Could Shasta’s elections official actually hire Tina Peters?

Shasta County Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis said earlier this week that he wanted to hire former Colorado elections official Tina Peters, who served time in prison for elections-related crimes. But actually going through with hiring her is more complicated than it seems. 

Peters has been a prominent figure in what some refer to as the election skepticism movement, something Curtis has also been closely aligned with, as demonstrated during his time as Shasta’s top elections official this past year. She was released from prison this June after her nine-year prison sentence was commuted by Colorado’s governor following pressure from President Donald Trump. She was convicted in 2024 for tampering with voting machines in an attempt to prove the 2020 election was rigged against Trump and served less than two years.

Curtis announced his intention to hire Peters on the radio show “Jefferson State of Mine.” He told Shasta Scout over text today that she would largely be in charge of the supervision of election staff if hired, and she wouldn’t be given login credentials to operate voting machines, something she was convicted of tampering with in Colorado. She has yet to publicly accept or turn down his offer. Her attorney, Peter Ticktin, said on Monday that she’s considering the role. If she says yes, there will be major hoops for both her and Curtis to jump through. 

For one, the role Curtis originally said he wanted her for isn’t actually open. Current Assistant Registrar of Voters Brent Turner told Shasta Scout for a previous story that he has no plans to step down, contradicting claims made by Curtis who had said otherwise.

The head elections official could attempt to hire Peters through a different route, as a consultant to the elections office. But unlike filling a role that’s already budgeted for, like Turner’s, hiring a new consultant would likely require approval from the county. That’s because, as Shasta Deputy CEO Stewart Buettell told Shasta Scout in an email statement, the process of hiring a consultant typically requires a contract, as outlined in county administrative policy. 

Buettell confirmed that the contract would need county approval if compensation exceeds $15,000. For amounts up to $80,000, Buettell said Curtis would need CEO approval for the position. If compensation were to exceed that amount, the contract would also need to be approved by a simple majority vote of the board of supervisors. That’s unlikely, as multiple supervisors have already expressed their discontent with Curtis’ hopes to hire Peters. 

Even if the contract were approved, there’s the issue of where the money would come from. The elections official may be able to pull funding from his already allotted department budget depending on the amount, but if he requests an adjustment to his budget that exceeds $75,000, he would also need a four-fifths vote of the board. 

Supervisor Chris Kelstrom said in a recent interview that he wished Curtis would just focus on the upcoming November election, in which Kelstrom is a candidate, and not “all the other chaos.” 

“I just want to get back to normalcy,” the chair of the county board said. 

Kelstrom was one of three supervisors who voted to appoint Curtis last year, something he said he now has to own up to. In the June primary, Curtis was outvoted by former Assistant ROV Joanna Francescut, a long-term elections official with more than 16 years of experience who he fired just days after assuming office. She’ll take his seat on Jan. 4.

Kelstrom pointed out Curtis’ limited time left in office as one of the major factors of his stance on Peters’ potential hiring. 

“I’m not changing a whole bunch of things up for somebody that’s only going to be here another three months,” Kelstrom said, referring to Curtis as a “lame duck.” 

Supervisor Matt Plummer said in a social media post on Aug. 19 that he doesn’t think hiring Peters is a good idea either, referencing her criminal history involving elections. “You wouldn’t typically bring someone in to do something that they’ve been accused of not being honest in that particular context,” he said. 

“Shasta County has endured significant election controversy, divisiveness, fighting, arguing over the last four years,” he added, “and this will only stoke that and increase it.” 

Plummer also said in the post that two California-based U.S. senators had sent a letter to the board and the California secretary of state about Curtis’ hopes to hire Peters. In that letter, Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff urged the secretary of state to share concerns with Curtis and the board about placing Peters “in any position of authority over elections in California.” 

The senators pointed out that Peters’ criminal actions in Colorado cost Mesa County at least $1.4 million in legal fees and other impacts. “If Shasta County puts Ms. Peters in a position to again violate election laws following her convictions, county taxpayers could be burdened with unwelcomed and potentially hefty expenses,” they wrote.

The secretary of state’s office gave a reminder in an email to Shasta Scout that every person involved with California elections must comply with state law, applicable security and confidentiality requirements and maintain the integrity of California’s elections and election processes.

“The mere thought of letting someone near any part of California’s elections when that person was convicted of serious election-related crimes while serving as an election official, is simply outrageous,” Secretary of State Shirley Weber said. 

“Our office is monitoring the situation and, as always, will act within our authority and work closely with law enforcement officials to ensure that all elections in our state remain transparent, safe, and fair for all eligible voters,” the email stated. 

Peters’ parole terms create state-level complications

Even though Peters has been released from prison, she still has parole conditions to follow for the next three years, including a restriction from leaving the state of Colorado unless given permission to do so by her parole officer. 

If she were to request to go to another state, her parole officer would review her plan to ensure it meets specific criteria designated by the Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision. According to those rules, she would either need to be a resident of California or have resident family members in the state willing to assist, among other conditions and depending on the length of her stay. If she doesn’t meet that requirement, she’d have to provide other “compelling reasons and documentation as to the merit of the transfer.” 

If Peters were to meet the criteria for transfer, a request would be sent to the Interstate Compact office and the state of California for investigation and determination of acceptance or rejection. This process, from application to determination, typically takes around 45 days. If Peters applied today and got accepted, she likely wouldn’t be able to come to California until the beginning of October, just one month before the November election. 

A publicist for Ticktin, Peters’ attorney, said today there are no new updates on her decision at this time. Earlier this week, he told Shasta Scout that she’s considering the role, “as there most definitely has been monkey business in the way the [Shasta County] election was handled.” 

---

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