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)

L.A. County Office of Education’s letter to Los Angeles Unified School District earlier this month, warning it was at risk of running out of money, has escalated tensions between county overseers and the state’s biggest school district.

LACOE has told the district it must revise its $21 billion budget by mid-August — or risk the appointment of an external advisor with the power to override the LAUSD board and superintendent’s decisions.

The district has already announced the elimination of hundreds of jobs, primarily in its administrative offices, and approved another plan to cut an estimated $3.6 billion over the next three years through furloughs, layoffs and school consolidations.

But LACOE says it wants a more specific plan with more details, and has assigned a fiscal expert to help.

What does it all mean — for teachers, staff and most importantly, the almost 400,000 students in LAUSD schools? We break it down.

What’s in the letter?

The letter outlines a list of why the County has determined the district will become insolvent.

These include:

• Running out of money: The district's own projection has shown that its operating cash will be $231 million in the red by November 2027. “A district that cannot maintain a positive cash balance is unable to meet payroll and other obligations as they come due,” wrote Debra Duardo, the L.A. County superintendent. 

• New labor agreements with teachers, principals, school support staff and other employees: Recently approved contracts, which the unions say are essential to helping employees weather the region’s increasingly high cost of living, will cost an additional $1 billion in the next school year. These increases outpace the state’s  cost of living increases. 
  
• Declining enrollment and attendance: About 40% fewer students attend LAUSD schools than two decades ago, in part because of lower birthrates and families leaving because of the region’s high cost of living. Over time, this can reduce revenue because state funding is calculated based on how many students show up for class each day. 
  
• Leadership stability: The LAUSD Board appointed Andrés Chait, a longtime district administrator, as superintendent in June, just days after his predecessor resigned amid an ongoing federal investigation. ”This transition occurs at the moment the district must execute substantial corrective actions,” Duardo wrote.

It also includes next steps. We’ll discuss those below.

Why did LACOE send the letter July 2?

The letter is part of a process outlined in California law meant to prevent districts from going bankrupt.

Specifically, LACOE is required to intervene anytime it determines the district may be unable to meet its financial obligations in the current or subsequent two years (California requires districts to budget in three-year blocks.)

Has this happened to LAUSD before?

The requirement to issue this letter is fairly new and tied to a 2021 change in state law.

However, LACOE has intervened in LAUSD’s finances in the past. The agency assigned a fiscal expert team to the district from January 2019 to December 2021 after determining the district was at risk of not meeting its financial obligations.

The team helped analyze staffing, enrollment and make adjustments to the budget, according to a statement provided by Elizabeth Graswich, executive director of LACOE’s public affairs and communications department.

How did LAUSD get to this point?

The shortest explanation is that LAUSD is spending more money than it brings in.

The last three budgets relied on billions of dollars in reserves to offset the deficit.

Some of those reserves were built up when the district was receiving federal pandemic relief money and that funding ended in 2024.

LAUSD, like other districts in the state, also faces increased costs on everything from employee salaries and benefits to providing services for students with disabilities and settlements for decades-old sexual assault claims.

The district’s unions, parents, and several board members have also called for increased scrutiny on how much money the district spends on third-party contracts, including with tech companies.

Is LAUSD making cuts? How will they affect students?

LAUSD has already eliminated hundreds of jobs, primarily in its administrative offices, earlier this year.

This summer the board approved another plan to cut an estimated $3.6 billion over the next three years.

That plan includes furlough days for all employees, the elimination of thousands more jobs and cuts to the trust that funds retiree health benefits.

Among the cuts is the elimination of $900 million that helps high-needs schools pay for counselors, tutors and other student supports.

Most of these cuts aren’t scheduled to go into effect until the 2027-28 and 2028-29 school years.

The county said in its letter that the district plan needs to be more specific and include how each proposed change will be implemented, when the change will happen and how the outcomes will be measured.

Has there been any push back to the letter’s findings?

The district did not appeal the letter’s findings to the state, according to a district spokesperson.

However, when LAist asked if the district disputed any of the findings, a spokesperson wrote that the district is quote “continuing conversations” with the County, and that a revision to the budget may not be required.

“We will remain in conversation with LACOE to ensure our financial plan remains responsible, transparent, and aligned with our long-term commitments,” the spokesperson wrote.

The teachers union has said the letter unfairly targets the union’s new contracts.

“To me it feels as though the message is, ‘We warned you not to approve these contracts, and yet you did, and now we're going to overstep,’” said Gloria Martinez, president of United Teachers Los Angeles.

Martinez said the overall problem is that California doesn’t adequately fund public education.

