By Katie Ngo
Governor Gavin Newsom and the City of Huntington Beach (HB) have been engaged in a series of legal disputes for over five years now. From housing to voter identification requirements, Newsom’s and HB’s disagreements over policy have led to lawsuits from both parties. Here is a brief timeline of events since 2019 regarding some of these conflicts.
January 2019
With the passage of California Assembly Bill 72 (AB 72), beginning on January 1, 2018, the state housing agency had more power to ensure that cities and counties followed housing elements. Afterward, the state sued HB over its lack of affordable housing. The agency determined HB to be out of compliance with housing laws since 2015 after the city had reduced a plan for affordable housing units in the northeastern development from 400 units to just 70. In suing the city, Newsom hoped to compel HB to build more affordable housing and approve more land for low-income units.
January 2020
HB and Newsom tentatively agreed to settle the lawsuit, with the settlement contingent on a proposed amendment to HB’s housing plans. The state said that the amendment would meet the requirements in the new housing law, exempting housing limits if HB reserved at least 20% for low-income housing and made it easier to build housing units for multiple families. Under the new plan, and after review from the state housing department, the city found land for 502 low-income housing units.
March 2023
On March 9, for the second time, the state sued HB over its housing plans. The dispute revolves around Senate Bill 9 and Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) applications, which aim to increase housing supply throughout California. Newsom aims to construct 2.5 million new homes by 2023 in response to the housing crisis and prevalent homelessness in the state. HB would be required to build 13,368 new homes by 2029.
HB fired right back the day after the state’s lawsuit was announced, with the city filing a federal lawsuit against the state’s leaders, including Newsom.
The city argued that Newsom’s demand would violate a number of rights, such as HB’s rights as a charter city, which allows HB to manage its own affairs in municipal matters. HB voted to ban the processing of SB 9 and ADU applications in February, with the state issuing the lawsuit shortly thereafter. The lawsuit originally focused on this ban, saying that it violated housing laws. However, it was later amended once HB rescinded its ban but continued to refuse to build the new homes.
The same day HB lifted its ban, the city filed for a temporary restraining order on the state to circumvent the fines and penalties that came with failing to comply with housing laws, but a federal judge rejected the order.
November 2023
HB garnered a victory when a San Diego Superior Court judge issued a stay in Newsom’s housing lawsuit against the city until the federal lawsuit was decided. This acted like the temporary restraining order that HB fought for previously.
However, later that month the federal court ruled against HB, dismissing the city’s lawsuit against Newsom and other state leaders.
January 2024
HB filed an appeal to the Federal Ninth Circuit regarding the federal lawsuit, saying that its status as a charter city differentiates it from the case cited in the federal court — bringing up a case regarding a general law city.
A three-judge panel for California’s Fourth Circuit of Appeals allowed for the state’s lawsuit to be fast-tracked for a rapid hearing. This gave way for the case to continue on an expedited basis, especially after the San Diego Superior Court temporarily froze the case.
April 2024
In a new lawsuit, the state sued HB over its requirement for voter identification, stating that it would unnecessarily disenfranchise voters, especially as there is not widespread fraud in California elections.
This new law, baked into HB’s charter through an amendment voted on in March, would require voter identification in municipal elections. The state argues that elections are governed by statewide rules, and thus cities have no authority to add additional requirements in casting a ballot.
May 2024
In a legal victory for Newsom, the San Diego Superior Court found that HB violated housing laws when it refused to go along with the state’s housing plan. The judge ruled that HB has 120 days to come up with a housing plan in compliance with state laws. HB appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals shortly thereafter.
July 2024
The same judge which ruled on the state’s lawsuit against HB later allowed for the city to get more time to come up with a housing plan, denying the state’s request for only 120 days. The city now has one year to update its housing plans. This allows voters to play a critical role in approving the city’s housing plans. This November, a charter amendment is on the ballot regarding new zoning changes.
September 2024
The San Diego Superior Court put a pause on Newsom’s lawsuit against HB, delaying any action from the state to enforce its law and force the city into adopting a compliant housing plan. This pause includes the year that HB was given in July.
The same month, HB issued a new lawsuit regarding California’s gender identity notification law, continuing to add to the city’s legal disputes with Newsom. The new law bans schools from requiring school staff to disclose a student’s gender identity or sexual orientation to anyone without the student’s permission. The new law intends to support and protect LGBTQ+ students who live in unsupportive households.
HB has sued the state, asking a judge to declare the law unconstitutional. The city argues that it puts the child at risk and that the law invades the parent/child relationship. This thrusts the debate of parental rights vs a child’s right to privacy in the spotlight.
As HB and Newsom continue to fight in the courtrooms of California, it reflects a level of partisan division across various levels of government. Many residents have found the community to be divided along partisan lines, showing that the legal disputes and policy disagreements are far from over.
