The Brief

Huntington Beach voters will soon decide whether they want to require people to show ID to vote in city elections.

The ID requirement is the heart of Measure A — also known as Charter Amendment Measure No. 1 — is one of three measures on the city's March 5 ballot. Measure A also asks voters if they want the city to monitor ballot drop boxes and add more in-person polling locations.

The measure is one of the first big tests of residents' feelings about the city's sharp turn to the right under the leadership of an ultra-conservative city council majority, elected in 2022.

Supporters say Measure A would restore voters' trust in the election process and ensure that only registered voters are casting ballots.

The proposal has set off alarm bells among voting rights advocates and state leaders, who point to evidence that voter ID requirements disproportionately impact low-income people and non-white voters. They say the state and county already have robust measures in place to ensure voters are who they say they are.

Local opponents also worry the ID requirement could come at a high price to taxpayers, for example, if the city has to defend it in court.

Huntington Beach Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark and her three conservative colleagues on the city council crafted the measure and voted in October to put it on the ballot. Van Der Mark, who is Latina and says she came from a low-income, minority community, told LAist she's offended by opponents' insinuation that requiring voter ID is "racist."

"To me, it was insulting for them to say that just because we were poor, or maybe had a little more melanin, we weren't capable of getting IDs," she said.

What the ballot measure actually says

If voters approve Measure A, it would change the city's charter (like a Constitution for cities) to read that the city "may verify the eligibility of Electors by voter identification" in municipal elections starting in 2026.

Huntington Beach Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark said her goal is to restore residents' confidence in the election system.

(

Lauren Justice

/

CalMatters

)

The city council changed the language from "shall verify" to "may verify" while finalizing the measure for the ballot. Van Der Mark told LAist if the measure passes, the city council would then have additional discussions about how to implement it.

The ballot measure does not specify what type of ID the city might require voters to show. It also doesn't specify whether ID would be required only at polling places or also with mail-in ballots. (Van Der Mark told LAist the intention is that it would apply only to voting in person).

Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School, said the vague language raises questions about who might be affected by the measure, if it passes, and how vulnerable it might be to legal challenges.

"If you require a single card, like a driver's license, that's a lot more restrictive than if you require some other form of proof that you are who you say you are," Levitt said. "And I don't think this proposed charter amendment gives the voters any real sense of whether the city council is inclined to be permissive or restrictive or none of the above."

How does California verify voters?

California puts the bulk of its voter identification efforts on the registration process, Levitt explained. When registering to vote, you are asked to provide your driver's license number, state identification number, or the last four digits of your Social Security number.

You also have to sign an affidavit. Lying on a voter registration affidavit is punishable by up to three years in prison.

If, when registering to vote, you do not provide your driver's license number, state ID or social security number, you must provide additional identification in order to vote for the first time at a polling place or by mail.

The potential types of identification you can show is extensive (here's the list) and includes a photo ID issued by the military, a school, health club, insurance plan or public housing development; or an up-to-date document that includes your name and address, such as a utility bill, bank statement or government paycheck.

Elections officials — in Orange County, this is the O.C. Registrar of Voters — are also required to verify that the signatures on vote-by-mail ballots and provisional ballots match those in voter registration records.

All of these measures put together are California's way — in conjunction with federal voting law — of "trying to strike a balance between having a secure election and an accessible election," said Caltech political science professor Michael Alvarez.

Is a Voter ID requirement legal?

Measure A faced legal threats even before ballots were mailed out.

California's attorney general and the state's top election official warned Huntington Beach that requiring voter ID would violate state law. In a joint letter to Huntington Beach officials in September, before the city council's vote, Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Attorney General Rob Bonta wrote that by requiring "a higher standard of proof than set out in the Elections Code," the proposal would likely violate the state's prohibition against "mass, indiscriminate, and groundless challenging of voters."

They said if the measure is implemented, "we stand ready to take appropriate action to ensure that voters’ rights are protected, and state election laws are enforced."

In a Sept. 28 city council meeting, Huntington Beach City Attorney Michael Gates called the legal arguments in the letter "specious." He noted that state law grants charter cities like Huntington Beach authority over the conduct of city elections.

Then, in November, a Huntington Beach resident challenged the measure in court, seeking to keep it off the ballot. They argued that requiring voter ID violates state election law and Californians' right to vote.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Nico Dourbetas ruled that voters should be allowed to weigh in on the measure first. If voters approve it and the city begins implementation, then it may be appropriate for the court to weigh in on whether it violates the Constitution, Dourbetas ruled.

