Newport Beach residents still have no date to vote on three citizen-initiated charter amendments after the city canceled a court-ordered special election that was supposed to happen Nov. 3.

The Newport Beach Stewardship Association (NBSA) is escalating its legal fight, accusing city officials of deliberately blocking the vote on Measures P, Q and R. The group filed a notice in Orange County Superior Court on Nov. 3 asking for a status conference and a schedule leading to trial, according to the Newport Beach Civic Ledger.

The court responded quickly. On Nov. 6, a judge scheduled a status conference for Thursday, Nov. 12, at 9 a.m. in Department N14.

The three measures would change the city charter. Measure P would impose lifetime two-term limits on City Council members, capping service at eight years. Measure Q would switch council elections to district-only voting. Measure R would add transparency and oversight rules, including a five-member Sunshine Task Force.

How the election fell apart

A Sept. 2 writ of mandate ordered the city to take all steps necessary to hold the election on Nov. 3. The City Council voted 4-3 on Sept. 11 to proceed with a standalone, mail-only election run by a third-party vendor, the Stellara Group. Mayor Lauren Kleiman and Councilmembers Michelle Barto, Robyn Grant and Joe Stapleton voted yes. Mayor Pro Tem Noah Blom and Councilmembers Sara Weber and Erik Weigand voted no.

But the city announced Oct. 23 that the election would not happen. City spokesperson Georgia Rios told the Daily Pilot that election professionals determined the vote could not proceed because the California Secretary of State had not provided required ballot authorizations and the Orange County Registrar of Voters had not supplied needed voter information.

City Clerk Lena Shumway said in a sworn Oct. 12 declaration that the Secretary of State's office never responded to requests for a ballot watermark and tint, and that the Registrar refused to present the city's request for assistance to the Orange County Board of Supervisors.

NBSA disputes that account. In an Oct. 13 case management statement, the group called the situation "gamesmanship" and said the Secretary of State has a ministerial duty to provide the watermark. The association argued the city "remains firmly engaged in intentional conduct designed to frustrate a local vote."

Both sides dig in

The legal record shows the city tried multiple times to pause the court order. The California Supreme Court denied the city's petition for review and stay request on Sept. 30. The Court of Appeal denied another petition and stay request on Oct. 20. No court has granted a stay of the writ.

NBSA, as first reported by Stu News Newport, also alleges the city has resisted discovery efforts, including depositions, and raises concerns about possible destruction of evidence. The group says it is seeking further court proceedings and argues remedies could include sanctions or ordering another election.

NBSA has proposed holding a new election within 60 to 90 days. According to NBSA, the City Council was expected to consider that proposal at its Tuesday, Nov. 10, meeting. The Nov. 10 council agenda lists a closed-session item on existing litigation but does not specifically name the NBSA election proposal.

The Nov. 12 status conference at 9 a.m. in Department N14 is the next scheduled court date. The city's consolidated appeals remain pending, with an opening brief due Dec. 7.