Tuesday, November 4, 2025
Page 1
Huntington Beach May Not Require Voters to Show ID at Polls, Court of Appeal Declares
Justices Say Statute Prevails Over City Charter Provision
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The City of Huntington Beach may not require those showing up at the polls to present identification, Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal held yesterday, invalidating a charter provision.
In a “By the Court” opinion, Acting Presiding Justice Joanne Motoike and Justice Thomas A. Delaney and Maurice Sanchez said the home-rule doctrine does not shield the city charter provision from the command of Elections Code §10005 which went into effect Jan. 1, It provides:
“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 or submitting a ballot at any polling place, vote center, or other location where ballots are cast or submitted, unless required by state or federal law. For the purpose of this section, ‘local government’ means any charter or general law city, charter or general law county, or any city and county.”
Huntington Beach, in Orange County, is a chartered city. The statute was enacted for the purpose of trumping the city charter provision, enacted by voters in 2024.
Writ Petition Denied
Orange Superior Court Judge Nick A. Dourbetas denied a writ of mandate sought by the state. Yesterday’s opinion orders that the Orange Superior Court issue a writ invalidating the charter provision and permanently enjoin its enforcement.
Under the home-rule doctrine, cities may control the conduct of municipal affairs, without the need to heed statutes—unless the statutes cover matters of statewide concern. Dourbetas found the exception does not apply; the Court of Appeal panel disagreed, saying:
“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. 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.”
Discriminatory Effect
They continued:
“[E]ach additional barrier to voting, even if facially neutral, has the well-documented effect of discouraging certain voters—voters who are fully qualified and authorized to vote—from participating in the political process. As amici for the state explained and the Legislature found, these effects have historically fallen disproportionately on low-income voters, voters of color, voters with disabilities, and seniors.”
The justices added:
“Elections Code section 10005 is reasonably related to the statewide issue it addresses: election integrity. It prevents the State’s political subdivisions from enacting or enforcing voter identification requirements beyond those required by state or federal law. In so doing, it preserves the State’s careful balance of competing interests, ensuring elections are secure from voter fraud while minimizing potentially discriminatory barriers to voting. The statute is also narrowly tailored, as it regulates only the narrow category of voter identification checks.”
The case is Bonta v. City of Huntington Beach, G065589.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company