Registrar of voters accuses Vermont activist of harassment at Shasta County Elections Office
Steve Dodge was in Redding to speak at a nonpartisan election-related event. Hours before the event began, he approached ROV Clint Curtis at the elections office, probing him repeatedly with questions while filming. Curtis called the police, referring to the incident as a “conspiracy to intimidate voters.”
On Friday afternoon, Steve Dodge found himself in Shasta County, some 3,000 miles away from his home in Vermont. He was in Redding on May 15 to speak at a local church, as part of a nonpartisan community forum. Dodge described the event as “politically agnostic” despite his personal political identity as a “bright blue progressive.” His goal, he said, was to encourage as many voters as possible, regardless of party affiliation, to participate in elections.
Forum organizers included Jennifer Katske, the community member who recently filed a legal challenge over a proposed voter initiative that could dramatically change local election law. The Redding event, Dodge said during a brief interview outside the forum last night, is the first in a larger multi-state tour he’s calling “Do Something.”
And that’s exactly what he did. A few hours before his speaking appearance, Dodge paid a visit to the Shasta County Elections Office in downtown Redding. Armed with his iPhone camera, he walked into the county building, where he was met almost immediately by Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis. The two stepped outside. Their conversation, which started somewhat cordially, devolved within minutes. Dodge captured the entire interaction on video.
During much of Dodge’s 25-minute visit to the elections office, he harangued Curtis about his decision to remove all but four Shasta County ballot drop boxes. While Curtis’ decision to do so was legal — four drop boxes are the minimum number required in Shasta by state law — Dodge repeatedly suggested that significantly reducing the overall number of ballot drop boxes without consulting constituents was undemocratic, even “fascist.”
In response, Curtis argued with Dodge for several minutes before calling him “nuts”, suggesting he should leave and attempting to walk away. When Dodge followed, continuing to film him in the open area outside the elections office, Curtis accused Dodge of harassing him, which he claimed was a “federal crime.” As the conversation grew increasingly antagonistic, the ROV instructed a staffer who was sitting at a table outside the elections office to call the police.
As Curtis stepped back inside the lobby at the Market Street office where a polling place is currently open to allow voters to cast their ballots in the lead-up to the June primary, he instructed Dodge — who had followed him — to turn off his camera; he did not.
“You’re filming in a voting area, I told you to stop, and I told you to get out of my face,” Curtis told Dodge, who responded that it was his First Amendment right to film. Soon two other staffers, including a manager who’s worked at the office long-term, stepped in, de-escalating the situation. They advised Dodge that he has a First Amendment right to film in the clerk’s area of the office, but asked him to angle his camera away from the empty voting booths within the same main area. The long-term staffer continued to speak to Dodge, explaining that she understood his concerns while emphasizing Curtis’ right to reduce ballot drop boxes to the legal minimum. Eventually, Dodge stepped outside with the long-term staffer, saying he intended to speak with officers when they arrived. When they didn’t, he left.
Dodge’s on-film confrontation was an example of a scenario long encountered by election officials in Shasta. Activists, sometimes with cameras recording, trail officials at work while confronting them with leading questions about their decision-making. Anyone is empowered by the Constitution to film people and politicians in most public spaces, but doing so inside a space where people vote enters a more complicated legal territory.
According to the First Amendment Coalition’s reporter’s guide for elections, the media has the right to observe polling places, but the guide also specifies that “there is no right to photograph or record in polling locations,” noting that local election officials are empowered to impose their own limitations on filming. An appellate court upheld this portion of the law in 2010, citing that the presence of a camera could dissuade a voter from casting a ballot.
That’s what Curtis claims happened. “At least two voters did not come in to vote because of the incident,” he alleged to Shasta Scout by text last night. “As such, I will report this to the Secretary of State as well as the Department of Justice,” he added, alleging that the encounter appeared to be a “conspiracy to intimidate voters.”
Dodge did not respond to a request for comment regarding Curtis’ claim that two voters were scared off by his presence. In video footage taken by Dodge, it’s clear that someone entered the elections office lobby toward the end of his conversation inside, potentially someone intending to vote. That person is never seen on camera. The staffer speaking to Dodge at the time immediately backed farther into the clerk’s corner of the office, calmly directing Dodge to move the angle of his camera towards her to further protect voters. A moment later they mutually agreed to step outside.
Curtis is far from the first election official to encounter determined observers with insistent questions. His three predecessors all encountered similar issues. In November 2024, CalMatters documented how observers were impacting the Shasta Elections Office, noting high turnover and pervasive unease that led former department heads at the office to implement new security measures, which only further angered observers.
