Huntington Beach City Attorney Rebuts Challenge to Voter ID Amendment

Huntington Beach City Attorney Rebuts Challenge to Voter ID Amendment

Huntington Beach City Attorney Rebuts Challenge to Voter ID Amendment


Huntington Beach City Attorney Michael Gates wasn’t surprised to hear a former planning commissioner sued the city clerk and the Orange County Registrar of Voters.

It’s just a political lawsuit,” he said.

Mark Bixby, who was a planning commissioner in 2011, sued Huntington Beach City Clerk Robin Estanislau and Orange County Registrar of Voters Bob Page in Orange County Superior Court alleging the proposed Huntington Beach Charter Amendment No. 1 requiring voter identification violates the California Constitution and the California Elections Code.

I know Bixby and he is a political agitator in the community,” Counselor Gates told OrangeCountyLawyers.com.

Mr. Bixby is the publisher of the Surf City Sentinel Facebook Page. His attorney, Lee K. Fink, filed the complaint on Nov. 22, 2023.

DOWNLOAD COMPLAINT

Voter ID laws discriminate against minorities, senior citizens, and voters with disabilities,” Fink wrote on behalf of Mr. Bixby. “Research over the past decade consistently shows that, when implemented, voter ID laws reduce turnout for individuals without proper identification, and those voters are disproportionately members of these protected groups.

The Petition for a Writ of Mandate also alleges that, if approved, civic organizations would have to expend and divert resources educating their members and the public about the new Voter ID restrictions.

There is no basis for this requirement,” Mr. Bixby said in a statement online. “There has been no documented voter fraud in Huntington Beach, and yet the City Council majority has continued to lie to the public about voter fraud and come up with illegal schemes to suppress the vote.

Huntington Beach City Attorney Michael E. Gates

Huntington Beach City Attorney Michael E. Gates

When the City Council placed the charter amendment measure on the ballot for the March 5, 2024 presidential primary election, Counselor Gates said it was because the local governing body saw it as a way to increase confidence in the elections process.

It’s up to the people to decide,” he said in an interview. “If Bixby gets his way and the judge in this case grants some sort of injunction that prevents the amendment from being on the ballot, then that would be essentially interfering with democracy. I don’t see any judge doing that.

Mr. Page, who is named as a defendant in Mr. Bixby’s complaint, declined to comment on the litigation. “I must remain impartial and cannot express an opinion about the proposed charter amendment,” he told OrangeCountyLawyers.com in an email.

In a file-stamped declaration, however, Mr. Page asked the Court for a ruling no later than 5:00 p.m. on December 29 to avoid disrupting preparations for the March 5, 2024 presidential primary election, which include mailing out Voter Information Guides.

A hearing has been set for Dec. 28 at 10a.m. in Department C-25 before Judge Nick A. Dourbetas.

I must assure that voting materials are sent to the printers no later than January 5, 2024, in order to meet the mailing deadlines associated with this election,” Mr. Page wrote in his Dec. 18 declaration to Orange County Superior Court. “Otherwise, if we are forced to move past that date, it will impact printing schedules, which may cause mailing delays.”

Orange County has some 1.8 million registered voters of which 112,000 are Chinese, Korean, Spanish or Vietnamese speakers.

Mr. Bixby’s lawsuit is being adjudicated on the heels of former U.S. Pres. Donald Trump being disqualified from appearing on the Colorado presidential primary and general election ballot by the Colorado Supreme Court.

I think it really is dangerous and it sets a bad precedent,” Counselor Gates added. “Courts need to be careful not to interfere with elections and the voter approval process. The U.S. Supreme Court is probably going to reverse that Colorado decision because there is no legal basis, as far as I know, to keep somebody like Trump off the ballot.

In Anderson v. Griswold, Pres. Trump was constitutionally excluded from public office for having allegedly engaged in insurrection and rebellion at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed the lawsuit.

This is a victory for the principle that a president who loses his re-election bid must step down peacefully, not launch a bloody insurrection to intimidate Congress, disrupt the electoral count, and remain in power after his term ends,” said a Free Speech For People spokesperson. “We are proud to have aided the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision as amicus curiae in this case.

Free Speech For People, co-founded by constitutional attorney John Bonifaz, has pioneered similar actions to remove Pres. Trump from the ballot in other states, including Michigan, Oregon, and Minnesota.

Photo credit to Alisdare HicksonCreative Commons

Juliette Fairley
Juliette Fairley

Juliette Fairley covers legal topics for various publications including the Southern California Record, the Epoch Times and Pacer Monitor-News. Prior to discovering she had an ease and facility for law, Juliette lived in Orange County and Los Angeles where she pursued acting in television and film.

Join Our Newsletter

Stay up to date with our latest news and updates.


    Subscribe to our newsletter

    Join our private Facebook Group and

    ask local lawyers a question