Fate of Shasta’s Measure B remains uncertain

Shasta’s election official Clint Curtis says he needs to send the mock ups for June ballots to the printer on April 2. 

That’s the deadline that Shasta County Superior Court Judge Benjamin Hanna is working to meet, as he prepares a ruling on a ballot measure slated to appear before voters this June. Hanna said today he plans to issue a written ruling on or before March 27.

The ballot measure, if approved by voters, would implement changes to Shasta’s charter law to create specific county election rules including hand counting, one day voting and voter ID. About 7,000 verified Shasta County voters signed a ballot petition in support of the measure last year, prompting county supervisors to vote last November to place it on the upcoming June ballot.

But Measure B is facing a legal challenge. Shasta County taxpayer Jennifer Katske filed a lawsuit last month that said the court should render the measure invalid, because the proposed changes to county election procedures would violate both state and federal laws if implemented. Moving forward with a measure that would be illegal to implement, Katske argued in court today, would be a clear waste of taxpayer money.

The group of five local voters who facilitated the signature-gathering for Measure B include Shasta election staffer Laura Hobbs, as well as election activists Deirdre Holliday, Jim Burnett and Richard Gallardo. Four of the five appeared in court today where they were represented by Alex Haberbush, a Long Beach attorney who appeared via court call. 

Haberbush, who’s represented Hobbs two election lawsuits that were dismissed by the Shasta County Superior Court, argued that it may be valid to debate the legality of parts of the ballot measure, but such arguments should be filed in court after voters have had a chance to vote on the initiative, not before.

That’s where Hanna focused the conversation after extended oral arguments from both sides, not on whether the measure would be legal to implement if passed by voters, but on whether it’s valid for the court to remove it from ballots before the community has had a chance to weigh in by vote.

In Hanna’s comments, he referenced the sanctity of California’s ballot initiative process. Using judicial power to remove such a measure after that legal process has been followed, he said, should only happen if a very high bar is met.

“It’s an extreme step,” Hanna said by way of explanation, “for the court to take something away from the voters.”

County Counsel Joseph Larmour arrived to court late and spoke little during the hearing, following the direction of county supervisors not to take an opinion on the case. Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis was in the audience. He told the press he believes the measure should be left on the ballot to honor the wishes of the voters who put their signatures behind it.

After the hearing Hobbs told reporters she felt the hearing had gone well, saying she was pleased with her attorney’s arguments in court, and noting that it’s unusual for a pre-election review like this to result in a measure being removed from ballots. 

Katske, a registered nurse who’s representing herself in the case, said she’s concerned the measure is an attempt to circumvent state and federal election law that will drag unaware voters into a morass of legal issues at substantial expense to the taxpayer when the measure is inevitably challenged by a higher court.

“I think that it’s very important for people to do their research when they’re voting,” Katske said. “I don’t want to tell people how to vote, but I want you to have the information so you can make an intelligent vote.”

---

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