Board approves Measures E and F for November ballot
The measures, estimated to cost $40,000 to $100,000 to place on the ballot, revisit proposals voters rejected two years ago on eminent domain and midterm vacancies.
This November, two controversial measures previously rejected by voters in 2024 will reappear on the ballot. The measures, now assigned the letters E and F, deal with the county’s ability to exercise eminent domain and how the county fills vacancies for elected department heads.
After weeks of lengthy discussion, the Board of Supervisors voted yesterday to approve the addition of both measures to the November ballot. The decision to try again with voters is estimated at a cost to taxpayers of between $40,000 and $100,000 due to costs associated with staff time and ballot printing.
The board’s vote follows a process it restarted last month to revive the two county charter amendments. Supervisor Kevin Crye, who originally sponsored both measures, argued the proposals deserve another chance, saying one failed because voters didn’t fully understand it, and proposing revisions to the other to address what he saw as having stopped voters from approving it.
The decision to send the measures back to voters drew criticism from residents who opposed spending public money to revisit proposals that already failed at the ballot box. Crye, who stepped out of the room as public comment on the item was heard yesterday, openly ridiculed members of the public who opposed the measures during the board’s last discussion on the topic, drawing a rebuke from the board chair.
What will Measures E and F ask voters to decide this fall?
Measure E, which appeared on ballots as Measure P in 2024, would prohibit the county from transferring private property from one owner to another through eminent domain. It’s a restriction that is already forbidden at the state level by Proposition 99, which is why County Counsel Joseph Larmour formerly labeled the measure “duplicative.”
That’s what prompted Supervisors Allen Long and Matt Plummer to oppose placing the measure on ballots this fall. It passed anyway, with a vote of 3-2. Supporting supervisors, including Crye, Corkey Harmon and Chris Kelstrom, have argued during prior discussion that if Proposition 99 was ever repealed, the new measure would serve as a protective safeguard.
Meanwhile, Measure F, a revised version of the rejected Measure Q, would change how the county fills midterm vacancies in elected offices. The language of the new measure requires such vacancies to be filled by election if a regularly scheduled election is within 12 months of the vacancy. Otherwise, the board could appoint a replacement, but only with a four-fifths vote. The measure does not apply to county board members, whose mid-term vacancies may be filled by either a special election or a three-fifths vote. The ballot measure was opposed by Long due to cost concerns, but won the support of Plummer and the rest of the board.
Both measures are slated to appear on November ballots as charter amendments, meaning they would update Shasta’s charter — which allows the county to tailor parts of state law — to add these specific provisions.
Maya Nelson is a student at Brown University. She’s reporting for Shasta Scout as a 2026 summer intern with support from the Nonprofit Newsroom Internship Program — created by The Scripps Howard Fund and the Institute for Nonprofit News.
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Author
Comments (15)
Leave a comment
Related Articles
Two Forest Service employees released safely after 15 hours held hostage in Shasta-Trinity National Forest
After a long standoff yesterday, two Forest Service employees being held hostage at Gumboot Lake in Siskiyou were safely released. Local agencies in Northern California, alongside law enforcement agencies across the state and nation, worked to respond to the crisis.
A third of Shasta’s jail deaths in recent years have been ruled suicides. A policy change could save lives
Two dozen people have died while incarcerated at the Shasta County Jail over the last six years. A review of postmortem investigations indicates more intensive monitoring of high-risk individuals could prevent deaths.
Inside the protests dividing the Redding Senior Center
Members of the senior center are calling for regular meetings and greater transparency after proposed bylaw changes that would eliminate statutory voting membership. Center leadership says the protesters represent only a small share of members.
I want to know who approved the contract with Flock?
Very Disappointd in Matt Plumber, who constantly runs numbers and claims to be one smart dude, but what is this mystery vote for Measure F all about. You’re costing me and others money. Shame. Hope you don’t go out of your way to promote it. If there’s anyway you can change your vote, do it.
The voters turned these measures down before. What makes them think a do over is going to result in a different outcome?
Sure just waste our tax dollars.
Of course! Loser Crye, his loser puppet Kelstorm, and puppet Mr. Wolfman want to give Crye whatever they can before he’s gone. It doesn’t matter what the voters say.
.
And of course, the people already voted no on both measures, but after resoundingly losing, Crye is hoping the public will at least give him something as he’s shown the door.
.
And of course, just like our local MAGA election liars and the Shasta County Republican Central Committee’s endorsed Measure B, the State of California’s laws regarding eminent domain trump Crye’s measure, just like MAGA’s Measure B, trumps this nonsense.
.
And what’s Measure Q about? A feeble way to try and reseat Crye should Cooky decide to go shoot wolves instead of trying to be a Shasta County Supervisor?
.
And of course, what’s a $100,000 in Taxpayer dollars thrown away on Crye’s vanity project anyway? Who cares; what’s money? It doesn’t matter that because of Crye, Corkey, and Kelstorms’ poor governance, the Republican Party and their leader, a convicted criminal felon/court adjudicated rapist, Shasta County is teetering on bankruptcy and is looking for ways to break the law to save what money is left.
.
And of course Crye, Crutis, and Kelstorm lost. What’s next: a Measure V voiding their election loss?
How many pothole repairs and how much road maintenance could be achieved with the funds these clowns have pissed and are pissing away?
So you’re good with gay marriage being shoved down our throats after the voters voted it down? You’re good with taxes being voted down numerous times but when it finally passes, it’s law? what part of taking private property from a person and giving it to another private person do you like?
I find it fascinating that right wingers always refer to gay marriage being “forced down our throats”. Freudian slip?
Selah
No one is forcing Nickie to marry someone of the same sex. State law already prohibits what this eminent domain measure purportedly protects us from. The revised measure regarding filling county elected official’s vacancies is worth considering in light of Supes passing over the very qualified JF, twice!
If they took your property and gave it to the homeless… 🙂
Crye Baby has gone into full petulant toddler mode. He’ll teach us not to “respect his authoritah”. He might have to get an actual job. The COVID school money is gone, and his political career is in ruins. Sucks to be him.
Selah
I do find it funny that for as loud as Crye yells and screams about how he’s such a great fiscal conservative, he sure doesn’t mind spending taxpayer money.
.
Also, with all his talk about election integrity, it sure doesn’t seem like he is respecting the will of the voters by trying to get a do-over on his measures.
Good ol’ fiscally conservative Crye spending our tax dollars on duplicative measures. This is CA, the land of confusingly worded measures and propositions; some by design and some by incompetence. It sucks, it shouldn’t be so difficult to make an informed decision on things that affect our daily lives. Still, “do-overs” on elections? Boy, howdy, what I wouldn’t give…
Corbin, I thought I hit the “reply” button. My first comment was a response to you.
.
Oh well.
“Supervisor Kevin Crye… saying one failed because voters didn’t fully understand it…”
.
Talk about a slippery slope.
.
So if my gut feeling tells me the voters just didn’t “understand” a proposition or measure, that entitles it to be put on the ballot over and over again until the voters “understand” and pass it? (At taxpayer expense?)
Ironically, Measure B passed because people didn’t understand it.