Shasta judge suspends Measure B, pending further court order
The ruling means Shasta’s elections are slated to be run as usual this fall. The decision is a temporary step in a legal process that will determine whether the new elections law, which was passed by voters in June, is actually legal to implement.
Judge Benjamin Hanna issued a ruling in the Shasta County Superior Court today, calling for Measure B to be suspended, or paused, until further court order.
The decision comes in response to a lawsuit by California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber.
Measure B was passed by voters in June. Its central tenets include voter ID requirements, one-day elections, hand-counting ballots at the precincts, and separating Shasta’s voter rolls from those of the state.
Deputy Attorney General Liam O’Connor represented the state in court today, arguing that implementing the measure would both be illegal and cause irreparable harm to voters.
In his oral ruling, Hanna agreed on both points, saying leaving the measure in place this fall — while the full court process continues to play out — would likely result in voter disenfranchisement due to confusion and uncertainty.
“Some would likely be discouraged from voting, or unable to vote,” Hanna said.
After sharing his thoughts in verbal form, Hanna said he expected to issue a written ruling later today. That ruling will lay out his reasoning as to why he upheld the preliminary injunction, suspending Measure B for now. But it will also make clear that there are still further legal arguments to be engaged in, ones that will decide the merits of the measure, or whether it’s legal to keep in place at all.
Secretary of State Weber celebrated the state’s victory in a press release this morning.
“While others attempt to close doors, California ensures that the portal of democracy remains wide open,” Weber said. “The court decision today blocking Measure B has made clear what we already know — creating unnecessary barriers does not strengthen our democracy, it weakens it. We will continue making voting accessible for more eligible voters to use their voices in the best way possible, by casting a ballot. The power of the people depends on it.”
About 40 people packed Hanna’s chambers this morning, including members of the media and proponents for Measure B, along with other interested community members.
Attorney Alex Haberbush, who represents proponents of the measure, acknowledged during his arguments that implementing its core tenets would contradict state law. He asked the judge to sever, or separate, the measure in order to allow for partial implementation in time for the fall election.
The judge declined, saying to do so would be to create a new law, very different from what voters approved in June.
“It’s simply not possible to sever Measure B,” Hanna said, “without it turning into something wholly divorced from what the voters intended.”
Representing Shasta, County Counsel Joseph Larmour spoke only briefly, taking no opinion on the merits of Measure B while emphasizing that the county has been thrust into a difficult position: attempting to comply with two sets of laws in the lead up to November, those set by the state and those mandated by Measure B, which are often in conflict.
Speaking to the media after today’s hearing, Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis acknowledged the court order requiring him to take no further steps to implement Measure B. He added that today’s ruling makes it very unlikely that Measure B will impact the fall election, even if an appeal is made, something Haberbush said he’s considering.
In response to questions, Curtis said he doesn’t anticipate that voters will be confused about how to vote this fall, and added that he doesn’t plan to implement any additional voter education measures to ensure public awareness of what laws will be in place during the election.
That’s something that both state and county attorneys are concerned about. In his arguments today, California attorney O’Connor emphasized that “when voters are confused, they’re less likely to vote.” Larmour noted something similar during a hearing yesterday.
In response, Haberbush argued that it’s clear that when local law is noncompliant with state law, state law is what takes precedent. But Hanna pointed out that even ROV Curtis has appeared confused on what body of laws should dictate the election, noting a recent elections office press release claiming the ROV intended to follow both state law and Measure B simultaneously.
Hanna was sympathetic to Curtis’ confusion, saying leaving Measure B in effect would provoke all manner of uncertainties.
“It’s a kind of Schrodinger’s cat situation,” the judge said, comparing the county’s current imbroglio to the famous thought experiment utilized in quantum mechanics. “We don’t know if the cat in the box is alive or dead, so we have to prepare for both eventualities.”
The judge also briefly addressed the issue of how Shasta’s status as a charter county impacts the legality of Measure B, emphasizing that the California Constitution does not allow counties to set their own election laws. He did so as part of a series of statements that hinted strongly at how he may rule on the merits of the case.
“The integrity of the electoral process is undoubtedly a matter of statewide concern,” Hanna said, adding that it would “upset the state’s delicate balance” of power to allow counties to make fundamental changes to the way elections are run.
