‘Looking down the barrel of a November election’: Shasta judge hopes to move quickly on state’s case against Measure B
Another hearing has been scheduled for Aug. 7. It’s the next step in determining how Shasta’s general election will be run this November, after county voters approved a ballot initiative slated to overhaul multiple parts of the local election process.
Expediency was top of mind for Judge Benjamin Hanna, as he addressed his chambers this morning at the Shasta County Superior Court.
“We’re looking down the barrel of a November election,” Hanna said, emphasizing that the court’s timeline will be extremely important in this particular case.
He was presiding over a case seeking to invalidate Measure B, a voter-approved ballot initiative in Shasta County that’s slated to alter local election policies in multiple ways that contradict state law. California sued Shasta County over the measure last month, saying it would be illegal to implement.
A quick decision in that case is important, Hanna said, because he wants to prevent the county elections office from wasting time and money as it prepares for the next election, just months away.
A prompt ruling would also help with the voter education process, which ensures that community members understand how, when and where to vote this fall — amid the possibility of significant and abrupt changes to Shasta’s election process.
Today’s hearing was largely used to schedule an Aug. 7 hearing on the state’s preliminary injunction. It’s a legal action, filed by petitioners — in this case, California’s secretary of state and attorney general — in an attempt to temporarily halt Measure B, as a lengthier court process needed to fully assess its legality continues.
At the Aug. 7 hearing, Hanna will rule on whether the court’s failure to act quickly could cause “irreparable harm.” A final ruling on Measure B’s legality would come later.
Most of the parties’ legal counsels appeared today by video: Liam O’Conner and Jay C. Russell on behalf of the attorney general and secretary of state, and Alex Haberbush and Deborah Pauly on behalf of five local election activists behind Measure B, who are named as real parties of interest in the case. The only attorney to appear in person was Trisha Weber, the assistant county counsel for Shasta — and election official Clint Curtis — who reiterated that the county has decided to take no position on the merits of the case.
Curtis was not present in court and could not immediately be reached for comment on today’s hearing. The legal case against Measure B’s implementation leaves Shasta’s elections official in limbo — about what election processes should be used for the time being, as he works to prepare for the November election.
Today, Hanna instructed Shasta County’s legal counsel to come to the Aug. 7 hearing with a timeline for how Shasta plans to implement Measure B, which enacts voter ID requirements, separates Shasta’s voter roll from state oversight, requires a full hand-count of votes and in-person voting on Election Day.
While about 90% of voters used mail-in ballots to vote on Measure B, it will eliminate most mail-in voting. The apparent contradiction has led to speculation that Shasta’s electorate did not understand the extent to which the measure — which was touted by supporters as a voter ID initiative — would impact local elections.
About 56% of those who voted on Measure B supported the ballot initiative. It’s made national headlines amid the federal government’s multiple efforts to revamp the American election process. A coalition of advocacy organizations across the state are supporting California’s lawsuit against Shasta saying implementation of the new law would disenfranchise voters.
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Comments (16)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
Shasta ROV Clint Curtis addresses federal subpoena, says he wants to hand off ballots for transport to court
Curtis has been instructed to bring voted ballots from the June election to a federal grand jury in Sacramento. Discussing how complex that will be, Curtis said he’d be happy to hand off the ballots to federal law enforcement or state election officials instead. Doing so would violate the law, some experts say.
Federal court subpoenas Shasta elections official, instructs him to bring voted ballots to Sacramento
ROV Clint Curtis has been subpoenaed to appear before a federal grand jury. The summons also instructed him to produce records from the June 2026 election, including tens of thousands of voted ballots, some of which he has referred to as “suspect.”
Millville range to Manton solar: How Steve Kerns found his Shasta Planning Commission seat at risk
Earlier this year, long-term planning commissioner Steve Kerns pushed back on the environmental process for a solar project in Manton, referencing a judge’s decision in another project, a proposed Millville shooting range. In August, Kerns found his seat at risk.
The scariest part of this measure B controversy is that if it is allowed to stay in place (unlikely), it may require re-registration of all Shasta County voters. This will be an arduous task of physically waiting in line to be registered and for people who have changed married names and others who do not have passports or birth certificates at hand to qualify for registration. The short time until the November election when this legal challenge is resolved will cause a significant reduction in the number of eligible voters.
I have yet to see any evidence of voting fraud presented locally (or nationally)!
Most of the people who will be disenfranchised in Shasta County are Republicans who vote by mail. I think we should allow it for this one election, while the rest of the state votes. California won’t miss the votes from Shasta County. It just means less Republican’s voting.
This whole county court proceeding is a waste of time.. whatever the result, the losing party will immediately file an appeal. Best thing for both sides (and the public) is to hurry this up so we can move on to the real action in state court.
What happens if (when) the State proceedings aren’t resolved in time for the November election?
For any reasonable county elections official, it is already too late to implement such a sweeping change in how elections are conducted.
County elections officials start planning at least six to nine months in advance of a statewide election.
Candidate filing started on Monday, July 13, 2026. Don’t candidates deserve to know how the election will be conducted before they file?
Many counties have already ordered ballot envelopes for the election to ensure they are ready in time and are drafting voting instructional materials that go inside them and the County Voter Information Guide.
The training program content for poll workers and other election workers should be decided by next week so trainers can be trained and counties can start training workers starting in late-August/early-September.
Ballots, voting instructions, and County Voter Information Guides must be issued to military and overseas voters from September 4 to September 19 pursuant to federal and State law.
All other materials that State law requires be mailed to voters should be provided to printing vendors by early September to meet the following statutory deadlines:
County Voter Information Guides must be mailed to all active registered voters between September 24 and October 13 (Voters typically prefer to receive their Guide before their ballot).
Ballots and voting instructions must be mailed to all active registered voters by October 5.
It’s reasonable to think that the 90% who voted for measure B want to return to the “old” mail-in ballots process. California is one of 8 states that is pushing towards “all mail elections”. There’s certainly an irony in mailing a ballot hoping to end “all mail elections”, but it certainly isn’t an indicator of any ignorance or confusion.
Yes it is.
GLARING confusion and ignorance.
I have yet to find a person providing a reasonable rationale – other than a stark disconnect with what ‘B’ actually provided for, and said in plain language.
If that’s not ignorance – it’s a darn fine simulation!
Nah, dude. It’s pure pig-headed ignorance. The same kind of ignorance that the drafters of the ordinance displayed when they wrote it. It didn’t matter that the ordinance would be DOA for violating state law. It didn’t matter that it would most likely disenfranchise voters from the most rural reaches of Shasta County, which tend to be overwhelmingly conservative. What matters is what Orange Mussolini wants.
.
These mouth-breathers are compelled to march on their own junk. They can’t help themselves.
But that’s not what supervisor Crye says. From another recent Shasta Scout article:
.
“… saying one (measure) failed because voters didn’t fully understand it…”
.
You guys just like to say whatever is convenient for you, don’t you?
Amazing so many voters were duped into believing this measure was only about voter ID. I’m not sure which is worse, voter apathy or voter ignorance.
If you were a low-information voter relying on the measure title and voter guide, you likely did not know you were voting to outlaw vote by mail in Shasta County.
This highlights the need for an independent commission to provide objective titles and summaries rather than used highly biased partisan garbage like Measure B’s “LOCAL ELECTION TRANSPARENCY AND SECURITY REFORM” and Prop 50’s “Election Rigging Response Act”
I hate it when I agree with you.
Now, if you would remove your cosplay avatar perhaps it would be a step towards normalcy.
Judge Hanna’s among the best. Fair-minded, impartial, sober, and weighs all evidence. The people of Shasta County scored big with him!
I respectfully disagree. It’s 100% his fault we’re in this position. He never should’ve let an illegal measure – which even the authors admitted is “partly illegal”— get on the ballot in the first place.
Am I right that he didn’t rule on it’s legality but whether the proposition was legally put forth on the ballot?
I respectfully disagree with your respectful retort to Bobby. It’s not the judiciary’s role to unilaterally decide, a priori, what should and shouldn’t go before the voters. That would entail legislating from the bench, which is not a judge’s role.
.
Now that it’s passed, it’s the judge’s role to throw it out because it conflicts with state law.