Skip to main content
Politics

California sues to halt voter ID law from taking effect in Huntington Beach

Share

Media Landscape

See who else is reporting on this story and which side of the political spectrum they lean. To read other sources, click on the plus signs below. Learn more about this data
Left 44% Center 36% Right 20%
Bias Distribution Powered by Ground News

California is taking legal action against Huntington Beach over its voter identification law. In a 320-page lawsuit filed on Monday, April 15, the state accuses Huntington Beach of violating California’s Constitution and election code by implementing a charter amendment mandating photo ID for local elections starting in 2026.

Huntington Beach contends that its city charter grants officials the authority to manage local affairs, including local elections. In addition to the photo ID requirement, the law mandates a provision of 20 in-person polling places and the monitoring of ballot drop boxes.

QR code for SAN app download

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

Attorney General Rob Bonta, D, criticized Huntington Beach’s law, claiming that the city cannot exempt itself from state laws governing voter registration and election integrity. He called the photo ID requirement “blatantly and flatly illegal,” asserting that the city knowingly violated the law.

The fight between California and Huntington Beach is a sign of a broader issue, with the city at the center of culture wars since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Over the past four years, Huntington Beach has taken controversial stances, challenging state policies on masks, vaccines, housing, immigration and now election procedures.

The lawsuit follows warnings from Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber last fall, telling the city that the voter ID measure could force them into legal action. Despite the warnings, Huntington Beach proceeded with putting the proposal on the March ballot, where voters approved the measure.

Supporters of the law say that it defends election integrity, citing concerns over noncitizen voting policies. However, opponents argue that Huntington Beach’s elections, overseen by the Orange County Registrar of Voters, are secure, and the city lacks the infrastructure to administer its local elections.

Weber described the law as a solution in search of a problem, contending that voter fraud claims lack substantial evidence. The legal battle comes as ongoing debates over voter ID laws continue, with Republicans pushing for stricter voter ID measures, while Democrats argue they will disenfranchise marginalized communities further.

Tags: , , , ,

[LAUREN TAYLOR]

CALIFORNIA IS SUING HUNTINGTON BEACH TO STOP ITS VOTER ID LAW FROM GOING INTO EFFECT. 

THE GOLDEN STATE CLAIMS THE CONSERVATIVE-LEANING TOWN’S NEW ID REQUIREMENT IS “BLATANTLY ILLEGAL.” 

THE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CHARTER PASSED WITH MORE THAN 53 PERCENT OF THE VOTE IN MARCH. 

IT REQUIRES ALL VOTERS SHOW I-D FOR LOCAL ELECTION STARTING IN 2026.

ACCORDING TO THE STATE’S ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE CITY’S NEW LAW VIOLATES CALIFORNIA’S CONSTITUTION AND ELECTION CODE.

HUNTINGTON BEACH CONTENDS ITS CITY CHARTER GRANTS OFFICIALS THE AUTHORITY TO MANAGE LOCAL AFFAIRS, INCLUDING ELECTIONS.

IN ADDITION TO THE I-D REQUIREMENT, THE AMENDMENT MANDATES A PROVISION OF 20 IN-PERSON POLLING PLACES AND MONITORING OF BALLOT DROP BOXES.

ATTORNEY GENERAL ROB BONTA SAID HUNTINGTON BEACH CANNOT EXEMPT ITSELF FROM STATE LAWS AND LABELED THE MOVE “MISGUIDED” AND “FLATLY ILLEGAL.”

SUPPORTERS ARGUE THE LAW DEFENDS ELECTION INTEGRITY, CITING CONCERNS OVER NONCITIZEN VOTING POLICIES. 

HOWEVER, OPPONENTS MAINTAIN HUNTINGTON BEACH’S ELECTIONS ARE SECURE AND THE CITY LACKS THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO ADMINISTER ITS ELECTIONS.

THE CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE CALLED THE LAW A SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM. SAYING CLAIMS OF ELECTION FRAUD LACK EVIDENCE. 

THE LEGAL BATTLE UNDERSCORES ONGOING DEBATES NATIONWIDE.

REPUBLICANS ADVOCATING FOR STRICTER MEASURES ON VOTING, WHILE DEMOCRATS ARGUE SUCH MOVES WOULD DISENFRANCHISE MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES.