The Huntington Beach City Council voted Tuesday to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review a state appeals court ruling that blocked the city’s voter ID law.
The council’s unanimous vote calls for a petition to the nation’s highest court after the California Supreme Court rejected the city’s appeal. The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruling struck down Huntington Beach’s Measure A, saying it was contrary to state law.
The council-approved charter amendment required voters to present identification before participating in local elections.
In a statement Wednesday, Mayor Casey McKeon said the appellate court ruling “held in part that the city’s voter-approved Voter ID charter amendment violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.”
A Chapman University law professor said Wednesday the city’s Supreme Court bid has a very slim chance of succeeding.
“Bringing a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court is an expensive and difficult process,” Chapman law school professor Nahal Kazemi told City News Service.
“The vast majority of litigants who want the Supreme Court to hear their case is denied. The court only hears a tiny fraction of the cases that could potentially be before it and typically only if there’s an important federal or constitutional question that needs to be answered. I don’t see this case presenting that kind of question.”
McKeon noted that the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 “upheld an Indiana Voter ID requirement against facial challenge, determining that Voter ID requirements do not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The court determined that Voter ID alone does not present a valid equal protection claim.”
Kazemi, however, countered that “Huntington Beach is seeking to have the U.S. Supreme Court review this case because they identified a question the city of Huntington Beach has about whether voter ID laws violate the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, but that’s really not at the heart of what the California Appeals Court decided.
“They decided that local elections and state elections are regulated at the state level and the California Supreme Court let the appellate decision stand so there is no real federal question to be answered here,” Kazemi said. “The U.S. Supreme Court denies cert in the vast majority of cases. I don’t see a reason why they would grant cert here.”
According to McKeon, “Polls show that over 80% of the country supports the common-sense idea of requiring Voter ID to vote in elections. Identification is required to participate in most adult endeavors in this country. Therefore, voter ID should be required for the fundamental, time-honored sacred basis of a free society — elections.”
California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, who oversees elections statewide, said in a statement last month, “Attorney General (Rob) 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 Appeals ruling. This is another victory for California, for voters, and for democracy.”