How much would Measure A cost?

Former Huntington Beach Mayor Connie Boardman, who's campaigning against Measure A, worries about the unknown cost to taxpayers of implementing a voter ID requirement — and likely getting sued over it.

"What's going to be cut to pay for this?" she said in an interview with LAist. "The council has put something on the ballot they want the voters to approve, but they can't tell us how much it's going to cost," Boardman said.

Still, some estimates have been put forth.

Putting the initiative on the Mar. 5, 2024 primary ballot is costing the city $327,428 to $391,628, according to an initial estimate that O.C. Registrar Bob Page shared with LAist.

The cost to taxpayers could skyrocket from there, especially if the registrar's office can't or won't continue to run elections for Huntington Beach, as it currently does. It's generally much cheaper to do this than for a city to hold its own election.

Page told LAist he can't comment on the matter because he is conducting the current election.

Gates, the city attorney, wrote in his analysis of Measure A for voters that it would lead to an "undetermined" increase in costs to the city.

But last year city staff made initial calculations of at least some of the costs.

They estimated it would cost at least $69,000 to train and deploy poll workers to check voter IDs.

If the city has to run its own elections rather than continue to rely on the Orange County Registrar of Voters, staff estimated it would cost an additional $1.35 million to $1.69 million for the city to hold its first stand-alone election in 2026.

That includes $664,000 to $858,000 for initial startup costs, including purchasing equipment, and $689,000 to $832,000 in recurring costs per election, according to the staff report.

In comparison, the city paid the registrar's office $303,656 in 2022 to put local races (four city council seats, the city attorney, and three city measures) on the November general election ballot.

Huntington Beach's annual budget is approximately $500 million.

Why Voter ID is so controversial

In a news release that accompanied the warning letter to Huntington Beach officials, the Secretary of State noted that voter ID requirements have historically been used to disenfranchise eligible voters, especially low-income people and people of color.

Alvarez, the Caltech professor, said unequal treatment of voters can show up in more subtle ways when voter ID is required at polling places. For example, he said, when polling places are run by neighborhood volunteers, a poll worker may not bother to ask for ID from someone they know, but require it of someone they don't recognize.

"In many cases, that stranger may be a person from a marginalized community, maybe somebody who they're not familiar with," Alvarez said. "That's an easy way where these kinds of policies can be applied in an unequal manner."

He said requiring voter ID at the polls can also snarl the voting process in other ways, "ranging from disturbances that arise when people don't want to show their ID or get turned away to, again, the possible discriminatory use of these requirements, to people forgetting and just not having the government-issued ID when they show up to vote."

Documented instances of voter fraud are extremely rare in California, according to both Alvarez and Levitt, the law professor.

A Heritage Foundation database of voter fraud turns up just 17 cases in California since 2020. Fifteen of the cases resulted in criminal convictions. One election, the 2021 city council run-off election in Compton, was overturned because of fraud. (The organization’s website notes that the fraud database is not an exhaustive list but rather “is intended to demonstrate the vulnerabilities in the election system and the many ways in which fraud is committed.“)

"What problem are they trying to solve?" Alvarez asked.

Where did this all begin?

The voter ID proposal is one of many actions that have rankled state officials and local opponents since an uber-conservative majority took control of Huntington Beach's city council in 2022.

The council has also sued the state over housing laws, banned the Pride flag from city flagpoles, restricted minors' access to books about puberty and sexuality and, most recently, passed a resolution supporting Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in his fight with the Biden administration over border policy.

The three-member Democrat minority bloc on the city council has opposed all of these actions, but has been unable to stop them.

Last year, an ad hoc committee made up of Van Der Mark and fellow council members Pat Burns and Tony Strickland proposed the voter ID requirement, among other changes to the city's charter.

In a phone interview, Van Der Mark noted that other states require voter ID at the polls. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 37 states have laws requesting or requiring voters to show ID before voting in person.

"It's not a novel concept," Van Der Mark said. "Other states are already doing it. We're just asking to do it as a city."

She told LAist her impetus for supporting the voter ID rule is to restore residents' confidence in the election system.

"A lot of people are not voting because they say, 'My vote doesn't count. I keep voting and we just keep losing.' If asking for ID will restore the faith in our elections to where people are going to get out and vote, then we should do it," she said.

