Riverside’s Sheriff is investigating alleged election ‘irregularities.’ Shasta’s election official was the one to break the news
Shasta ROV Clint Curtis told county supervisors during Tuesday’s public board meeting that the Riverside department was “confiscating all of the records in Riverside.” Riverside officials have confirmed the news of an investigation.
The Riverside County Sheriff’s Office has launched an investigation into alleged “irregularities” in its county’s elections, less than a month after local residents reported discrepancies in ballot numbers at a public meeting.
But the southern California department wasn’t the one to break the news about the investigation. Shasta County Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis was.
The Riverside Sheriff’s Office investigation was confirmed by The Riverside Record yesterday. That reporting explained that a group of local residents — called the Riverside Election Integrity Team, or REIT — reported an alleged discrepancy earlier this month between the number of ballots cast and the number of ballots counted in last November’s statewide special election.
REIT’s findings were presented at a privately organized workshop on Feb. 10, where organizers claimed that there were 45,800 more ballots counted than ballots cast in November 2025. Curtis was in attendance at the workshop as a guest of REIT and later that day presented to Riverside supervisors during a county board meeting.
At that workshop, Curtis went on to say, “We count better in Shasta County” claiming that his office doesn’t use computer technology to count ballots, allowing results to come out “dead even.” He added that he’s solved Shasta’s conflicts over elections with his new methods. But Shasta’s election office did use machines to count votes in last November’s election. And conflicts over elections continued in Shasta the same day that Curtis spoke in Riverside over allegations that he’s misused public resources.
The allegations made about Riverside’s election by REIT have also been made repeatedly by a local group of activists about Shasta’s elections and appear to have contributed to Curtis’ claims of ballot stuffing by former election officials. No evidence of election fraud has been presented to the public by Curtis and two lawsuits against the Shasta election office in recent years have both been thrown out.
At the Feb. 10 county workshop where REIT presented its findings, Riverside’s ROV Art Tinoco said the group’s numbers on ballot discrepancies was inaccurate by orders of magnitude, The Riverside Record reported. He named the actual difference between ballots cast and ballots counted as 103, a number The Record said it had independently confirmed through data provided by the California Secretary of State.
Here’s what happened Tuesday
During this past Tuesday’s Shasta board of supervisors meeting, Curtis — while on the stand to defend himself against alleged election misconduct — said someone from the Riverside Sheriff’s Office was “confiscating all of the records in Riverside,” a statement now known to refer to the investigation initiated by REIT’s claims.
But the offhand remark was made to the public before any sort of official announcement by the Riverside Sheriff’s Office about an investigation into the alleged ballot discrepancy.
Riverside County’s sheriff is Chad Bianco. He’s currently running for California governor and has been polled as one of the top contenders. The investigation into Riverside County’s last election comes less than a month after the FBI raided an election office in Fulton County, Georgia to pursue false claims by President Donald Trump that the 2020 election had widespread voting fraud.
A day after Curtis’ statements, The Riverside Record received a statement from the sheriff’s office that confirmed the investigation, adding that the Riverside board of supervisors, county executive office and registrar of voters are fully cooperating in the investigation. The Riverside Record reported that it wasn’t able to confirm Curtis’ claim that the sheriff’s office was in possession of last November’s ballots. A request for comment from Shasta Scout to the Riverside Sheriff’s Office has remained unanswered.
Speaking to a Shasta Scout reporter today, Curtis said he couldn’t say who in Riverside had informed him about the investigation.
“Bianco has grabbed the ballots,” Curtis said. “I don’t think the ROV in Riverside had any clue what was going on because … you mostly don’t. They sit there and they push their buttons, they do their computer, it generates a report, and they’re happy.”
Curtis said he wasn’t sure if it was his involvement in Riverside that had triggered the investigation.
“I have no idea,” he said. “I hate to take credit for things because half the time you might think you had generated something, and then it wouldn’t be so.”
2.27.2026 10:26 a.m.: We have updated the story to add additional information to a graph outlining the Riverside ROV’s response to claims of election irregularities.
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Comments (23)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
Ironman event draws excited locals as officials share details about August’s race
About 40 people attended a Q&A held yesterday by local Redding organizations. The meet and greet featured officials from the Ironman organization who shared an exciting announcement about the internationally known triathlon event, among other details.
Shasta’s Lao, Thai and Cambodian communities will welcome the new year on April 19
Anyone is welcome to take part in the celebration at Redding’s small Buddhist temple. Festivities will include traditional dance, food and the custom of cheerful water splashing as a form of spiritual cleansing.
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.
Time for the grown ups to assert their authority over the children, and send them to the nursery. That way the adults can get on with the serious business of election verification and oversight.
Take a break MAGA.
