Shasta County Board Declares Certified Election Results, “Under Duress.” Sort of.

Supervisor Kevin Crye aired his frustrations at length over a particularly thorny agenda item during the Board’s December 10 meeting: declaring local election results under the Board’s jurisdiction. 

During public comment on the topic, Crye and other supervisors faced an entrenched crowd of embittered community members, many of whom attended a recent town hall by the secessionist movement New California State. Election-related complaints ranged from general criticisms of the Board’s perceived hesitance toward taking their election process skepticism seriously to accusations that Shasta County’s voting machines are vulnerable to hackers who want to undermine California’s conservative counties.

Declaring election results is among the legal duties of Supervisors under California Elections Code, but their affirmative declaration is not actually required to make results official, as Shasta County Registrar of Voters Tom Toller told the Board in no uncertain terms during yesterday’s meeting. During a brief presentation to the Board, Toller reminded supervisors that he had already submitted official results to the state on December 3, at which time he signed under penalty of perjury that the results are accurate.

“Once the Secretary of State receives those,” Toller emphasized, “it is a done deal. That ship has sailed. The election is certified.” 

Crye was well aware that Toller’s certification of results is final, something he reiterated for the public both before and during the their feedback, encouraging them that he understood their concerns but still needed to move the process forward.

While Supervisors Patrick Jones and Chris Kelstrom also expressed concerns about the local elections process, Board Chair Crye received the harshest rebukes from community members yesterday, including some who hurled the insult “traitor” as he announced his intention to declare the election results.

Some questioned why, if the Board’s declaration holds no real weight, supervisors were doing it at all. Others suggested that withholding the Board’s declaration of the results could be used as an act of “symbolic protest.” 

One speaker, Gary Peyrot, attempted to heighten the stakes of the Board’s vote considerably by bringing up historic litigation that was used to justify the enslavement of Black people in the nineteenth century. 

“Look at the Dred Scott decision, which said that, you know, Black people aren’t really fully human,” Peyrut said, drawing a comparison between supporting that vote and supporting declaring election results. “Would you want your name associated with that?”

Crye pleaded with some of his critics from the dais, reminding them that declaring the results doesn’t indicate his trust or agreement with the process–just that he is repeating what he’s been told is true.

“We’re voting on the declaration,” Crye explained again. “If Toller comes up and says, I’m a 40-year old Giants fan who lives with his mother, all we’re saying is that Toller says he’s a 40-year old Giants fan who lives with his mother.”

He told activists yesterday that he agrees with them that the current electoral process is “horrible” and “needs fixing” – a complete reversal from his comments on November 4 when he told Shasta Scout that he had “100% trust” in the current local elections process. and believed that ROV Toller was “honest,” and “doing the job I knew he would do.”

“Most of you guys are people that I support,” Crye told election agitators, in a vain attempt to build unity, “and I get it, I’m trying to explain to you that the more we divide on this issue–”

He was interrupted by a man bellowing from the chamber floor, “You’re being manipulated!” 

A few public speakers told the Board if they were going to declare the results they should do so only after making an indication that they were “under duress” – a term Supervisor Kelstrom picked back up during Board discussion saying he’d like to follow that advice despite County Council Joseph Lamour’s advice that the phrase has no legal meaning.

“There’s no provision in law for the Supervisors to do that,” Larmour told Supervisors.

That didn’t stop three of the Supervisors from eagerly grabbing hold of the phrase as a way to follow state law while at least partially pacifying their disgruntled constituents. When Jones made a motion to declare the results but only “under duress” the political maneuver left Garman, who had until then steadfastly supported declaring the certified election results, uncertain how to vote.

“Obviously, we’re not under duress,” Garman said, turning to Larmour. “I’m going to be put in a position (where) if I don’t vote yes ‘under duress,’ this motion is going to fail. So can I stipulate, at least, that I’m not voting under duress?”

In response, Lamour reminded the chambers again that voting “under duress” has no legal implications. All five Board members then voted to declare the election results with Supervisors Jones, Kelstrom and Crye sticking with the “under duress” wording of the motion and Supervisors Garman and Rickert specifying that they were not “under duress” while doing so.

The Board’s decision to declare the results was one of only three election-related votes taken during yesterday’s meeting. Other actions by the Board included sending two letters to the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) over other elections-related concerns. After casting his vote on those items, Crye expressed his optimism that a DOJ under the Trump administration might be more amenable to scrutinizing local electoral processes, something the crowd eagerly agreed with.

---

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