Election Commission Seeks Access To Review Signatures For Supervisor Kevin Crye’s Recall
State law indicates that only election officials can examine that material. Three of the five Election Advisory members say that their new title as commissioners means they’re elections officials too.
Joanna Gin, an attorney with the legal firm Best, Best and Krieger, LLP sits with Deputy County CEO and the members of the Citizens Election Commission during the January 8 meeting. Photo by Annelise Pierce.
January 10, 2023 10:32 am: We have updated the article to correct the new title of the Commission.
In September, a resolution by a majority of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors set up a special committee, the “Citizens Election Advisory Committee,” to advise the board on election-related matters.
Last month, that committee was renamed as a “commission” by another majority vote of the board. That’s been important to some members of the Elections Commission who believe their status as commissioners now qualifies them as election officials, which, they say, should grant them access to private election materials.
Yesterday, January 8, the Commission approved a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors that suggests commissioners should have the power to review private recall petition documents, and asks the Board to consider hiring outside counsel specializing in election law to review the legal merits of the idea.
Some commissioners are hoping to review election materials related to a petition for the recall of Supervisor Kevin Crye. More than 5,000 members of Shasta County’s District 1 signed that petition, which has been certified by the Shasta County Registrar of Voters. By law, the signatures of recall petitioners, like all votes of the public, are kept confidential. Crye’s recall will be on the ballot in March.
The commissioners recommendation that the Board hire outside legal counsel specializing in elections is a strange one because the Board has already approved funds for that use. Late last year, the Board agreed to spend $20,000 for the Commission’s costs, including the hiring of outside legal counsel specializing in elections.
Joanna Gin, an attorney from the law firm Best, Best, and Krieger LLP which was hired with those funds, was seated with the board as they discussed the matter yesterday. Several commissioners did not appear to be aware that Gin was outside counsel until they were notified of that information by fellow commissioner Dawn Duckett.
“The recommendation in your report,” Duckett said to Lund, “is for the board to hire special counsel. And the way I view it the recommendation itself is moot as evidenced by Best, Best and Krieger sitting here who is special counsel. The board has already hired special counsel.”
Duckett continued by suggesting that Gin should offer her opinion on whether the Commission has legal standing to review election documents, indicating that would be the fastest way to determine if the idea suggested by some commissioners, has merit. Gin declined to do so, saying that said she while she had reviewed the recommendation she was prepared to comment only on whether or not the commission might recommend hiring outside legal council, not to opine on the Commission’s legal standing to review election materials.
In response, Commissioner Susanne Baremore suggested that the Commission give Gin until the next meeting to provide an opinion on the legality of the matter. Her suggestion was outvoted by a majority of the Commission, including Lund, Gray and Lisa Michaud, who decided to forward the matter on for supervisors review instead.
Before approval, commissioners amended the recommendation to include asking for legal counsel that could determine not only the Commission’s request to review recall petition material, but also to review “some, if not all, initiative, referendum, recall and other petitions and related materials.”
During the commissioner’s discussion some public speakers, including candidate for county supervisor Laura Hobbs, indicated distrust in the county’s choice of outside legal council.
“Some in the legal team, and in the administrative staff,” Hobbs said, “have done nothing but stymie and delay the progress of this committee.”
Failed candidate for clerk of elections and registrar of voters, Bob Holsinger also had thoughts.
“My concern is that we have election legal counsel,” Holsinger said, “that that’s what their primary focus is on and we’ve had those attorneys sitting right here in that chair, the number four chair from that corner before in these chambers and he’s offered to help us with other things and elections.”
Holsinger seemed to be referencing California attorney Alex Haberbush, who has previously appeared in front of the board as a public speaker, commenting on election law in support of hand counting. Haberbush works for a law firm in Long Beach that specializes in bankruptcy law.
Do you have a correction to this story? You can submit it here. Do you have information to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org
Author
Comments (16)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
Shasta County Public Health identifies sixth site of possible measles exposure
The Ninja Coalition is the latest site listed by the county where community members might have been exposed. The public is encouraged to remain vigilant for measles symptoms and update their MMR vaccinations if needed.
Local chapters of Turning Point USA will host a “faith night” amid looming protests
The conservative youth organization’s event, scheduled for Feb. 7, is the latest flashpoint among ongoing political debate in the county.
Disaster declaration by federal administration makes loans possible for December flood victims
The city and the federal Small Business Administration will host a Disaster Loan Outreach Center for several weeks to help individuals and businesses affected by the flooding apply for loans. It opens Feb. 6.
