ADVERTISEMENT
Measure A wasn’t just about ID cards; it also included provisions to monitor ballot drop boxes and add more in-person voting locations. For its backers, the addition of voter ID was a logical extension of making voting more secure. But from the outset, the measure was controversial for one simple reason: it flew in the face of California’s longstanding policy of minimal barriers to voting.
Critics viewed the requirement as an unnecessary hurdle — one that could disproportionately affect low-income residents, elderly voters, younger voters, communities of color, and people with disabilities — especially since voter ID typically isn’t required at the polls in California.
State Law vs. Local Control: The Legal Clash
Soon after Measure A passed, the California Attorney General’s Office, led by Rob Bonta, and the Secretary of State, Shirley N. Weber, filed a lawsuit seeking to block implementation of the measure. Their central argument? Local voter ID requirements conflict with California’s Elections Code and state law governing elections, which set the baseline rules that all jurisdictions must follow.
Under state law, cities cannot impose additional restrictions that may interfere with a voter’s ability to cast a ballot unless those restrictions are authorized by state or federal law. In other words: while cities have broad powers under “home-rule” charters for municipal affairs, they can’t contradict statewide protections around voting rights.
Proponents of statewide uniformity argued that voting accessibility and election administration are matters of statewide concern, not something that should vary city by city. The state further stepped in with legislation in late 2024 that explicitly prohibits cities from instituting voter ID mandates in any election, reinforcing the legal backdrop against which Measure A was challenged.
Continue reading…
Court Battles and Appeals
The legal battle unfolded over multiple levels of the California judicial system.
In April 2025, an Orange County Superior Court judge initially ruled that Measure A could stand, holding that Huntington Beach’s charter city status gave it authority over its own municipal elections. That county-level decision suggested the matter was not ripe for state intervention and that local election rules could coexist with state law — at least at that stage.
But the state wasn’t satisfied with that outcome and appealed to the California Fourth District Court of Appeal, which in November 2025 reversed the lower court’s decision. The appellate panel ruled that Huntington Beach’s voter ID requirement was preempted by state law and therefore unlawful. This panel emphasized that allowing the city to impose ID requirements would upset the balance carefully struck by the Legislature in crafting statewide election rules, especially around voter access and the right to vote.
Instead of seeking further review initially, both sides continued to wrestle over the specifics of state law and the clash with Measure A’s provisions. The appellate ruling was significant, but Huntington Beach’s supporters continued to argue that local voters should be allowed — under home-rule authority — to decide how their elections are managed, especially in municipal contexts.
California Supreme Court’s Final Decision
The ultimate question came before the California Supreme Court: should the high court reinstate the voter ID requirement passed by Huntington Beach voters, allowing it to take effect despite the appellate court’s ruling that it was unlawful?
In a decision that was closely watched by election officials and advocacy groups across the state, the California Supreme Court declined to hear the city’s appeal, effectively affirming the lower court’s invalidation of the voter ID law. With that refusal, Measure A’s voter ID provision cannot be implemented and remains struck down under California law.
State leaders welcomed the decision. Attorney General Bonta stated that the ruling makes clear that no city can place itself above state election laws, and Secretary of State Weber called the decision a victory for voters and democracy.
For Huntington Beach leaders and supporters of Measure A, the decision was a blow — a rebuke of local voter judgement and an affirmation of the power of the state to set election rules that take precedence over municipal autonomy.
Why This Case Matters
On its face, this is a story about a local election law and an appellate court decision — but the issues at stake have broad implications:
