California Attorney General Rob Bonta has characterized a California Supreme Court decision not to take up a lower court’s rejection of Huntington Beach’s voter ID requirements as the final act of the legal dispute, but the city begs to differ.
The state’s high court on Jan. 28 declined to review a petition brought by the city of Huntington Beach after an appeals court last November found that a state law, Senate Bill 1174, preempted and invalidated a city voter-ID requirement in municipal elections. In turn, Bonta’s office labeled the Supreme Court’s action as the nail in the coffin for the voter ID litigation.
“(The Jan. 28) victory makes one thing crystal clear: No city in our state, charter and non-charter alike, is above the law,” Bonta said in a prepared statement. “All along, Secretary of State (Shirley) Weber and I have maintained that Huntington Beach’s voter ID policy is illegal, and now, the state’s highest court has weighed in and agreed with us. Measure A won’t be taking effect – ever.”
This month, however, the Huntington Beach City Council voted unanimously to seek a U.S. Supreme Court review of whether its voter ID rules pass constitutional muster.
“… The United States Supreme Court in Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd. (2008) … upheld an Indiana voter ID requirement against facial challenge, determining that voter ID requirements do not violate the Equal Protection Clause,” a statement from Huntington Beach’s mayor, Casey McKeon, emailed to the Southern California Record states. “The court determined that voter ID alone does not present a valid equal protection claim.”
The California Court of Appeal decision on Nov. 3 rejecting the city’s position, however, was characterized by the court as a narrow one. The question it decided, the appeals court said, was whether voter identification requirements through the use of a personal identifier such as a driver’s license are a matter of the “integrity of the electoral process” as defined by case law. If so, then it’s a matter of statewide concern, and state law – in this case, SB 1174 – preempts the city’s charter rules.
The appeals court found that this was the case.
“The state must strike a careful balance between, on the one hand, ensuring that only eligible voters are able to vote in elections while, on the other hand, not discouraging or preventing disadvantaged voters and communities from participating in the political process,” the court said. “Permitting the city to make its own rules, in violation of the state Elections Code, would upset the state’s delicate balance and could impugn the integrity of the city’s elections.”
Voter ID proponents say such requirements are needed to prevent fraud and ensure the integrity of elections, but critics argue that voter ID isn’t needed because documented incidents of voter fraud are rare and that ID requirements have historically been used to discourage voters of color or low-income residents from voting.
The Huntington Beach statement contends that personal identification is needed to participate in “most adult endeavors” nationwide, and the act of voting should be no different.
“We are optimistic that the U.S. Supreme Court will take up this fundamental constitutional issue that voter ID does not violate the Equal Protection Clause (of the 14th Amendment),” the statement says..
Bonta argues that city officials have been attempting to politicize the voter ID issue.
“Huntington Beach’s leaders have been parroting the Trump administration’s talking points by questioning the integrity of our elections,” he said. “In court, the city’s allegations were resoundingly rejected. I remain fully committed to protecting the right to vote from baseless attacks.”
Huntington Beach’s voter ID requirements were approved by city voters nearly two years ago, with a 55.4% “Yes” vote and 44.6% of voters opposing the election rules.