Further reading

• LAist's Orange County Voter Game Plan Guide: Huntington Beach Ballot Measures
• Huntington Beach election page — official ballot statement, impartial analysis, arguments for and against
• Protect HB, a group opposed to the ballot measures
• Huntington Beach’s New Conservative Council Bans Pride Flag On City Property (LAist)
• The Pride Flag Is Gone. Library Books Are Under Review. It’s A New Era Of Backlash Politics In California (CalMatters/LAist)

Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman promised at a Tuesday night town hall that MacArthur Park will see “amazing progress” in public safety before the 2028 Olympic Games.

Several community members told LAist they have seen crime return to the Los Angeles park after months of joint drug enforcement operations by the Los Angeles Police Department and federal agencies. Those efforts led to dozens of arrests for alleged drug sales in the area.

An LAPD captain attending the town hall confirmed to LAist that the department is aware of renewed safety problems.

Hochman acknowledged those concerns and said the recent operations made progress and created an opportunity for lasting change.

“If we keep this focus and the energy on this area, MacArthur Park, Skid Row and everything in between,” Hochman said, “then we will see amazing progress before the Olympics, and that is actually a promise.”

Hochman previously promised, during a drug enforcement operation on June 4, to have a picnic at the park on Labor Day. Hochman told attendees he kept that promise when he held an event at the park on Sept. 5 with other local and federal law enforcement officials.

As district attorney, Hochman works with law enforcement agencies to prosecute criminal cases in L.A. County. He said that it will take more work from policymakers and community members to remove the open-air drug market that has been entrenched there for decades.

The area is represented by L.A. City Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, County Supervisor Hilda Solis, state Assemblymember Mark González and state Sen. María Elena Durazo. Staff members from some of those offices, and the mayor’s office, sat in on the town hall organized by the local nonprofit California Rising.

“Feel free to put the fire under the feet of our politicians,” Hochman told about two dozen residents who attended. “All too often it is easy to spend some effort on something and then get distracted and spend some effort somewhere else.”

'Temporary' relief

Some residents and business owners agreed with Hochman that the large-scale drug enforcement operations from March through June made the area feel safer, at least for a while.

“It was temporary, but we got to see, actually, families at the bus stops with their kids — before it wasn't like that,” Elaine Alaniz told LAist Tuesday. “I think it does help us, but on the other hand I still think that we need more help. It's not just a one, two, three-day thing.”

Alaniz lives nearby and is the president of the Westlake North Neighborhood Council, which begins a block northeast of MacArthur Park.

She said she has seen some crime move away from the park and into the surrounding neighborhoods.

Capt. Ben Fernandes, who leads LAPD’s Rampart Division, said the earlier operations were successful, but there have been some setbacks.

“We made a lot of headway in the beginning,” he said. “There are some issues that we've had some repopulation, especially with addicts.”

Fernandes said that the department will continue to arrest people suspected of selling drugs near the park, while connecting people who are addicted with services to help them get sober and off the streets.

A call for community involvement

Hochman and Fernandes each emphasized that making MacArthur Park a safe and welcoming place can’t be done by law enforcement alone.

“My advice: take the park back — it's your park,” Hochman said at the town hall, calling for community organizations to plan regular outings there. “That starts to send a message that the community really cares about this park.”

He asked that performers like Justin Bieber, who played an impromptu set in the park last month, have more events there as well.

Fernandes said people can get involved to change perceptions about MacArthur Park so it's no longer thought of as a place to go to score drugs.

“What we need to do is — we as a community — come together and show [people using drugs] that it's not their place to go,” he said. “That you're going to be there with your children, with your parishioners, with your friends, with your family.”

Inglewood city officials are launching an audit of their financial relationship with SoFi Stadium and claiming the stadium could owe years of ticket taxes, one month after a judge voided the 2015 contract that brought the stadium to Inglewood. 

The Inglewood City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to commission the audit. Mayor James Butts said the move is a necessary next step after the court ruling, which threw the terms of the financial relationship between the city and Hollywood Park stadium development into question. 

Millions of dollars are at stake for both the city and the stadium businesses. City officials say that the ruling means a cap that limited the amount of admissions tax that Inglewood could collect no longer applies. They also plan to investigate the authenticity of $376 million worth of infrastructure bills Hollywood Park claims the city owes. The findings of the audit could also factor into discussions of how the city will address its current $30.8 million deficit.

