Measure B lawsuit costs surpass total donations to the committee that supports the measure, records show
Thousands of dollars have been paid to Lex Rex Institute to cover legal costs from lawsuits since the initiative was placed on ballots. Slightly more than $10,000 in donations has been raised through the “Yes on Measure B” committee so far.
Expenses from the lawsuits challenging Measure B have surpassed the total donations made to the committee that supports the measure, campaign finance records show.
Measure B is a citizen-led initiative that, if passed by voters in the June 2 primary election, would have layered impacts on future elections in Shasta County. The measure has been chalked up to a simple question on voter ID, but if passed, it would also implement one-day voting, hand counting, limited absentee ballots and a separation from state voter rolls, all of which would violate a variety of state and federal laws.
In February, a suit was filed by Shasta County taxpayer Jennifer Katske against the measure, alleging that placing it on ballots is a waste of taxpayer money since implementing it would be illegal. About a month later, Katske filed another suit, this time alleging that the required number of signatures for the measure to be placed on the ballot was never verified by the county elections office.
A Shasta County Superior Court judge ruled in late March that the measure would remain on the ballot, saying further suits related to the legality of the measure could be filed if it was passed by voters.
Expenses to cover legal representation to defend Measure B so far this year have totaled to at least $10,500, paid by the “Yes on Measure B” committee to Lex Rex Institute — a legal nonprofit focused on constitutional issues — according to campaign finance documents. The amount just exceeds the total sum of donations made to the measure, which amounts to almost $10,400 so far.
While the “Yes on Measure B” committee seems at first glance to be the only fundraising group associated with Measure B, a committee called Shasta Election Reform appears to have financially supported the petition process that led up to Measure B being placed on the ballot, documents show.
Shasta Election Reform was created early last year to “advocate for election reform in Shasta County,” according to the committee’s Statement of Organization form submitted last March. The form indicates that the committee is connected to both election-related measures and candidates.
The committee’s treasurer is Laura Hobbs, who is also the treasurer and lead proponent behind the “Yes on Measure B” committee, as well as a Shasta Elections Office employee who has received criticism for handling documentation related to Measure B in her role at the elections office, something that appears to violate the county’s conflict of interest policy.
It’s unclear whether all of Shasta Election Reform’s funds were used solely to support the initiative that led to Measure B. Hobbs did not respond to a request for comment to answer this question.
More than $15,000 was gathered through donations for that fund, and almost $9,000 was spent on legal fees to Lex Rex Institute following a legal challenge filed by the county last year.
Other expenses incurred by Shasta Election Reform that appear to connect to the Measure B initiative include payments made for petition circulation, T-shirts and ballot fees. Shasta Election Reform also donated more than $200 to the “Yes on Measure B” committee shortly after it was created, an amount that left the first committee’s account with only about a $17 balance as of the committee’s last filing.
Who were the major and standout donors to the “Yes on Measure B” and Shasta Election Reform committees?
There have only been about two dozen individual donors who gave $100 or more to the “Yes on Measure B” committee, and all of them live in Shasta County except one: Francine Martinson, an Arizona resident, who donated $100.
There were seven donors who gave $500 or more. Dick Wilkinson was the highest donor at $1,900, followed by Hobbs, who donated $1,180.
Elisa Ballard, a founder of Shasta Unfiltered, donated $800, and Darcy Roberts, Kathy Pauletich, Nicole Oilar and Shasta Election Commissioner Ronnean Lund donated $500 each. Ballard, Roberts, Oilar and Lund were also Curtis donors.
Eric Gallardo, Richard Gallardo’s brother, loaned the committee $5,500, documents also show.
Several individuals and groups donated more than $500 to Shasta Election Reform. Lex Rex Institute donated $4,500, Richard Gallardo donated $1,375, Hobbs and her District 2 supervisor campaign together donated $1,157.53, local business owner David Shoffner donated $1,000 and Bev Gray, a major Curtis donor, contributed $567, records show.
The five original petitioners behind Measure B also donated to Shasta Election Reform, including Jim Burnett, Kari Chilson and Deidre Holiday, along with Gallardo and Hobbs.
The primary election is on June 2, though voters have already begun mailing in ballots. Major local races include county supervisors for Districts 1 and 5 and registrar of voters.
