On April 15th, California Attorney General Robert Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber jointly filed a lawsuit against the city of Huntington Beach, California, because the city passed the Voter ID Amendment in the primary election in early March.
According to the certification by the Orange County Registrar of Voters on March 22nd, Huntington Beach voters approved the city’s Proposition 1 amendment with 53.40% of the vote, requiring voters to provide identification in all municipal elections (excluding California and county elections) starting from 2026; the city will also provide more polling places and monitor ballot drop boxes.
Bonta stated during a press conference that “the right to vote freely is the foundation of our democracy, and Huntington Beach’s voter ID policy violates this principle.” He emphasized that California election laws already include strict voter identification requirements and robust security measures to prevent voter fraud while ensuring that all eligible voters can easily cast their votes.
However, voters lack confidence in California’s election system, as instances of blank ballots being sent to non-citizens or individuals who have moved out of the state, as well as cases of voter registration irregularities and election chaos, have occurred. Residents have repeatedly requested amendments and the presentation of voter identification during elections at Orange County Board of Supervisors meetings in recent years.
Bonta argued that requiring voter identification would create “unnecessary barriers and burdens for low-income voters, voters of color, young or elderly voters, and individuals with disabilities,” and therefore, they requested the court to block Huntington Beach’s illegal steps to suppress or deprive voters of their right to vote. Weber echoed Bonta’s statement, emphasizing that the city’s regulations conflict with state laws since the state law does not mandate voter identification during voting.
Tony Strickland, a former mayor of Huntington Beach, current city council member, and one of the authors of the amendment, expressed at a community meeting that “our democracy cannot function if people do not have confidence in election results,” and voter identification can “give us confidence in this system,” pointing out that “whether you board a plane or stay at a hotel, you are required to show identification.”
According to a report by “thefederalist.com,” a 2021 opinion poll showed that 80% of Americans support presenting identification before voting. However, most Democrats believe that mail-in voting is more convenient, while Republicans and Independents argue that mail-in voting complicates the counting process and takes longer.
When Huntington Beach proposed the municipal law amendment, Bonta and Weber had already warned that the city was violating California election laws, and on September 28th of the previous year, they wrote a letter urging the city to abandon the measure.
Huntington Beach is one of California’s 125 “charter cities,” which can have independent charters and municipal laws. However, Bonta and Weber argued in the lawsuit that municipal regulations cannot conflict with state laws governing “state affairs”; the new law in Huntington Beach “threatens to unlawfully deprive voters of their voting rights.”
The lawsuit also states that under state law, individuals must provide identification information when registering to vote, or else they could face penalties for perjury; hence, “voters only need to provide their name and address at polling stations without further identification,” and only certain election officials can challenge a voter’s identity based on narrow and well-founded reasons, reducing potential voter confusion.
Strickland questioned how presenting voter identification could “unlawfully deprive voters of their voting rights.” He believes that Sacramento is unwilling to address election integrity issues and that the viable solution proposed by the city “will sweep through California from the bottom up.”
责任编辑：方平