MAGA is so delusional that they can’t possibly comprehend that their policies, or really lack there of, are unpopular anywhere and therefore the majority of people do. not. want. them. Maybe you could try helping working class people, instead of funneling money to billionaire predators? But no, let’s funnel billions right into the pockets of Trump and friends. Your country is being robbed and yet you’d rather argue about peoples citizenship, or get riled up about rainbows. In 10 years, when you’re unable to buy a loaf of bread, will you still say you’re “winning”?
KDA and Joeanna both lied about receiving $1.5 million Zuckerberb money to the Suppervisors. If you can’t believe everything a person says, what can you believe? Do you really want a dishonest ROV who has bars at the entrance of the polling office and required ID to enter but doesn’t support photo ID to vote?
Why would you trust either of them with your vote?
What worries me is the result of the ROV election in June and the loss and subsequent removal of Curtis from position. Which will only prompt more allegations of fraud and deceit and eventual litigation. The waters are beyond muddy, they have become a thick goo of slime and crap.
I don’t fault Cathy Darling Allen or Tom Toller for putting up bars to keep you and your election deniers out. I hope they go back up as soon as you give Curtis that unicycle so he can pedal back to Florida. The $1.5 million was received and spent to replace a perfectly functioning voting system because people like you and Patti Jones were butthurt over Trump’s landslide loss in 2020. Stop believing the Big Lie and supporting voter suppression measures trying to fix nonexistent problems.
Nick–“KDA and Joeanna both lied about receiving $1.5 million Zuckerberb money to the Suppervisors”—FACT
Brad–“The $1.5 million was received and spent to replace a perfectly functioning voting system ”
THE DOMINION MACHINES WERE CANCELLED AND THE HART MACHINES WERE BOUGHT BEFORE THE $1.5 MILLION WAS RECEIVED!!!
Brad–“I don’t fault Cathy Darling Allen or Tom Toller for putting up bars to keep you and your election deniers out”– I, Nick,was never there before the bars went up!
Jolly Roger–” Oh happy citizen, the bars were to secure the ballots. End of story.” TROUBLE GETTING YOUR STORIES STRAIGHT FELLOWS?
Jolly Roger–” Do you forget that there were attempts from election deniers to force their way into where that ballots were kept?”—
YOU MEAN LATE AT NIGHT WHEN THEY WERE COUNTING OR DOING SOMETHING WITHOUT OBSERVERS?–TO AVOID OBSERVATION?–TRANSPARENCY MUCH?
Jolly Roger–” The board could have chosen to NOT receive the grant money. But they chose to accept it and they decided how to spend it.”—THE MONEY WENT INTO THE GENERAL FUND, THE SAME FUND THAT PAID FOR THE HART VOTE COUNTING MACHINES THAT WE OWN INSTEAD OF RENTING DOMINION MACHINES FOR $266,000 per year
1. The Hart machines were NOT bought before they received the funds. It’s public information, man. You can actually look up to see when the money was received, and when the machines were bought.
2. No one was trying to avoid observation or transparency. The fact is that as the ballots were being delivered Jon Knight, Arthur Gorman, and the rest forced their way into the back of the building where the ballots were being received. Nick, they’re actual recordings of it. It’s clear as day they weren’t there just to observe, they were intruding into a place where the ballots needed to be secure. It was after that, that the bars went up to prevent people from just forcing their way back where they’re not supposed to be. Again, there are video recordings.
3. ‘The board could have chosen to NOT receive the grant money. But they chose to accept it and they decided how to spend it.” Again Nick, public record. The BOARD decided how to spend the money.
.
.
Again Nik, this is all public information. Anyone can fact check you or I to see what the truth is. In fact I welcome people to check for themselves. Almost pleading for people to do so, so they can see for themselves what the truth is.
.
Please people, look it up.
Settle down Nickie. No need to yell. If you think something nefarious was going on, you and your election denier buddies could have paid for a full hand count since our paper ballots are safely stored for nearly two years after each election. The grant money was given to the election office not Shasta County to spend on other things. Owning is not better than renting as we learned the hard way. Hart tabulators were incapable of scanning ballots with a microscopic overspray issue while Dominion tabulators had zero problem scanning Runbeck ballots with the same defect. So thankful this voter suppression measure will never see the light of day so taxpayers do not have to pay to defend this illegal measure. Stop drinking the Big Lie Koolaid Nickie and accept the 2020 loss of your racist pedophile king.
Nick, you do realize that the board of supervisors had to approve a spending plan before even a penny could be received?
.
I think you do know that.
.
To everyone else, the board meeting and agenda where the board of supervisors agreed on a spending plan is public info. Look it up and read the agenda, or even watch the actual video of the board.
.
The board could have chosen to NOT receive the grant money. But they chose to accept it and they decided how to spend it.
.
Just some info that Nick is conveniently leaving out. You want to talk about honesty, Nick? Maybe you should try it first.
