A resident is suing to get a proposal to require voter identification in Huntington Beach removed from the March primary ballot, arguing that would be unconstitutional and questioning if the city followed proper election procedures.
The lawsuit, filed on Wednesday, Nov. 22, makes real the previous legal warnings of top state officials and civil rights nonprofits that have also argued against the proposed requirements.
A City Council majority in October approved placing ballot measures before voters that include asking if they want to implement voter ID and local monitoring of ballot drop boxes and update local flag laws.
“Democracy works best the more that people vote,” said Mark Bixby, who is bringing lawsuit. “California has been a leader in making it easy to vote. All of that is really great stuff. The City Council, however, wants to roll back that progress. They want to erect barriers to discourage people from voting.”
The scheduling of the public vote over the charter amendments had already galvanized a coalition of former mayors and residents to launch a campaign against them.
Bixby, who previously sued the city over its settlement with the annual air show operator, said the City Council has ignored residents’ opposition to the voter ID proposal and there’s no basis for it.
A copy of the complaint was provided to the newspaper.
City Attorney Michael Gates said since Huntington Beach is a charter city, it can “take these measures to ensure election integrity and build confidence among the voters in the election system” and that legal challenges are usually dealt with by courts after the laws are implemented.
“The plaintiff has complained in the past about Huntington Beach being litigious yet he has filed two lawsuits against the City just in the past few months, further draining valuable taxpayer resources,” Gates said in a statement. “We will see them in court.”
The lawsuit asks a judge to remove the charter amendment measures from ballots for the March 5 primary election. It argues that having a voter ID law would violate the state constitution and would “discriminate against minorities, senior citizens and voters with disabilities.”
Bixby’s lawsuit also asserts that the city was late in posting the charter amendment language for public review. “For unknown reasons, the city posted a ‘corrected’ version of the City Council resolution, stating that there had been a ‘clerical error.’ The city’s action creates a serious doubt about whether the City Council even properly adopted the election resolution.”
“We don’t want to see it go to a vote because we believe it is illegal,” Bixby said. He is the publisher of the Surf City Sentinel Facebook page.
The lawsuit doesn’t challenge a third charter amendment the council placed on the March ballot, which deals with moving the city to a two-year budget cycle and how the City Council appoints interim councilmembers.
This story has been updated to include a statement from City Attorney Michael Gates.
