‘No monsters’: Shasta election official Clint Curtis has certified his first election amid public scrutiny
Curtis ran his first election this fall. He claims his new processes have revolutionized Shasta elections and increased trust, something some public commenters contradict.
12.11.2025 12:35 pm: We have updated the story with an important correction. In contradiction to the wording of both the board’s staff report and declaration, the law indicates that the board was not required to declare the results of this election. That’s because Shasta ballots included only state and city measures which are not under the board’s jurisdiction. We have reached out to officials for comment.
Shasta Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis appeared before supervisors Tuesday to share the certified results of the Nov. 4 special election. He’s being scrutinized by some members of the public.
Curtis spoke only briefly at the regular board meeting, updating supervisors on the percentage of votes for the two measures included on local ballots this fall, Measure A and Prop. 50. About 65,000 ballots were cast this election, putting voter turnout at about 56%. Supervisors were tasked with declaring Curtis’ certified results, a ceremonial formality that was not actually required by law in this case, since none of the items on the ballot were under the board’s jurisdiction. However the board declared the results anyway, voting unanimously.
Before that vote, Supervisor Matt Plummer brought up questions about how the election was run, particularly the length of time it took to produce results given the simplicity of the ballot and the purchase of new tabulators. Board Chair Kevin Crye asked Plummer to defer any such questions to a later meeting, and the board voted to bring back the topic of election management in the near future.
In the weeks since the election, Curtis has vociferously asserted claims of unparalleled success, saying his new processes have nearly eliminated security concerns about voting in Shasta, where trust in elections has been historically low. He repeated similar claims to the board this week.
“People found that there were no monsters,” Curtis said. “It was really kind of easy.”
But public comments after his presentation told a different story, indicating that some members of the community — albeit a different segment of the public than before — remain unhappy with the changes Curtis has implemented and his overall performance as ROV.
Ten public commenters spoke with some mentioning concerns about a lack of access to legally-observable activities — including signature verification — as well as difficulties utilizing the video livestream Curtis implemented to document ballots before and after the machine count.
Others mentioned Curtis’ vast over-estimation of uncounted ballots, his delays in submitting required ballot count paperwork to state officials, his apparent failure to appropriately notify the public of the 1% manual tally and the overall time he took to produce a final certified vote.
While Curtis has talked about increasing transparency, some of the changes he’s implemented have had negative impacts on the public’s access. Curtis did away with the practice of emailing out press releases, opting instead to post them on the county’s website, requiring the press and public to repeatedly check the website for updates. He also ended the practice of sharing schedules of observable activities, making it harder for the press and the public to know when issues like signature verification were occurring.
Community members also brought up Curtis’ decision to end the use of electronic poll pads, slowing the process of voter check-in and leading to at least a few cases of voter disenfranchisement. And in the months before Election Day, he discontinued use of nine of the county’s previous 13 ballot drop boxes, leaving only four county-wide.
Some public commenters also mentioned concerns about the individuals he’s hired, including one who has led calls for the election office to violate state law and another who has recently filed lawsuits against the county election office. While three members of the public spoke in support of Curtis’ changes to the election process during the meeting, all were among those recently hired by Curtis as extra help election staff.
A new election commissioner
The board also voted unanimously this week to appoint a new election commissioner, Mark Reno, who will represent District 4 as part of the commission, which provides the board with advice on the election process. Supervisor Plummer nominated Reno for the role, saying he has a history of serving in public office on the City of Shasta Lake Council. Reno’s application for the role documents that he’s also served on the Shasta Lake Planning Commission.
Placing Reno in the role, Plummer confirmed, won’t reactivate the Shasta Election Commission, which has been suspended for months due to a lawsuit. Instead Reno will wait along with other appointed commissioners until some action to reactive or dismantle the commission is taken by the board.
No action on Ladd/Hobbs case
In closed session, the board discussed a lawsuit filed by Daniel Ladd and Laura Hobbs against the election office in January of this year. The board made no public report of action after their private discussion. Court documents show the case as closed. The lawsuit alleged an array of election misconduct by former election officials, claims that were dismissed by a judge in June because they referenced topics not under the court’s jurisdiction.
