New question emerges about Measure B, a local initiative that could change Shasta’s election law
A ballot initiative slated to appear before voters in June continues to face legal pushback. The initiative, if passed by voters, would change Shasta’s election laws in ways that violate current state election law. A recent legal filing alleges that Measure B never received enough signatures to appear on ballots at all.
A filing submitted to the Shasta County Superior Court on March 12 raises a new question about Measure B.
The initiative, which is currently slated to appear before Shasta voters in June, would change the county’s charter law to implement local election rules including limited absentee ballots, hand counting and voter ID. All three, and other requirements of the measure — such as separating Shasta’s voter rolls from the state — would violate state laws that forbid voter ID requirements, require the use of universal mail in ballots and outlaw hand counting in jurisdictions the size of Shasta.
In February, Shasta County taxpayer Jennifer Katske filed a suit against the measure — originally under a pseudonym. She alleged that placing the initiative on ballots is a waste of taxpayer money because implementing the measure would be illegal. In the suit, she asked the court to issue a restraining order to prohibit the county from continuing to spend money to place it on the ballot. Shasta County Judge Benjamin Hanna agreed, issuing a restraining order in February that was later lifted by judges in the Third District Court after an appeal by ballot measure proponents. For now, the ballot measure is moving forward.
Measure B is a citizen-led initiative, meaning that it’s being placed on ballots because enough signatures were gathered by Shasta community members. But Katske’s latest filing in the case, submitted on March 12, alleges that the appropriate number of citizen signatures were never verified by the county elections office.
In an Oct. 23 document submitted to the county board, County Clerk and Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis said he had determined the number of signatures needed by utilizing a formula that had been provided by California’s Secretary of State. citing California Election Code 9118. He said a random sampling of submitted signatures had shown that proponents gathered more than enough valid signatures and asked supervisors to vote to place the measure on ballots, something they did.
But Katske, a nurse who’s representing herself in the case, says Curtis used the wrong formula for a charter amendment, alleging that another part of the election code referencing city or city and county charter initiatives should have been used instead.
Using emails pulled through public records requests and shared as exhibits in her filing, Katske documented that the ballot measure initially failed the signature verification process before Curtis found what he referred to in an email to ballot proponents as a “loophole” by switching to a formula provided in California Election Code 9118. That law outlines signature requirements for ballot measures more broadly without referencing charter amendments.
The Secretary of State’s Office declined to comment on the validity of the formula used by Curtis, referring to the ballot measure as a “local issue” and suggesting Shasta Scout contact the local elections office. Curtis, who heads that office, did not respond to a request for comment.
The ballot measure is being promoted by a group of five Shasta County community members including Laura Hobbs, an election activist who was hired by Curtis on Oct. 6, just weeks before the signatures for the ballot measure she championed were officially approved by his office. In February, Curtis said his decision to employ Hobbs full-time at the Shasta Elections Office doesn’t represent a conflict of interest and shouldn’t concern voters. Hobbs, who has already poured more than $2000 into the campaign for Measure B, did not respond to a request for comment.
Judge Hanna will take up the case against Measure B again on March 25 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 64 of the Shasta County Superior Courthouse.
4.23.2026 3:05 p.m.: We have updated the story to correct the next hearing date.
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org
Author
Comments (29)
Leave a comment
Related Articles
Redding organizations to host meet and greet with Ironman officials ahead of this summer’s race
The event will be hosted by the Redding Chamber of Commerce, Visit Redding and Choose Redding Lodging. It will be held tomorrow, April 14, at 4 p.m. at Westside Tap & Cork.
Future of Anderson-based youth behavioral health facility uncertain, despite conditional awards of millions in state and county funds
The news of one stakeholder’s withdrawal from the Pathways to Leadership project was announced after Anderson Council member Mike Gallagher and other community members expressed concerns about alleged misrepresentations on grant application materials. A second stakeholder has not announced whether the project will move forward.
Bethel Church chooses third-party group to investigate abuse allegations made against leader Ben Armstrong
The church announced last week that it chose Sintra Group Professional Investigations to conduct an investigation into clergy abuse allegations made earlier this year about Armstrong. The firm doesn’t list experience with this type of investigation on its site.
People need to understand that when you fill out your ballot(s) it should be with Black or Blue pen and no other color because the machines cannot pick up red, purple, light pencil marks, green, pink, or any other color period. There should be no initials or markings anywhere on the ballot, and especially in the barcode areas. If you put in a write-in name that is not the actual legal list, (example: Mickey Mouse, Daffy Duck, etcetera, that is an invalid vote and will not count, which is a waste of your vote and time.
Make sure all your markings are the same. If you make a mistake, line through your mistake and write “NO” on the side and mark the correct one in the box. Nothing else, not even initials.
Writing inappropriate notes on your ballot doesn’t help in the processing of your ballot, but can cause your ballot to be duplicated or adjugated depending on the situation.
