Shasta Elections Office provides deadlines for filing arguments for or against Measure B
A controversial ballot measure related to elections is still facing a legal challenge. In the meantime, the community is invited to submit arguments for or against the measure for possible inclusion in the voter information guide for the June 2026 election.
The local elections office has released dates for submitting arguments for or against Measure B, a controversial election initiative that’s slated to appear on voters’ ballots in June.
The measure, which the Shasta Elections Office refers to by the title Local Elections Transparency and Security Reform, calls for changes to Shasta’s charter law to implement local election rules that, if implemented, would contradict current state and federal laws.
More than 7,000 citizen signatures gathered in support of the measure have been verified by the elections office, allowing it to be placed on ballots. But a legal challenge, alleging that doing so would be an irreparable waste of taxpayer funds, is still wending its way through the courts, with the next hearing scheduled for March 25.
Meanwhile, a press release sent out Thursday by Community Education Specialist David Wylie included a deadline of Friday, March 13, at 5 p.m. for arguments for and against Measure B to be submitted to the elections office.
One argument for the measure, and one against, will be selected by the Shasta Elections Office for inclusion in the voter pamphlet sent out before the June election, as required by law. Priority will be given to arguments submitted by the Shasta County Board of Supervisors, proponents of the measure, any bona fide association of citizens or any individual voter, in that order. Arguments are required to be under 300 words.
California law also calls for the county election official to transmit a copy of the measure to county counsel in order to prepare an impartial analysis of the measure’s impact on current law, which should also be printed in the voter information guide.
If directed by the board, the county auditor may also prepare a fiscal analysis of the costs of implementing the measure, although county supervisors have already missed the last date to ask the auditor to prepare that information, a deadline which fell on March 6.
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Author
Comments (1)
Leave a comment
Related Articles
Cal’s Books reopens after flooding threatened permanent closure last year
The beloved local bookstore was bought by a group of young people hoping to save it from permanently closing. They were able to gather enough funds to buy the store from its previous owner and reopen.
Anderson City Council passed a social media policy last week. A First Amendment expert has concerns
Knight First Amendment Institute staff attorney Jake Karr said Anderson’s new policy brings up constitutional questions, though whether the policy is actually unconstitutional or not is complicated.
Appeal court pauses Shasta judge’s ruling in election ballot measure case
Election staffer Laura Hobbs has successfully appealed a temporary restraining order, allowing a controversial ballot measure she helped champion to move forward. If approved by Shasta voters, the measure would amend the county’s charter to implement local election practices that would violate state and national law.
Are you deliberately not mentioning laws violated and costs associated with this measure? Do your job. Report all the facts.