California Sues Huntington Beach over New Voter ID Requirements
(Headline USA) California filed a lawsuit against the city of Huntington Beach this week over a new voter ID law that residents approved last month.
The new law, which passed with 53.4% of the vote from city residents in the March 5 election, requires voters to prove they are citizens and that they are 18 years or older by showing some form of government-issued identification. It also requires the city to monitor ballot drop boxes to crack down on potential voter fraud.
In a suit filed this week, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber claimed the city’s new requirements are unnecessary and violate state election law.
“State election law already contains robust voter ID requirements with strong protections to prevent voter fraud, while ensuring that every eligible voter can cast their ballot without hardship,” Bonta claimed in a letter to city officials, according to the Los Angeles Times.
“By requiring additional documentation to establish a voter’s identity and eligibility to vote at the time of voting—a higher standard of proof than set out in the Elections Code—Huntington Beach’s proposal conflicts with state law.”
Bonta specifically expressed concern about the law’s drop-box monitoring provision, arguing such supervision could “[dissuade] another person from voting.”
Huntington Beach defended its requirements in a statement, arguing the state constitution gives cities authority over the “conduct of city elections” and “the manner in which, the method by which, the times at which, and the terms for which the several municipal officers and employees whose compensation is paid by the city shall be elected or appointed.”
Bonta’s lawsuit, however, argued that while the state gives cities authority over municipal affairs, “state law is supreme with respect to matters of ‘statewide concern.’”
Huntington Beach officials also hit back at Bonta’s claim that the city’s voter ID requirements are redundant, pointing out the state shouldn’t have a problem with them if they are an extension of the state’s own policies.