Newport Beach scrambles for Nov. 3 special mail-in election amid transparency concerns

Newport Beach officials raised concern at a special meeting Friday night over the city’s ability to organize a fair and accurate special election in about seven weeks for three initiatives they had spent months fighting to keep off of the Nov. 3 ballot.

The three initiatives qualified for inclusion in the election after successful petition campaigns. They ask residents to weigh in on changes to councilmember term limits, transparency policies and a proposed switch to single-member district elections.

City officials claimed their addition to the ballot would sow chaos into the voting process and filed a challenge claiming backers of the measures had not properly published legal notices. When that failed in court, councilmembers attempted to punt the initiatives to the 2028 election.

But in an Aug. 27 ruling, Orange County Superior Court Judge Julianne Bancroft did not deem the city’s reasoning for rescheduling valid and found that the Newport Beach City Council had “abused its discretion” in attempting to delay voting. She also ordered the city to take immediate steps to schedule the measures for the Nov. 3 ballot.

Because her ruling came after the Aug. 7 deadline to consolidate the process with the general election, Newport Beach must plan, prepare and conduct a separate municipal election at an estimated cost of between $1 million and $1.5 million. The City Council voted to move forward with those efforts on Sept. 11, a little over seven weeks out from election day.

“There are definitely hurdles we need to address,” Councilmember Robyn Grant said during Friday’s hastily called special meeting of the City Council. “We do have city staff and consultants working on these hurdles, to resolve them and self-validify a lawful path. That’s what we’re all looking for here is a lawful path forward. Our responsibility now at this juncture is to make every good faith effort to comply with the writ.”

Newport Beach officials were especially concerned about their ability to properly verify the identities of voters in a municipal election that, for expediency’s sake, will be run entirely through mail-in ballots. Doing so requires access to records like voter information and signatures that can only be obtained from the county, according to a report by City Clerk Lena Shumway.

The city had formally asked for those signatures and information as well as other forms of support on Sept. 11 from the office of Orange County Registrar Bob Page. But in a letter responding to Newport Beach, he said the county was not immediately able to fulfill the request because doing so would get in the way of conducting the general election.

The registrar has shared a voter registration file of all active voters in Newport Beach as well as a list of all military and overseas voters. The earliest the Orange County Board of Supervisors might be able to agendize the city’s request for additional records is Sept. 29, according to Page.

Meanwhile, the deadline to send mail-in ballots out to military and overseas voters was Saturday. Missing it could have rendered Newport Beach’s municipal election invalid and put the city at risk of violating the appellate court’s order.

In spite of that, some members of council remained in favor of halting the process.

“We have set into a series of events something that we can’t pull back from if we send out these ballots tomorrow,” Councilmember Erik Weigand said Friday night.

He put forth a motion instructing the city clerk not to mail out military and overseas ballots, which was supported by his council colleagues Noah Blom and Sara Weber. It failed, clearing the path forward for the municipal election, for now.

Supporters of the ballot initiatives have accused the City Council of attempting to stifle the democratic process.

Walter Stahr, a resident and City Council candidate for District 3, criticized the city’s continued efforts to appeal Bancroft’s order, describing them as likely to fail and a waste of taxpayer money.

They raised further concerns over transparency at City Hall when an earlier meeting to discuss the municipal election set for Thursday was abruptly canceled. Friday’s meeting was hastily arranged, with resident Jim Mosher noting that he and others did not receive notification of it despite being signed up for electronic updates.

Mosher said that the process of validating ballots with signatures on file typically proceeds after election day.

“This council and your staff have been immensely creative in blocking the public’s ability to vote,” Mosher said. “I would wonder if you could be equally creative in facilitating our opportunity to vote. And perhaps you could go to the judge and instead of asking to stop things, ask them to order the registrar of voters to provide the signatures to you.”

Councilmembers countered by claiming that rushing a vote on the initiatives will sow confusion among voters that will impact both the municipal and general elections. And, without knowing for certain if the city will gain access to the information it needs to properly verify ballots, Weigand said there is a chance the entire process could prove invalid and be nullified.

“When people are speaking to councilmembers saying, ‘You’re trying to hide things,’ I just ask: If you were in our shoes, is this the election you would be wishing to put on for the public?” asked Councilmember Michelle Barto.