Hobbs’ first lawsuit against the county over alleged election misconduct was dismissed last year after the judge said that the lack of evidence for her claims was “profound.”
Do you have information or a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Author
Comments (22)
Leave a comment
Related Articles
Board majority faces off against Supervisor Plummer on liaison positions, board raises
During the board’s first meeting of 2026, Supervisor Matt Plummer was removed from a number of pivotal liaison positions.
The Doug LaMalfa I covered: Authentic, cranky and deeply caring
After the sudden death of U.S. Rep Doug LaMalfa, a CalMatters reporter who covered him for 20 years reflects on his life and legacy.
New death in custody at Shasta County Jail occurred after arrest for public intoxication
Tine Marie Elrite’s death brings the number of people who have died while incarcerated in Shasta to five in less than a year.
That’s funny Nick, our current ROV wouldn’t let some people observe processes that the former RV would.
There were times that the current ROV needed to be informed that some processes were, in fact, observable.
Please describe the processes you refer to
“Curtis has vociferously asserted claims of unparalleled success”
This, from the article sounds very “trumpian” -a criticism.
Mr. Curtis and Mr. Turner have no business running Elections. Members of the public, go look at any other county’s social media pages and see the transparency. Check the press releases, go observe in any other county ANYWHERE and you will immediately become aware of the difference between what is now Shasta and what a real functioning Elections office looks like. Curtis and Turner are more interested in pandering to the deniers than actually following the law and serving the public.
Monsters? As an LCSW, I try to see all people as generally good, doing the best they can. That said, I have interviewed and “counseled” a few individuals who clearly fit the definition of DSM-5, Antisocial Personality Disorder, as in one incarcerated murderer who basically said, “Hey, it wasn’t personal…” I have no evidence of any individual “Monsters” in the ROV office, but see a MAGA Monster endorsed and empowered by extreme far-right Shasta County Supervisors Harman, Kelstrom and Cry, as well as ROV Clint Curtus and some of his staff, and the majority of the Shasta County Elections Commission, all using Shasta County Government and the ROV office to legitimize election lying and denying, and even advocation of breaking the law for the Trumpian conspiracy crowd. Many of these local MAGA so-called theories are often found on Truth Social, Fox News, Parler, Info-Wars, and Rumble, and have proven time and time again to be lying propaganda, thrown out about 95% of all court cases that use this absurd gibberish as fact, including the Shasta County Superior Court! (Stay tuned for more info on Hobbs’s costly ongoing court follies that Shasta County taxpayers are paying for.) This MAGA Monster is not only endangering Democracy but also purposefully eroding faith in our elections at a significant social and economic cost, and it stinks of tyranny. The names and stories of who I personally call the MAGA Monster Feeders have been reported here in Shasta Scout and other media outlets, including Jones, Crye, Kelstorm, Curtis, Hobbs, and, inadvertently, Harmon. But I can provide a comprehensive list of the names and actions that have empowered, fed, and supported this insidious Monster; just ask.
Since Prop 50 was a state measure and Measure A was a City of Redding initiative, there was no required legal action for the Shasta County Board of Supervisors to take. Only if there was a County office or measure on the ballot would the Board of Supervisors be required to declare the winner. See California Elections Code section 15400, which states:
(a) It is the ministerial and nondiscretionary duty of the governing body to declare elected or nominated to each office voted on at each election under its jurisdiction the person having the highest number of votes for that office, or who was elected or nominated under the exceptions noted in Section 15452.
(b) It is the ministerial and nondiscretionary duty of the governing board to declare the results of each election under its jurisdiction as to each measure voted on at the election.
Bob: Thanks for this heads up! I should have caught that. The staff report for the item references another government code, one that applies only to the election official and incorrectly states that the governing body “shall also declare the results” without citing code 15400 which, as you note, does not apply in this particular election. I’ll update the story with an correction.
I may be spelling or saying it wrong, but isn’t the words and antics by ROV a case of brandolinis law?