Curtis’ nascent political career in Shasta County has revolved around a stated emphasis on transparency, including the use of cameras to provide live streaming during ballot-processing, a practice that’s worried some voters. Another change implemented by Curtis was installing a new observer seating area so the public can “see everything.” He did not invite Dodge to that area for their conversation during yesterday’s visit.
Shasta’s issues with election observers began years ago, when the office was still operated by 20-year veteran registrar of voters Cathy Darling Allen, who’s since retired for health reasons. In 2022, as ballots were arriving to the Market Street office from polling locations across the county, Shasta Scout filmed local activist Richard Gallardo confronting a security guard while attempting to approach the ballots against the shouted commands of the assistant registrar of voters. Gallardo was among those hired by Curtis as extra help for the last election.
Similar issues continued under Tom Toller, who was appointed by the county board after Darling Allen stepped down mid-term. In the fall of 2024, Toller took the unusual step of asking the state to step in to monitor conditions at the elections office due to concerns about the safety of his staff amid “aggressive” observers. Several of the observers active during that time, including activists Laura Hobbs and Patty Plumb, have since been hired as full-time staffers by Curtis.
Hiring former election activists has been one of Curtis’ key strategies to reduce conflict over the elections office. And he claims to have mostly solved the problem of an angry public. In a letter to California’s Secretary of State Shirley Weber last fall, he wrote that previous election officials had treated the public “like invaders,” saying that by being open with observers he had quelled most of their concerns.
“The election office building has been transformed. It is now welcoming to the public and will provide access and comfort to the viewing public,” Curtis wrote. “All questions or concerns by the public will be directed to me … that should further limit any animosity that may have existed previously.”
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Authors
Comments (38)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
Supervisors eye replacing Steve Kerns as planning commissioner
The agenda item was brought forward by Supervisor Corkey Harmon, who hopes to replace Kerns with civil engineer Kevin Butler. Kerns said the first he heard about his replacement was from a community member who read the board’s agenda. Harmon disagrees.
Redding’s fire chief has retired. The announcement came Friday, which was also his last day
After serving as chief for six years, Vanlandingham’s sudden departure is part of a wave of turnover among Redding’s leadership in recent months.
Could Shasta’s elections official actually hire Tina Peters?
The answer is complicated and would involve factors at both the county and statewide levels.
Dodge should have called ahead of time, arranged for an interview and conducted himself with decorum. Curtis should have invited Dodge to come back for a full tour and interview when the office wasn’t open for voting. Both handled the situation like two bullies in a schoolyard.
Our first duty is to protect the staff and the elections These folks that are coming in to disrupt staff for political benefit will be treated fairly but we must preserve our election security.
“Our first duty is to protect the staff…”
.
.
…..Ok, stupidly I’ll take the bait.
.
Brent, if that was your first duty, then why didn’t you do so? If you saw what was happening to staff, and it was the same behavior as what was in TWO corroborating reports, then why didn’t you do anything?
.
If you weren’t there to witness the poor behavior of Mr. Curtis, then…where were you?
It always amazes me when I watch one of these self-labeled MAGA alpha males getting confronted by someone who is smarter and better prepared. They always recoil in shock, voice a sputtered and incoherent retort (often featuring obvious lies*), and issue cheap ad hominem attacks.
.
Always the mix of sense of entitlement with persecution complex. So weak.
.
*The ROV’s reasons for pulling the drop boxes—especially that people deposit poop in them—are at a 3rd-grader’s level of cognition and cleverness (if I may be so generous).
Unfortunately, Shasta County will elect a lying, partisan, registrar of voters regardless of which fraudster you choose.
Funny, the court said otherwise. Any type of fraud has yet to be found.
.
You keep trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill with your “variances” from the Statement of Vote that have already been explained to you.
.
But keep doubling down, you’ve done great at convincing people. 😃
For anyone who doesn’t know the backstory:
In the 2024 general election Francescut ordered inkjet-printed ballots against Hart’s requirements to use laser-printed ballots. The Runbeck inkjet ballots had barcodes that were often too blurry to be scanned, a problem not discovered until vote-by-mail ballots were already coming in.
Despite these blurry barcodes often being “invisible to the naked eye,” staff had to manually sort through stacks of partially scanned ballots and try to visually determine which ballots had blurry barcodes.
Francescut did not discover the affects of her incompetence until 3 weeks after the election when she began the post election audit which ultimately found an ~8% error rate in vote by mail ballots.
Rather than bite the bullet and be honest with voters and regulators, Francescut instead fraudulently reported audit results 51 times more favorable than she actually found (a ~0.15% error rate, not 8%).
