Measure B remains suspended after latest court ruling

The significant changes that would’ve been brought forth by Measure B, the controversial election law passed by voters in June, remain unlikely to affect the November election. 

Measure B was passed by nearly 56% of voters in the June primary. While it was promoted as a measure on voter ID, it included a number of provisions making sweeping changes to Shasta County’s elections law, several of which are illegal under state and federal laws. 

A Shasta judge suspended the new law last month so that it wouldn’t impact the fall election while its legality is being decided in the courts, a process that could take several more months.

Shortly after that ruling, proponents of the measure appealed the judge’s decision and submitted a request for the court to essentially unfreeze the state’s motion while the appeal was decided. 

But late last week, an appellate court denied the proponents’ request to unfreeze the state’s motion, keeping it in place and preventing the county from implementing the measure, at least for now. 

The full appeal of the judge’s order to suspend Measure B has not yet been ruled on. But because the process to submit ballot copy and other election-related materials for the November election has already begun, it’s too late for Measure B to be implemented this fall even if it gets worked out in the courts, Shasta Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis said yesterday. 

He explained that restarting the printing process if another court ruling is issued before November would cost the county about $100,000, noting that the county is contracting with Hart InterCivic this election to prepare ballot materials for the printer, Runbeck Election Services. 

Even if Measure B were to be ruled legal in the coming weeks leading up to the election, Curtis added, it would be very difficult for his office to pivot to fulfill the requirements of the new law, including finding enough staff to hand-count ballots at the precincts as required by the measure.

“[It’s] Still possible with a super human effort but very very hard,” he wrote by text. He said it “would not be practical to try to switch to a [Measure B] type of election” at this point in the election cycle.

The lawyer representing Measure B proponents, Alexander Haberbush, noted that while the appeal itself has yet to be ruled on, and a date for that ruling has not been set, the full court process is important. 

“The voters of Shasta County made their decision on June 2,” he said in an email statement. “We intend to see that it gets the complete judicial review it deserves.”

The California Attorney General’s and Secretary of State’s Offices released a joint press release following the latest ruling, saying it “ensures that Measure B will remain not in effect while the case continues and directs the county to abide by the status quo and hold their elections in accordance with state election laws.” 

---

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