CA cities can let noncitizens vote, but no voter ID: Court

Audio By Carbonatix

Even though California courts have said California law allows cities like San Francisco to let noncitizens vote in local elections, a California state appeals court says Huntington Beach can't require voters to show ID to vote in that city's elections, because state lawmakers determined requiring voter ID harms the integrity of elections.

On Nov. 3, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal sided with California Attorney General Rob Bonta in his office's legal action seeking to block Huntington Beach from implementing its municipal voter identification ordinance.

"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 Fourth District justices wrote. "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."

The decision was unsigned. However, the decision notes the matter was before a panel including justices Joanne Motoike, Maurice Sanchez and Thomas Delaney.

The ruling reverses a 2024 decision from Orange County Superior Court Judge Nick Dourbetas, who had determined the city's local voter ID rules did not conflict with state law.

The city of Huntington Beach and Bonta's office had landed in court against each other when Bonta and California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, both Democrats, filed suit against the city to enforce a state law that Democratic lawmakers admitted was enacted specifically to bar Huntington Beach's local voter ID mandates to take effect.

The voter ID rules were enacted by Huntington Beach voters when they passed a referendum known as Measure 1 in March 2024.

The measure was enacted despite opposition from left-wing groups, including the ACLU of Southern California, who had argued the voter ID requirements would suppress the vote by making it more difficult for certain voters to cast ballots.

After the measure took effect, and after Bonta and Weber filed suit, Democratic state lawmakers responded by enacting a new law, generally known as SB 1174, specifically prohibiting local governments from using their charter powers under the state constitution to require voters to show ID to vote.

The Democratic lawmakers and Bonta asserted SB 1174 could still be applied after the fact, because the law only "reinforces" state law seeking to allegedly protect the right to vote and ensure eligible voters encounter no barriers when voting.

In response, Huntington Beach argued its constitutional charter powers gave its majority-Republican voters the authority to enact the rules. And, the city argued, other California cities, run by Democrats, had enacted other rules specifically to make it easier for otherwise-ineligible voters, including noncitizens, to cast ballots in local elections.

On appeal, the Fourth District justices said the case turned on the question of whether the Huntington Beach ordinance was "a matter of 'integrity of the electoral process,' which (the California Supreme Court) has held is a matter of statewide concern, whether presented in statewide or local elections?"

The appeals court said it believed the local rules would trespass on the state's goal of making sure as many people vote in elections as possible. By requiring voters to show IDs, the appeals court said, the city would make it more difficult for some people to vote.

And that, the court said, meant local voter IDs would harm the ability of California voters to know that the outcome of the election was correct, because certain people might be blocked from voting, thus harming the "integrity" of elections in at least one community in the state, and triggering conflict with California state law.

Addressing concerns over how their new decision comports with previous California state court rulings allowing cities to “expand the franchise” to allow noncitizens to vote, the justices said California state law and the state constitution should be read to always allow cities and jurisdictions to remove barriers to vote and “expand the franchise,” but never to allow cities and local jurisdictions to enact rules or regulations that might “narrow” the electorate.

Huntington Beach has been represented in the case by city attorney Michael J. Vigliotta; attorneys John W. Howard, Scott Street, Michelle Volk, Peter Shelling, and Mitchell Stein, of JW Howard/Attorneys, of San Diego; and James K. Rogers, Nicholas Barry, and Ryan Gianetti, of America First Legal Foundation, of Washington, D.C.