The Junior College drop-out with no formal statistics training justified her fraudulent audit report by explaining that she corrected any errors found during her audit (while doing nothing to correct all the errors in the ~90% of ballots she did not audit).
This would be like having a regulator test the water quality of the Sacramento River, finding high pollution levels, yet deciding to filter their water sample and fraudulent report those clean results as representative of the dangerously polluted river.
Integrity and competence indeed…
Readers should note that this account does not match our contemporaneous reporting of events found here https://shastascout.org/shasta-countys-ballot-processing-procedure-has-been-adjusted-in-response-to-ink-overspray-on-ballots-elections-official-announces/ and here https://shastascout.org/elections-office-explains/
Nothing in your prior reporting contradicts anything I’ve posted, though one wonders why you never independently investigated anything Toller & Francescut claimed.
For example, here’s the email where Hart told Francescut not to use inkjet ballots and to thoroughly test non approved ballots (both recommendations she ignored): https://shastacountyca.nextrequest.com/documents/41743330
“Hart highly recommends the use of Hart Official Ballot Paper and toner-based (digital) printing. With toner-based printing, the toner sits atop the paper. Hart Official Ballot Paper has been extensively tested in real world elections. If you use your own in-house printers with Verity Build, or if you use a third-party print
vendor, it is important to use either Hart Official Ballot Paper, or another quality paper that meets all specifications listed in the Guide and produces minimal dust and maximum toner adhesion. Exceptions to this recommendation should only be made where paper with differing specifications is required (e.g.,
for Inkjet printing) and has been thoroughly tested and been found acceptable.”
Hell, according to the Scout’s reporting, Hart and Runbeck were going to pay for the mistake – something that never happened because Toller & Francescut’s incompetence was the real cause of the fiasco.
As for Francescut’s fraudulent report, readers (and competent journalists) can see it for themselves on page 8 of the statement of vote ( https://elections.shastacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Full-SOV.110524.pdf ). The tables with the actual errors are at the end of the statement of vote (starting page 612). Why else but fraud did she report only 10 errors instead of all 511 as required by election code 15360(e):
“This report shall identify any discrepancies between the machine count and the manual tally and a description of how each of these discrepancies was resolved.”
So no, neither of the two candidates have demonstrated anything resembling competence, honesty, or integrity.
Yes, yes…
.
You’re like a broken record…
.
You are right, and everyone else is wrong.
.
Even though 2 court cases were tossed out, a grand jury investigation found no wrong doing, and the last two ROVs haven’t found any evidence of fraud. Not to mention that you now have some of the same election deniers who are actually working in the elections department, and they haven’t been able to turn up any evidence of fraud either.
.
And from some of your previous comments on here and ANC, you have reported your “findings”, and yet nothing has come of it.
.
Ever stop to think that maybe you aren’t as right as YOU think you are? That maybe, just MAYBE, you are mistaken?
.
That couldn’t be the most likely possibility, could it?
Since I can’t respond directly to you MD, I’ll just say that again you’re like a broken record…
.
Not sure why you have your grudge, but it sounds like it’s personal for some reason.
“Ever stop to think that maybe you aren’t as right as YOU think you are? That maybe, just MAYBE, you are mistaken?”
Of course. Which is why I asked the Transparent Tom Toller, ROV, and Joanna Francescut, assistant ROV, what happened. They lawyered up and refused to talk about it on the record.
It took over a year getting bits an pieces of info a little at a time to discover that the real reason the duplication process went so badly was because staff duplicated the wrong ballots on occasion. Doing so double counted some ballots while not counting others, causing that massive ~8% error rate discovered during the post election audit.
Despite my being a “broken record,” neither Francescut, Toller, nor anyone else at the election office has ever disputed these claims. Why do you think that is?
Instead they & their surrogates have engaged in ad hominem attacks towards me to confuse and misdirect away from their crimes (falsifying an official document is a felony in California).
Despite Hart’s advice to use laser printer, it is the norm for ballot printers to use high-speed, high-quality inkjet printers. The State certifies the ballot printers that counties use every two years.
And a printing issue that required ballots to be duplicated is not a voting system error. Every ballot that could not be initially scanned was duplicated so every voter’s vote was counted. It required additional work of the elections staff, but there weren’t errors in the reporting of results.
Mahmoud, I’m sure the current ROV has issues of lying, bullying , false witnessing and more, that’s the maga rulebook.
I don’t know what you’re talking about when you refer to the other candidate.
Btw, is that a cosplay photo?
There is one of phgwmfjones crossing the Sacramento.
