Shasta issues correction notice highlighting those who oppose, and support, Measure B

Shasta County’s failure to publish a list of names submitted as part of arguments against Measure B has resulted in another correction notice on the Shasta Elections Office site. This is the second such notice that’s been posted in the lead up to the June primary.

The correction was necessary due to the election office having neglected to include the names of those who submitted rebuttal arguments for and against Measure B in Shasta’s voter information guide, a document mailed to every voter that’s developed under guidelines set out in state law.

While some might view the omission of a few names in the voter information guide as little more than a clerical error, opponents of Measure B say it’s critical that the public know the names of those who oppose the initiative. If implemented, Measure B would have layered impacts on future elections in Shasta County. The measure calls for voter ID, along with one-day voting, hand counting, limited absentee ballots and a separation from state voter rolls, all of which would be illegal to implement under current state and federal laws.

This spring, community member Cork McGowan took the lead on coordinating a pair of statements that were submitted to the elections office in opposition to the measure. He also coordinated opposition from ten recognizable individuals willing to sign their names to back those statements. California election code outlines the process by which such arguments should be printed in voter information guides. Up to five signatures may be submitted in support of arguments for and against the measure. Similarly, up to five names may be submitted in support of rebuttals to arguments for and against the measure. 

Shasta’s Voter Information Guide — or VIG — included the first set of five names, both for and against the measure, but left the second list of names out. That matters to McGowan, who said he believes statements for and against measures in the VIG are often used by undecided individuals as they decide how to vote at the polls.

The county’s failure to include the second list of names, McGowan says, could impact the outcome of the June 2 election. He argued with the election office over the last two weeks in an attempt to have updates made and a correction notice posted on the elections office site.

Those updates, and the corresponding notice, were finally posted on Friday. Shasta’s appointed election official, Clint Curtis, told Shasta Scout that the correction had occurred at the advice of California’s Secretary of State saying it wasn’t required by the law but he followed the state’s request anyway.

A spokesperson for the Secretary of State’s office called the omission of names an “error,” confirming that the state had requested the correction.

Here’s how things unfolded

McGowan first contacted reporters with concerns about the missing signatures more than a week ago. He said he’d asked the elections office about the missing signatures and hadn’t been satisfied with the answers, forwarding an email thread between him and a variety of election staffers, including Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis. 

McGowan’s email, which was sent on May 19, called the elections office’s attention to the missing names, asking why and how the omission had occurred. Curtis initially responded, asking a community education specialist he hired last year to look into the issue and reply to McGowan. The community education specialist did so, telling McGowan first that he had followed the process as he understood it, and then, after pushback from McGowan, that he had answered to the best of his ability with all the information he had.

The next email came from a long-term staffer at the office, an election manager, who suggested that the omission of signatures was an error and recommended a way forward to correct the mistake. The recommendations including updating the online version of the VIG, providing a notice on website and social media, sending out a press release and providing an informational flyer to early voters.

The community education specialist’s next response includes a query about that error, asking what election code they had violated by omitting the second set of signatures from the VIG. McGowan — who was copied on all these staff communications — responds within hours, noting that he doesn’t know the relevant election code but that the paperwork he was asked to fill out — provided for him on Curtis’ letterhead — states specifically that the names will be printed. 

Soon after, a response comes from Assistant Registrar of Voters Brent Turner in an email laced with excited pairs of exclamation marks, telling McGowan that the election manager is working on the problem and to “let us know exactly what you would like !!”

Over subsequent emails, Turner briefly takes charge of the matter, at one point directing election analyst Laura Hobbs to meet with McGowan if needed. Hobbs is one of the five primary proponents behind Measure B and a major donor to the measure. Turner’s direction to Hobbs conflicts with Turner’s previous claim to the media that she would no longer be involved with any work related to the measure.

Turner then specified that the election manager should move forward with next steps and, in turn, the election manager assigns implementation of the correction notice to the community education specialist — with a deadline of last Friday, May 22. 

That’s when Curtis weighed in. An email sent by election staffer Marjorie Andrews, “on behalf of Clint Curtis,” put a halt to the proposed correction, saying Curtis could not locate any election code requiring it, but that had been in contact with the Secretary of State and would act if advised to do so.

“Historically the office may have done it differently,” Andrews wrote, appearing to refer back to an emailed comment from the election manager about past voter information guides, “but they often did not rely on the actual law. Clint does.” 

Here’s how the issue was resolved

McGowan forwarded the email thread to a reporter, who located the relevant sections of law including Elections Code 9163, 9164, and 9167. The first section references ballot measures in the context of the printing of the voter information guide. The second section says that the “names of the first five signatures in support of an argument for or against a measure shall be printed.” The third section says that “rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments.”

Together, the election code appears to require the printing of rebuttal signatures. Shasta Scout reached out to the Secretary of State’s office for comment on the law’s meaning late last week after being contacted by McGowan. The state responded only briefly, calling the issue a county matter and referring the matter back to Curtis. 

A few days later, McGowan also contacted the Secretary of State, sending an email on Friday, May 22. He followed up with a phone call last Tuesday and on Wednesday he submitted a formal complaint by phone and was given a case number. 

On Friday, an official correction notice appeared on the Shasta Elections Office website. ROV Curtis confirmed for a reporter that the correction notice was issued at the request of the state. He said election law does not require listing the signatures on each page but he updated the information online anyway, to comply with the state’s request. The state’s press office confirmed the Secretary of State “did reach out to Shasta County and recommended that they notify voters of the error and make corrections where possible.”

Speaking to a reporter Friday, McGowan said he was happy that the correction had been made. But he said he was still concerned that some of the names of those opposing the measure remained obscured by the formatting of the correction notice, saying he’d asked the Secretary of State’s office to take another look. 

“And they misspelled the word rebuttal,” McGowan pointed out.

As of the morning of May 30, both of those errors had been corrected.

5.31.2026 9:26 a.m.: An earlier version of this story has been updated due to formatting and loading issues that affected content.

---

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