Shasta County must hold off on placing voter ID measure on ballots, judge says
The decision came in response to a petition filed earlier this month by an anonymous plaintiff. If approved by voters in June, the ballot measure would amend local law to allow for changes to elections, including hand counting and voter ID.
Judge Benjamin Hanna ruled today that Shasta County must pause preparations to place a citizen-led initiative on voters’ ballots this June. His ruling came in response to a petition filed by an anonymous plaintiff earlier this month.
The measure is known as the Voter ID, Hand-Counted Ballots, and Absentee Voting Limits Initiative. If passed it would amend Shasta County’s charter to implement new local voting rules that contradict state election law, including voter ID requirements. Supervisors have already approved it to be placed on voter ballots for the June 2 primary after nearly 7,000 signatures in support of the ballot were verified by the election office. But that’s now on hold until at least April 10.
As the petitioner, who’s referred to in legal documents only as Jane Doe spoke by phone during the hearing today, some of the two dozen people who had packed the seats of Dept. 63 whispered amongst themselves about who she might be. In a prepared statement she discussed the legal merits of her case and noted that she was seeking to remain anonymous due to fears about harassment.
Shasta County supervisors met in closed session late last week to discuss the legal challenge, eventually voting 4-1 to take no position on the petition, with Supervisor Kevin Crye dissenting. As a result of that vote, County Counsel Joseph Larmour provided no defense of the county — or Curtis — in court today.
According to arguments presented by the petitioner, placing the measure on ballots would cause irreparable harm in the form of significant costs to taxpayers for a ballot initiative doomed to be eventually overturned by legal action even if initially passed by voters. After hearing from Doe on the matter, Hanna said that in the absence of any opposing argument from the county he lacked information to contradict her claim and was therefore granting the petitioner’s request for a temporary restraining order to pause the measure’s forward momentum.
Hanna also ruled that the plaintiff behind the legal action must amend her petition within five days to include her real name in legal documents saying that the public’s access to that information was in the interests of democracy. The petition was filed over an initiative that has already been placed on ballots by the proper authorities, he added, so the public has significant interest in this case.
But he also expressed concern for the welfare of Doe, acknowledging that her petition, and especially the fact that she filed it on her own behalf, places her under significant public scrutiny. As a result, he ruled that her contact details — including her address, phone number and employer — will remain hidden from the public and must not be shared by other parties in the case.
Speaking to the press outside the court room, Shasta County Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis expressed his strong dissatisfaction with the judge’s central ruling. He said a delay in placing the measure on ballots until after the April 10 hearing will impact his ability to present the initiative to voters on June 2 estimating the cost to holding another election, if needed, at $1 million.
Asked about his deadline to send ballots to the printer in time for the June election, Curtis mentioned April 2, saying he would have wanted the county attorney to have advocated for a follow-up hearing on the matter before that date. Curtis also explained his belief that the board’s decision not to defend itself left Hanna with no choice but to rule the way he did.
“The judge had nothing to work with,” Curtis emphasized.
During the hearing, Hanna himself said he took no issue with the county’s decision not to defend against the petition, something he explained was within the county’s rights. But Curtis said afterwards that he planned to report county attorney Larmour to the state bar.
“I’ve never really had a lot of confidence in him,” Curtis said of Larmour. “Actually, I have no confidence in him. And after this, you know, I think the board should get rid of him … I wouldn’t hire him to sharpen pencils.”
Curtis added that he’s asked the county to provide him with a different attorney, or even to allow him to represent himself, but was denied those options. He said he currently plans to hire an outside attorney to represent him at the next hearing and would then plan to seek reimbursement from the county for the cost.
Another attorney did appear in court today: Alex Haberbush, who works for a Long Beach legal firm specializing in bankruptcy and runs the non-profit Lex Rex Institute. Haberbush, who represented election activist Laura Hobbs in her failed election lawsuit against the county, spoke briefly to the judge by phone requesting to represent the proponents behind the ballot initiative as “interveners” in the case.
Hanna denied that request for now, saying the paperwork Haberbush filed at 5 p.m. the day before the hearing was too late to allow for adequate court review but explaining that he could file paperwork for the next hearing.
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Author
Comments (26)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
Redding Police Chief Brian Barner announces September retirement
Barner has been chief of police for about three years and an RPD employee for 34.