Oh happy citizen, the bars were to secure the ballots. End of story.
Do you forget that there were attempts from election deniers to force their way into where that ballots were kept? There were several places where this was published, and videos that show it. Anyone can look it up, not hard to find.
In fact, it was reported here on Shasta Scout too!!
Nicky, you’re just too funny.
A difference of opinion becomes a lie when a deliberate attempt is made to misrepresent, using demonstrably false information, like information that has failed the test of reality in a court. Like his mentor, Trump, the leader of MAGA, who’s a court-adjudicated rapist and convicted 34-count felon, Clint Curtis is a liar.
Clint Curtis was appointed to his position by local MAGA leaders Kivin Crye, Kris Kelstorm, Corky Patrick Jones, and his sidekick, Laura Hobbs, both of whom failed in court and claim they lost their elections due to voter fraud. Their goal is to use the Shasta County Register of Voters and the Shasta County Board of Supervisors to spread far-right extremist MAGA propaganda, hoping that MAGA can continue to leverage local, state, and national government to promote its racist white nationalist authoritarian agendas. And authoritarian figures don’t follow the law unless they are compelled to.
Like Trump and his DOJ, which has lost hundreds of election cases so far in attempts to force his illegal voter initiative on the states, Clint Curtis, who claims he has given voter information to the Trump DOJ and now the FBI, is incensed, enraged, and becoming indignant. He is furious that he, Hobbs, Jones, and Crye lost in court and can’t force their illegal election on Shasta County citizens. Now, Clint Curtis and Shasta County MAGA must follow the law, and, like Trump, Curtis is demanding that taxpayers pay him to break it. Good luck with that, MAGA.
One last thing, Clint: your claim that the Riverside Sheriff’s Office was “confiscating all of the records in Riverside” is typical MAGA rhetoric, yes. However, no, as Shasta Scout stated, your fairy tale isn’t backed by any official court documents or press releases from Riverside authorities.
You know what? You should go to court, where you and all your propaganda will be disposed and your falsehoods exposed as lies pretending to be facts. Hopefully, voters will dismiss you and the other MAGA liars in the upcoming elections.
Well said, and I agree Christian! Clint needs to stay in his own lane, he’s done enough damage here, why another county?
Why Shasta County Now Requires Independent Election Oversight
Shasta County has reached a point where confidence in election administration can no longer be restored through assurances or internal explanations alone. Judicial intervention, recurring public controversy, and unresolved questions about compliance with California election law have combined to create a governance problem—one that implicates the office, not merely its occupant. In such circumstances, the most responsible response is the establishment of an independent, non-partisan investigative panel empowered to review conduct, procedures, and statutory compliance in a transparent, lawful manner.
The recent issuance of a temporary restraining order affecting election-related actions underscores the gravity of the situation. A court does not intervene lightly in the mechanics of election administration. When it does, it signals serious legal questions regarding preemption, ultra vires action, and the risk of irreparable harm. Coupled with public debate before the Shasta County Board of Supervisors and continuing allegations aired in official settings, these developments demand a structured review that is independent of day-to-day administration and insulated from political pressure.
This is not an indictment of any individual, including Clint Curtis. Independent panels exist precisely to avoid prejudgment. Properly constituted, such a body would have no prosecutorial or disciplinary authority. Its mandate would be limited to fact-finding and analysis: reviewing adherence to the California Elections Code, the Political Reform Act, county policies governing political activity and use of public resources, and open-government requirements such as the Brown Act and the Public Records Act. Any potential violations would be referred—if warranted—to the appropriate authorities, preserving due process.
Critically, an independent panel would examine systems and safeguards, not personalities. It would assess whether policies were followed, whether communications were consistent with statutory duties of neutrality, and whether administrative decisions exposed the county to legal or reputational risk. Such a review protects the institution and the public alike. It also protects the officeholder by replacing speculation with an evidentiary record and clear recommendations grounded in law and best practice.
If elected, Joanna Francescut would inherit an office operating under heightened scrutiny. While she would not unilaterally create an investigative panel, she could—and should—give serious consideration to encouraging the Board of Supervisors to do so as a matter of prudent governance. Supporting an independent review would not be partisan, retaliatory, or accusatory. It would be a measured step to restore credibility, clarify legal boundaries, and ensure that election administration is demonstrably non-partisan and compliant.
Ultimately, the choice before Shasta County is straightforward. It can allow controversy to persist through litigation, public mistrust, and ad hoc debate—or it can adopt a lawful, independent mechanism designed to stabilize institutions when confidence is strained. An independent investigative panel is not an escalation; it is a reset. Any future Clerk-Registrar committed to the rule of law and public trust should be prepared to support it.
The only reason there was ever mistrust in our local elections was because the same small group of people kept making accusations without a shred of proof or evidence.