Well, ‘Ol Clint is quite the little whanny-Snivvy isn’t he? First off, cutting the drop boxes might be legal, but it sure creates a hardship for those who live out on the outskirts of our fair county. The optics here are not great. Next, Clint has repeatedly trumpeted how he’s putting cameras all over the election office in the interests of transparency yet wants to call the cops when he doesn’t like what a fellow is asking and filming. He got very defensive because Steve was asking him who’s idea it was to cut the number of drop boxes and his answer was that voters could start a petition to reinstate them. Getting defensive is a go-to when you don’t want to discuss the real reasons why something was done.
Clint the Clown did his best Norma Desmond, but he wasn’t ready for his closeup. Enough is enough. Time to end this circus.
Selah
Your errant quote of the FAC “guide” is unfortunate. There is a 1st A right to record, that may be infringed, but the ruling related to a WRITTEN prohibition policy, duly published, that the court upheld. That policy must then pass strict scrutiny in order to be legal. There is no such written policy here, as evidenced by Curtis’s irrelevant response to Steve’s question in the interview: “Where does it say that I cannot record?” The court has never upheld an absolute prohibition on any constitutionally protect right: only those that pass the highest level of scrutiny.
Although comprising constitutionally protected speech, the right to film in public settings is not unlimited.
Courts have applied a “forum” analysis to determine the level of scrutiny applied to restrictions on First Amendment activities. Government property is categorized as either a traditional public forum, a designated public forum, or a limited/non-public forum.
While outside voting periods the lobby of the Shasta County County Clerk & Registrar of Voters is a traditional public forum, when a portion of the lobby is transformed into a polling place the lobby becomes a limited public forum.
The government may apply content-neutral restrictions on expressive activity.
California Elections Code section 18541(a)(3) provides that: “A person shall not, with the intent of dissuading another person from voting, within the 100 foot limit specified in subdivision (b), … Photograph, video record, or otherwise record a voter entering or exiting a polling place.”
Section 18541(b) defines the 100-foot limit as: “within 100 feet of either of the following:
“(1) The entrance to a building that contains a polling place as defined by Section 338.5, an elections official’s office, or a satellite location.
“(2) An outdoor site, including a curbside voting area, at which a voter may cast or drop off a ballot.”
California Code of Regulations section 20876(b) further provides that: “The elections official shall, consistent with the intent of this Chapter and the provisions of the Elections Code, establish written security rules for observation. These security rules may include, but shall not be limited to, the use of sign-in sheets and identification to be worn by observers and prohibiting or limiting the use of cell phones, pagers, cameras, and other audio or video equipment or electronic devices, if the use of such item(s) is interfering with or will interfere with the conduct of the elections process, the privacy of voters, or if the use of those items compromises the security of the location where observation is taking place.”
I am not familiar with Shasta County’s written procedures for observation, including filming at their office. But, a simple sign posted in the lobby that filming is prohibited should be sufficient.
I think it’s important to remind community members that this is the same Clint Curtis, who, after an outside investigation released on May 1 found sustained allegations of inappropriate and unprofessional conduct, including demeaning comments to employees that referenced violence, minimizing staff work and making appearance and gender related comments. He appeared before the same Shasta County board of supervisors that appointed him to his position. Isn’t he also the one that was videoed shirtless in taxpayer-funded buildings. Sounds like that might be voter intimidation to me. Maybe that should be investigated by the Secretary of State and the Department of justice.
I would like to also add the board of supervisors who appointed him were the ones investigating the allegations against him for a toxic workplace environment. That’s almost like having the coyote standing guard outside the chicken coop, saying everything is fine here nothing to see.
The last thing Joanna Francescut’s campaign needs is a pseudo-activist proclaiming he is “encouraging” registered voters in Shasta County to participate in elections.
GRUESOME MISTAKE done by Shasta Scout giving coverage to this individual.
As stated before, Joanna, BEWARE of individuals who publicly say they “support you”…A FEW WORDS FOR THE WISE ARE GOOD ENOUGH.
“Cole” (wink, wink), your insinuation that Joanna’s campaign is somehow struggling with your “The last thing Joanna’s campaign needs…” comment comes across as utter desperation. Joanna Francescutt’s campaign is not the one on life support; I’d suggest getting your ducks in a row…
As a witness to this incident, the claim that there were “two voters scared off by his presence” is completely false. Steve never received a call or text asking for a response to Curtis’ statements either. Two voters entered the office, completed their transactions, and left without incident. The video clearly shows that the door was never obstructed, and no voters who entered were ever filmed. Despite his repeated statements that “anyone can come in” to receive a tour and his claim of total transparency, Curtis treated someone from the public with the utmost disrespect and hostility. Curtis was provoked because he was called out on his dishonest attempt to disenfranchise voters. HE dislikes drop boxes so he took action to remove them without consulting the very constituents he claims to serve. Curtis insulted Steve, calling him ‘‘a nut’’ and ‘‘a monster,’’ asked him who sent him, and threatened to have him taken away in handcuffs simply for asking questions and seeking the transparency Curtis claims to champion. Of note, in the video, Curtis explicitly stated he doesn’t care about what voters want and believed that Steve’s constitution is somehow different than the one that he follows. He was ignorant about the laws allowing Steve to film and was put in check by his own employees.
