An Orange County Superior Court judge rejected concerns from Newport Beach officials on Monday, Sept. 14, setting the city up to run its own special election for the first time in 44 years on Nov. 3 for a trio of resident-initiated ballot measures.
The special election will run concurrently with the general election administered by the Orange County Registrar of Voters, but will be a different ballot from the one with everything from the state governor’s race and the Newport Beach City Council races. The City Clerk — with the help of vendors and a consultant —will send out and receive back the special ballot and count the returns.
Newport Beach City Attorney Aaron Harp, in his argument to the judge on Monday, outlined the crunched timeline and noted possible election state law and city charter conflicts, asking Judge Julianne Bancroft for relief from her earlier order that the city “take all steps necessary” to hold the election for the initiatives in November (the council had scheduled from for 2028).
Bancroft said Monday the city “had failed to make a factual showing of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or any other statutory basis for granting relief” and said the city’s request appeared to be based on concerns about the expense of complying with the court’s orders.
“This is not irreparable harm,” she said, adding that any issue now for the city is of its own making.
“Commencing on April 13, the court has worked cooperatively with the parties to hear all matters the city contended had to be addressed before the election, scheduling all briefing and hearings with the understanding that, if the court ruled against the city, the city would be able to take the necessary steps to get the initiatives on the ballot in November 2026,” she said. “That the city is still indicating that there are problems with its doing so may be due to intentional actions, poor management and planning, or negligence. But the problems have been caused by the city.”
The initiatives, authored by the Newport Beach Stewardship Association, would change term limits, how the councilmembers representing the city’s seven districts are elected, and oversight of public meetings and records. The special election could cost up to $1.5 million.
Attorneys for the association said in their filing on Monday that the city has had ample time to get the three initiatives on the ballot.
“What is essential is that the city comply with orders of the court,” wrote Navi Singh Dhillon, an attorney for the association. “While NBSA is mindful that it can take some time to work with vendors or consultants, the city has been on notice for weeks that swift action would be needed.”
Nancy Scarbrough, who has helped push for the initiatives to be placed on the ballot, said Monday she is happy voters will get a chance to decide the three initiatives.
She agrees with some of the councilmembers who last week spoke about the confusion voters might experience over two different ballots — the regular ballot from the county and one from the city — but said NBSA will put on a massive and costly education campaign to make sure voters know what they’re doing.
She said two of the initiatives — the ones on how councilmembers are elected and term limits — are easy to understand. The third, which deals with public meetings and records, is more complex.
“It will be confusing; there will be two separate ballots; they’ll look different and have a different envelope,” she said. “It’s going to be confusing. People aren’t used to that. Unfortunately, because the city dragged its feet and stalled and appealed and got denied and appealed again, it’s their fault, and they’ve put us in a bad position.”
“We’re spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to get this on the ballot now, which we didn’t need to do.”