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Comments (12)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
SCOE trustees will debate loosening approval process for publicly funded conference travel
Current bylaws require Shasta County Office of Education Board approval for training and conferences. A proposed update would remove that approval process, a move one trustee warns could risk becoming an “open checkbook.”
Shasta’s recent election signals shift in what California’s most conservative voters will tolerate
Interviews with about two dozen sources — including former, current and future county leaders — suggest the result of Shasta County’s June election was less a rejection of conservatism than of a tumultuous leadership style that emerged during the pandemic.
Shasta elections official Curtis says he hopes to hire former opponent and ROV-elect Francescut as assistant ROV
In a surprise announcement, Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis shared the news during an interview yesterday. Curtis fired Francescut from the same position last year. His current assistant ROV hasn’t confirmed plans to vacate the role.
Isn’t it funny that there are some people that are profiting on this whole mess?
…
Hmm…
.
Some of you locals from Shasta county need to wake up and realize that you are being grifted.
.
Tobias C.D. Webb has shared a VALUABLE comment that deserves full attention of Shasta Scout: LEX REX INSTITUTE is listed as “Not Registered” with the California Attorney General’s Registry of Charities and Fundraisers, it means the nonprofit is NOT authorized to solicit charitable donations or operate in California.
SOS/FTB Corporate/Organization Number: 4712418
Measure B is a purely symbolic, hand-waving exercise in MAGA ignorance and futility. It defies state law in multiple ways and was placed on the ballot by dunderheads who refuse to understand that Shasta County is an entity of the state, not an independent principality. It will be struck down by the courts almost immediately, and any money spent to defend it will be treated the way toilet paper is generally used.
.
That’s why I say: Knock yourselves out, local MAGAs. The new BOS isn’t going to allocate funds to defend your stupid, petulant little stunt, so you’ll have to cough up your own money to appeal the court’s decision to shit-can your measure. Lots of luck, losers!
One might think Shasta County is wealthy considering how much money we seem to happily throw down a rat hole.
They might have to use a discount lawyer if all they have is $10,000. Maybe Lionel Hutz can take them as a client?
Yes, we’d all like to see voter ID requirements. It’s unfortunate that the proponents saddled the proposal with so much extraneous verbiage.
And Mr Boyce it will be unfortunate if you Vote yes on Measure B, because you can’t extract the other onerous parts of the ballot measure, you get it all and at great expense to the county and the expense of a lawsuit to the CA Supreme Court, who’ll declare it DOA.
Will the Shasta County Board of Supervisors decide not to defend Measure B in court if it passes? I wonder whether Curtis, Hobbs, and Jones might try to bring in Tini Peters’ lawyer, Peter Ticktin, another Florida-based attorney. Remember, Clint tried to do that once before in the Jane Doe vs. Shasta County Measure B case. Far-right extremist supervisor Crye was open to “giving a little money” to the Ticktin cause, but not the $20,000 ROV Clint Curtis wanted.
.
After the Board of Supervisors told county counsel not to defend Measure B in court, the court allowed them to intervene in the case, giving Hobbs a win for a change (and Haberbush a nice little payday), not on the legality of Measure B, but on the right to put the measure on the ballot.
.
If Measure B passes and goes to court, the cost of defending it could run into many millions of dollars, so I could see the three far-right supervisors simply saying, “No thanks, but Hobbs and Cutris, you can intervene if you want.” And give the Jones – Curtis – Hobbs crew a little blessing to go all the way to the US Supreme Court.
On May 28, Thursday, at 9:00, the Board of Supervisors will hold a special meeting to consider the case of Katske v Curtis, in closed session.
California Registry of Charities and Fundraisers
– Organization Name: LEX REX INSTITUTE
– Entity Type: Charitable or nonprofit corporation
– SOS/FTB Corporate/Organization Number: 4712418
– Registry Status: Not Registered
– Record Type: Charity Registration
If LEX REX INSTITUTE is listed as “Not Registered” with the California Attorney General’s Registry of Charities and Fundraisers, it means that organization is NOT authorized to solicit charitable donations or operate in California.
Get ready Shasta County to spend a whole lot of money if this one passes only to see it overturned because it goes the existing g state law.