California Appeals Court Revives Challenge to Huntington Beach Voter ID Law
The California Court of Appeal ordered the Superior Court of Orange County to issue an appealable ruling in a challenge to the Huntington Beach voter ID measure after a trial judge said the case wasn’t ready to be decided. If the lower court doesn’t issue a ruling, then the appeals court will take over the case.
Huntington Beach voters approved an initiative in March to amend the city charter to allow officials to enact a voter ID requirement for local elections. The measure is set to take effect in 2026.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) and Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber (D) sued the city in April, arguing the policy conflicted with state election law. They asked an Orange County court to block city officials from enforcing it ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
In their lawsuit, they argued that “California maintains a uniform and robust legal scheme for protecting the rights of eligible voters.”
In September, while litigation was ongoing, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed a law banning local governments from enacting voter ID requirements.
In mid-November, Orange County Judge Nico Dourbetas dismissed the state’s case without a final order, stating it was not “ripe for adjudication,” which means that the issue was not yet ready for a court to decide.
He sided with the city’s argument that because the officials hadn’t actually enacted a voter ID requirement yet, it would be impossible to know whether the policy would conflict with state law.
On Dec. 5, Bonta and Weber asked Dourbetas to issue a final order, which is necessary for a party to appeal the case. However, he refused to do so following a Dec. 16 hearing.
The state officials then asked the California Court of Appeals to order Dourbetas to vacate his decision dismissing the lawsuit and asked the appeals court to take over the case.
The state officials argued the lower court’s decision “casts doubt on the rules applicable to the upcoming elections, threatening to substantially disrupt fast-approaching election administration deadlines.”
A three-judge panel on the appeals court sided with Bonta and Weber, stating that the lower court’s “conclusion that this matter is not ripe for jurisdiction is problematic.”
The panel said that even though the city hasn’t established a voter ID requirement yet, the new provision in the city charter allows them to establish policies beyond what state and federal law requires and replaced a “pre-existing provision requiring the City’s municipal elections to comply with the state’s Election code.”
Additionally, the panel ordered Dourbetas to inform the appeals court by Feb. 28 about whether he will vacate his dismissal of the lawsuit and issue a ruling on the merits of the case. If he does issue a ruling, then court proceedings continue normally. If the state disagrees with the ruling, then they can appeal the decision in the typical appeals process.
However, if Dourbetas doesn’t change his decision to dismiss the case without a final order, the appeals court will take over the case.