Curtis defends himself as Shasta board takes second look at alleged election misconduct 

“There was ballot stuffing,” Shasta Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis told the county board today.

He was repeating a claim he made during a recent election office tour for California gubernatorial candidates, when he alleged that former election officials, including his campaign opponent, were guilty of criminal fraud. Some community members have decried those statements as campaigning on county property — something forbidden by both county policy and state law. But Curtis said today he wasn’t campaigning because he was “just stating what was true.” 

He has shared no documentation to back his claim that former election officials —including Joanna Francescut who is running against him for the ROV position this June — engaged in what Curtis has referred to as “ballot stuffing,” or counting more ballots than were actually cast, to sway election results. 

Francescut, along with former ROVs Cathy Darling Allen and Tom Toller have all emphatically denied Curtis’ claims of election misconduct. In November, Francescut told Shasta Scout such claims were “​​patently false and completely unacceptable” adding that “any allegation of elections mismanagement under my watch was politically motivated and judiciously tossed from court,” a reference to two failed lawsuits by Laura Hobbs, an activist who’s now been hired by Curtis.

Nevertheless, Curtis says he’s reported the matter to federal officials in hopes of prosecution. Today he mentioned that he’s also reported the issue to the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office, noting that officials there didn’t take action. 

“They said, ‘yea things are bad but there’s nothing we can do,” Curtis claimed. Shasta Scout has reached out to the sheriff for comment and is pending a response.

Curtis added that he’s also attempted to involve the FBI, urging federal law enforcement to “get the records just like they did in Georgia.” It was a reference to an FBI raid of a county election office near Atlanta last month, in which agents seized documents related to the 2020 election. The search came a week after President Donald Trump repeated claims that the 2020 election was rigged against him.

The board had already discussed the statements made by Curtis during his tour, but the issue was brought back to the board today to ensure public comment, something that was not allowed at the last meeting. Officials claimed at the time that because the topic was a “no vote” item, no public comments had to be heard. 

The declaration triggered cries of disapproval from the audience, who sent subsequent emails demanding the board correct its apparent violation of a California transparency law known as the Brown Act, which requires that public comment be heard on all items on the board’s regular agenda.

Today Chair Chris Kelstrom briefly acknowledged that he should have allowed public comments last time before welcoming more than 20 speakers to come forward and share their perspectives. 

Curtis’ critics continued to claim that his actions amounted to campaigning on county property. Fourth-generation farmer Jeff Carr attended the gubernatorial tour last month where he probed Curtis in response to his original ballot-stuffing allegations. He used his remarks today to call for the ROV to be censured, or publicly rebuked, by supervisors.

“We’ve seen this all before,” Carr said. “Outsiders come in to show us how it’s done. They bring their big city ideas … a Florida carpetbagger who dazzled this board with his snake oil. He sold you all with his disarming smile, his conciliatory words, and you bought it.

“I’ve been in barnyards long enough to know what I’m seeing in the ROV office,” Carr continued. “It smells and now it’s stuck to your boots. You appointed a man who’s a defamer, a liar, a carpetbagger. Clean your boots! Censure Clint Curtis.”

Meanwhile Curtis’ supporters shared their perspective on who was allegedly campaigning , claiming that Supervisor Allen Long was trying to rally support for Curtis’ opponent, Francescut, when he brought up his concerns with Curtis at the last board meeting. 

“God help me. I look at you and I see the devil, Mr. Long,” said community member Kim Moore, describing Long’s concerns about Curtis’ action as “despicable.” 

“He did a good job,” she added of Curtis’ work at the last election, “and anybody who has a problem with it can go suck on a rock, because he’s made our elections free, fair and honest.”

After hearing from the public, supervisors discussed the allegations against Curtis again, but only briefly. 

At the last meeting, the county’s attorney, Joseph Larmour, claimed that Curtis’ allegations against former election staff were minimal and “incidental,” minimizing the legal impact of the ROV’s remarks. As the board rediscussed the matter today, Long said he had learned through local media that Larmour’s statements were inaccurate. 

Long asked if attorney Larmour could again opine about the legality of Curtis’ statements, now that reporting about an audio recording of the tour, has shown Curtis’ remarks to be more substantial.

In response, County Counsel Joe Larmour said if the board wanted a full investigation of statements made on the tour, they’d have to hire outside counsel so that witnesses could be called and recordings reviewed. The process, Larmour claimed, would likely take 9-12 months. 

Supervisors did not discuss the matter further. 

Speaking to Shasta Scout after the meeting, Plummer said his decision not to pursue the matter further came down to the risk vs benefit of pursuing legal action against a current political candidate. Citing how the prosecution of Trump may have actually contributed to his success in the 2024 election, Plummer said taking legal steps against a political candidate carries the dual risks of either harming their chances at election, or alternatively creating a victim narrative that might create an advantage.  

Either way, he said, if he was convinced Curtis had committed a crime, he would have wanted to ensure that he was held accountable. But given that he sees Curtis’ statements at the election office as something of a gray area, he didn’t want to take the matter further. 

“I think it’s better to let it play out with voters,” Plummer said.

---

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