Latest news with #4thAppellateDistrict
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
California tries again to overturn Huntington Beach's controversial voter ID law
After losing last month in Orange County Superior Court, the state of California is asking a state appellate court to overturn a Huntington Beach measure that could require voters to present photo identification to cast ballots in local elections. Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber, the state's top elections official, have been tangling with Huntington Beach in court for more than a year over Measure A, which amends the city charter to say that local officials "may" require photo ID for municipal elections starting in 2026. In April, Orange County Superior Court Judge Nico Dourbetas said the state had not shown that "a voter identification requirement compromises the integrity of a municipal election." Huntington Beach Mayor Pat Burns called the ruling a "huge victory." Bonta appealed Wednesday to the 4th Appellate District, where the state hopes for a more favorable hearing. In February, a three-judge panel from the 4th District said that Huntington Beach's assertion of a "constitutional right to regulate its own municipal elections free from state interference" was "problematic," but kicked the case back down to Orange County Superior Court. More than 53% of Huntington Beach voters supported the charter amendment in the March 2024 election. The amendment also requires that Huntington Beach provide 20 in-person polling places and to monitor ballot drop boxes. The city has not shared plans on how the law could be implemented in next year's elections. A representative for Huntington Beach didn't respond to requests for comment Thursday. The city's lawyers have argued that the city charter gives local officials autonomy to oversee municipal issues, including local elections. Bonta and Weber contend that while California's 121 "charter cities" can govern their own municipal affairs, local laws can't conflict with state laws on issues of "statewide concern," including the integrity of California elections and the constitutional right to vote. The voter ID law is one of several fronts in the ongoing battle that conservative officials in Huntington Beach have waged against California since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The city has used similar arguments about its charter city status in fights over state housing laws, education policies for transgender students and "sanctuary state" immigration laws. The issue of voter ID has become a flashpoint with conservative politicians, including President Trump, who in January demanded that California enact a voter ID law in order to receive aid for the devastating Los Angeles area wildfires. California voters are required to verify their identities when they register to vote, and the state imposes criminal penalties for fraudulent registration. California does not require photo identification at the polls but does require that voters provide their names and addresses. The photo ID measure may also be invalidated by Senate Bill 1174, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed last fall, which bars local election officials from requiring photo identification in elections. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
California tries again to overturn Huntington Beach's controversial voter ID law
After losing last month in Orange County Superior Court, the state of California is asking a state appellate court to overturn a Huntington Beach measure that could require voters to present photo identification to cast ballots in local elections. Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber, the state's top elections official, have been tangling with Huntington Beach in court for more than a year over Measure A, which amends the city charter to say that local officials 'may' require photo ID for municipal elections starting in 2026. In April, Orange County Superior Court Judge Nico Dourbetas said the state had not shown that 'a voter identification requirement compromises the integrity of a municipal election.' Huntington Beach Mayor Pat Burns called the ruling a 'huge victory.' Bonta appealed Wednesday to the 4th Appellate District, where the state hopes for a more favorable hearing. In February, a three-judge panel from the 4th District said that Huntington Beach's assertion of a 'constitutional right to regulate its own municipal elections free from state interference' was 'problematic,' but kicked the case back down to Orange County Superior Court. More than 53% of Huntington Beach voters supported the charter amendment in the March 2024 election. The amendment also requires that Huntington Beach provide 20 in-person polling places and to monitor ballot drop boxes. The city has not shared plans on how the law could be implemented in next year's elections. A representative for Huntington Beach didn't respond to requests for comment Thursday. The city's lawyers have argued that the city charter gives local officials autonomy to oversee municipal issues, including local elections. Bonta and Weber contend that while California's 121 'charter cities' can govern their own municipal affairs, local laws can't conflict with state laws on issues of 'statewide concern,' including the integrity of California elections and the constitutional right to vote. The voter ID law is one of several fronts in the ongoing battle that conservative officials in Huntington Beach have waged against California since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The city has used similar arguments about its charter city status in fights over state housing laws, education policies for transgender students and 'sanctuary state' immigration laws. The issue of voter ID has become a flashpoint with conservative politicians, including President Trump, who in January demanded that California enact a voter ID law in order to receive aid for the devastating Los Angeles wildfires. California voters are required to verify their identities when they register to vote, and the state imposes criminal penalties for fraudulent registration. California does not require photo identification at the polls but does require that voters provide their names and addresses. The photo ID measure may also be invalidated by Senate Bill 1174, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed last fall, which bars local election officials from requiring photo identification in elections.
