Bixby v. City of Huntington Beach CA4/3

Filed 11/3/25 Bixby v. City of Huntington Beach CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

MARK BIXBY,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G065461, G065499

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2023-01366664)

CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH et OPINION al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Nick A. Dourbetas, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Brower Law Group, Lee K. Fink; AEMS Trial Firm and Adam Sechooler for Plaintiff and Appellant. ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Peter Eliasberg and Julia Gomez for ACLU of Southern California, ACLU of Northern California,

and ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Cooley, Kathleen R. Hartnett, Matt K. Nguyen, Kristen Adrina Johnson and Ana Alicia Bordallo for Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, Asian Law Caucus, California Black Power Network, and Disability Rights California as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Michael J. Vigliotta, City Attorney; JW Howard/Attorneys, John W. Howard, Scott Street, Michelle Volk, Peter C. Shelling, and Mitchell Stein for Defendants and Respondents.

* * *

* THE COURT: This is a companion case to People v. City of Huntington Beach (Nov. 3, 2025, G065589) ____ Cal.App.5th ____ (the State Case). Plaintiff challenges the voter identification requirement of the City of Huntington Beach (the City), added as section 705, subdivision (a)(2) to the City Charter. (Voter Information Guide, Primary Elec. (Mar. 5, 2024) text of Measure A.) (Measure A.) In addition to the preemption issue raised by the State of California upon which our opinion in the State Case is based, plaintiff raises various other grounds for challenging the City’s voter identification requirement. Having concluded in the State Case that the City’s charter section 705, subdivision (a)(2) is preempted by Elections Code section 10005, we decline to reach the other issues raised by plaintiff. As we did in the State