The next hearing in the case has been set for Aug. 24 at 9 a.m. in Dept. 63. It’s a status hearing, at which time parties will meet to set dates for further court hearings.
This is a developing story. We have updated the story to include comment from the state and add a link to Hanna’s written ruling.
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Author
Comments (37)
Leave a comment
Related Articles
Shasta board punts on planning commissioner change, hears update on H.R. 1 impacts
As part of a busy agenda Tuesday, supervisors deferred a decision about a change in planning commissioners and heard a presentation on how H.R. 1 might impact county finances.
State to invest more than $100 million in improving trucking along 1-5 in Shasta County
The ambitious ‘Fix 5 Cascade Gateway Project’ will see a series of renovations on the major highway, with the goal of streamlining traffic and preventing collisions for both passenger and commercial drivers.
Proponents have appealed suspension of Measure B, Shasta ROV says ‘they better hurry’
A new voter-approved measure intended to make significant changes to Shasta’s elections is currently suspended, but proponents are hoping to find a workaround before the county’s ballot order for the November election is sent out this Friday.
Petitioning the government is a basic tenet of the Constitution, but your argument or grievance might not be constitutionally legal and could be costly!
.
Without explicitly saying so, in his Aug 7 ruling, Hanna effectively vindicated most of Jenifer Katske’s claim that Measure B was illegal, which she made before the court back on March 25. But L. Hobbs and the Shasta Five won that day.
.
If Katske had stated, “Your Honor, these provisions unquestionably conflict with clear and specific California constitutional provisions, laws and statutes, and the county has no legal authority whatsoever to implement them,” and had cited the exact codes and laws applicable, that might have been enough to show a “clear showing of invalidity” and permit Hanna to keep B off the ballot. Thank you, Katske, for fighting for LAW and ORDER!
.
As reported by Shasta Scout, Shasta Co. Counsel Larmour—not just Katske—asked Judge Hanna to keep B off the ballot because of clear violations of the California and U.S. Constitutions. But that’s not what was ruled in March; L. Hobbs and the Shasta Five won that day, but not because Hanna ruled B legal! The measure went on the ballot, and ironically, the judge ordered Katske to pay Hobbs’s attorney, Haberbush, $3,084.25 in court costs related to B., again proving that petitioning the government can be costly. Yet ironically, Shasta County taxpayers have paid out well over $150,000 to fight the Hobbs and her Clan’s battle for Trump’s illegal election scams and lies in court, even though they are losing so far.
.
Judge Hanna ruled that the State of California did indeed present a sufficiently clear showing that Measure B would cause irreparable harm if enacted and that it would more than likely lose on merits in the CA Supreme Court, warranting his injunction to stop implementation of B, without ruling on B’s merits!
.
So, the judge put the emergency brake on for now but once again kinda kicked the can down the road, clearing a path for B proponent L. Hobbs and the Shasta Five (or whatever they’re called now) should they decide to try and roll forward.
.
BUT PLEASE, do so on your own dime! Taxpayers are getting tired of paying for the MAGA-Trump chaos of war, inflation, and election lies.
CG: Using the history of the Huntington Beach attempt at this foolishness as a guide, it was always going to go this way. The HB measure passed in March of 2024. The state filed suit immediately and got an injunction to stop any implementation. It took until last November for the courts to kill it dead. It took that long because HB appealed, so this could end faster if Shasta doesn’t appeal. Not sure how Loony Laura and her tribe of misfits could affect the process.
Selah
Oh my..Trump has nothing to do with this fiasco. His was brought upon us goung back to jck and their rush to obtain the levers of power. This action while some said is a waste of time…along with the censure of CC will ensure that person never touches the citizenry ever again… What we are tired of are te whackos that were a part of this process…I think it’s almost over. The gal that defended Shasta should get her fees back from haberbushwacker
…Good take on the ruling Christian and if snyone wants to assist Ms Kaske with that $3,084.25. fee to Haberbush, which she’ll have to burden on her own, they may do such when you find her site or FB for contact. Plus Measure E & F will be on the ballot for November’s General Election, this is a basic repeat of Kevin Crye’s Measures P & Q from last June which went down to defeat because voters knew they were not necessary and hopefully will do the same this time, Vote NO on Measures E & F.
