Recording contradicts lead Shasta attorney’s claim about election official’s remarks on county property

Complaints by members of the public about claims made by Shasta Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis during a recent tour of the county elections office resulted in only a brief discussion by county supervisors this week.

Curtis gave the tour to several gubernatorial candidates and members of the media, though some Shasta community members also attended. During the event, he repeatedly claimed that former election officials, which would include his campaign opponent in the June primary, engaged in “ballot stuffing,” a term that refers to the illegal submitting of more than one ballot per voter.

Supervisor Allen Long brought Curtis’ remarks to the attention of the board a few weeks ago, at which time they voted to bring back a discussion of the matter. 

Shasta County attorney Joseph Larmour was asked by the board, with only Supervisor Corkey Harmon opposing, to look into the matter and investigate whether county policy had been broken by Curtis’ actions. Larmour provided his opinion on that matter yesterday, telling the board, “based on the information that I was able to observe, all the allegations came from one comment asked by the press.”

It’s not clear what comment Larmour was referring to, as Curtis’ remarks about ballot stuffing were repeated throughout the tour —  evidenced by video of the event — although one particular remark, which came after a question by a member of the public, was highlighted by Shasta Scout in previous reporting.

“The predominant purpose of the event was a tour with dignitaries,” Larmour said, adding again that “the comment came from a response to the press, which was not related to the tour.” He then said his legal advice was that the single comment in question would be seen as “incidental,” or not significant under both county policy and state law.

Long replied by saying that Larmour’s remarks had satisfied him, and the board agreed — without a formal vote — to take no further action while not allowing public comment, a decision that resulted in shouts from the audience. 

Board Chair Chris Kelstrom indicated that no comment would be taken because the issue was a “no vote” item. The decision appears to violate county policy outlined at the top of the agenda itself, as well California’s transparency law known as the Brown Act, which requires that public comment be taken for all items before the board. The act doesn’t make an exception for items in which no vote is taken.

Here’s why state law and county policy matter

As Larmour cited in his statements to the board, Shasta’s personnel policy says, “no County officer or employee may use any County property to conduct political campaign activities or for any other personal purposes or gain.” 

The policy reflects a section of state law that Larmour also mentioned, which indicates that the term “personal purpose” includes activities that would offer someone private gain or advantage, while the term “campaign activity” indicates something that would influence or attempt to influence the action of voters for or against the election of a candidate. The law makes clear that the minimal use of public property for such purposes would not be subject to prosecution, as Larmour also noted. 

Here’s what happened during the tour 

In the first few minutes of the tour, while standing in an observer space within the election office, Curtis made his first comments related to former election officials, which include his political opponent, Joanna Francescut, who’s running against him for the registrar of voters position this year.

“Before I got here, they actually had a wall with blue bins they put the ballots in,” Curtis said during the tour. “They didn’t see them; they were stuck in a room. Not a good chain of custody, and that allows you to stuff the ballots.”

A few minutes later, Curtis makes his second remark about those who ran the office before him, in response to a question about the adjudication process.

“The way they used to do it, observers didn’t matter. They didn’t want to share anything. They were just used to doing it that way. So that’s my rule,” Curtis said, referencing his policy of including observers during the adjudication process. “We implemented it because it needs to be in place. They should not be able to do it without an adjudicator there. Legally, they can. Technically, they should not.”

At this point, Douglas Frank, a national election activist who supports Curtis, made a statement opining on the value of Curtis’ work for the benefit of those assembled, as well as the multiple cameras documenting the event.

“You’re spearheading election integrity in the state,” Frank proclaimed, “and you’re showing other counties how to do this. Now, when you first started implementing this, my understanding is the state was not happy, and they sent people up here to check on the legality. So it’s really important to point out that everything you’re doing is perfectly legal. It’s already been checked. So if you’re in a county in California and you love what you see … you can implement this totally legally in your own county.”

About 30 minutes into the tour, Curtis makes another comment about his predecessors, this time specifically mentioning his campaign opponent by her former title, assistant registrar of voters. He says while the Shasta board voted to hand count elections, former officials went against them by going to the state capitol to influence the law.

“The ROV and assistant ROV went down to Sacramento and had them put up a bill just for Shasta County … to force them to use machines,” Curtis claimed. He may have been referencing Francescut’s public comment to the California Secretary of State before a decision on hand count regulations, during which she read a letter written by her supervisor, former Registrar of Voters Cathy Darling Allen.

Moments later, Frank picked up the remark for the benefit of the media and those who might be watching virtually, saying, “Let’s reiterate that; it’s a really important quote. Shasta County Commissioners and people voted to go to all hand count and get rid of the machines. So as a county, you decided we don’t trust this stuff. We’re going to do it ourselves … But your former ROV and her assistant went down to Sacramento and lobbied the legislature to write a law forcing you to use these machines.”

The comment, made about 40 minutes into the tour, was the fourth seeking to tie former election officials, including Curtis’ campaign opponent, to some kind of impropriety during a tour on county property. 

About one hour in, Curtis made another unverified claim, that under former election leadership the county had 2,700 more votes than voters, going into detail on why he believes this could indicate fraud.

A minute later, he repeated his claim about ballot stuffing happening under his predecessors and was asked by Frank to explain the term. Curtis not only elaborated on the term, but also explained why he thinks his predecessors engaged in election fraud in another series of unverified claims saying officials before him didn’t provide secure systems for ballot storage and implying that they might have altered computer logs to change vote outcomes. 

It was at this point that community member Jeff Carr asked if Curtis was asserting that there was criminal activity by his predecessors in the county. 

“Yeah, I believe there was,” Curtis confirmed. 

The statement prompted a variety of responses from the crowd before Curtis doubled down on the topic, adding more information still focused on unverified claims of his predecessor’s alleged illegal actions. 

“So now you have ballots in there that don’t add up to the rest, but there’s no way to take them back out. So if you have 2,700 extra stuffed ballots, it’s too bad, so sad.”

Another spirited conversation of tour members ensued, during which Curtis was asked whether he had reported this alleged misconduct while some weighed in on who he should have reported to. He said he had reported the misconduct to the federal Department of Justice and would now, at a community member’s request, also report it to the state. Someone suggested he should also report the alleged fraud to the local district attorney and sheriff.

The conversation went on for more than 10 minutes, after which Curtis opined again on all the issues he believed occurred under his predecessor, remarks that were followed by further conversation about ballot stuffing by others. In all, the conversation that began with Curtis’ second mention of unproven ballot stuffing lasted for 17 minutes.

The conversation then morphed into strategizing by various tour members about how to create changes in election processes statewide before the tour ended and tour members filtered outside for a press conference. The tour lasted about an hour and 20 minutes. 

In all, Curtis’ unproven allegations about his predecessors, including his campaign opponent, took up a significant portion of the tour, a fact that stands in sharp contrast to the statements made by county attorney Larmour calling Curtis’ remarks “incidental” and therefore not significant enough to warrant a breach of county policy. 

Asked what sources he had reviewed to learn what occurred on the tour, Larmour declined to comment. 

---

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