They had already made up their minds before they had even entered the building as observers about what was happening inside the elections building.
Do you really think an independent review is going to convince people that are acting on some internal belief that there’s mischief going on, and have no solid concrete proof of it?
Again, not a single shred of proof, but somehow they just KNOW that something fishy is going on.
Look, you actually have the election deniers in our local elections office right now. If they were ever going to find a smoking gun that proves them right, then the time would be now.
But there’s NOTHING. Nada. Zilch.
I have been on some of the observer tours for the last 3 ROVs. Cathy, Joanna, and Tom were as transparent as possible but they could never be transparent enough for that same small vocal group of election deniers. Mr Curtis is a glorified used car salesman.
Oversight is crucial. Unfortunately the current state of the the technology utilized to obtain the initial tabulations does not allow for an appropriate standard of oversight Therefore we are relegated to a sub standard situation that has caused chaos locally and nationally this is resolved with proper open source software paper ballot systems – robust audits etc
If there is any good news it is that Shasta can be a shining light for best practices. We must stop the heated spew of disinformation and unite regardless of political persuasion
Locally, Laura Hobbs frequently points out an alleged discrepancy between the number of ballots cast and the number of votes counted. And both here and in Riverside, the elections officials (well, except Curtis, who is doing his own thing) point out that the number of ballots they use is incomplete.
The Riverside Record puts it this way in a linked story:
“The difference between what REIT presented and what the ROV’s office presented, Tinoco said, was the result of a few factors. The first, he said, was that the group was missing ballots including confidential voters, conditional voter registration votes and provisional votes.”
But the “elections integrity” folks … just don’t want to hear it. It’s so weird.
Another factor is ballots being returned with no choices marked, i.e. a blank ballot. Those will result in more ballots received than counted. There are plenty of valid explanations but these election deniers are having none of it. Their goal is to perpetuate the Big Lie because they are still butthurt over Trump’s landslide loss in 2020. Voting system vendors have been suing these liars in court for defamation, and winning hundreds of millions. They need to stop drinking the Curtis Koolaid and accept their losses. Rampant voter fraud is nothing more than a figment of their imagination.
The election management system and the voting system used by Riverside County are State-certified systems that are prohibited from being connected to each other. Mr. Tinoco’s explanation as to why the number of ballots in the statement of votes is more than the number of voters with participation history is reasonable.
EIMS is a certified software that includes the voter registration database and tracks voter participation history. It doesn’t contain ballots or votes. It’s also used to manage candidate services and review of petitions.
The Liberty voting system is State-certified software and equipment. It must be air gapped/cannot be connected to the internet or any network. It is used to create blank ballots, tabulate voted ballots and tally votes. It counts the number of ballots scanned, and therefore would not count ballots rejected for any reason since they remain in their envelopes and are not scanned.
Voter participation history in the election management system and ballots scanned by the voting system never match exactly.
In addition to all of the factors mentioned by Mr. Tinoco, a voter participation report from EIMS is point in time data. So if a voter cast a ballot in Riverside and then moved to another county before the election is certified and the participation report is run, that voter will not be in Riverside County’s report.
I expect Riverside County processed tens of thousands of registration transactions each month. So, it is not uncommon for a voter to move after casting a ballot.
Yes Bob. The certification issue you reference shows us the software has been casually inspected by an “ independent “ testing lab ( ITL) – This does not alleviate the security concerns but rather exacerbates them as the inventor of the certification process – Roy Saltman – has clearly stated. Mr Saltman shared our position that the cert process was “ broken “ due to vendors exploiting the proprietary environment and intellectual property protections The national security issues again mandate election systems be categorized as critical infrastructure and intellectual property protected / corporate owned software must be declared illegal for use in elections
Are you saying a robust hand count audit of the tabulated votes is incapable of detecting software errors?
Brent: I understand you support open-source voting systems. But, I didn’t comment on the type of voting system used by Riverside County.
The questions raised by the group in Riverside County would exist regardless of the voting system used, because:
– the voting system (ballot tabulation) and election management system (voter participation) are prohibited from being connected to each other
– the voting system counts the number of ballots tabulated
– the voter history report produced by the election management system does not include confidential voters, provisional voters, or voters who moved out of the county after they cast a ballot but before the report is run
Points well taken. My point is once you are locked into poor systems there are obvious consequences. The fact the ems and tabulator are not supposed to be connected is inconsequential
I would like your thoughts about open source / paper ballot systems vs corporate owned systems if you can stomach all this You appear system savvy
Brent:
I am an impartial, nonpartisan elections administrator. I am not an advocate. It is my responsibility to use systems tested and certified by the Secretary of State. I do not have an opinion about open-source voting systems.
I would note that all of the certified voting systems in California use paper ballots. All votes are cast on paper ballots whether the voter marks the ballot by hand or with the assistance of equipment.