California Supreme Court Delivers Final Blow to Huntington Beach’s Voter ID Law 

In a decision that underscores the ongoing tension between local autonomy and state control in California, the California Supreme Court on Wednesday denied review of an appellate court ruling striking down Huntington Beach’s voter ID law. The high court’s action leaves intact the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s November 2025 decision, which declared Measure A—passed by Huntington Beach voters in March 2024—unlawful and preempted by state election law.

Measure A, approved with 53.4 percent of the vote, amended the city’s charter to require voters in municipal elections to present identification at the polls starting in 2026. It also included provisions for expanding in-person polling locations and increasing monitoring of ballot drop boxes. Supporters argued the measure was a common-sense step to safeguard election integrity in a charter city with home-rule authority.

Yet the state, led by Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber, swiftly challenged the law. In April 2024, they filed suit claiming it violated California’s Elections Code and risked disenfranchising voters, particularly minorities, the elderly, and young people who might lack easy access to ID. A state law signed in December 2024 further prohibited cities from imposing voter ID requirements in any election.

As reported by The Globe:

Following passage of Measure A by Huntington Beach voters, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill 1174 by then-Senator Dave Min (D-Orange County), and Governor Newsom signed it into law. Sen. Min claimed that “An overwhelming body of evidence proves that voter ID laws only subvert voter turnout and create barriers to law abiding voters.”

SB 1174 “prohibits a local government from enacting or enforcing any local requirement that a person must present identification when voting or submitting a ballot at a polling location.”

In 2024, Bonta defended his position in a statement: “Under both existing law and Senate Bill 1174, all local governments — including charter cities like Huntington Beach — are prohibited from disenfranchising voters at the polls by implementing voter ID requirements.”

The legal battle saw ups and downs. In April 2025, Orange County Superior Court Judge Nico Dourbetas sided with Huntington Beach, ruling that the voter ID mandate did not compromise municipal election integrity and that the city retained authority over its local processes. The decision was hailed as a rebuke to state overreach.

However, the tide turned in November 2025 when a three-judge panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the lower court. The appellate ruling held that voter identification pertains to the “integrity of the electoral process,” a matter of statewide concern under precedents like Johnson v. Bradley (1992). As such, state law preempted the local charter provision.

The California Supreme Court’s denial of review on January 28, 2026, effectively ends the litigation in the state’s favor. No evidence was presented showing widespread voter fraud in Huntington Beach or any compromised municipal election outcomes, yet the court allowed the state preemption to stand.

Attorney General Bonta celebrated the outcome: “Today the California Supreme Court declined to review the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision prohibiting the City of Huntington Beach from implementing illegal voter identification requirements. All along, Secretary of State Weber and I have maintained that Huntington Beach’s voter ID policy is illegal, and now, the state’s highest court has weighed in and agreed with us. No city in our state, charter or non-charter alike, is above the law. Disenfranchising voters for imagined fraud will not be tolerated.”

Secretary Weber echoed the sentiment, emphasizing that the ruling protects access to the ballot box without unnecessary barriers.

The California Globe has closely followed this saga, highlighting the broader implications for local control versus Sacramento’s Democrat party dominance.

Huntington Beach leaders have long maintained that charter cities have broad authority to regulate municipal elections, housing development, and law enforcement. Huntington Beach’s recent clashes with the state include losses over sanctuary law challenges and housing mandates.

Huntington Beach officials, including City Attorney Michael Gates—who has announced a GOP bid for state Attorney General—have yet to issue a formal statement on the Supreme Court’s denial.

The ruling may fuel ongoing efforts for statewide reform.

In July 2025, GOP State lawmakers, Assemblyman Carl DeMaio and Senator Tony Strickland, launched a ballot initiative for 2026 requiring voter ID and proof of citizenship, aiming to make California the 37th state with such protections. Earlier this month, DeMaio announced that his organization, Reform California, had surpassed collecting the one million signatures needed to qualify for the initiative’s placement on the November ballot.

The California Voter ID Initiative, filed in response to Prop. 50 which eliminated the nonpartisan redistricting commission and racially gerrymandered the state, is a state constitutional amendment that requires Voter ID for casting a ballot in each election and holds state election officials accountable to verify the citizenship of registered voters and keep accurate voter rolls.

“Implementing a Voter ID requirement is critical in securing our elections – and this initiative reinstates trust in our democracy and ensures every legal vote is counted,” said Senator Tony Strickland.

A poll conducted by Gallup in October 2024 found that 84 percent of Americans favor requiring all voters to provide photo identification at their polling place in order to vote. The poll also found that 83 percent of Americans favor requiring people who are registering to vote for the first time to provide proof of citizenship.

As California continues centralizing election rules, Huntington Beach’s defeat serves as a stark reminder: even voter-approved local measures can fall when they conflict with Sacramento’s vision of “access” over security. The fight for election integrity persists, likely shifting to the ballot box rather than the courts.