We’re about a month away from the start of the next school year. What happens next?

The county has appointed a fiscal expert to help the district revise its budget by mid-August. Otherwise, the county says this advisor could be given the power to override decisions by the board and superintendent.

What happens if the district runs out of money?

Districts that become insolvent can lose the power to govern themselves in an arrangement called receivership. Instead of the elected school board and appointed superintendent making decisions about everything from curriculum to the budget, that power is transferred to an external administrator.

Receivership is a condition of accepting an emergency loan from the state. Only 10 school districts, out of nearly 1,000 statewide, have entered receivership since 1990, including Inglewood Unified.

The impact on students varies from district to district. The process was designed to protect students from sudden school shutdowns, but it comes at a cost. Districts must pay back the emergency loan and community-members lose the ability to elect or recall decision-makers during the receivership.

Contact your school board member

The LAUSD's Board's next meeting is a closed session scheduled for 10 a.m. Tuesday, Aug.11.

If you drive too quickly along West Adams Boulevard, west of 9th Avenue, you’ll likely miss the former home of the Mary Clay School, a two-story building that for decades provided innovative daycare and schooling to middle class Black children, starting in 1959.

L.A.’s Cultural Heritage Commission voted on Thursday to ask the L.A. City Council to give the building historical cultural monument status.

“[I] think it’s important to recognize this building… for the stories it tells… what it tells us about the history of Los Angeles,” said commission President Barry Milofsky, just before members unanimously voted to approve the request.

The Mary Clay School opened in L.A.'s West Adams neighborhood in 1959.

(

Courtesy LA Office of Historic Resources/Clay family archives

)

If approved by the City Council, the designation would protect the 102-year-old building from alterations, new construction, or demolition that would alter or erase elements that are of historic importance and irreplaceable.

The proposal for monument status comes as organizations work to preserve the under-recognized heritage of African Americans in L.A. after decades of demographic shifts in the city that have shrunk the city’s Black population.

Supporting Black families

Mrs. Mary Clay relaxing in her private residence which was upstairs above the Mary Clay School operations, 1961-62.

(

Courtesy LA Office of Historic Resources/Clay family archives

)

The building is an important site of Black education in L.A., where school founder Mary Elizabeth Smith Clay lived and worked. Clay was a trailblazing educator, civic-minded volunteer, and a nationally recognized expert on children’s education.

According to reports prepared by the cultural heritage commission staff, the school operated from 1959 to 1998 and used innovative methods to help kids with issues such as speech disabilities, while becoming also an important part of the social life of young people in middle-class Black families.

The school's origins

African Americans had moved to Los Angeles in the 40s to fill job openings created by the war effort, including Black women, who entered the workforce in large numbers. Publicly funded and integrated daycare was made widely available to help mothers from all income levels,

The Music Room of Mary Clay School. Children get situated on their cots at the beginning of nap time,1961-1962.

(

Courtesy LA Office of Historic Resources/Clay family archives

)

In the years after the war, public funding for daycare shifted to low-income families. Quality daycare for middle class Black families became difficult to access due to racism and high costs.

Clay opened a private school in her home to address that gap, and then moved into a bigger house to meet the growing demand. The school employed three teachers and introduced innovations like a psychologist, scientific methods to address speech issues, and foreign languages in kindergarten to third grade.

Mary Clay School annual photograph in 1989. Pre-school students are together with school owner/teacher Elenore “Sue” Clay (left) and teacher Miss Riggs (right).

(

Courtesy LA Office of Historic Resources/Clay family archives

)

It was also used for fundraisers hosted by Clay for Black-focused and child-oriented causes such as the L.A. chapter of the Links Incorporated, the Anchorettes, Jack and Jill of America, the Pitt-Los Club, and the 12 Big Sisters.

In 1965 Clay was appointed by President Lyndon Johnson to direct the Title Five Project, a program that gave training to people interested in working in childcare. She died in Los Angeles in 1971.

The building's history

Mary Clay was not the building’s original owner. The building was built in 1924 for F. Irwin Herron, whose family rode the waves of wealth created by L.A.’s oil and real estate booms in the early 1900s. Herron helped found what became the Los Angeles Stock Exchange.

He hired Edwin C. Thorne to design the home. Thorne would go on to design public buildings later in the 1920s in Colton and La Puente, as well as private homes.

The owner of the property is listed in commission documents as Andre Gaines, associated with West Adams LLC. The document says the owner does not support the historical monument status. Rafael Fontes, planning associate in L.A.’s Office of Historic Resources said the owner had not permitted staff to see the interior of the building.

A contemporary photo of the former site of the Mary Clay School.