Emotions run high at tense candidate forum featuring ROV hopefuls Clint Curtis and Joanna Francescut
Candidates responded to questions as basic as their willingness to comply with state and federal law while each claimed they were the person to maintain the public’s trust in the election process.
Redding Chamber to host business-focused candidate forum for board of supervisors positions up for election
The forum will be held on Monday, April 27 beginning at 5:30, with the first hour dedicated to District 5 candidates and the second to those of District 1.
We need to support Jane Doe Send Curtis back to Florida and stop the illegal initiative.
All themore reason to put J. Fran———-ca back as ROV.
Agreed!
Mr. Curtis’ request for a ruling by April 2 was reasonable.
Pursuant to federal and state law, ballots for the June 2, 2026 Statewide Direct Primary Election must be issued to military and overseas ballots no later than Saturday, April 18 (E-45).
A final Court ruling by April 2 (E-61) would provide only 11 business days to finalize the design of the ballots and County Voter Information Guides that would contain the measure documents, proof them, produce them and issue them. That would be a challenge but would be possible.
A final Court ruling on April 10 (E-53) would provide only five business days and make the task essentially impossible for the County.
When someone files a petition for a writ of mandate to challenge a candidate’s ballot designation or candidate statement or an impartial analysis, argument or rebuttal for a measure, I tell the judge I need a decision no later than 67 days before Election Day for a statewide election.
Orange County needs a little more time than Mr. Curtis requested, because federal law mandates that all our ballots and VIGs for more than 2,300 precincts must be translated into Chinese, Korean, Spanish and Vietnamese. State law mandates that ballots for certain designated precincts must be translated into eight additional languages.
The Secretary of State requests judicial rulings no later than E-68, which is the day they have to issue a certified candidate list.
I believe the county has already ruled that they are stepping out of defending, Hobbs and Curtis and leaving the issue up to the judge. Obviously that’s a cost prudent move.
On the other hand, the issue has been put on the agenda for a special meeting on Tuesday. Tuesday.
I do not know but suspect that Clint Curtis, Crye, Hobbs. Jones and Clint idiots are demanding that his “idiots give him another crack at the courts ruling.
This is MAGA, sniveling because they thought they had a lock on Shasta County and thought the county would do their bidding to break the law, Even if it costs taxpayers millions of dollars to do so.
Now MAGA is flopping around like a fish on the dock,
Nineteen years in prison fools…
Huntington Beach already went this route and got stomped in court. How much is this farce going to cost us?
Selah
This is probably one of the biggest bunches of bullshit from a judge I’ve ever seen. Just because the state of California doesn’t think there should be ID verification to vote, doesn’t make it right! You absolutely must show ID to vote! End a fucking story! I urge Shasta County to disobey this judges order!
Only 10% vote in person. Why make them show ID while 90% don’t? Women are the most likely to lose their right to vote since their ID may not match their registration due to marriage or divorce. Are you trying to keep women from voting? The voter’s signature is all that is needed. Period. Stop pushing Trump’s voter suppression agenda.
Voter ID requirement is discriminatory for several reasons. Firstly, 90% of voters do not vote in person so why make the 10% who do show an ID. Secondly, women are the most likely voters to have an ID that does not match their registration due to marriage or divorce. One’s signature is all that is needed and that is what is used to verify your identity. Forging a signature is a felony while using a fake ID is not.
Vote in person with id. No more mailing in votes from North Korea.
I grew up watching my Grandmother open her garage as a polling place. When I retired, I could volunteer as a poll worker.
If any of those fools put their bodies where their mouths are, they would see how rock solid the workers & systems are. We have checks and balances at the polls including systems for voided ballots & provisional ballots.
We announce & cheer first time voters. We give special stickers to the kids (pre-voters). We thank every voter, regardless of their affiliation. It’s a beautiful thing and I am proud to be a part of democracy in action.
Unfortunately, it is the people that don’t understand something who are the most scared of it.
Thank you for volunteering as a poll worker. It is a long, tedious, thankless job, and I thank you for your service.
Election deniers know are our elections are secure, accurate and fair. The goal is to sow doubt so people don’t vote. They also are working hard to make it more difficult to vote. This measure would disenfranchise many voters which is their intent. They believe if everyone votes, they lose.
Besides their ballot initiative being entirely illegal, Clint Curtis and Laura Hobbs, like most MAGA, genuinely dislike women who aren’t submissive to men or Trump. And like Trump, here’s their reasoning:
• An estimated 69 million women in the United States who have changed their last name (usually due to marriage and divorces) have birth certificates that do not match their current legal name, making it unlikely that they can use their original birth certificate to prove citizenship without additional paperwork.
