Last Year, Board Interviews of Top Election Candidates Included Questions about Compromise, Trust, and “Tearing Down the Wall”

Shasta County Assistant Registrar of Voters (ROV) Joanna Francescut is among five candidates who will interview for the County’s top election job tomorrow, April 30.

Many members of the public have voiced their support for Francescut, calling her by far the most qualified for the role. She has 16 years of experience in the local elections office, which includes having worked every staffing position. She also ran the March 2024 election on her own during the medical leave of her former boss, long-term elected ROV Cathy Darling Allen, who stepped down last year. 

But her experience working closely with Darling Allen could also be a liability, as Francescut faces the Board for her interview tomorrow. Last year, Francescut toed a careful line in response to some supervisors’ accusatory line of questioning regarding her work with Darling Allen, a frequent political target of the former Board majority. Emphasizing her respect for her former boss during her interview last year, Francescut also pointed out that she would run the department in her own way, should she be put in charge. 

Supervisor Kevin Crye asked Francescut to provide “some hard and fast examples” that she intends to “go a very very different direction” than her long-term supervisor Darling Allen. Francescut responded by saying that unlike Darling Allen, she would support the existence of the Elections Commission, an advisory group that Crye and others have put in place. She also said she plans to communicate earlier and more clearly on budget and contract issues, two areas where the Board has jurisdiction over elections.

The answer didn’t appear to satisfy Crye who doubled down, asking Francescut whether she was willing to fight for the ideology she believes in. 

“I need this, Joanna,” Crye told Francescut fervently, appearing to plead with her. “I think you’ve got an amazing heart. You’re a great person. My biggest question, and this is what I’m trying to understand, is, are you willing to fight for things that you ideologically believe in, and are you willing to die on that cross for it?”

In response, Francescut emphasized the nonpartisan nature of the office and her intent to follow state election law.

Crye’s unusual query was somewhat similar to a question he asked another applicant, Clint Curtis, a former computer programmer and attorney who specializes in election law. Like Francescut, Curtis also applied for the ROV role both last year and again this year and will sit for interviews tomorrow.

Crye wanted to know how Curtis would deal with “ideological differences” within the working environment, to which Curtis responded that he’d bend a little and compromise as needed to make things work, something he says he’s learned to do in the courtroom. 

The answer appeared to inflame Crye.

“Explore what you mean by ‘bend a little,’” he retorted. “Because, see for me, if I had to do something that I ideologically disagreed with, I’d just quit, right, walk away. I’m not going to bend. I want to know that you’re uncompromising in your beliefs and ethics and character.”

Like Francescut, Curtis at times struggled to respond to Crye’s interrogatory remarks, but had an easier time with questions from former Supervisors Mary Rickert and Tim Garman.

Asked by Rickert if he would continue to employ the approximately 20 Elections Office staff if he was appointed, Curtis said it might be easier to start over with new staff, claiming boldly that current staff had learned “bad habits” under Darling Allen and Francescut.

“Not to be rude,” Curtis said, “but your election office doesn’t follow the law in a lot of areas and would need to be retrained.”

He provided only vague references to election law to back his claim. A few moments later, Curtis appeared to curry favor with some supervisors when he responded to former Supervisor Jones’ statements about transparency and observer access with the phrase “tear down that wall,” a possible reference to the Berlin Wall. 

Kelstrom picked up on the phrase, using it shortly after as he questioned Francescut on whether she would tear down a security gate at the Election Office. Francescut responded with an explanation of why the security gate was installed, to keep the voting system safe after changes at the Office due to the Board decision to mandate hand counting in 2023. That decision was later walked back in response to a new state law.

Supervisor Kelstrom also questioned Francescut on the allowable timeline for the destruction of specific election materials, citing Curtis’ claim during his interview that while ballot destruction is allowed by law on a certain timeline, it’s not required. Not so according to Francescut, County Counsel Joseph Larmour, and California’s Secretary of State.

“I have received a specific email from the Secretary of State in a memo that provides us with the advice that we need to follow,” Francescut told Kelstrom. “The Secretary of State being the highest election official in the state of California, saying we shall destroy and it lists all the things we have to destroy, including ballots, vote by mail, envelopes and all the stuff that we have sealed up for the records.”

“I’ve also reached out to Counsel to get the legal advice to confirm that that’s a process we need to follow,” Francescut continued. “If that’s something that we need to look at again and confirm again we can do that. I’m not making these decisions alone. I’m working with attorneys and the Counsel as provided by what we’re expected to do within the Office.”

“So my intent is always to follow the integrity of the process, the integrity of laws. I cannot put a candidate or a board member on top of the laws that we have in place. And I need you to understand that we presented many times why we have to shred these ballots, and why we do not retain them. If there’s a court order, yes, I’m going to hold on to them. But I’m going to do things according to law.“

Joanna Francescut

Towards the end of his interview, Curtis told the Board in no uncertain terms that he wants to work as ROV in Shasta County in order to create a model for the nation. He said that successful court cases challenging the use of machines in elections will depend on foundational documentation, something that can only be obtained from a source working inside the system. 

Jones seemed pleased with that idea, saying Shasta has drawn attention from media around the nation and the world because it’s a little county working to make things right in elections.

“Somebody has to go first”, Jones continued, “and I think that may be us.”

Absolutely, Curtis replied.

Fixed is when everybody on both sides of this aisle can sit there and know that the election is correct. It may not be the numbers they want, but they will know that every ballot was counted correctly and that no one has their thumb on the scale. No one’s back there, you know, flipping the alphabet around. We’re doing everything completely by law so that they will be able to see everything that’s going on. 

Attorney Clint Curtis

Has Anything Changed Since Last Year?

By the end of the 2024 public interview process the Board had appointed ROV Tom Toller, who was chosen at Crye’s request. Toller lasted only eight months in the role before stepping down for health reasons. His resignation becomes official today, April 29. Crye said at the time that he believed Toller should be chosen over Francescut in order to allow her to gain needed experience under the right kind of leader. But speaking to Shasta Scout a few weeks ago, Crye hedged when asked if he thought Francescut had gained that experience during her eight months under Toller’s leadership.  

“I’m looking for someone who can take things off the table that seem to be huge points of contention,” Crye demurred, mentioning the number of ballot boxes in the county, something which comes up relatively rarely in Shasta County’s public debate.

Currently, the most vocally contentious item related to Shasta County elections is the Supervisors’ decision to recruit, rather than appoint, for the ROV position. The vast majority of public speakers during the Board’s discussion on March 27 said appointing Francescut to fill the role for the rest of Darling Allen’s term is the only decision that would make sense, citing the stability and experience she’d bring to the Elections Office after the loss of two top elections officials in less than a year. 

Tomorrow, April 30 at 11 am, supervisors will interview candidates in open session at the City of Shasta Lake’s Council chamber. Whoever they choose to appoint will hold the role through January of 2027 when a newly-elected ROV will take their place.

Full transcript of Curtis’ 2024 interview with the Board.

Full transcript of Francescut’s 2024 interview with the Board.

---

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