SANTA ANA, Calif. (CN) — A Superior Court Judge in Orange County, on Thursday, declined to block a voter ID referendum from appearing on the March 2024 ballot in the coastal enclave of Huntington Beach, California.
In a short, 1-page ruling, Superior Court Judge Nick Dourbetas wrote that the petitioner, a Huntington Beach resident named Mark Bixby, wanted "the judiciary to serve as an auditor of what the electorate may consider for the supposed purpose of preserving democracy."
He added: "This runs counter to the general rule counseling against pre-election review of the contents of the ballot. If this measure were to pass, and if its implementation raises an issue of constitutionality, at that point, it may be appropriate for judicial review."
In a written statement, Bixby said, "A municipal voter ID law is wrong; it violates the constitutional rights to vote and state law, and we intend to ensure that it never gets imposed in the City of Huntington Beach. Voters should vote down this nonsense, and if they don’t we will make sure that the courts strike it down.”
In October, a fractious Huntington Beach City Council voted 4-3 to add three charter amendments to the March 2024 primary ballot. One would give the city the authority to run its own local elections, a power which currently rests with the county. It would also give the city the power to ask voters for a photo ID before being allowed to cast their ballots, a divisive proposal that critics say would suppress voter turnout, particularly in low-income communities.
Shortly before the vote, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber sent a letter to the City Council warning them that the proposed amendment conflicts with state law.
"If the city moves forward and places it on the ballot, we stand ready to take appropriate action to ensure that voters’ rights are protected, and state election laws are enforced," Bonta and Weber wrote, adding that voter ID laws "only serve to suppress voter participation without providing any discernible local benefit."
Instead, the suit to stop the voter ID referendum was filed by Bixby, a former Huntington Beach planning commissioner.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief in support of Bixby's petition, reading in part: "There is ample evidence throughout the country that voter ID laws impose severe burdens on voters, particularly on voters with disabilities and on Latino, Black, young, and low-income voters. In contrast, there is very little evidence of voter fraud, and the few examples that exist would not have been prevented by voter ID."
Eleven states require voters to present identification at polling places before voting. Another 25 states request identification, but don't require it. California is not among them.
In court on Thursday, Huntington Beach Deputy City Attorney Peggy Huang argued Bixby couldn't sue over the law because it hasn't been passed yet.
"There’s no ordinance," Huang said. "It needs to be passed by the voters. Until then, there is no issue of controversy that could be adjudicated by the court." Furthermore, she argued Bixby lacked standing because he didn't show how he would be harmed by the ballot measure.
Bixby had asked the court to permanently block the referendum. Barring that, he asked for a preliminary injunction, temporarily blocking the measure from the March 2024 ballot. Huang said such a preliminary injunction would be unnecessary, since the law, if passed by voters in March, wouldn't take effect until 2026.
Lee Fink, Bixby's attorney, argued a voter ID law could only be passed by the state of California.
"The city of Huntington Beach is really not in the business of running elections," he said. "This is totally outside the city’s authority."
As to the issue of whether his client can sue over a ballot measure — a proposed law — he said, "Placing an invalid measure on the ballot takes away from the legitimate ballot measures."
Judge Dourbetas disagreed, citing a California Supreme Court decision from 1982 that read in part, “it is usually more appropriate to review constitutional and other challenges to ballot propositions or initiative measures after an election rather than to disrupt the electoral process by preventing the exercise of the people’s franchise, in the absence of some clear showing of invalidity.”
According to Fink, Bixby's petition remains active, though the referendum will be placed on the March ballot.
Follow @hillelaron
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
Louisiana’s congressional map blocked, again April 30, 2024 -