So no “Missouri Method Hand Count Process” for Shasta County. Authored by Linda Rantz and rejected by Missouri in 2022. Brought here by Clint Curtis when he was chosen in a rigged selection for ROV/County Clerk by Supervisor Crye and his toadies two. Another chapter in our county’s voter squabble marching in the parade of the Big Lie. In the lore of Shasta County the question will remain – “Why would voters approve Measure B and vote out it’s author in the same vote. That is like throwing out the baby and keeping the bath water. Maybe because we have become so accustomed to losing court cases over voting issues and couldn’t help ourselves from doing it again. Well, moving on, I am looking forward to my mail-in ballot and not standing in a forever line at a polling place.
This is a sign of the end of days when one person can overrule the majority. Why even vote?
Thank God the judge upheld the law. Elections are run by states, not counties.
Maybe a majority of people in Shasta county, but what about a majority of our state? You think a majority of California residents would support something like this measure?
You and Ralph need to go back and re-take 8th-grade civics.
Yeah! When voters are doing nonsensical things like voting to contravene state laws – it really does kind of raise questions .. ? Fitness? Responsibility? Reason? Really does tend to undercut the whole proposition … Something, something – democratic institution and franchise …
Yes, you should stay home and never vote again. IT’S RIGGED!!!
Selah
Are you speaking of the judge in a court of law, using CA eleciton codes and the constitution ? Maybe you should try another state where anything goes.
During the Board meeting on next Tuesday, the Supervisors will consider censuring Clint Curtis.
The irony in this nonsense is that most measure B advocates are boomers; LIFE EXPECTANCY for these people tells us the majority of them won’t be here by 2035 – moreover, Shasta County may start experiencing an alarming population decline before the end of this decade since baby boomers are indeed the predominant group in this area of Northern California.
We Boomers are now less than 20% of the population, and we don’t vote monolithically—my wife and I both voted against Measure B. It’s statistically impossible for the majority of Measure B supporters to be Boomers.
.
At some point you kids are gonna have to stop blaming us for effing everything.
You got your statistics wrong Mr. Towers since Redding, Anderson, Shasta Lake City and most unincorporated areas in this county are predominantly occupied by boomers; not in vain, the health and retirement industries are booming (specially in Redding).
People like you belong to a FAILED GENERATION that didn’t prepare for the future, instead living in the late 60s and the 70s like there was no tomorrow, experimenting with all sorts of recreational drugs while engaged in promiscuity.
The consequences are extremely visible now:
– Unable to retire while forced to remain in the workforce, thus displacing younger generations
– Still engaged in politics, embracing anachronistic views incompatible with modern societies
– A real burden to the Social Security system
It is FAIR to blame the so-called Baby Boomers for all the disgraces happening to this country.
You neglected to mention in your whining that Boomers will pass on the greatest wealth transfer in history as we go. Not bad for a “failed generation”. Did we make mistakes? You bet. Every generation does. Sex, drugs and rock and roll? I had a blast and don’t apologize for a bit of it. Stop looking for scapegoats and get to work learning from our mistakes.
Selah
Ive been hearing about your lame music festival for decades. Your parents were the heroes. You inherited their property. The wealth transfer started with them.
Older people (in this case, Boomers) tend to vote more often than younger people. That gives them an outsized influence in elections. Because Shasta County tends to vote conservative, I bet many thirty and forty year olds also voted for Measure B. I’d also bet that these age groups would endorse drugs and sex. And most everybody would like to retire at 64. It might be more accurate to blame our nation’s problems on the greed of the hyper-rich; and not every boomer is rich and greedy.
Yurtle, you’re wrong in numerous ways. Boomers (ages 62-80) as percentages of the population in Redding and Shasta County at large are no more than a percentage point or two higher than the national average: 20-22%. We are nowhere near a majority here or anywhere. That percentage is decreasing as we die off. You’re “majority” fallacy resembles a MAGA truthiness factoid that doesn’t stand up to even a cursory examination.
.
