of five pending initiatives that could further regulate AI in California.

If the five measures get enough signatures, they will be the first AI regulations that voters will be asked to weigh in on directly. Meanwhile, state-level AI regulation faces serious federal opposition, with President Donald Trump recently signing an executive order aiming to crack down on state-level action.

The AI measures are just a handful of the whopping 44 currently active initiatives that could get enough signatures to qualify for the 2026 ballot.

Chatbot bills face off

Steyer’s initiative was submitted in October as the “California Kids AI Safety Act.”

“This initiative will put in place the strong guardrails California needs to protect kids and teens from unsafe AI companions,” his group, tied to Common Sense Kids Action, wrote in an October press release.

The measure would force the state to create a risk framework for AI products and identify which ones are “unacceptable” for children. It followed the defeat of the similarly-structured LEAD Act, AB 1064, which was vetoed without explanation by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October.

Now that Steyer’s measure has a title and an accompanying summary, proponents can begin gathering the 546,651 signatures needed by late June to get it on the 2026 ballot. A Dec. 11 assessment by the Legislative Analysts’ Office estimated enforcing the rule would cost the state tens of millions a year, but that “some or all” of the costs would be offset by regulatory fees.

However, there is a countermeasure that seeks to stop Steyer’s initiative in its tracks. A spokesperson for OpenAI, creator of the popular chatbot ChatGPT, confirmed to The Bee Monday the company is involved in pushing the initiative, which was submitted as the “Al Companion Chatbot Safety Act.”

That proposal aims to protect the win nabbed by the AI industry in October, when San Diego Democrat Sen. Steve Padilla’s watered-down bill, Senate Bill 243, was signed into law by Newsom.

“Before the law could take effect, opponents of Al have sought to block its implementation and impede the technological innovation, job creation, and economic growth that will result from California’s leadership in developing and regulating artificial intelligence now and in the future,” reads the rationale included in OpenAI submission.

Padilla swiftly condemned the countermeasure.

“This initiative is cynically designed to hijack my legislation, Senate Bill 243, which was a starting place to protect children, and makes it exceptionally difficult to modify or strengthen that law,” he wrote in a Dec. 11 statement.

“Silicon Valley failed in their attempt to have Congress preempt state laws regulating AI tools, so now they’re trying to freeze future efforts here in California to enact safety regulations through this deceptive initiative.”

Padilla said he plans to take further action during the upcoming legislative session to strengthen SB 243.

Remaining initiatives run the gamut

Aside from the Open-AI sponsored initiative, three other measures are also awaiting a title and summary.

Two were submitted by Point Richmond resident Alexander Oldham. They were submitted as the “California Public Benefit AI Accountability Act” and the “The California AI Worker Protection Act” and would require that AI companies are held to certain standards and that workers share in companies’ benefits.

The last aims to reverse the conversion of OpenAI from a nonprofit into a more traditional corporate structure.

It was submitted by Bay Area resident Poornima Ramarao, the mother of Suchir Balaji, a former OpenAI employee who blew the whistle on the company’s use of copyrighted data.

The attorney general has until the first week of February to give the bills a title and summary.

____