New County Counsel Advises Elections Office To Follow Law, Not Will of the Board, on Election Document Destruction
Shasta County’s new top attorney said the board’s recourse would be to put pressure on higher levels of government to change the law.
Shasta County Counsel Joseph Larmour started his new role on Monday, April 8. He’s the first permanent county counsel the board has had since July 2023 when James Ross, who served the board for only a few months, unexpectedly resigned. Since that time, the board has seen a string of temporary attorneys in the role including Matt McOmber, Gretchen Stuhr and Alan Cox.
Larmour was hired by a majority of the board a few months ago. By his second day at work he was already firmly immersed in the local elections fray, offering legal advice to the board on whether 2022 elections materials scheduled to be destroyed this week could be retained.
Supervisor Patrick Jones brought forward the agenda item, saying he hoped to retain some of the June 2022 election materials for sixty months. A staff report on the topic said that the materials were required by law to be destroyed after twenty-two months. But Jones said he believed the law referenced on the matter referred only to ballots, not to ballot envelopes or electronic images.
Counsel Larmour said that the California Attorney General’s Office and Chief Elections Office have provided a list of mandatory destruction materials included under Election Code 17301 and that those materials include envelopes. He agreed with Jones that the list did not include electronic images, but said that the intent of the legislation seems clear that all materials are to be destroyed.
“It doesn’t specifically mention electronic images,” Larmour said, “but when you’re reading the intent of the legislation, it was for finality, that these documents would no longer exist.”
He also emphasized that the Elections Office is mandated to follow federal and state laws, not the will of the board.
“[Elections Officials] have a mandatory duty under the law,” Lamour explained. “So (your vote on this item) would be advisory, and our office will definitely discuss that with the Elections Office.”
Appearing skeptical of Larmour’s legal advice, Jones said:
“You know, I still think under some of these election codes . . .I don’t know if there’s legally . . . a deadline to destroy it. We’d have to read that in depth.”
He made a motion to ask Larmour to continue examining the issue to see if there were any loopholes that might allow the board to mandate a pause in the destruction of the election materials.
“If ultimately (preserving the material) doesn’t happen under the law, that’s fine,” Jones said, “but at least I would like to push this issue as far as I can.”
Despite it being under her department’s jurisdiction, Assistant County Clerk and Registrar of Voters Joanna Francescut, who is currently running the Elections Office, was not originally asked to speak on the topic. After the board began discussions, Francescut came into the room and waited at the back for her chance to speak to the board during public comment. Francescut finally moved forward to speak to the board at Supervisor Kevin Crye’s invitation, after everyone else had taken their turn.
Francescut emphasized that board members might want to consider that viewing the materials they wished to retain would require entering into a new contract with Dominion for proprietary software. The county no longer has a contract with Dominion after the board canceled it in early 2023, ostensibly to increase trust in the local elections process.
That prompted more discussion from both Chair Kevin Crye and Kelstrom.
In response to Jones’ questions on the Election Code Francescut asked Larmour to weigh in on a specific aspect of the Election Code.
“I’m not going to give you legal counsel,” Francescut told Jones, “It’s not my job.”
Larmour backed Francesut’s stance on the law. He also said the Board could consider directing staff to take legislative action in an attempt to change that law.
After more discussion the Board voted, three to one, with Garman opposing and Supervisor Mary Rickert absent, to have the county’s legal counsel take another look at the election code over the next days or week.
Francescut said her office had already scheduled the materials to be destroyed the next day, April 10, at 8 am, saying the twenty-two-month deadline to destroy them had just passed on Sunday, April 7.
Crye asked her to consider delaying the destruction of documents, but Francescut pushed back, saying the materials are federal election materials and federal laws come with federal fines for elections officials who don’t follow them.
“We’re trying to . . . have the highest integrity as possible,” Francescut said, “by following all federal state and local laws.”
Crye said, some of Francscut’s perspectives on how to follow the law felt “pretty legalistic.”
“Ultimately, you guys will make the decision,” Crye said, “I’m just saying this is an opportunity for (the Elections Office) to give some grace (to say) we want to do what we can and work towards a resolution.”
On April 10, Francescut confirmed for Shasta Scout that, after speaking to Counsel Larmour again to review relevant Election Code, she directed staff to move forward with the document destruction yesterday morning, as required by federal law.
Have questions, concerns, or comments you’d like to share with us directly? Reach out: editor@shastascout.org.
Author
Comments (21)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
‘What the hell is going on?’: Democratic leaders clash over congressional endorsement
Sen. Mike McGuire accused Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks of trying to block his endorsement despite the backing of 74% of delegates.
Redding officially welcomes new city manager
William S. Tarbox attended his first Redding City Council meeting last week and is transitioning into the role by meeting with staff and touring city facilities.
Shasta supervisors will revisit discussion on election official’s behavior, this time with public comment
A discussion about an allegation that Shasta’s election official misused public resources took place earlier this month without any public comment. This week the item has been brought back to allow the public to weigh in.
Is there an open criminal investigation or prosecution related to the 2022 Statewide Direct Primary Election being conducted by the District Attorney or the Secretary of State? Is there election contest litigation ongoing in court?
If not, no one could have accessed the documents that were preserved in sealed containers. Not the Board of Supervisors. Not staff with the County Clerk and Registrar of Voters.
