California Huntington Beach Voter Identification Challenge

People of the State of California v. City of Huntington Beach

Filed: April 15, 2024

Lawsuit filed on behalf of the people of the state of California through California Attorney General Rob Bonata (D) and California Secretary of State Shirley Weber (D) against the City of Huntington Beach and Huntington Beach City Clerk Robin Estanislau challenging Huntington Beach’s Measure A. Measure A, approved by a majority of Huntington Beach voters during the March 5, 2024 primary elections, amended the Huntington Beach City Charter to require voters to provide voter identification to participate in all municipal elections, beginning in 2026.

Huntington Beach regularly holds local elections during the same time as statewide general elections, and that Measure A could effectively bar voters without voter identification from state and federal elections held on the same days.

The plaintiffs allege that the California Constitution gives the state legislature exclusive authority to make laws regarding voter registration and eligibility. They also allege that California already requires voters to provide identification when they first register to vote. The plaintiffs argue this law violates the state’s constitution because statewide laws supersede local laws like Measure A. The plaintiffs ask the court to permanently block Measure A and direct Huntington Beach officials not to enforce it.

California filed this complaint on April 15, 2024.

On Nov. 15, the judge dismissed this lawsuit for failure to state a claim. He determined that Measure A does not conflict with state election laws. The state of California has 20 days to file an amended complaint.

On Dec. 5, Bonata and Weber asked the judge to enter a final order dismissing the case with prejudice so they can appeal the decision.

On Jan. 14, 2025, the California attorney general and secretary of state appealed this decision to the California Court of Appeal.

On Feb. 18, 2025, the California Court of Appeal issued an order directing the the trial court judge to either enter a final order on the merits or notify the appeals court of its reasoning for refusing to do so.

STATUS: On Feb. 27, the trial court judge amended his previous order, allowing the case to continue in the trial. There will be a hearing in the trial court on April 3. Litigation is ongoing.