(

Courtesy LA Office of Historic Resources

)

The designation was begun earlier this year by L.A. Councilmember Heather Hutt, who represents the 10th council district.

Another stretch of scorching summer heat has been baking Southern California this week.

For renters wondering how to stay safe, free cooling kits and heat-safety information will be provided this weekend at a workshop hosted by Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, or SAJE.

The workshop — a collaboration between SAJE, the ARCH Collaborative and Cal State L.A. — will be from 1 to 2:30 p.m. Saturday at 152 W. 32nd St. in Historic South-Central and is free to the public.

What’s provided? 

The 25 kits include a wall thermometer, a cooling neck band and towel, and emergency water tablets, among other products.

Attendees will learn how to use the products and best practices for beating the heat from a group led by Cal State L.A. environmental health science professor Evelyn Alvarez. You’ll also learn how to make your own kit to keep at home as a low-cost cooling strategy.

Why now? 

The National Weather Service issued an extreme heat warning for much of the region that remains in effect through 8 p.m. Thursday. Forecasters also expect humid conditions into next week.

Prolonged heat can increase the risk of dehydration, heat exhaustion and heat stroke.

An estimated one-fifth of Californians lack air conditioning, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

“Renters in the inner city, particularly those experiencing AC insecurity and those who are not able to access cooling centers, may face increased risks of heat-related illnesses like heat exhaustion and heat stroke that can be life-threatening,” Alvarez said.

Last year, L.A. County passed an ordinance that requires landlords with homes in unincorporated areas to keep temperatures at or below 82 degrees. But enforcement won’t begin until 2027 or 2032, depending on how many units the landlord owns.

“A lot of folks don’t have the right to a cool house, so we’re really excited to offer this emergency service to folks,” said Alejandro Campillo, an assistant director at SAJE and another leader of the workshop.

Will there be more workshops? 

Yes — if you can’t make this one, another is scheduled for July 27, when another 25 free cooling kits will be distributed.

To attend, sign up for the July 18 or July 27 workshop here.

In Venice Beach, some are outraged after they say a FIFA Fan Zone misled the public and disrupted their neighborhood.

The fan celebration by the beach took place at a city park and cost anywhere between $15 and $125 a ticket, but organizers had also advertised a block party and free area to go along with it. The license agreement for the event between organizers and the L.A.'s Recreation and Parks Department described an LED screen and two beer gardens that would be available to the public, free of charge.

Instead, no screens were outside the ticketed fan zone, which took place on July 10 and 11. Some were surprised when they showed up to the block party on Windward Avenue and found just a few tents and no way to watch the game besides ducking into a bar.

Alex Kissin, a Venice resident, attended a Rec and Parks meeting Thursday morning to complain that the Fan Zone didn't deliver.

"The park was effectively unavailable to the community for more than a week," said Kissin, who is also a member of the Venice Chamber of Commerce. "The free public, public elements described in the report simply did not materialize."

Event organizer John Cohn told LAist that around 2,500 free tickets were made available for the Fan Zone, but acknowledged that the free viewing party didn't happen.

" This was a spectacular event about which all of us should be proud," said Cohn, CEO of Venice Beach FWC, LLC, the company that put on the event. "Not only did we put a lot of smiles on faces of people all across Venice and Los Angeles, but I think that this gave an opportunity for Venice to put a positive face on the world."

Cohn said that he had to change plans for the free viewing area after LAPD prohibited plans to put up screens showing the matches on the closed-down street, citing concerns about security and crowd control.

" We actually had planned a free block party along Windward," he said. "It had been included in our planning, and LAPD scotched it."

LAPD did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The License Agreement with the city had also included plans for a "free Health and Wellness Fair" in Windward Plaza on July 12, the day after the Fan Zone ended. But that event required a ticket, too, which Cohn said cost between $25 and $90.

Both event organizers and representatives for the Recreation and Parks Department said that there was a last-minute change in who would put on the Fan Zone, which caused a big organizational challenge.

Cohn, who runs Venice Soleil Nails & Spa, said Councilmember Traci Park's office approached him about taking over the fan zone after the original person who won the FIFA bid pulled out just around ten weeks before the World Cup.

Sonya Young Jimenez, a Recreation and Parks Department superintendent, told the Rec and Parks Commissioners Thursday that there would be an after-action meeting to figure out what could have been done differently.

" I know with the Olympics coming, we want to use this as a way to make it better for next time," she said.

LAist reached out to Park, who represents Venice, but her office did not respond in time for publication.

On Instagram, the councilmember posted an article about the Fan Zone with the caption, "Venice Beach just showed the world what’s possible."