I might agree with you that the political landscape in America has been a disaster for decades. The ongoing Reagan Revolution is characterized by running up the nation’s credit cards to create the illusion of prosperity and to allow the über-wealthy to avoid paying taxes and hoard their wealth. But the architects of the Reagan Revolution weren’t Boomers. They were members of the Silent Generation (Gingrich, Stockdale, Bush II) and the Greatest Generation (Reagan, Laffer, Bush I). I didn’t vote for any of those assholes, and neither did most of my Boomer friends.
.
We Boomers do control an inordinate share of the nation’s wealth, contrary to your claim that we’ve blown it and are unable to retire. Good news! As we die off, our kids are inheriting an unprecedented shit-ton of accumulated wealth, handed off to mostly ungrateful self-pitying whiners who didn’t have to work for it. Sorry if your parents are losers, and you in turn. That happens too much in America.
It’s time to recall the Judge. The people voted for it; it should be implemented.
That’s the trouble with the system now: the Judges. They all need to be GONE!
No, the system worked as it was supposed to. Each branch has a job. The judicial system judges and interprets the laws. What was attempted by measure B was against the already established law. What you are wanting, that any group of people can independently make their own laws, is anarchy.
Please read the Constitution. Article 1, Section 4: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof. Are you suggesting we should ignore the Constitution? The State, not any county, determines how elections are conducted. Period.
It should never have been on the ballot.
One question for you. Ralphie: should people follow the law? Yes or no.
This is the true definition of a Libertarian, live life however you please, no laws, no codes, similar to the Sam Houston laws in Texas.
We have a recall process in California. Knock yourself out—try to get all the judges recalled. I’ll be over here, taking bets from people willing to wager you’ll even try, never mind prevail.
.
We both know you won’t do a thing. I don’t think I’ll convince many chumps to bet on you.
In other news, Kern County declined to short-list and interview Curtis after he applied for their ROV opening at the other end of the Central Valley. Nobody wants your shit-show, Clint. Go back to whence you came, Florida Man.
.
The tide has turned, and MAGA madness—including election denialism—is ebbing back toward the sea. But take heed: The uneducated, dull, and gullible will still be with us. Their ignorance and paranoia will just take another form.
The only way out of this madness is to vote the fools out.
Vote Blue.
Bring the blue tsunami
It is good that “B”. has been suspended and will not effect the November 3rd election.
It is disappointing that Curtis, who stirred up this attempt at restrictive voting reform has chosen not to provide a clarification statement from the ROV office. He should be ordered to do so by the BOS, in my opinion.
I greatly look forward to having seen the last of Clint Curtis in local news!
while a Censure holds very few repercussions, it just won’t look good on a resume. Not to mention the media stories that will follow him wherever he goes. I envision a grand good-bye when he and his sidekicks drive south on I-5 to destinations unknown.
Clint Curtis is confused? Of course he is. The logical conclusion of how California state law overrides Measure B is too hard for him to understand.
I for one will be happy when Joanna takes over as ROV and brings sanity back.
It is ironic that the “B” Backers in effect asked the judge to break up the measure, and make up his own version of the ordinance… in effect asking him to legislate from the bench, in opposition to the separation of powers. This measure should have been changed to an advisory vote- to make the people’s wishes known and as such could have become a lynchpin for election reform in the state. Instead it is just another illegal idea by well- intentioned people who didn’t want to acknowledge the simple face that state law prevails over county ordinances and initiatives.
I agree with what you wrote except the phrase “just another illegal idea by well- intentioned people”. That phrase being totally inappropriate for this group of election deniers in our community. They seek to cause havoc and that’s what they did. Then there is those that voted for Measure B by mail-in ballot which the measure reduces for all future voting. They were simply hypocrites.
Upcoming on the November ballot is a state ballot proposition entitled Propostition 39, we must vote No on this. This one says we must write our social security or license ID numbers on the outside of the mail-in ballot, this would open voters to fraudulent activity by anyone. When will folks stop signing petitions they know nothing about, or havent’t read the fine lines?
Agreed on all points. At best it was a reminder that the majority of Shasta County voters disapprove of the status quo. Biden and Kamala are gone. Bye bye.
One more idiocy by clownie and his minions that shouuld never have gotten this far. Once he’s out of office, I hope he has Shasta County in his rear view mirror never to return. One poster on TYSK appealed to clownie to take looney laura with him. I’d add about ten more to that request including the supes who hired him.