Shasta judge suspends Measure B, pending further court order 

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 tenants 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 tenants 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.

---

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