And if not, California Elections Code section 17301(c) mandates that the county elections official destroy the documents from the election after 22 months. See…
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=ELEC§ionNum=17301.
“but at least I would like to push this issue as far as I can.” This speaks volumes from PJ…
Oh me, oh my, it appears the person chosen as our new County Councilor is following the law and perhaps someone on the hiring committee thought he or she would simply fill that position and go along with the people that do not know or understand local, state or federal laws. Kudos to the new Shasta County Councilor and Elections Department personnel.
I’ll be interested to see how long County Counsel Larmour’s tenure lasts. I suspect Supervisor Jones, having observed Mr. Larmour’s early failure to ‘toe the line’, is already pondering replacing him.
and he’ll get a whopping payout when he leaves…. the County Counsel, not Jones.
It is interesting to me that the Federal and State Laws are so strictly written. I would like to see our election process have a little more local control across the country. I don’t like all the Government overreach that is linked to our election process. This has nothing to do with the integrity of our Local Election Office or the workers. They are doing what they have to do. It does have everything to do with how our elections, even the local elections, are now being manipulated by federal and state laws and inference. I say hats off to Jones, Crye and Kellstrom for standing up against an overreaching government.
Babs: Something to keep in mind is that local ballots and other election materials and processes often include state and federal races which is one reason why there are state and federal rules involved. Also constitutional protections established at the federal and state level need to protect individuals at the local level.
Destroying the evidence is protecting us huh????????
Evidence of what?
Jon: Baiting people isn’t civil discourse. This isn’t about democrats or republicans and I nowhere mentioned protecting anyone. Let’s keep this a productive place for conversation.
Jones and company are the ones overreaching.
The state and federal laws are to stop people like Jones and Laura Hobbs from manipulating our votes.
Hobbs claimed she wanted transparency in a recount, but isn’t it interesting that she didn’t want observers for the other candidates to be at the recount. Doesn’t sound very transparent to me. Luckily we do have laws that say the other candidates could have their observers.
Those laws that you claim were manipulation were actually protecting us and giving us transparency.
Shame, shame on Crye, Jones & Kelstrom. acting like they’re the rulers of a Kingdom. Come on Patrick, go out of office in grace, not shame. And Mr. Kelstrom, not sure when you’re seat is up , but you better expect several challengers, then you’ll be out of a monthly check and no pension. I recommend the entire Election Dept. staff go on a month’s strike if Ms. Francescut is not appointed the next ROV. She has the most experience of anyone in Shasta County, and to appoint someone like the last person who came in last, or the husband of Ms. Michaud is ludicrous. What would be your point ? Send emails to the 3 Obstinate office holders to appoint Ms. Francescut without delay.
Francescut’s work with Zuckerberg’s CTCL, a left of center election organization which bought hundreds of millions of dollars worth of influence in the 2020 election (and used facebook data to decide where to distribute election resources) should be disqualifying, to say nothing of her participation in facebook’s 2020 censorship campaign.
https://www.influencewatch.org/person/joanna-francescut/
Re: the CTCL . . . readers, please do your own research on this organization . . . a lot of information and misinformation out there.
Annelise, thank you for this advice. It seems that there has been a bit more “outside” interest in the Social-Political election activities here in what used to be sleepy Shasta County. I’m not sure if Mike Lindell has put money into Shasta County as was promised, but I do think a Mr. Anselmo has sent around 1.5 million to campaigns and media, and please, correct me if wrong, but I believe all of this cash went to right, to far-right candidates and extreme-far-right media. Your suggestion to do your own research is very timely and prudent. If I may, here is a little information about InfluenceWatch (CRC) listed above. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Capital_Research_Center.
Thank you for your reporting.
I would caution everyone against clicking the link to sourcewatch – it crashed my privacy browser both times I attempted to go there (something that’s never happened before).
InfluenceWatch, which profiles both Francescut and CTCL, is a libertarian-biased organization that Mediabiasfactcheck rates as “highly credible.” In contrast, Mediabiasfactcheck rates sourcewatch as left-wing and having “mixed credibility.”
Back to the subject at hand, do we want a Registrar of Voters who engages in political activism? While there is no prohibition on such activities (everyone has 1st amendment rights), at the very least it lends the appearance of impropriety at a time when election integrity is needed most.
That goes for Francescut, Holsinger, or anyone else in the position. For 16 of her 20 years, Cathy Darling Allen did a great job keeping her personal politics out of it and that’s something the next candidate should aspire to.
Influence Watch https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Research_Center
Well said!
Board majority leans towards directing County staff to break laws even though County attorney says no. These dopes waste money and time. The disrespect shown to Assistant Clerk Francescut and the Election Office should alarm everyone. To not invite her to speak, to have her wait until the end … childish Board behavior. This will get worse as the Presidential election approaches.
Looks like the Democrats will get away with it again!
Simply put, Shasta County Supervisors Jones, Crye and Kelstrom continue to insist on breaking the laws of Shasta County, the State of California and the United States of America. This is not only unpatriotic but pathetic. It’s so refreshing to see Shasta County Counsel take a clear unequivocal stand and advise the board should follow the the law and advice the Shasta County Electors Office do so as well. It’s time Jones, Crye and Jones stop the obstruction of the vote of the American people and Citizens of Shasta County. It’s far past time that the three show the commitment to following law if they expect Citizens to do so, and that should be a simple no brainer concept requiring no advanced educationak degree but simple high school understanding of American civic duty.