THE VIDEO SPEAKS FOR ITSELF!
No one from Shasta Scout contacted me about that specific claim of voter intimidation. As seen in the video, I never blocked the entrance never filmed anyone entering the building and followed the direction of the elections officials not named Clint Curtis as he is obviously unaware of the 1st Amendment. As seen on the video I did not point the camera towards documents ballots or any individual. As a reminder Mr Curtis called me A Nut Job, A monster and told me I had no right to film and was told I’d be handcuffed by law enforcement. I waited for law enforcement to arrive and they didn’t. Please refer to the video. It speaks for itself.
Hi Steve, Nevin texted after we received comment from Curtis. You’re also welcome to reach out to me, 530-276-8778 or editor@shastascout.org.
Dear Joanna Francescut,
Better DISAVOW this pseudo-activist from any political endorsement ASAP; Steve Dodge is POTENTIALLY a real LIABILITY to your campaign rather than someone bringing something productive.
Joanna, BEWARE of those individuals who publicly and openly say they “support you”…A FEW WORDS FOR THE WISE ARE GOOD ENOUGH.
Counterpoint: wouldn’t it be wise for Brent Turner to disavow Clint Curtis?
Forum organizers included Jennifer Katske, the community member who recently filed a legal challenge over a proposed voter initiative that could dramatically change local election law. The Redding event, Dodge said during a brief interview outside the forum last night, is the first in a larger multi-state tour he’s calling “Do Something.”
A perfect example of Clint’s patience while dealing with out of town trash that come to our community to cause a problem . I sure hope this guy doesn’t relocate here as we have more left leaning trouble makers than we need but I notice most of the ringleaders are from out of the area.
Didn’t Clint Curtis go to San Bernardino County to stir the election fraud pot? Didn’t Crye and Jones invite every election denier on the national circuit to come to Shasta County for invitation only election “integrity” symposiums? Looks like the pot calling the kettle black Nickie!
Steve Dodge = host of the Facts Still Matter podcast
Steve Dodge = Vermont activist
Steve Dodge = “Do Something Tour with Steve Dodge” (article posted on May 8, 2026 in Doni Chamberlain’s anewscafe)
If I were Joanna Francescut I would IMMEDIATELY DISAVOW THAT CLOWN named Steve Dodge from any political endorsement – apparently Annelise Pierce doesn’t realize that advertising the Vermont activist on Shasta Scout creates problems to Joanna’s campaign.
Well if I was Brent Turner I would quit posting comments on here because all it does is make him look worse and worse.
.
But narcissists really can’t help themselves…
You think a news article addressing an altercation between an activist and our temporary ROV is advertising for the activist? What color is the sky in your world?
Paul, Annelise (by the way did not write the story) nor Nevin, are mind readers. They can’t “know” what another person is thinking, in other words, his intentions. You can make a supposition, but that is not a “known”’fact.
The story reported facts. The facts were didn’t paint Steve’s actions in a particularly positive light. The facts were reported, plain and simple, so I’m not sure what your complaint is based on.
Thank you, Nevin for including similar harassment experienced by Cathy and Tom.
Geri: The story was published briefly under just my name due to my error which I quickly corrected as Nevin was the lead writer and I was co-writer. This is probably why Paul’s comment mentions me.
The dude obviously came to pin Curtis down on the way Curtis, and our 3 member MAGA, BOS, repeatedly use gossip level stories as reason to restructure our county. Curtis cites STORIES about people dropping, “sticky substances like honey and human excrement”, into drop boxes as a main reason for eliminating them. I have never heard of this. Has anyone else read about these things happening? Curtis gets flustered because he can’t keep his stories straight while making it all up as he goes.
I’ll take “Things that never happened…” for $500, Alex.
Annelise, you know exactly what the activist (Saul Alinsky agitator) was attempting to do. He was trying to cause an incident and get a reaction out of the ROV who was simply trying to perform his duties. At least you should pretend to be an objective reporter.
I’d be the first to call out biased reporting but I don’t see that here. I see a reporting of the facts with historical background so the reader has a context in which to come to his or her own conclusion.