Officials in Sacramento announced on Thursday that they will appeal an Orange County Superior Court judge’s dismissal of a lawsuit filed by the the state challenging new rules that may require voters to present photo identification in Huntington Beach’s municipal elections.
Measure A passed with support from 53% of Huntington Beach voters following a special election in March. It’s a collection of amendments to the city’s charter that calls for additional monitoring at polling sites. It also authorizes local officials to ask people for ID before they cast a ballot.
Supporters say Measure A ensures accuracy and transparency in local government. Critics say it will suppress voter turnout without providing any real benefit.
In a statement, representatives for California Atty. Gen. Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber said Measure A was put forth “without citing any evidence that fraudulent voting occurs with any regularity in the city or has ever compromised the outcome of a municipal election.”
“Measure A is a solution in search of a problem,” Weber said. “In California, we champion people’s voices, we do not suppress them.”
Then-Huntington Beach Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark, from right, Councilman Pat Burns, City Atty. Michael Gates and Councilman Tony Strickland respond to a state lawsuit challenging recently passed laws requiring ID to vote in local elections during a news conference at City Hall on April 18.
(Eric Licas)
The state sued Huntington Beach in Orange County Superior Court over Measure A in April. Then in October, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 1174, a law explicitly preventing local governments from requiring ID in elections. It was written in direct response to the city’s charter amendments.
Last month, Judge Nico Dourbetas dismissed the state’s lawsuit. In an explanation of that decision, he wrote that the matter was “not ripe for adjudication” because “the City’s Charter is permissive and discretionary in character, and thus currently presents no conflict with state elections law.”
Representatives for Bonta’s office said Dourbetas’s decision did not speak to the merits of either party’s argument. He and Weber said they “respectfully disagree” with the Superior Court’s findings, and that leaving the matter unresolved may lead to disruption in the 2026 election. Officials expect to begin preparing for that by late 2025.
In a statement, Huntington Beach officials including City Atty. Michael Gates said, “Gov. Newsom and Atty. Gen. Bonta are on the wrong side of this issue.” He claimed 80% of the voting public support voter ID laws, citing surveys conducted as recently as this year. A majority of respondents in those studies were also in favor of early voting, making election day a national holiday, allowing convicted felons to vote after serving their sentences and other provisions that would make casting a ballot more accessible.
Gates described the dismissal as a victory for local government and a “black eye” for lawmakers in Sacramento. The legal battle over Measure A is one of several in which they have asserted that Huntington Beach’s status as a charter city gives it overriding authority to conduct elections and other municipal affairs as they see fit.
To support that argument, Gates has repeatedly cited Redondo Beach vs. Padilla. In that case, the South Bay city sued the state for the authority to set the dates of their municipal elections, challenging an existing state law requiring all of them to take place on the same day called the Voter Participation Rights Act. California’s Second District Court of Appeals found that the VPRA did not apply to charter cities and ruled in favor of Redondo Beach.
In court documents, Bonta has argued that SB 1174 closes any loophole based on Redondo Beach vs. Padilla because it was written to apply to all municipalities, including charter cities. Huntington Beach officials have publicly denounced the law, describing it and other directives from Sacramento as tyranny.
The city’s refusal to accept a state mandate to zone for over 13,000 additional units of housing has been another protracted legal dispute. In September, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Huntington Beach’s argument in that matter. In a two-page decision, a panel of judges found that “no matter how California categorizes charter cities, they remain subordinate political bodies, not sovereign entities.”
“I will continue to fight for Huntington Beach’s’ elections integrity laws in court,” Gates said. “Voter ID in Huntington Beach is the law of our land here, it’s our Constitutional right, and it’s here to stay — I will make sure of that.”