Huntington Beach City Council to ask Supreme Court to overturn voter ID ruling

HUNTINGTON BEACH, Calif. (KESQ) - Huntington Beach officials have voted to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review a state appellate court ruling that blocked the city's voter ID law, though a Chapman University law professor said today it has a negligible chance of succeeding.

The city council voted Tuesday night to petition the nation's high court after the California Supreme Court rejected the city's appeal. The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruling struck down Measure A, saying it conflicted with state law.

The charter amendment required voters to present identification before casting ballots in local elections.  

"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."  

Mayor Casey McKeon issued a statement arguing that 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."

McKeon added 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 disagreed with that interpretation of the ruling.   

"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,'' Kazemi said.   

"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. 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."  

Mckeon said 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."  

The state Attorney General's Office issued the following statement:   

"As we have said all along, the law is on our side. We are confident that Huntington Beach's effort will fail."   

The California Secretary of State's Office declined additional comment, reissuing a statement from Secretary of State Shirley Weber following the state Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case.

"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,'' Weber said in the statement last month. "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."