One notable difference between ROV Curtis assessment and the naysayers version of the election is that Mr. Curtis speaks from an educated and experienced point of view. It is now apparent that the fringe folks that like to throw marbles under the feet of real election workers do more harm than good. The “ Miracle on Market Street “ has restored Shasta’s faith n public elections and should be regarded as a beautifully executed public experiment. Shasta stands proudly as going from “worst to first”and now sets the bar for California elections to follow !!
Well said and thought-out, sir. I concur. At least our elections office now has a firm foundation. The firm Foundation, I believe. Without that firm foundation, a person cannot think right, and what he thinks is “right” is really wrong. It almost can’t be helped.
Do you even realize how ‘indoctrinated’ that makes you sound?
So much for independent thought, huh?
Geez, Mr. Turner sounds a lot like our dear leader discussing affordability; it’s not a problem! It’s a hoax, but we fixed it and now everybody else in California is jealous!
So Mr. Curtis speaks “from an educated and experienced point of view”, eh? And, what’s this “Miracle on Market St”? Stroking the boss much, Brent?
Baloney.
You haven’t restored any trust in the election process. If anything, you have caused more doubt about the entire process with your unexperienced and uneducated attempts at running an election.
Shasta county was the LAST county in the state to report the election results to the Secretary of State. And there wasn’t increased transparency because people couldn’t even watch that so-called live feed that you were providing.
And I’m sorry, wasn’t it you guys that were yelling about mistrust in the election system when we had it running perfectly fine under the previous ROV?
Still waiting for you guys to provide any shred of evidence that there was any of that massive election fraud that you guys claimed was going on. Anything?
Yes Mr. Turner, this is a direct challenge to provide any proof of previous election fraud.
Since I was legally eligible to vote, I have done so in Shasta County. I had/have never experienced any concerns about the honesty of election tabulation UNTIL THIS PAST ONE.
I have a feeling that that is also the case for a majority of other voters in this county.
“The Miracle on Market Street.”
“Worst to first.”
:::wails of derisive laughter:::
The voters will decide if faith in our local elections has been restored. Count me in the camp of voters who are exhausted by your embarrassing three-ring circus featuring many of Shasta County’s most prominent MAGA clowns. Keep your resumes current, ROV and Asst. ROV. Tick tock.
Brent – In my business we often had the mgmt staff that had visions of sugar plums dancing through their head.That was until you validated ( or term they understand in the ROV office) or looked under the hood. The unicorns and rainbows weren’t there only choas and donkeys . Got lucky but what are you going to do when they pull the curtain back wizard?
Interesting how the only people that were speaking well of Mr Curtis were some of the same election deniers that he hired.
Why wouldn’t they speak well of him considering the fact that they basically got money from him to stand around and “observe”, while the real election workers toiled to carry out the election faithfully??
And isn’t it interesting that after everything has been said and done, there is STILL no proof of any election fraud in Shasta county elections. I mean if there was any, why haven’t Mr Curtis or any of the hired election deniers found it and reported it to the public??
Maybe because the simplest answer is there actually was NO election fraud.
ROV Curtis was not there to find election fraud, he was there to provide a fair, honest,transparent election and he did!
Still making me laugh, Nick. Good Job.
Oh come on, Nick. Who do you think you’re fooling?
The whole reason why we have Mr. Curtis as our appointed ROV was because of all of the claims of mass election fraud from you election deniers. Yet, still, not a shred of any proof to be found.
As far as transparency, are you talking about the live feed that literally no one could watch? Sure, super transparent.
If you actually believe all of what you said I have a bridge to sell you too. Cheap!!
Maybe you could explain to me why cardboard was put on the windows at the elections headquarters to obstruct the view of election observers during the 2024 elections. I have witnesses, observers that were there.
That’s funny Nick, our current ROV wouldn’t let some people observe processes that the former RV would.
There were times that the current ROV needed to be informed that some processes were, in fact, observable. I also have witnesses and observers that were there, buddy.
But go ahead and delude yourself into believing that our current ROV is more transparent than the former ROVs.
In the meantime, those of us who are capable of independent thought can actually see that the emperor has no clothes. (That’s a parable, by the way, Nick)
Nick, what’s funny is just how sly and convincing you think you are. You’re not.
Not at all.