California secures temporary halt to county voter ID law

Shasta County voters in June passed a measure that would have required ID and largely eliminated vote-by-mail and early voting.SHASTA COUNTY, Calif. (CN) — California officials on Friday stopped the enforcement of a Shasta County ballot measure that would have required people to show a photo ID at the polls.The decision came a day after two Sacramento County judges also ruled for the state over a November ballot measure that would impose voter ID.Shasta County’s Measure B, approved by about 55% of voters in June, required government-issued identification to register and vote, largely eliminated vote-by-mail and early voting, mandated hand-counted ballots and created a voter registration system separate from the state.Attorney General Rob Bonta argued the county’s charter status allowed some local laws to conflict with state law, but not election laws. California prohibits photo ID requirements at the polls and guarantees access to vote-by-mail and early voting.“Measure B would unlawfully change how elections are conducted in Shasta County,” Bonta said in a statement. “Today’s ruling prevents Measure B from taking effect while our litigation proceeds, providing certainty that the November election will be conducted under California’s established election laws. We will continue fighting to permanently strike down the measure.”Bonta had sought a resolution by Aug. 24, as Shasta County voters needed certainty before the November election about how to register and vote.In his suit, Bonta argued the county exceeded its constitutional authority. It has no home-rule power. It’s also preempted by state law. Additionally, Measure B would disrupt the November election. He pointed to over 116,000 registered voters in the North State county, saying a quick decision on the preliminary injunction was required.“While others attempt to close doors, California ensures that the portal of democracy remains wide open,” Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber said in a statement. “The court decision today blocking Measure B has made clear what we already know — creating unnecessary barriers does not strengthen our democracy, it weakens it.”A Shasta County official confirmed that the county would not implement Measure B.“Following a preliminary injunction by the Shasta County Superior Court regarding a proposed amendment to the Shasta County Charter titled, Measure B, Voter ID, Hand-Counted Ballots, and Absentee Voting Limits Initiative, the election and voting policies described in Measure B will not be implemented for the November 3, 2026, General Election, unless further order of the court,” it said in a statement.The suit took a circuitous path through the court system.In June, Bonta filed the suit in the state’s Third District Court of Appeal. Weeks later, the court declined to review the challenge, saying the state should first seek relief in the trial court.Bonta called the decision procedural. His office filed the suit in Shasta County Superior Court on June 30 and sought a preliminary injunction days later.The attorney general said Measure B originated with the Save Shasta Elections group, which began gathering signatures in spring 2025. County officials declined to draft the measure’s title and summary, saying it could not legally be enacted through the ballot process.A judge rejected the request. Later that year, the county registrar determined the measure had qualified for the ballot, and the Board of Supervisors voted to place it before voters on June 2.Another judge also declined to block the measure from appearing on the ballot, finding that any challenge to its legality was better addressed after the election.The issue of voter ID also came before two Sacramento County judges this week, who ruled against supporters of an identification requirement.Those cases focused on Proposition 39, which voters will decide in November. If enacted, Prop 39 would require people to show government-issued ID when casting a ballot in person. They’d have to include the last four digits of a government-issued ID when voting by mail.In one case, advocates of Proposition 39 agreed to tweak their formal written arguments after a judge issued a tentative ruling finding them false and misleading. Another judge determined the state attorney general’s title and summary for the ballot measure met legal requirements, opting against striking language that rankled proposition supporters.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads