California legislature passes bill banning voter ID laws
State Assemblymember Bill Essayli, R-Corona, introduced a failed amendment to the bill, SB 1174, that would have explicitly banned undocumented immigrants from voting.
(The Center Square) - The California legislature passed a bill banning local governments from adopting voter identification laws for local elections. California does not require identification to vote, but earlier this year, the City of Huntington Beach approved a voter ID requirement for municipal elections starting in 2026. This bill would override Huntington Beach’s policy.
“An overwhelming body of evidence proves that voter ID laws only subvert voter turnout and create barriers to law abiding voters,” wrote bill author State Sen. Dave Min, D-Irvine. “To register to vote in California, voters are already required to provide their driver's license number, California identification number, or the last four digits of their social security number.”
State Assemblymember Bill Essayli, R-Corona, introduced a failed amendment to the bill, SB 1174, that would have explicitly banned undocumented immigrants from voting.
Undocumented immigrants are able to secure California identification numbers, and noncitizens are allowed to vote in local school board elections in San Francisco. Huntington Beach’s neighboring City of Santa Ana is considering following San Francisco’s lead; a November ballot measure would allow noncitizens to vote in all, not just school board, municipal elections in the city.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued Huntington Beach for its ordinance, claiming it violates state and federal law because most elections involve voting for municipal, state, and federal office at the same time. Bonta also argued the ordinance’s requirement that ballot drop boxes be monitored by video could dissuade voting.
Huntington Beach argues that the fact legislators introduced SB 1174 suggests that was, in fact, permissible for its voters to approve such an ordinance. As a charter city with greater rights under the state constitution, the city is likely to pursue legal options to defend its ordinance against the law, if it is signed by the governor.