These are just a few things that might help voters to understand the actual ballot rules.
PLEASE NOTE: Also reading your ballot instructions is a very big help to each and everyone voting.
Can we stop calling all these voter suppression measures Voter ID? What they’re trying to pass isn’t about showing ID. It’s about showing your proof of citizenship. Your drivers license isn’t proof. If you went to the polls thinking it was, joke’s on you. You’d have to go home and get your birth certificate. Only have a copy? Too bad, that won’t work either. Is your name different from your birth certificate? Too bad, that won’t work either. ITS NOT ABOUT SHOWING ID, it’s about wiping out our ability to vote.
Easy remedy, just Vote No on measure B, yes on Erin Resner and Yes on Joanna Francescut, vote your conscious on Sup Dist 5.
Measure B stands for BULL SHIT Vote no
Funny, yes, but the joke is on us. MAGA, like its leader—the court adjudicated rapist and 34-count criminal felon—started his political life after HEAVEN FORBID, a black man became President! Then, the Tea Party laid off the Tea and became MAGA, switching to the Kool-Aid of “Grab Them By The —–.” That Kool-Aid shut down logic and replaced cognitive reason with proven false lies about elections, vaccines, chemtrails, and a fear of people who aren’t white Christians!*
Locally, this resulted in a 4-year spew by people with the educational level of an Anderson High School diploma lecturing us about US Constitutional Law in SCBOS meetings. And the County Supervisors’ meetings became an internationally known MAGA propaganda MAGAPHONE.*
The Clint Curtis – Laura Hobbs Measure B is completely illegal; even the far-right SCBOS knows it! That’s why, except for MAGA Super Star Supervisor Crye, they didn’t approve ROV Curtis’s request for $25,000 to have the convicted election felon Tina Peters’s attorney, Peter Ticktin, defend Measure B.
*Hobbs has spent an estimated $140,000 of taxpayers’ dwindling cash, losing not only her election but also three times in court.
Lies and propaganda are one thing, but wasting money on whoopla for MAGA to turn taxpayers into their propaganda toilet paper is another. Like the recent 3-time Trump voter Amanda Robbins said in a viral social media storm, “Apparently, I’m an idiot!”
*No, Amanda, you’re just Trumpdrunk.
All of this nonsense and blather is pointless as the SUPREME COURT is about to confine elections to ELECTION DAY! no more BULLSHIT by democrats and late counting! The whole thing is about to become moot
Thank you for your attention to this
This is another example of an OUT OF TOWN liberal, been here 5 years, moving here and trying to change Shasta County into the swamp she helped create and left because of the smell
Nick: Mrs. Hobbs moved here in 2021.
I was referring to Jennifer Katske
You ok, Nik?
Laura H. ran for a spot on the board as maga. But you are correct that she moved here about 5 years ago and I suppose she could be considered non- local by some standards.
So much for local control, eh nik?
Why did Trump submit a mail in ballot early in Florida? His vote shouldn’t be counted, right?
Do as I say, Not as I do. Transparent hypocrisy from the Chief Idiot!
Good luck with that Jon.
No one is taking away my mail in ballot. No more MAGA bullshit, lies and conspiracies!
Until Shasta County secedes from the State of California, we are bound by state laws.
What a bunch of Morons!
I don’t think I have seen anyone pick apart Measure B itself. Just my thoughts.
Absentee ballots: Infirm, is there a definition, who decides. Still could be a lot.
Excluded: college students, out of area workers…fire fighters, business men and ladies, and construction workers.
People who have out of area for surgery .
Hand count manual: 35 pages, does anyone know what is said. How can you vote for something with no idea what is proposed?
Each precint will have cameras and monitors: At what cost, supervisors failed to get cost estimate. Who will set up and make sure they work all day?
Voter privacy: after 11 voters, ballots are shuffled and counted, then what? The next couple vote, hand you their ballots, and you count them and know exactly how they voted.
And one other issue.
Observing the count. Currently you spend all night and day at the election office. Now you must be at all precints (100?) all day and the election office for mail in ballots.
Does anyone know how many voter precints are in Shasta county?
About 60.
I am a voting conservative and I am having a serious issue with all of this nonsense. Are the BOS and the so called Shasta County Elections Commission convinced that during the Covid pandemic in 2020, which is the nexus of the mail in ballots for ALL registered voters, that Cathy Darling Allen saw this as opening to finally start cheating or are they out and out accusing her of cheating all along? for years? To me this is a question that needs to be asked and answered. If that’s what they believe then show us the actual evidence.
I am a proponent of voter ID but measure B is not the way to do it. The SAVE act would make this a moot point but until/if that happens why don’t like minded people from counties all over the state get together and create a coalition to get the issue put on the state ballot. Measure B is in fact trying to change a state law locally which is a waste of time and resources.
