California’s attempt to block local voter ID measure fails as Huntington Beach defends voter integrity.

A California judge has dismissed the state’s lawsuit against Huntington Beach, allowing the city’s voter ID measure to stand in a significant victory for local governance and election integrity. The ruling, issued Friday by Orange County Superior Court Judge Nico Dourbetas, found no conflict between the measure and existing state law. This paves the way for the Republican-leaning city to implement one of the state’s few voter ID requirements for local elections.

City Attorney Michael Gates, a staunch defender of the measure, celebrated the decision. “It’s a massive black eye to the state of California,” Gates remarked. “What the state of California needs to know, if they haven’t found out already, is Huntington Beach is not going to be intimidated or deterred.”

The measure, approved by Huntington Beach voters in March, permits city officials to require identification at the polls starting in 2026. It also includes provisions to expand in-person voting locations and bolster oversight of ballot drop boxes. Critics, including Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta, have argued that the policy is a barrier to voting, particularly for vulnerable groups.

Bonta’s office issued a statement downplaying the ruling, claiming it “does not address the merits of the case” and reaffirming the state’s commitment to challenging the policy. “We continue to believe that Huntington Beach’s voter ID policy clearly conflicts with state law, and will respond appropriately in court,” the statement read.

In response to the measure, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a law in September banning local voter ID policies. However, that law won’t take effect until next year, leaving Huntington Beach’s voter-approved initiative unimpeded for now. Gates contends that the state constitution grants cities like Huntington Beach the authority to enact such measures, stating his commitment to upholding the will of the voters.

The city’s charter status has historically enabled it to push back against state mandates. Known for its conservative leadership, the Huntington Beach City Council has frequently clashed with Sacramento over policies ranging from housing to immigration. The council’s majority-Republican members have consistently prioritized local control, with the voter ID measure being their latest endeavor.

Despite Huntington Beach’s majority GOP voter base, the state’s lawsuit argued that requiring ID could disenfranchise low-income and minority voters. However, supporters of the measure view it as a safeguard against potential election irregularities, highlighting the importance of voter confidence in local elections.

As the state considers its next steps, questions remain about how the measure will be implemented. Huntington Beach could choose to run local elections independently or continue to rely on the county registrar, who has yet to comment on the ruling.

For now, Huntington Beach stands firm in its fight to maintain voter integrity, solidifying its reputation as a city willing to challenge California’s political establishment.

Federal appeals court rules against Huntington Beach’s effort to bypass housing requirements.

A federal appeals court delivered a blow to Huntington Beach’s legal bid to sidestep state housing mandates, affirming the dismissal of the city’s lawsuit against California’s housing law requirements. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision, handed down Wednesday, upholds a previous court ruling rejecting the city’s challenge, adding another setback to its long-running housing policy dispute with the state.

The March 2023 lawsuit was Huntington Beach’s response after the state filed a separate legal action in state court, demanding the city comply with California’s zoning laws to facilitate new housing construction. A district court dismissed Huntington Beach’s federal case last year, ruling that the city lacked the standing to assert constitutional claims against the state’s housing mandates. This week’s appellate ruling unanimously reaffirmed that decision, stating the case had no grounds for federal review.

California Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, who have frequently condemned Huntington Beach’s opposition to state housing mandates, welcomed the appellate court’s ruling.

“Today, yet another court has slapped down Huntington Beach’s cynical attempt to prevent the state from enforcing our housing laws,” Newsom said in a statement. “Huntington Beach officials’ continued efforts to advance plainly unlawful NIMBY policies are failing their own citizens — by wasting time and taxpayer dollars that could be used to create much-needed housing. No more excuses — every city must follow state law and do its part to build more housing.”

Echoing this sentiment, Bonta remarked, “While the city has been wasting the public’s time and money pursuing this meritless lawsuit, its neighboring communities — along with every Californian struggling to keep a roof over their heads or wondering where they’re going to sleep tonight — need Huntington Beach to step up and adopt a housing plan without further delay.”

To date, Huntington Beach’s City Council has refused to implement zoning changes that would permit the construction of over 13,000 new homes in the coastal city, arguing its charter city status exempts it from state-mandated housing laws. The appellate court, however, dismissed this argument, stating that California cities, whether chartered or not, remain subject to state law as subordinate political bodies.

Additionally, the judges rejected Huntington Beach’s attempt to invoke free speech rights on behalf of Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark and Councilmember Tony Strickland, who had argued that their rights protected them from being required to sign housing mandate documents.

Despite the unfavorable ruling, Huntington Beach City Attorney Michael Gates expressed the city’s determination to continue its legal battle. Gates said the city intends to seek a hearing with a larger panel of judges and, if necessary, will petition the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case.

“We have to keep fighting,” Gates said. “At some point, the tide is going to turn … and we are going to start to get more favorable rulings.”

Gates characterized the state’s authority over city council housing votes as “fundamentally un-American and unconstitutional.”

At a local forum, City Council candidates debated solutions for Huntington Beach’s business landscape, from rental costs to crime and community events.

In a critical forum ahead of the upcoming election, candidates for three seats on the Huntington Beach City Council and one city clerk position shared their strategies to strengthen the local economy. The event, hosted Thursday by the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce, drew about 50 attendees to the Senior Center. Moderated by Chamber board member Sheik Sattaur, the two-hour discussion featured eight council hopefuls who addressed key economic concerns facing Huntington Beach businesses.

Candidates at the forum included incumbents Rhonda Bolton, Dan Kalmick, and Natalie Moser, along with challengers Amory Hanson, Marissa Jackson, Don Kennedy, Butch Twining, and Chad Williams. With seats on the council awarded to the top three vote-getters rather than by district, candidates presented distinct visions on how to address the economic and social hurdles impacting businesses.

Bolton, Kalmick, and Moser, who identify with the council’s liberal-leaning bloc, defended their seats against conservative candidates including Jackson, who campaigns for religious and family-oriented policies, and Twining, Kennedy, and Williams, who advocate for a unified, business-friendly council aligned with Huntington Beach’s existing conservative majority.

Candidates identified rising rents as a major obstacle for local businesses, with Bolton, Jackson, and Hanson highlighting this as a leading factor driving companies out of Huntington Beach. High housing costs were also flagged by Bolton, Kalmick, and Moser as a barrier for talent retention, limiting companies’ ability to attract skilled workers.

Public safety emerged as another priority. Jackson, Kennedy, Twining, and Williams linked homelessness with public disturbances, stressing the need for policies to address homelessness, especially around popular tourist areas. Moser, in turn, raised the issue of significant vacancies in the city’s police department, which has struggled to fill 27 positions. She pointed to the broader shortage across city roles, attributing it to “chaos” within local government.

“I think one of the biggest challenges is going to be what the city can control,” Moser stated, “which is a lack of stability in the whole [city] government, lack of functional government [and] the chaos that’s been created here with recent culture wars. We’ve lost our workforce in City Hall.”

Throughout the forum, conservative candidates Twining, Kennedy, and Williams labeled their liberal counterparts as the “Newsom Threesome,” referring to California’s Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, and argued that replacing the incumbents would foster council unity. Williams criticized incumbents over the 2021 closure of Ruby’s Diner, previously located on the Huntington Beach Pier, citing the restaurant’s exit as a failure of local leadership.

In discussing broader economic support, candidates shared common ground on expanding events outside the popular downtown beachfront, proposing that other city venues like the sports complex and golf courses could host festivals, athletic competitions, and other attractions to diversify revenue streams for local businesses.