Not unless the Supreme Court decided to throw out, like, the whole of 14th Amendment Due Process and clause jurisprudence, where it comes to standards for impairing or discriminating in fundamental rights and voting’s status as such a right. (I wouldn't put it past this court, but even for them it would be an unusual break with settled Constitutional case law.)
And even then, Constitutionally, only blonde females and males under 21 if it doesn't want to lose seats in the House, since another part of the 14th Amendment (though this has historically not been enforced) makes denying males 21+ the vote for any reason other than conviction of crime mean reduction, in equal proportion, to House representation.
That just further highlights the bafflingly cobbled-together nature of the whole ruleset.
Women and 18-21 year olds got the right to vote after the 14th Amendment
(Sharp observers will note that race also wasn't explicitly a prohibited category until a later Amendment—the 15th—as the three civil war amendments, 13th-15th, were not ratified simultaneously despite being a related package, so blacks were considered in the disenfranchisement penalty clause before they had an individually-protected right to vote.)
It forbids certain sorts of discrimination - gender, race, age (past a point), but leaves the rest up to the states.
California could, as far as I can tell, forbid voting by blondes, or by people who need glasses, or ban anyone who's had ice cream in the last month from the polls.