I attended the last ad hoc election committee meeting and it was a total joke. Johanna Francescut, Assistant County Clerk, took 1hr.30 minutes to explain in detail how the election dept. staff operates; plus presented a 15 pg handout to members and attendees. Then the 3 members asked questions that were from some other planet; they obviously didn’t listen to Ms. Francescut, or were texting who knows who. The entire ad hoc committee should resign immediately. They have ZERO legal authority. Their bogus idea to install cameras at the metal ballot boxes is illegal and covered by CA Election Code, so give that idea up. Getting any counting materials from the Recall signature gatherers is also illegal. It’s just a matter of time that the attorneys from the Secretary of State office will pounce on them and the BoS. As stated before, it’s a deliberate distraction and vast waste of funds. The $18,000. for the yearly budget is gone for payment of outside counsel. Dissolve the 5 members now !
It’s obvious that this “commission’s” majority agenda is twofold: (1) cast doubt on the integrity of our elections and election officials, and (2) intimidate participants in the democratic process.
Sure, let’s spend more of the county’s money (Spoiler alert: that’s our hard earned tax dollars, folks) and for what? So these “Commissioners” can feel like big shots and have something they think is important for them to do? So they can poke around in our confidential voter rolls and decide who they or their tools can intimidate? (Spoiler alert: that’s illegal, folks.) This election committee (and it doesn’t matter what our board of Supervisors calls them, they ain’t commissioners) is just another boondoggle foisted on the good citizens of Shasta County to further muddy the waters.
There needs to be a shit load of sunshine in the counting of ballots. The more people involved the better it will be for Shasta County. To deny anybody or any commission a request to simply view signatures is denying what you would call “democracy”
No Jon, I disagree.
There are certain people that want to see these signatures so they can intimidate those who signed them. Period.
Also just because you used to be the former chef for Reverge Anselmo doesn’t mean you still need to support his efforts to tear the county apart.
I agree that the main reason for this commission is to further detract from the work of Cathy Darling and intimidate the election officials as well as the people who signed the petitions. This whole commission thing stinks and
is a waste of money that could have gone to raise the pay of our hard-working county staff members.
Except for the part about state law being something our county government should follow, you might have a point. Part of “sunshine” is following laws and working to change them if citizens think that’s necessary. Spending money as they have been is fruitlessly circular . If they have outside counsel, they should both know it and utilize the expertise of that outside counsel.
What the group is trying to do is not providing sunshine. It’s trying to get access to ballots “for their own purposes.” The sunshine is being away of the illegal manipulating of the election process that they are promoting.
So they have a legal expert right in front of them. Instead of having that expert come back with a legal opinion at their next meeting, they decide to bring it to the board who are non-experts, and not lawyers.
Where’s the common sense at???
common sense is hard to find in the majority of this BOS. Hence, the recall effort.
What a further waste of county funds. This commission already has outside counsel so why do they need more? Election law is also clear that the names of petition signers are completely confidential .
Appreciate your work to help us understand the current situation. At the end of this reporting it would be very helpful if you could state(1) what is the current status of all this (more meets? resolved ? , et al) AND note time/place of next meeting. Thank you. María Raymond
Hi there. Thanks for this feedback, I will take it on board. For the moment let me clarify that the CEAC continues to meet approximately every two weeks and this particularly issue will come before supervisors in the future although the time when that occurs is not yet known.
Just out of curiosity, was there any one there speaking in opposition to resolution R 4?
Hi there. From memory, only the two individuals being considered by the board spoke on R4.
Actually I did speak out about stating I thought the commision was break the law. Here is a follow up.
The Shasta County Election Commission is proving to be an arm of far-right conspiracists and extremists and the commission does not seem to care about law or about free and fair elections.
On Jan. 08, 24, newly formed Shasta County Election Commission members Lisa Michaud, Ronnean Lund, and Bev Gray passed Resolution R-4, demanding that all Recall Supervisor Kevin. Crye petitions, verified as legitimate by SCBOS, be turned over to an “Ad Hoc” committee or an “attorney” of their choosing, because Michaud, Lund and Gray believe the petitions are fraudulent.
Michaud, Lund and Gray are using taxpayer dollars and their commission as a dirty-trick campaign tactic for Crye, and possibly breaking Ca. Election law 17200, Section D, and Ca. Government Code 7924.100, to intimate voters of Shasta County, harass signatories and petitioners of the Recall Supervisor Kevin Crye petitions and to cast doubt on legitimacy of the Shasta County Elections Department.
Citizens should be concerned! This commision is attacking democracy!