The City Council motion — put forward by Butts and co-sponsored by Councilmember Dionne Faulk — requires the city attorney to retain an accounting firm to conduct the audit and report back to the public on its findings within 30 days. It set aside $325,000 from the city’s General Fund to pay for the audit. You can read the city’s full explanation of the audit here.

Butts, who was at the city’s helm a decade ago when developer Stan Kroenke brought his Hollywood Park pitch to Inglewood, said city officials built what they thought was a partnership with their stadium counterparts.

But that partnership has crumbled. Since last summer, the city and stadiums have been slugging it out in a complex series of court cases over the stadium’s contract and Inglewood’s network of video billboards. The conflict has spilled over into the Nov. 3 election via ballot measures that would change the city’s commercial advertising and ticket tax rules. 

The audit approved by the City Council on Tuesday will dig into the entire financial relationship between the stadium and city since 2015, unpacking what is owed and what was received from taxes on everything from tickets to parking. City officials plan to continue auditing the taxes on a quarterly basis into the future.

Still, it’s not guaranteed the city would be able to force the stadium development to pay any debt the audit does claim. Hollywood Park could still appeal the court ruling that voided its contract with Inglewood, while Butts said the city wants to negotiate a new contract to replace it. 

A Hollywood Park spokesperson said the stadium development has lived up to its financial obligations, including paying all of its taxes.

“This is yet another thinly veiled attempt to distract from scrutiny surrounding the City’s own fiscal mismanagement and the questionable actions of its Mayor,” the spokesperson wrote in a statement.

Some locals at Tuesday’s meeting said during public comments they were baffled why the city hadn’t set up an audit process earlier.

“We have needed an audit from day one. We can’t sit here and claim we didn’t know or have an inkling what we were doing with Hollywood Park,” Diane Sambrano said. 

Exterior of Sofi Stadium in Inglewood

(

Gary Coronado

/

The LA Local

)

Speaking during the meeting, Butts said the audit was triggered because of the void left by the development agreement and because major events including the 2027 Super Bowl and 2028 Olympics are about to hit Inglewood.

The mayor first claimed the development agreement was illegal in a letter written directly to Stan Kroenke last year, saying the city’s lawyers made the determination while researching billboard litigation.

Millions in tax revenue at stake

After the judge ruled in agreement with the city, Butts told The LA Local that city officials were still researching the specific implications of the court’s ruling. In Tuesday’s council motion, city staff highlighted what they say is one major change they’ve discovered: There’s no longer a limit on how much admissions tax the city can collect.  

Inglewood collects a 10% tax on tickets sold at SoFi Stadium, but the 2015 initiative that brought the stadium to the city put a cap on that revenue, starting at $15 million a year and increasing annually with inflation. 

The admissions tax cap also happens to be the subject of the current ballot Measure AT. WOW Media, the billboard operator allied with the city in its dispute with the stadium, is funding a campaign in favor of the initiative.

Admissions tax has been a sizable revenue stream for the city — bringing in an average $20 million a year since SoFi Stadium opened — but city officials have said it could be significantly bigger. A city analysis of Measure AT estimated that getting rid of the cap could bring in as much as an extra $50 million in future years. The city did not estimate how much admissions tax revenue it has missed out on while the development agreement was in effect.

The Inglewood audit seeks to clarify basic questions about how taxes are assessed on ticket sales and whether those taxes are actually forwarded to the city. Officials say it will provide transparency about ticket sales, pricing and fees, which have been heavily scrutinized in recent years across the state. 

Gray gets support on proposal for future billboard revenue audit

Councilmember Gloria Gray attempted to amend the audit motion Tuesday, asking the city manager to also audit the revenue the city gets from billboard fees.

“I believe the same standard of financial transparency should apply to every city agreement,” Gray said.

Though her motion didn’t receive a second, Councilmember Eloy Morales said he’d support putting a billboard revenue audit on the council’s agenda in the future. 

“I think we all support all those audits,” Morales said. 

Gray’s move was a rarity for a council that seldom debates motions during public meetings and almost always votes unanimously. The councilmember is currently running for mayor against Butts.

Inglewood pulls in as much as $8 million a year from billboards, according to budget records. Much of that comes from a series of deals the city cut with WOW Media, allowing the billboard company to construct and operate the billboards on public medians and sidewalks. In return, WOW gives the city a cut of ad revenue along with other concessions.

The post Inglewood is investigating if SoFi Stadium owes years’ worth of ticket taxes appeared first on LA Local.