• The US Census reports 15% of women in Shasta County, CA, are divorced, representing one of the highest divorce rates in the state. That figures….
• And the US Census data indicate that about 14000 women in our county are divorced. So…
• The Clint Curtis–Laura Hobbs ballot initiative could require 14,000 women to obtain new birth certificates or passports to vote.
Neat, eh? What a nice way to disenfranchise those pesky non-compliant females.
You would think that Trump lost the election in Shasta County all three times. These people are simple so vested in the BIG LIE, they can’t see the truth when confronted with it. State law doesn’t allow for the voting restrictions that they seek in order to disenfranchise community voters. SHAME ON THEM. As an elderly resident, I use the mail-in ballot almost exclusively even when I am home. We usually deposit it into the box in front to the elections office. I spend time in the fall to visit my one and only grandchild in the fall which is out of state. So, these shameless folks say I shouldn’t have a way to vote? I have voted since I was a young adult here in Shasta County, and these paranoid, BIG LIE believers want to take that right away from me. SHAME ON THEM.
Those in senior living facilities, nursing homes, carehomes or in their own home but are not able to get out would seem to not be allowed to vote under their crusade to change not only who can vote but how they can vote. It would exclude the disabled, those temporarily in rehab hospitals or in a regular hospital, those on vacation, those out of the area due to business and those who lack transportation & live outside of metro bus stops. Screw the consitution. Only those with a car, with enough leisure time or the capacity to forgo responsibilities in favor of voting in person will be allowed. Must be able to read and write as well. If you are dyslexic, you will read the ballot incorrectly and vote for the wrong thing, so you also won’t be allowed. That would be a win as Newsom would not be allowed to vote.
Perhaps the best move would be to let Meta & Alphabet use AI and create voting algorithms based on your web browsing and shopping activities. I would bet those models would be far more accurate than any of the so called reputable “polls” that are used to project election results.
Anita Brady, did you forget about absentee ballots? All you have to do is ask for one.
Not if your election denier friends get their way. Absentee ballots will be limited to very few voters. The vast majority would have to vote in person, stand in long lines, take time off work and not vote at all if out of town or ill.
A known illegal process under current voting laws to implement a solution of a problem that doesn’t exist. The correct approach is to lobby for having the state and federal voting laws changed. The County doesn’t get to make up their own rules outside of state and federal requirements. The conspiracy search continues for proof of how, under current legal voting processes, actually led to the passage of a proposition or election of an official that had been illegally manipulated. After thousands of investigations, lawsuits and hearings (from both parties I may add), there has not been one finding in which a specific candidate or proposition had won from fraudulent voting or manipulation of voting records. The old adage of tripping over a dollar to save a penny is appropriate here.
In the meantime, the taxpayer is footing the bill for all the County staff time spent on the matter in BOS meetings as well as behind the scenes. The taxpayer is also on the hook for the court`s staff time and adding to the backlog of needed court actions on pending matters. If only there was the ability to file a class action against the proponents for abuse of process and financial abuse of taxpayers.
For all those who do believe an election was rigged for a predetermined outcome, please cite one specific proposition or candidate that had won was investigated & found to be incorrect due to fraud/manipulation/illegal votes. The highly touted “Mesa AZ” data analysis is a partisan analysis of voting trends with a partisan conclusion lacking any legal finding or judgement by a court.
Oh boy, more wasted tax dollars. Can we make Curtis go back to Florida already?
When are these losers going to get tired of losing? They are drunk on the Big Lie Koolaid and can’t seem to sober up. Thanks Judge Hanna, you have save Shasta County taxpayers tons of money since I would be the first to sue for voter disenfranchisement if this voter suppression measure ever saw the light of day.
Brad, do you think Curtis is aiming for a position in Trump’s DOJ?
Since he is such a poor excuse for a lawyer, he should be overqualified to serve in the Trump administration.
Many here in Shasta county have no confidence in Curtis and after the disastrous last election we believe he needs to be relieved of his duties!
It’s kind of funny that there’s always this talk about local control but yet we sure seem to have some non-locals trying to shake things up here.
Mr Haberbush and Mr Curtis – both non-locals. Kevin paid a visit to Mike Lindell, another one.
So much for local control, eh?