Has an effort to require Shasta County voters to provide identification to vote been dealt legal setback?
The California Supreme Court on Wednesday, Jan. 28, rejected Huntington Beach’s voter ID law.
Shasta County voters in June will go to the polls to vote on a measure that would require voter ID. The measure also would require elections to take place on one day with limited absentee voting and hand-counting ballots at precincts.
Even before Shasta County supervisors approved putting the controversial measure on the ballot, the county’s legal team raised concerns about the measure because it conflicts with state and federal election laws, including the California Constitution and the National Voter Registration Act.
After supervisors approved the ballot measure in early November, the California Secretary of State’s office told the Record Searchlight that the initiative requiring voter ID will likely “suffer the same fate as others have.”
Meanwhile, the state Supreme Court denied to hear the city of Huntington Beach’s appeal to a lower court’s that its measure requiring voter ID violates state law.
On Nov. 3, the California Fourth Appellate District Court struck down the city’s requirement to show voter ID.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber both issued statements following the state Supreme Court’s Jan. 28 decision, calling it a victory for California.
“Today’s victory makes one thing crystal clear: No city in our state, charter and non-charter alike, is above the law. 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. Measure A won’t be taking effect — ever,” Bonta said.
“Attorney General Bonta and I have held steadfast that state law preempts the City’s attempts to impose illegal voting requirements on eligible voters and that Huntington Beach’s Measure A is unlawful. I am grateful the California Supreme Court did not disturb the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruling. This is another victory for California, for voters, and for democracy,” Weber said.
Shasta County Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis remains unfazed about putting the measure on the ballot.
“The job of the elections department is to follow the correct procedures for putting measures on the ballot and allowing a fully transparent and observable process where the public decides to approve or disapprove,” Curtis said in part in an email to the Record Searchlight. “No measure is ever put on the ballot that is already the law of the land. The purpose of measures are to change existing law, not to provide for a useless vote on something that is already legal.”
Curtis said he expects the Huntington Beach ruling to be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
But Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor, said it’s unlikely the case will be taken up by the country’s highest court “as it involves only a state law issue, and not a federal one: whether state law preempts local attempts to impose voter id laws. The appeals court said yes, and the California Supreme Court denied review.”
Hasen said if another local voter ID measure is on the ballot and it passes, there’s the chance it could be challenged.
“The Huntington Beach case does not automatically render another initiative void, but it is precedent that could be used to argue that the measure violates California law,” Hasen said.
David Benda covers business, development and anything else that comes up for the USA TODAY Network in Redding. He also writes the weekly “Buzz on the Street” column. He’s part of a team of dedicated reporters that investigate wrongdoing, cover breaking news and tell other North State stories. To support and sustain this work, please subscribe today.
This article originally appeared on Redding Record Searchlight: This city’s voter ID law struck down. What’s it mean for Shasta?
Reporting by David Benda, Redding Record Searchlight / Redding Record Searchlight
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
