Fate of Shasta’s Measure B remains uncertain
A Shasta County Superior Court judge heard arguments today on whether a measure that promises to create specialized local election laws should remain on ballots for June 2. The judge has promised to deliver a ruling later this week.
Shasta’s election official Clint Curtis says he needs to send the mock ups for June ballots to the printer on April 2.
That’s the deadline that Shasta County Superior Court Judge Benjamin Hanna is working to meet, as he prepares a ruling on a ballot measure slated to appear before voters this June. Hanna said today he plans to issue a written ruling on or before March 27.
The ballot measure, if approved by voters, would implement changes to Shasta’s charter law to create specific county election rules including hand counting, one day voting and voter ID. About 7,000 verified Shasta County voters signed a ballot petition in support of the measure last year, prompting county supervisors to vote last November to place it on the upcoming June ballot.
But Measure B is facing a legal challenge. Shasta County taxpayer Jennifer Katske filed a lawsuit last month that said the court should render the measure invalid, because the proposed changes to county election procedures would violate both state and federal laws if implemented. Moving forward with a measure that would be illegal to implement, Katske argued in court today, would be a clear waste of taxpayer money.
The group of five local voters who facilitated the signature-gathering for Measure B include Shasta election staffer Laura Hobbs, as well as election activists Deirdre Holliday, Jim Burnett and Richard Gallardo. Four of the five appeared in court today where they were represented by Alex Haberbush, a Long Beach attorney who appeared via court call.
Haberbush, who’s represented Hobbs two election lawsuits that were dismissed by the Shasta County Superior Court, argued that it may be valid to debate the legality of parts of the ballot measure, but such arguments should be filed in court after voters have had a chance to vote on the initiative, not before.
That’s where Hanna focused the conversation after extended oral arguments from both sides, not on whether the measure would be legal to implement if passed by voters, but on whether it’s valid for the court to remove it from ballots before the community has had a chance to weigh in by vote.
In Hanna’s comments, he referenced the sanctity of California’s ballot initiative process. Using judicial power to remove such a measure after that legal process has been followed, he said, should only happen if a very high bar is met.
“It’s an extreme step,” Hanna said by way of explanation, “for the court to take something away from the voters.”
County Counsel Joseph Larmour arrived to court late and spoke little during the hearing, following the direction of county supervisors not to take an opinion on the case. Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis was in the audience. He told the press he believes the measure should be left on the ballot to honor the wishes of the voters who put their signatures behind it.
After the hearing Hobbs told reporters she felt the hearing had gone well, saying she was pleased with her attorney’s arguments in court, and noting that it’s unusual for a pre-election review like this to result in a measure being removed from ballots.
Katske, a registered nurse who’s representing herself in the case, said she’s concerned the measure is an attempt to circumvent state and federal election law that will drag unaware voters into a morass of legal issues at substantial expense to the taxpayer when the measure is inevitably challenged by a higher court.
“I think that it’s very important for people to do their research when they’re voting,” Katske said. “I don’t want to tell people how to vote, but I want you to have the information so you can make an intelligent vote.”
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Author
Comments (8)
Leave a comment
Related Articles
To save her daughter’s life, she advocated for her rights to be taken away
California’s conservatorship system can be used to force people with severe psychiatric illnesses into involuntary medical care for up to a year. Marci Fernandes said the process has been life-changing for her adult daughter, Ann, but significant obstacles to her well-being remain.
Redding seeks community members for two committees aimed at providing advice on the city’s financial processes
The city is accepting applications to join the newly-formed Financial Advisory Committee and the newly-formalized Audit Committee. Both applications are due April 17.
Shasta’s Measure B will remain on the ballot
A legal challenge to the ballot measure was dismissed because it did not specifically demonstrate how placing Measure B on the ballot would violate the law — even though implementing it appears illegal.
“…Shasta election staffer Laura Hobbs…Deirdre Holliday, Jim Burnett and Richard Gallardo. ”
.
Shastanistan’s Mt. Rushmore of MAGA mental midgets.
Was there any mention during the hearing of the issue regarding the number of signatures verified? From what I have seen, it looks like ROV Curtis certified Measure B as having enough signatures incorrectly — the verification process required wasn’t complete, and he was advised by staff AFTER he certified it that there were not enough signatures able to be verified to allow a charter amendment on the ballot. It seems like that also needs to be addressed somehow?
Hi Amy: Katske withdrew this motion because it was a completely different legal argument than her original filing. Had she not withdrawn it the judge indicated he would have struck it for the same reason. This doesn’t mean the legal challenge is either valid or invalid, simply that the way it was filed wasn’t appropriate in this case.
Well that’s certainly sucks. I’m sure if that had been filed correctly as the legal argument, that this thing would have been tossed off the ballot.
What have you seen about how the petition was examined and certified as sufficient?
In a prior article, the Scout reported that Ms. Katske believed the number of valid signatures should have been based on Elections Code section 9255, which only governs amendments to charters for cities or a city and county. San Francsico is a city and county. Shasta is only a county so this statute doesn’t apply here.
Or did you hear that the random sample process provided for in Elections Code section 9115 and regulated by Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations sections 20510 through 20540 was not completed correctly?
The US constitution leaves voting to this various states, it leaves other things to the people that are not addressed in the constitution. For that reason, I believe that the Measure could only be deemed advisory since it wouldn’t be binding.
To save the county and state precious funds or to let the voters vote Yea or Nay, that is the question. However, there’s not been a precedent of this nature before, so Judge Hanna, you have a dilly of a decision. Either way the decision comes down, I’m sure the sensibility of Shasta County voters will turn this Trump/Curtis debacle down. So, just Vote No on Measure B and save the county tons of lawsuit money and likely the insurance companies turning away from Shasta County and the county having to insure themselves, again, with our taxpayer dollars. Vote No on B and Clint Curtis.
Frank – that may the best result … let it be voted down in a blaze of glory