On April 7, a judge in California rejected an attempt to overturn the Huntington Beach City’s Voter ID law, ruling that the city did not violate California’s election laws when the voters passed this law last year.
In the ruling that day, Orange County Superior Court Judge Nico Dourbetas dismissed the request to invalidate the city charter amendment brought forward by California Attorney General Rob Bonta.
“There is no evidence to suggest that the requirement for voter identification would undermine the fairness of municipal elections,” Dourbetas wrote in the ruling. “The municipal election results are not lacking in fairness because only voters qualified in that city participate in the elections.” He also argued that Huntington Beach’s charter amendment did not infringe on voters’ right to vote.
Huntington Beach attorney Michael Gates celebrated the decision. He posted on X platform, congratulating the city for its victory and the support for its Voter ID law: “We won the lawsuit in 2024, and today we won again! This court ruling means that Huntington Beach once again defeated the state government!”
On March 5 last year, nearly 200,000 voters in Huntington Beach passed a regulation allowing the city to verify voter identities when voting starting in 2026. This regulation is an amendment to the city’s charter, defining voters as U.S. citizens residing in Huntington Beach and at least 18 years old.
Last April, Attorney General Bonta, on behalf of Secretary of State Shirley Weber, filed a lawsuit alleging that Huntington Beach’s Voter ID Verification Law violated state election laws, which prohibit local governments from requiring voter identification in elections starting in 2025.
However, Huntington Beach argued that if there was a conflict between the city’s charter and California’s election law, the city’s charter should take precedence.
In November last year, Judge Dourbetas dismissed the state’s lawsuit, citing insufficient evidence from the plaintiffs.
California appealed in January of this year. The Fourth District Court of Appeals in California overturned the lower court’s decision, deeming the conclusion that the timing was not right for the Orange County judge’s ruling problematic and remanded the case back to the Orange County Superior Court.
Bonta and Weber filed a motion for a writ of mandate in February, requesting the court to make a substantive ruling on the case rather than wait for the appeal decision, which Judge Dourbetas ultimately made on April 7. Bonta and Weber plan to continue appealing.
“We once again believe that the Orange County Superior Court made an incorrect judgment,” Bonta said in a statement, agreeing with the Fourth District Court of Appeals in California that the city’s claim of having constitutional rights to regulate its municipal elections without state interference “is problematic.” “We still believe that ultimately, the Voter ID law will be overturned.”
Weber stated that the city’s law would lead to some voters being excluded. She said in a statement that the court’s order directly conflicts with California’s election law and would cause California voters to lose their voting rights. “As the state’s chief election official, I will continue to work with Attorney General Bonta to file an appeal and protect the rights of the state and its eligible voters.”
Huntington Beach’s local Voter ID law is one of many similar laws introduced across the United States in recent years. On April 1, Wisconsin just passed a referendum to include voter ID requirements in the state’s constitution, solidifying this provision that has been in place since 2011.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 36 states in the U.S. either require or mandate voters to present some form of identification when voting. This year, 12 states are considering bills to amend the wording of their state constitutions to specify that only “U.S.” citizens can vote.
Former President Trump signed an executive order on March 25, calling for reforms to election rules involving voter registration requirements, election law enforcement, electronic voting system security, voting deadlines, and foreign interference in elections. ◇