Huntington Beach already tried this and immediately lost in court. What is that definition of insanity again? How much longer are we going to allow this bunch of lunatics turn local government into a circus?
Selah
California Elections Code section 9255 governs amendments of charters for cities or a city and county. The only “city and county” in the state is San Francisco. This statute does not govern charters for counties like Shasta County.
So let me get this straight:
Trump is legally attempting to force all American voting to finish, nationwide, on the same day.
But Shasta County is trying to make that impossible by requiring hand-counting that would potentially take months to conclude and therefore, delay election results.
I’ve voted for decades. Voter fraud has always been virtually nonexistent, and it was never difficult to vote — until now.
Between the SAVE Act and this bogus measure- there will be many that say- to HE** with voting, it is too much trouble. Of course, this is the goal of both actions. I have voted regularly for over 50 years and the only way I will not vote is if I am in the ground. I will use my mail-in ballot, returned in plenty of time to make it before election day (since SCOTUS is also going to get into the act to cause voter suppression after today’s hearing) and I will be sure and recruit several more friends to get their ballots in as well. Hopefully that will makeup for those that simply stop voting.
I’m with you!?!
When its all said and done, the grifters will have grifted, the tax payers sucked it up and elected new officials, word.
If the State is unwilling to step in and stop this, then we need to do everything we can to not let this stupid measure pass. If voter apathy was a candidate, it would win every single time. Register to vote, and actually vote! Do not let this Floridian snake oil sales man get his way!
Measure B in Shasta County has quickly become more than a local ballot initiative—it is now a test case for the limits of county authority over election administration. At its core, the proposal seeks to fundamentally restructure how votes are cast and counted, invoking principles of local control and election transparency. Yet the measure also raises serious questions about legal preemption, administrative feasibility, and fiscal stewardship. As voters weigh its merits, they are not merely deciding policy—they are potentially setting in motion a complex and costly legal process with implications far beyond county lines.
From a legal standpoint, Measure B appears poised to collide with the California Elections Code, which establishes uniform procedures governing elections statewide. Under the doctrine of state preemption, local governments are generally prohibited from enacting ordinances that conflict with state law in areas of statewide concern—elections being a prime example. Should the measure pass, it would almost certainly invite immediate litigation seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, potentially halting implementation before any substantive changes occur. The likelihood of judicial intervention at an early stage is not speculative; it is consistent with how courts have historically treated similar conflicts.
Compounding the legal uncertainty are potential federal claims. Provisions relating to voter identification requirements and restrictions on voting methods could be challenged under the United States Constitution, particularly the Equal Protection Clause, as well as statutes like the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Such claims would open the door to parallel proceedings in federal court, adding layers of complexity and extending the timeline for final resolution. In high-stakes election litigation, it is not uncommon for cases to proceed simultaneously through state and federal systems, creating a prolonged period of legal ambiguity.
The financial implications of this trajectory deserve equal scrutiny. Even under a conservative estimate, defending Measure B through trial and initial appeals could cost between $200,000 and $750,000 in legal fees alone. A more protracted legal battle—particularly one involving appellate review by the Supreme Court of California or federal courts—could push total expenditures into the $750,000 to $2 million range. Critically, if the measure is invalidated on constitutional grounds, fee-shifting provisions may obligate the county to pay prevailing plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, significantly increasing total liability.
Beyond litigation costs, the operational expenses associated with implementing Measure B could prove even more consequential. Transitioning to labor-intensive processes such as full hand-counting of ballots would likely require substantial staffing, training, and infrastructure investments. Estimates for such changes can reach into the millions per election cycle, particularly when accounting for extended counting periods and compliance safeguards. Should courts later enjoin or overturn these measures after partial implementation, the county could face sunk costs with little to show in return—an outcome that raises legitimate concerns about fiscal prudence.
Ultimately, Measure B places voters at the intersection of principle and practicality. Supporters may view it as a necessary recalibration of election integrity, while opponents see it as a legally tenuous and financially risky proposition. What is clear, however, is that passage would not mark the end of the debate—it would mark the beginning of a likely multi-year legal and financial undertaking. In that sense, the most consequential vote may not be about the policy itself, but about whether the county is prepared to bear the costs—both fiscal and institutional—of defending it.
Local control in places like Shasta County is simply code for “white supremacy” and “patriarchy.”`
Measure B is a “solution” to a nonexistent problem-voter fraud. The real goal is limiting voting to a smaller group of voters. We should always be striving to increase voting, reduce voter apathy, limit unnecessary obstacles to voting and educating voters on the many security safeguards already in place. Attempts at voter disenfranchisement should never be tolerated.
I agree. I can’t even calculate how much $$ has been spent by the BOS to defend itself against lawsuits
Agreed. Let’s add we should also always be strengthening the security around the general system as well as the software .