Miami Herald
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Appeals court halts California´s Temecula school district ban on critical race theory
LOS ANGELES - A California appeals court has ruled that the Temecula school district must immediately set aside its ban on critical race theory while litigation over it plays out in the California court system. The Temecula Valley Board of Education adopted the resolution prohibiting what it defined as critical race theory in December 2022. The field of critical race theory, known widely as CRT, examines the extent to which racial inequality and racism are systemically embedded in American institutions. A group of parents, students and teachers had sought a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the conservative school board's policy, alleging the ban on the curriculum, in part, was "unconstitutionally vague" and has confused and intimidated teachers about what they could discuss in class. A three-judge panel for the 4th Appellate District said there was ample reason to put the policy on hold. "District teachers have experienced anxiety and confusion in knowing what is prohibited by the Resolution and fear extreme repercussions without guardrails for even accidental violations," Justice Kathleen E. O'Leary wrote. She added that the resolution "defined CRT as 'a divisive ideology that assigns moral fault to individuals solely on the basis of an individual's race and, therefore, is itself a racist ideology.' The Resolution operates as if this definition is universally accepted, but the text does not indicate where this definition is derived, or whether it is shared with anyone else besides the Board. This definition seems to represent the Board's subjective perception of CRT." An attorney for the school district noted that the Monday ruling is a preliminary injunction and the case has yet to be heard on its merits. "Although we are disappointed with the court's decision, we remain committed to defending the constitutionality of Temecula Valley Unified School District's actions," Julianne E. Fleischer said. "Critical race theory and its offshoots have no place in public institutions that are meant to serve all individuals equally. These ideas promote division, resentment, and a distorted view of history that punishes students and staff based on skin color rather than character." "We remain committed to defending lawful policies that reject this kind of racialized thinking and instead promote unity and equal treatment under the law," she said. In its action, the appeals panel reversed the ruling of trial court Judge Eric Keen, who had denied a request to halt the policy. In his eight-page ruling, Keen had rejected the argument that the ban was unclear, concluding that the board's resolution set out the specific elements that can't be taught. "It seems clear to the court that a person of ordinary intelligence would have a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited as what is prohibited is set out specifically in the resolution," he wrote. But the appeals panel saw things completely differently. "We find the Resolution is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it employs ambiguous language, lacks definitions, is unclear in scope, is seemingly irreconcilable with state-mandated educational requirements, and contains no enforcement guidelines," O'Leary wrote. "Teachers are left to self-censor and potentially over-correct, depriving the students of a fully informed education and further exacerbating the teachers' discomfort in the classroom," the justice wrote. A separate part of the lawsuit dealt with the board's policy of notifying parents about issues related to a student's gender identity. The panel said that issue was no longer in play because state law prohibits such automatic notification policies - prioritizing instead the privacy rights of the student. This month, however, the school board will be discussing potential options to reinstate as much of the notification policy as possible. The Trump administration has policies that echoes those of the Temecula school system on both critical race theory and parent notification. The administration has threatened to withhold federal funding from states and school systems that don't abide by Donald Trump's policies and executive orders. The conservative leadership of the Temecula school system has pushed back repeatedly against the state's more liberal policies - and sometimes had to backtrack. In one episode, the board rejected a state-sanctioned social studies curriculum that mentioned gay rights activist Harvey Milk but then reversed course. The reversal followed a series of contentious public meetings and a threat by Gov. Gavin Newsom to fine the district $1.5 million if it did not provide its elementary school students with new state-approved social studies books. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Appeals court halts Temecula school district ban on critical race theory
A California appeals court has ruled that the Temecula school district must immediately set aside its ban on critical race theory while litigation over it plays out in the California court system. The Temecula Valley Board of Education adopted the resolution prohibiting what it defined as critical race theory in December 2022. The field of critical race theory, known widely as CRT, examines the extent to which racial inequality and racism are systemically embedded in American institutions. A group of parents, students and teachers had sought a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the conservative school board's policy, alleging the ban on the curriculum, in part, was "unconstitutionally vague" and has confused and intimidated teachers about what they could discuss in class. A three-judge panel for the 4th Appellate District said there was ample reason to put the policy on hold. "District teachers have experienced anxiety and confusion in knowing what is prohibited by the Resolution and fear extreme repercussions without guardrails for even accidental violations," Justice Kathleen E. O'Leary wrote. She added that the resolution "defined CRT as 'a divisive ideology that assigns moral fault to individuals solely on the basis of an individual's race and, therefore, is itself a racist ideology.' The Resolution operates as if this definition is universally accepted, but the text does not indicate where this definition is derived, or whether it is shared with anyone else besides the Board. This definition seems to represent the Board's subjective perception of CRT." An attorney for the school district noted that the Monday ruling is a preliminary injunction and the case has yet to be heard on its merits. "Although we are disappointed with the court's decision, we remain committed to defending the constitutionality of Temecula Valley Unified School District's actions," Julianne E. Fleischer said. "Critical race theory and its offshoots have no place in public institutions that are meant to serve all individuals equally. These ideas promote division, resentment, and a distorted view of history that punishes students and staff based on skin color rather than character." "We remain committed to defending lawful policies that reject this kind of racialized thinking and instead promote unity and equal treatment under the law," she said. Read more: Critical race theory ban at Temecula Valley Unified stands for now, judge rules In its action, the appeals panel reversed the ruling of trial court Judge Eric Keen, who had denied a request to halt the policy. In his eight-page ruling, Keen had rejected the argument that the ban was unclear, concluding that the board's resolution set out the specific elements that can't be taught. 