Redding residents will not see the voter ID provisions of Measure B take effect this November after Shasta County Superior Court Judge Benjamin Hanna issued a decisive ruling this morning. The half‑hour hearing concluded with the judge declaring the measure unlawful, effectively nullifying the law that voters had approved by a 56% majority in the June primary election.
Measure B, promoted by its supporters as a voter ID law, also contained several provisions that conflict with California election statutes. The California Attorney General’s Office and the Secretary of State’s Office filed a lawsuit just ten days after the June vote, arguing the measure was “legally indefensible.” In August, Judge Hanna had temporarily suspended the measure pending further court action; today’s ruling makes that suspension permanent for the November election.
During the hearing, Attorney Alexander Haberbush, representing the measure’s proponents, argued for about 15 minutes, citing related cases such as Huntington Beach’s voter ID law. Deputy Attorney General Liam O’Connor, representing the state, offered a brief rebuttal. Judge Hanna denied Haberbush’s request to respond further and rendered his decision with little deliberation.
Secretary of State Shirley Weber called Measure B a “colossal waste of time and taxpayer funds,” stating, “The proponents of the Measure knew it was unlawful but submitted it to the voters anyway.” Attorney General Rob Bonta echoed that sentiment, emphasizing the state’s commitment to ensuring every eligible voter can participate: “With this decision, we have shut down another unlawful attack on our state’s elections and the fundamental right to vote.”
Proponents of the measure, including Laura Hobbs, Deidre Holliday and Kari Chilson, were present in court. Their attorney, Haberbush, indicated that the group is “reviewing every option, including an appeal.” Shasta County Counsel Joseph Larmour attended but took no position, following direction from county supervisors.
Judge Hanna’s written statement, issued when he first suspended the measure in August, warned that Measure B attempted to enact provisions “wholly contrary to existing state law,” and that a charter‑county status does not permit invalid legislation.
What’s next: The proponents have signaled they may appeal Judge Hanna’s decision to a higher court. Residents should watch for further filings and any updates from the Shasta County Board of Supervisors regarding potential legal costs or next steps.
Sources: shastascout.org
