Attorney General Bonta and Secretary of State Weber Urge Appellate Court to Resolve Huntington Beach Voter ID Lawsuit on the Merits

Court filing underscores that this is an urgent elections matter 

SACRAMENTO — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber, Ph.D. today announced filing a petition for writ of mandate with the California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three in Santa Ana concerning Huntington Beach’s voter identification (voter ID) law, Measure A. Without citing any evidence that fraudulent voting occurs with any regularity in the city or has ever compromised the outcome of a municipal election, Measure A amended the city’s charter to purportedly allow the city to impose voter ID requirements at the polls for all municipal elections starting in 2026. On November 15, 2024, the Orange County Superior Court concluded that the state’s lawsuit against Huntington Beach over Measure A was “not ripe for adjudication” because the measure “is permissive and discretionary in character, and thus currently presents no conflict with state elections law.” Attorney General Bonta and Secretary of State Weber appealed on January 14, 2025. The petition for writ of mandate asks the appellate court to resolve the whole case on the merits, rather than wait to resolve the state’s pending appeal on the narrower question of ripeness. 

“Secretary Weber and I continue to believe that Huntington Beach’s Measure A is unlawful. Today, we are asking the appellate court to hear our case on the merits now, instead of waiting. With preparations for the 2026 elections beginning late this year, time is of the essence,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “The right to vote is sacred, and we will not allow Huntington Beach to disenfranchise Californians at the polls. As we have said repeatedly, our elections are already secure, and applicants who register to vote in California are already required to verify their identity during the registration process.” 

“As California's chief elections officer, I stand with Attorney General Bonta in challenging local government actions that violate state law and diminish the right to vote,” said Secretary of State Shirley Weber. “I will continue to advocate for an inclusive democracy and the voices of voters. The writ of mandate filed today seeks to ensure a prompt resolution of Huntington Beach’s unlawful charter amendment."

In the petition, Attorney General Bonta and Secretary of State Weber explain that the appellate court should grant the petition for the following reasons: 

• The state lacks an adequate, speedy remedy at law. The City of Huntington Beach apparently intends to adopt and enforce voter identification rules after elections officials begin planning for the 2026 elections and mere months before they are held. There is no other way for the courts to resolve this case quickly enough to prevent elections officials and the city’s voters from suffering harm. 
• The issue presented is one of great statewide, public importance, with significant implications for the successful administration of upcoming elections, the protection of the right to vote, and the constitutional separation of powers between charter cities and the state.  
• This case presents a matter of first impression under the California Constitution and a new state law prohibiting local voter identification rules.
• Resolving this case now serves judicial economy by avoiding numerous appeals raising the same issue. 

Filed on April 15, 2024, the lawsuit by Attorney General Bonta and Secretary of State Weber alleges that Measure A is preempted by state law and invalid. Under the California Constitution, charter cities have the right to govern “municipal affairs,” but local law cannot conflict with state law governing a “statewide concern.” Both the integrity of California’s elections and the protection of the constitutional right to vote are matters of statewide concern. The lawsuit further argues that California already maintains a uniform and robust legal scheme for safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process and protecting the rights of eligible voters.

A copy of the petition can be found here. If the appellate court does not grant the petition, the court may still resolve the state’s appeal on ripeness grounds.