Election integrity chalked up a win on Friday as an Orange County, California judge ruled that Huntington Beach could proceed with its voter ID law despite a challenge mounted against it by Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration.
In March, the city, which hasn’t shied away from challenging the state’s Democrat administration, voted for a ballot measure that would allow election officials to require voter ID at the polls beginning in 2026. Section 705 of the city’s charter provides (emphasis mine):
As in Section 300, the City Charter shall determine the term of the City’s elective officers, the length of term, and the election cycle in which the election for those offices occur for the City’s elective officers.(a) Beginning in 2026, for all municipal elections:(1) “Elector” means a person who is a United States citizen 18 years of age or older, and a resident of the City on or before the day of an election.
However, in April, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber filed a lawsuit challenging the measure, contending it conflicts with state law. One point of interest here is that because Huntington Beach is a charter city, its laws supersede state law regarding “municipal affairs.” Nonetheless, Bonta and Newsom contend that state law trumps that as to matters of “statewide concern,” which, it contends, voter eligibility and the right to cast a ballot in municipal, state, and federal elections are.
Another wrinkle here is that in September, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 1174, banning local governments from requiring voter ID in municipal elections. And yes, that law was aimed specifically at those upstarts in Huntington Beach for having the audacity to think otherwise. However, that is not the basis (yet) on which the state challenged the Huntington Beach provision.
California Sues Chino Hills School District Over Parental Gender Transition Notification Policy
California’s Huntington Beach Declares a Ban on Mask and Vaccine Mandates
Nonetheless, on Friday, Superior Court Judge Nico Dourbetas issued an order rejecting the state’s claim, ruling that the matter was not ripe for adjudication as the provision is permissive (meaning it allows the city to require ID and as such, does not conflict with the state law provisions on which the state asserted its claim).
🚨BREAKING NEWS🚨 The State of California’s challenge to the City of Huntington Beach’s new Voter ID law was rejected by the Court today. Fights produce wins, big and small, rolling over produces nothing. 🔥🔥🔥
cc @elonmusk @realDonaldTrump @drdrew @adamcarolla @ChefGruel pic.twitter.com/ANWKH8gZJp
— Michael E. Gates (@MichaelGatesESQ) November 15, 2024
Here’s a bit more on the ruling:
HUNTINGTON BEACH, Calif. — A judge on Friday rejected California’s lawsuit against the city of Huntington Beach over a local measure allowing officials to require voter identification at the polls.
Orange County Superior Court Judge Nico Dourbetas ruled that existing state law does not block the local measure, which was approved by voters earlier this year. The ruling could clear the way for the majority-Republican city to implement one of California’s only voter ID requirements at the polls in local elections.
“It’s a massive black eye to the state of California,” City Attorney Michael Gates said of the ruling. “And what the state of California needs to know, if they haven’t found out already, is Huntington Beach is not going to be intimidated or deterred.”
Bonta responded to the ruling as well, noting his disagreement with it:
“Under both existing law and Senate Bill 1174, all local governments — including charter cities like Huntington Beach — are prohibited from disenfranchising voters at the polls by implementing voter ID requirement. Let me be clear: that has not changed. We disagree with the court’s decision that it is too early to bring our lawsuit, and remain confident in the strength of our case.”
As intimated in Bonta’s statement, Friday’s ruling isn’t the end of the inquiry. This is a procedural ruling rather than one on the merits, and the order itself grants the state 20 days to amend its Petition and presumably will do so to include the newly passed SB 1174. And if the court ultimately rules in favor of Huntington Beach, Bonta’s office will likely appeal that decision.
Still, it’s a win and a message, as City Attorney Michael Gates noted, that Huntington Beach will not be intimidated or deterred by the state’s legal saber rattling.
Also, there’s no word yet on when Bonta plans to sue the cities of Berkeley or Oakland (also charter cities) over their recent move to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in municipal elections, despite the fact that the voting age in the state is 18. Let’s not hold our breath on that…
