Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber filed an appeal Tuesday challenging the dismissal of a lawsuit against Huntington Beach’s voter identification requirement, which was slated to go into effect in 2026.
“The Orange County Superior Court got it wrong — plain and simple,” Bonta said. “Secretary of State Weber and I firmly believe not only that the time is right for us to bring our lawsuit, but also that Huntington Beach’s voter ID policy is unlawful.”
Bonta added that “Californians can rest assured that we will be working tirelessly to ensure they are not disenfranchised at the polls. Our elections are already secure, and applicants who register to vote in California are already required to verify their identity during the registration process.”
Weber said her office’s role is “ensuring that we encourage democracy through voter participation and stop attempts that burden democracy by preventing or discouraging eligible citizens from voting. Our state will continue to challenge any actions which violate state laws or hinder participation in our democracy.”
The lawsuit challenging Measure A, which would require identification from voters for municipal elections, was tossed out in November with a ruling that it wasn’t “ripe for adjudication” and doesn’t represent a conflict yet with state law.
The state was given a chance to amend the complaint, but Bonta and Weber decided to just go straight to an appeals court for relief.
Voters approved Measure A in March, 53.4% to 46.6%.
“Since the lower court gave the state an opportunity to revise its lawsuit and refile, and since the state chose not to, we’ll have to see what the Court of Appeal does with this,” Huntington Beach City Attorney Michael Gates told City News Service. “I suspect the Court of Appeal may reject the state’s appeal for failure to exhaust superior court remedies. Regardless of what court this battle is in, I will fight vigorously for Huntington Beach to keep its Voter ID law. It is our right, and I will protect it.”
Chapman University assistant law professor Nahal Kazemi told CNS last month that it is likely the issue wasn’t found to be “ripe” because both a new state law and Measure A were expected to go into effect in 2026.
“I understand why the state wants to appeal that because by the time the issue does become ripe you’re always running the risk of confusing voters,” Kazemi said.
“You see this more in federal courts, where they don’t want to disturb laws too close to an election,” Kazemi added. “And we shouldn’t be disturbing election laws too close to an election because it leads to confusion.”
The city could argue that it has the right to enforce the voter ID requirement for its own City Council and other local elections, Kazemi said. And city officials have said they would only apply the law for in-person voting, not vote by mail, she added.
But the logistics would get difficult if a city election was timed during a federal or state or county election that does not require voter ID, Kazemi said. The city also would have to run the election itself and couldn’t rely on the county Registrar of Voters or secretary of state to do it, which could present its own challenges, she said.