Proponents of Measure B promise voter ID. Here’s the rest of the story.

Around town, signs promoting Measure B communicate to the public that a “yes” on the ballot measure will implement voter ID requirements. It’s signage that tells only part of the story. 

The wording of the ballot measure also calls for eliminating most early voting, limiting who can cast an absentee ballot, requiring hand-counting of all ballots at the precinct level, and separating local voter rolls from those of the state, all of which appear illegal to implement under current state and federal laws. 

Measure B is intended to “secure” local elections. It was championed by a group of election activists, several of whom have since been hired as election staff by current Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis. 

Supervisor Chris Kelstrom, is opposing Measure B for legal reasons. At a recent candidate forum, Kelstrom said if the measure is passed, it’s “not if a lawsuit will be initiated, it’s when the lawsuit will be initiated.” 

His lack of support is notable because like many Californians, Kelstrom supports the implementation of voter ID laws. He’s also promoting a statewide ballot measure for voter ID brought forward by Assembly member Carl DeMaio. Kelstrom has noted in comments to the public that he supports DeMaio’s ballot measure because election laws set at the state level should be changed by votes at the state level. A state-wide voter ID measure is slated to appear on ballots this fall. 

The regional chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and the League of Women Voters have also released statements in opposition to Measure B, with the ACLU expressing that Measure B plainly violates state law and exposes county taxpayers to significant litigation costs — “all in pursuit of a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.” 

What’s in the fine print? 

Looking beyond Measure B’s voter ID headline and its promise that hand-counting can produce “same day results,” the ballot initiative’s text reveals other important details about the proposed process. 

Alongside implementing hand-counting of votes, rather than relying on machines, Measure B would also limit who can cast an absentee ballot to the “infirm” and those in the military or living overseas. The measure also requires all ballots to be cast on Election Day, eliminating early voting and greatly restricting voting by mail. In the 2024 vote for president, about 76,400 people in Shasta County voted using their mail-in ballot — 86% of all of those who cast votes in that particular race. 

Another major component of Measure B would contain Shasta County’s voter roll to “a computer with open-source software,” disconnected from an internet source that the state could access. 

Manual tally method

If passed, Measure B would require Shasta to implement a manual tally, or hand count of all votes, using a format conceived by Linda Rantz. Rantz is an election activist and supporter of 2020 election skeptic Mike Lindell, who wrote the foreword to her guide “Return to Hand Counting: Missouri Method Hand Count Process.” 

As reported by local Missouri media in 2023, Nicci Kammerich, the clerk in Missouri’s Osage County, agreed to facilitate an experiment comparing the process of hand-counting to the standard machine count from years prior — at the request of a group of voters. Unlike what proponents of Measure B claim, she found that the hand-count process was more expensive, took longer, and was slightly less accurate than the machines. 

Kammerich resigned months after the experiment. In her resignation letter, she wrote that she and her staff were subjected to “threats, harassment, and bullying” that was affecting her physical and mental health. Her resignation came just one year before Shasta’s former and longtime Registrar of Voters Cathy Darling Allen would resign for similar reasons amid ongoing pushback to her work by the same activists who later became the original proponents of Measure B. 

While the text of Measure B text states that election workers would hand-count votes in compliance with California election code, that section of the code allows hand counting only under very specific circumstances — such as a recount. In 2023, California banned hand-counting in jurisdictions the size of Shasta in 2023, in response to efforts by Kelstrom and others to implement hand-counting under Darling Allen’s leadership, and against her wishes.

Shasta is not the only place in California where citizens are attempting to implement local laws that contradict state election code. In 2024, the City of Huntington Beach tried to pass an elections-related ballot initiative demanding much less than Shasta’s Measure B. That measure required voter ID requirements, the monitoring of dropboxes, and providing more in-person polling locations. 

It was struck down by the Attorney General, given that voter ID requirements contradict current state-wide legislation. In its press release on the matter, the AG stated that no city or county charter in California — like Huntington Beach and Shasta — is above the law. The California Supreme Court has declined to hear Huntington Beach’s argument in favor of the measure. 

---

Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.