Here’s What You Need to Know about Shasta County Ballot Measures P and Q

On November 5, voters in Shasta County will have the opportunity to vote on two local measures. Measure P changes the circumstances under which Shasta County government may use something called “eminent domain” to acquire new land. Measure Q grants county supervisors the power to choose between appointing a replacement for certain elected positions or calling a special election if those positions are vacated mid-term .

In March 2024, local voters passed Measure D making Shasta a “charter county”– meaning that in some ways, the county is able to tailor its own laws to supersede California’s usual laws for counties. 

Shasta County’s original charter only included a single issue, empowering the Board, rather than California’s Governor, to appoint a replacement if a Board seat is vacated early. Measures P and Q, if passed by the voters in November, would add two more elements to Shasta County’s charter.

Here’s what you need to know. 

What is a ballot measure? 

In 1911, California amended its Constitution to empower voters to approve or repeal legislation and amendments through ballot measures. Also known as propositions, ballot measures are proposed changes to the law that voters have a direct say in. Rather than relying on our elected officials to make decisions on our behalf, the issues brought forward by ballot measures are decided by the public at the voting booth. 

Why are ballot measures used? 

The government is required to present ballot measures any time it seeks to approve bonds, change certain laws or amend/repeal decisions that were reached through previous ballot measures. Additionally, any member of the public can place a measure on the ballot by following a process that involves petitioning signatures, drafting a text, and having the text reviewed by different branches of the government. 

Both Measures P and Q were put on the ballot by a majority vote of the Shasta County Board.

What is Measure P? 

Measure P pertains to a legal concept known as eminent domain, which refers to the government’s right to acquire private property even if the owners do not want to sell. In California, the state can only enact eminent domain if the private property is being put towards a “public use”– such as the construction of infrastructure like roads or bridges. When using eminent domain, the state is required to pay the owners of the acquired property “just compensation,” meaning the true market value of their land. 

In 2005, the Supreme Court amended the law to allow not only the government but also “private parties” to acquire land through eminent domain, but only if that land will be used to benefit the public. Of course, deciding what is and isn’t “beneficial use” is a complex process.

Measure P would amend eminent domain in Shasta County so that the County would not have the right to seize private property through eminent domain for private parties. Meaning, if Measure P passes, then Shasta County can only enact eminent domain if the land will be used by the government for the public’s good, not if it’s being conveyed to a private party for the public’s good. In other words, the Measure restricts County government, giving it less authority than the state government to use eminent domain.

In response to a records request, Public Works Director Troy Bartolomei sent Shasta Scout documentation of the 27 instances in which Shasta County enacted eminent domain from 1976 to the present–only twice since 2000. He importantly noted: “none of the resolutions were for eminent domain on behalf of a private property owner,” meaning that the type of eminent domain that Measure P would prohibit has never occurred in the county.

What are some reasons people support / oppose Measure P? 

Those who are advocating yes on Measure P believe that it will protect the rights of property owners. They point out that this measure will limit the county government’s capacity to enact eminent domain to acquire land for a private party even if that party can make the case under California law that the use of the land would benefit the public.

Those who oppose Measure P believe that eminent domain is already tightly controlled by California state law, and thus adding an additional restriction in Shasta County is unnecessary. Additionally, opponents take issue with the idea of adding more amendments to Shasta County’s charter so quickly, since the charter was just approved by voters in the primary, and will not take effect until January of 2025. 

What’s the Catch?

It’s important to note that Measure P gives more power to each individual landowner to retain rights to their property even if local elected officials believe the use of some of that land by another private landowner is necessary for the public’s benefit. 

What is Measure Q?

Measure Q pertains to the process by which vacancies left by the early departure of elected officials will be filled. Elected officials that would be affected by Measure Q include the Assessor-Recorder, County Clerk/Registrar of Voters, Sheriff-Coroner, Auditor-Controller, District Attorney, and Treasurer-Tax Collector/Public Administrator. 

Current law requires the County Board of Supervisors to appoint a replacement when those offices are vacated early, but leaves it up to the Board to choose whether that appointee will fill the seat only until the next election or through the rest of the term.

Measure Q would give the Board the option to choose between calling a special election right away when one of those elected offices is vacated mid-term, or appointing a candidate. But if the Board appoints a candidate, under Measure Q they would only be able to do so either until the next general election or the end of the term, whichever comes first.

This measure leaves power in the hands of the Board to decide in each case whether to call a special election or appoint a replacement, but it also reduces the Board’s power when appointing a replacement by limiting that appointment to either the end of the term or until the next election, whichever is sooner. 

To understand this distinction, consider the recent appointment of Shasta County Registrar of Voters Tom Toller. Under current state law, the Board was not able to call a special election to fill that seat and had to appoint a replacement for the position. But the Board could have appointed either until the end of the term or until the next election. In Toller’s case, the Board chose to fill the seat through the end of the term, for two years. If we hypothetically apply the framework of Measure Q to Toller’s appointment, the Board would have had the choice to call a special election or appoint but any appointment could only have lasted till this fall’s election, not for two years. 

Measure Q also outlines steps for how the Board would replace an elected department head including holding an open recruitment that ensures applicants meet all of the job requirements, followed by public interviews during supervisor meetings. The Board would then decide who fills the seat by simple majority vote.

Why do people support or oppose Measure Q? 

Those in favor of Measure Q point out that that it will shorten the amount of time the board is able to appoint someone to fill a vacant position, more quickly returning the decision of who fills the seat back to the voters.

Similarly to Measure P, some opponents disagree with adding another element to Shasta County’s charter before it has gone into effect. 

What’s the Catch?

It’s important to note that there are two differences between Measure Q and the current law. One is that for each vacancy that arises the Board is given the option to call a special election to replace the vacated position. The other is that if the Board appoints to fill the vacancy, the interim appointed official cannot serve until the end of the vacated term if an election comes sooner.  

---

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