Shasta County Drops Lawsuit Over Proposed “Election Reform” Ballot Measure

A small group of election activists celebrated in a hallway of the Shasta County Superior Court earlier this week after a ruling by the Court in their favor.

The five included Laura Hobbs, Deirdre Holliday, James Burnett, Kari Chilson and Richard Gallardo. They were celebrating Judge Benjamin Hanna’s decision to deny a request by Shasta County attorney Joseph Larmour who was seeking relief from his lawful duty to produce a title and summary for their proposed ballot measure. 

The activists hope to use the ballot measure to convince voters to change local election procedures by voting to approve an amendment to Shasta County’s charter that would institute new voter rolls, require hand-counting of ballots, limit absentee voting, require the use of voter ID and mandate that election results be finalized on election night.

In the County’s lawsuit against the group of five election activists, attorney Larmour made a single primary claim: that the proposed ballot measure would violate state and federal laws and mislead the public. Larmour said he was asking the Court to issue a ruling on whether the proposed ballot measure is legal while seeking permission to abstain from writing a title and summary. Halting this ballot measure process now, Larmour said, would save taxpayers money.

The Wednesday March 19 hearing focused on the specific issue of whether the County could refuse to prepare the title and ballot summary for the election activists. Hanna declined to grant Larmour’s request, saying his legal filing did not meet the high bar the law requires to grant the kind of expedited motion he had requested, known as an ex parte stay. It’s an urgent legal decision that’s granted only when there is the possibility of “irreparable harm” if the courts don’t act quickly enough.

Under state law, the submission of ballot measure paperwork to a local jurisdiction triggers a process that requires production of a title and summary within fifteen days.

Before issuing his ruling, Judge Hanna scrutinized Larmour’s paperwork and timeline, saying his request for an ex parte stay was insufficient, in part because he did not adequately attempt to contact the activists’ attorney, Alex Haberbush, the same lawyer who represented Hobbs in her failed lawsuit against the County last year. 

Citing a number of procedural deficiencies in how Larmour had approached the legal process, Hanna emphasized that his ruling to deny the County’s request wasn’t about whether the proposed measure would be legal to implement, only about whether Larmour had proved that he needed urgent action by the court to prevent “irreparable harm”.

County Subsequently Drops Lawsuit

Two days after Hanna’s ruling, on Friday March 21, Shasta County Supervisors unanimously voted to drop the lawsuit. Larmour declined to comment to the media after he announced the Supervisors’ unanimous vote, but in a press release a spokesperson for Shasta County said Larmour would deliver the requested title and summary to the Registrar of Voters that day. 

“While the court did not grant the County’s request for expedited relief,” County Public Information Officer David Maung wrote, “the County acknowledges the decision and has taken steps to comply. Shasta County remains committed to upholding the law and ensuring transparency and accountability throughout the election process.”

After the closed session announcement by Larmour, Supervisor Kevin Crye told the public that the defendants in the dropped lawsuit should submit their legal costs to the County for review. It’s not clear why this invitation was made as there was no court mandate for fees. No other supervisors commented. 

Election activists can now use the ballot title and summary to solicit signatures from voters over the next 180 days. Once submitted to the Elections Office, those signatures will be scrutinized to ensure they represent distinct, registered Shasta County voters. If enough valid signatures are gathered, about 6,800 in this case, the measure will likely appear on voters ballots this fall. 

---

---

The decision by Supervisors to drop the County’s lawsuit against activists does not mean the proposed ballot measure could legally be implemented. As the County has pointed out, the measure appears to conflict with state and federal laws, including the California Constitution, the California Elections Code, the Help America Vote Act, and the National Voter Registration Act. 

Should Shasta County voters pass the ballot measure, it would likely face an immediate challenge from the state. Under California’s Constitution, charter counties, like Shasta, have the right to govern local affairs but cannot create laws that conflict with the state’s when it comes to matters that are of statewide concern, such as elections. 

In Huntington Beach, a similar ballot measure passed by the voters that called for implementation of voter ID is scheduled to go into effect in 2026. It’s already been challenged by California Attorney General Rob Bonta in a lawsuit that is working its way through the courts at taxpayer expense. 

Nevin Kallepalli contributed reporting for this story.

---

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