Newport Beach has begun mailing the first batch of ballots for a special election scheduled for Saturday morning, even as questions persist regarding the election's legality. This move follows an order from Orange County Superior Court Judge Julianne Bancroft last month, mandating the city to host a special election on the same day as the general election. Judge Bancroft's ruling cited that city leaders' legal challenges had delayed three ballot initiatives, and she noted that the city's actions "could amount to obstruction" and that they had "abused their discretion."
The judge's order gave Newport Beach staff just over 50 days to prepare the election without external assistance. Both the Orange County Registrar of Voters and the California Secretary of State declined requests from the city to help administer the election. City officials have offered limited public information about their plans for managing the process.
Further complicating the situation, the city faces potential legal action regardless of whether the election proceeds. An anonymous Newport Beach resident has engaged lawyers who issued a notice to the city this week, threatening a lawsuit if the election moves forward. State law and the city’s own charter stipulate that any elections held concurrently with the general election must be consolidated onto a single ballot, a requirement not met by the separate special election. Despite these legal provisions, Judge Bancroft has consistently denied multiple requests from city officials to delay the election or alter its November 3rd date, upholding her original writ.
The three initiatives central to this special election were entirely financed by local developer Ken Picerne. While Picerne has not publicly discussed his support for these measures, they aim to enhance transparency within city hall, establish strict term limits for city council members, and transition to district-based elections. Picerne also sponsored a separate ballot initiative for the general election focused on reducing the amount of new housing approved in the city. Although the three special election initiatives were initially submitted in time for the general election, city leaders filed a series of court complaints that delayed their qualification for months, a tactic Judge Bancroft indicated could lead to an obstruction charge against the city.
The administration of an election without the County Registrar's involvement is an unprecedented challenge for Newport Beach, with multiple city council members noting it has been over 40 years since such an event occurred. City Attorney Aaron Harp stated at a city council meeting last week that conducting the election without the Registrar's help was "impossible."
During a special meeting on Friday evening, city council members did not publicly address most of these concerns. They skipped a public staff presentation after spending nearly three hours in a closed-door session discussing the predicament. Councilman Erik Weigand publicly shared that the city attorney had informed them the California Secretary of State might declare the election invalid. Weigand also highlighted that hundreds of ballots destined for overseas and military voters would be mailed without an accompanying election guide, which is slated to be shipped later and arrive after the ballots. He concluded, stating the election "will be null and void."
A significant hurdle remains regarding the validation of voter signatures. County Registrar Bob Page has repeatedly informed city leaders he would not provide voter signatures to them. In emails posted online, Page explicitly stated that his office "cannot provide the City with confidential voter registration information," including signature images and other sensitive voter data, necessary for hosting an election. An email exchange posted by Page also showed the city's elections consultant inquiring with the California Secretary of State about requirements to access voter signatures.
Despite these substantial obstacles, the city council did not vote to halt the election. Councilwoman Robyn Grant affirmed that the body voted by majority to "comply with the writ" and must continue until "a lawful election cannot be conducted" is established through a legitimate proceeding.
