The California Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to review a lower court ruling that struck down a voter identification law adopted by voters in Huntington Beach in March 2024, effectively invalidating the city’s effort to require photo ID for in-person voting and partial Social Security or driver’s license information for mail-in ballots.
The law, known locally as Measure A, had been approved by a majority of Huntington Beach voters and was scheduled to take effect in municipal elections beginning in 2026. Shortly after its passage, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber sued the city in April 2024, arguing the measure conflicted with state election law and could suppress voter participation, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
In November 2025, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal agreed with state officials, ruling that local voter ID requirements are preempted by state law and therefore unlawful. The appellate decision reversed an earlier Superior Court ruling that had sided with Huntington Beach.
Following the appellate ruling, the Supreme Court’s refusal to take up the case made the appellate decision final, barring enforcement of the city’s voter ID provisions.
Proponents of the measure have said voter ID requirements help strengthen confidence in elections, while opponents — including state officials and voting rights advocates — argue there is no evidence of widespread fraud and that additional requirements could discourage eligible voters from participating.
The dispute highlights ongoing tensions in California between local control of elections and state-level authority over election rules.
Supporters of voter ID in Huntington Beach and other conservative communities are also circulating a proposed statewide ballot initiative for the November 2026 election that would amend the state constitution to require voter identification for all elections.
Meanwhile, the Missouri Supreme Court is deciding what to do about the state’s demand for voter photo IDs, as well as new rules for registering to vote and applying for absentee ballots. Justices heard arguments in November on two different cases that question various elements of legislation about the 2022 elections.
According to NPR, one case was about the law’s requirement for photo IDs, while the other was about extra rules related to registering to vote and reaching out to absentee voters.
The lawyers representing the people who are suing over the photo ID requirement asked the court to throw out a lower court’s decision that upheld the requirement.
One of the main issues in the lawsuit is whether the plaintiffs have the right to sue.
Justice Mary Russell asked plaintiff’s lawyer Jason Orr to be clearer about whether the people involved could get government-issued photo IDs and vote.
Orr, who works for the ACLU of Missouri, said that the plaintiffs did vote, but the legal issue is that it was hard for them to get the IDs they needed.
Orr stated, “This court and other courts have said that the ability to vote is not the burden that courts look at. It’s the violation of the right to vote that can make it hard to do so.”
Lou Capozzi, the state’s Solicitor General, said that Missouri voters set the stage for the photo ID requirement when they passed a constitutional amendment that gave lawmakers the ability to adopt such legislation.
Capozzi added that even though groups like the NAACP believed the criterion was too hard, the amendment passed with 63% approval.
Capozzi said, “Those groups made all the same legal and policy arguments that this court has heard today, like that getting a government-issued photo ID is too hard. But the people didn’t agree with those reasons.”
The state SG also said that the plaintiffs don’t have the right to pursue the action.
Capozzi said, “Even though the appellants say that a lot of people won’t be able to vote under HB1878, they couldn’t show the trial court a single person who couldn’t vote because of the law.”