'It seems clear to the court that a person of ordinary intelligence would have a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited as what is prohibited is set out specifically in the resolution,' he wrote. But the appeals panel saw things completely differently. "We find the Resolution is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it employs ambiguous language, lacks definitions, is unclear in scope, is seemingly irreconcilable with state-mandated educational requirements, and contains no enforcement guidelines," O'Leary wrote. "Teachers are left to self-censor and potentially over-correct, depriving the students of a fully informed education and further exacerbating the teachers' discomfort in the classroom," the justice wrote. A separate part of the lawsuit dealt with the board's policy of notifying parents about issues related to a student's gender identity. The panel said that issue was no longer in play because state law prohibits such automatic notification policies — prioritizing instead the privacy rights of the student. Read more: Newsom signs bill banning schools from notifying parents about student gender identity This month, however, the school board will be discussing potential options to reinstate as much of the notification policy as possible. The Trump administration has policies that echoes those of the Temecula school system on both critical race theory and parent notification. The administration has threatened to withhold federal funding from states and school systems that don't abide by Trump's policies and executive orders. The conservative leadership of the Temecula school system has pushed back repeatedly against the state's more liberal policies — and sometimes had to backtrack. In one episode, the board rejected a state-sanctioned social studies curriculum that mentioned gay rights activist Harvey Milk but then reversed course. The reversal followed a series of contentious public meetings and a threat by Gov. Gavin Newsom to fine the district $1.5 million if it did not provide its elementary school students with new state-approved social studies books. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Appeals court halts Temecula school district ban on critical race theory
A California appeals court has ruled that the Temecula school district must immediately set aside its ban on critical race theory while litigation over it plays out in the California court system. The Temecula Valley Board of Education adopted the resolution prohibiting what it defined as critical race theory in December 2022. The field of critical race theory, known widely as CRT, examines the extent to which racial inequality and racism are systemically embedded in American institutions. A group of parents, students and teachers had sought a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the conservative school board's policy, alleging the ban on the curriculum, in part, was 'unconstitutionally vague' and has confused and intimidated teachers about what they could discuss in class. A three-judge panel for the 4th Appellate District said there was ample reason to put the policy on hold. 'District teachers have experienced anxiety and confusion in knowing what is prohibited by the Resolution and fear extreme repercussions without guardrails for even accidental violations,' Justice Kathleen E. O'Leary wrote. She added that the resolution 'defined CRT as 'a divisive ideology that assigns moral fault to individuals solely on the basis of an individual's race and, therefore, is itself a racist ideology.' The Resolution operates as if this definition is universally accepted, but the text does not indicate where this definition is derived, or whether it is shared with anyone else besides the Board. This definition seems to represent the Board's subjective perception of CRT.' An attorney for the school district noted that the Monday ruling is a preliminary injunction and the case has yet to be heard on its merits. 'Although we are disappointed with the court's decision, we remain committed to defending the constitutionality of Temecula Valley Unified School District's actions,' Julianne E. Fleischer said. 'Critical race theory and its offshoots have no place in public institutions that are meant to serve all individuals equally. These ideas promote division, resentment, and a distorted view of history that punishes students and staff based on skin color rather than character.' 'We remain committed to defending lawful policies that reject this kind of racialized thinking and instead promote unity and equal treatment under the law,' she said. In its action, the appeals panel reversed the ruling of trial court Judge Eric Keen, who had denied a request to halt the policy. In his eight-page ruling, Keen had rejected the argument that the ban was unclear, concluding that the board's resolution set out the specific elements that can't be taught. 'It seems clear to the court that a person of ordinary intelligence would have a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited as what is prohibited is set out specifically in the resolution,' he wrote. But the appeals panel saw things completely differently. 'We find the Resolution is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it employs ambiguous language, lacks definitions, is unclear in scope, is seemingly irreconcilable with state-mandated educational requirements, and contains no enforcement guidelines,' O'Leary wrote. 'Teachers are left to self-censor and potentially over-correct, depriving the students of a fully informed education and further exacerbating the teachers' discomfort in the classroom,' the justice wrote. A separate part of the lawsuit dealt with the board's policy of notifying parents about issues related to a student's gender identity. The panel said that issue was no longer in play because state law prohibits such automatic notification policies — prioritizing instead the privacy rights of the student. This month, however, the school board will be discussing potential options to reinstate as much of the notification policy as possible. The Trump administration has policies that echoes those of the Temecula school system on both critical race theory and parent notification. The administration has threatened to withhold federal funding from states and school systems that don't abide by Trump's policies and executive orders. The conservative leadership of the Temecula school system has pushed back repeatedly against the state's more liberal policies — and sometimes had to backtrack. In one episode, the board rejected a state-sanctioned social studies curriculum that mentioned gay rights activist Harvey Milk but then reversed course. The reversal followed a series of contentious public meetings and a threat by Gov. Gavin Newsom to fine the district $1.5 million if it did not provide its elementary school students with new state-approved social studies books.
