California Plans Appeal on Huntington Beach Voter ID Requirements

California Plans Appeal of Court Decision Upholding Huntington Beach Voter ID Requirements

An Orange County judge has authorized the city of Huntington Beach to impose its voter identification requirements at polling locations but a local Orange County attorney foresees it as a catastrophe waiting to happen.

“There’s no standard for it,” said Lee Fink, an attorney with the Brower Law Group in Irvine. “It’s a totally unconstitutional burden on somebody’s right to vote.”

Judge Nico Dourbetas declined to overturn Huntington Beach’s voter ID law ruling that he doesn’t think it compromises the integrity of a municipal election because only residents of a municipality who are eligible to vote participate in the election.

“Since the procedures Respondent seeks to implement in conjunction with its municipal elections do not implicate matters of statewide concern, there is no need to assess whether Elec. Code §10005 is reasonably related to the achievement of any statewide concern,” Judge Dourbetas wrote in his April 7 minute order.

Elec. Code §10005 states that a local government shall not enact or enforce any charter provision, ordinance, or regulation requiring a person to present identification for the purpose of voting.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta is in the process of appealing.

“Now that we have a final order from the Orange County Superior Court, we look forward to moving on and appealing the decision,” Bonta said in an April 7 press release. “We remain confident that Measure A will ultimately be struck down.”

As previously reported in OrangeCountyLawyers.com, Huntington Beach voters approved Measure 1, also known as Measure A, which allows the implementation of voter ID requirements in city elections starting in 2026.

Requiring voter identification creates confusion because it compromises uniformity, according to Fink.

“It is a complete mess from an administrative standpoint,” Fink told OrangeCountyLawyers.com.

“It’s costly for people to get voter IDs. There’s no idea of what type of ID will be accepted. There’s no idea whether one polling place will accept one set of IDs and another won’t.”

Measure 1 is a Statewide Concern

AG Bonta sued Huntington Beach on April 15, 2024 in Orange County Superior Court arguing that Measure 1 is a matter of statewide concern because it has to do with the fundamental and constitutional right to vote.

Although Judge Dourbetas dismissed the state’s complaint, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District remanded his decision on Feb. 18.

“The Court of Appeal had already told Dourbetas that he was approaching this case wrong and, unfortunately, instead of just following the Court of Appeals guidance on that, he continued on the path that he had before,” Fink said.

The appellate justices argued that it is problematic for the City of Huntington Beach to regulate its own municipal elections without state interference because consolidation with statewide elections under Elec. Code §10400 removes municipal elections from self-governance under the home rule doctrine.

“Municipal elections, including those in the city, are typically held in conjunction with statewide elections and involve the same ballot, personnel, infrastructure, polling places and voter registration scheme,” the Feb. 18 Court of Appeal order states.

Fink represents Mark Bixby, a private citizen of Huntington Beach who sued Huntington Beach City Clerk Robin Estanislau in November 2023 in an attempt to stop Measure 1 from being voted on during the March 2024 primary.

But Dourbetas dismissed Bixby’s lawsuit as well. Fink is preparing an appeal.

“The Court of Appeal made clear that election law types of cases have priority,” Fink said. “They processed the state’s Petition for Writ very quickly so we’re fairly confident the court will hear this on an expedited basis and well before we have 2026 elections.”

The next statewide election is on June 2, 2026, according to the California Secretary of State website.

“We all knew this case would be resolved in the appellate courts so, frankly, the trial court was a pit stop on the way to the real decision anyway,” Fink added.

*Featured image created by Grok
*Photo of Lee Fink Courtesy BrowerLawGroup.com