Shasta Registrar Clint Curtis claims the Secretary of State has greenlit his election plans. The state says otherwise.
Four out of five supervisors approved giving new Shasta Election official Clint Curtis an additional $134,000 to implement new procedures in the way votes are tallied. Many questions remain about the logistics of Curtis’ plan.
Speaking to reporters outside of the board chambers on Tuesday, September 23, Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis said he’s been in regular communication with the Secretary of State, California’s chief election official.
Asked by a reporter if the State has approved his policy changes in how ballots will be processed – involving a “canvassing board” of people to process mail in ballots as well as a plan to film part-time election workers counting votes – Curtis said yes. He added that in some cases, he’s taking more cautious measures than even the state authorities would require.
But the Secretary of State’s office told Shasta Scout today that they have not reviewed, let alone approved, any such proposals.
“Mr. Curtis’ claim that the Secretary of State has approved his plans is false,” the SOS office wrote by email. “We have not seen, nor have been provided, with any such plans.”
Budget request approved
Curtis spoke with reporters on Tuesday, just after presenting his plan for the upcoming election to the county board of supervisors during a third appeal for additional funds.
Curtis also hosted an open house at the county’s elections office late last week to show the public some of the changes in how the facility will be operated under his leadership.
Board Chair Kevin Crye attended that open house, and told the public during his county board staff report that “everything I heard was very, very positive.” At the time of the open house, Curtis still lacked both the required equipment and the manpower to carry out his plans, necessitating his ongoing requests for a budget amendment.
The first two times Curtis requested that the county increase funds to the elections office, supervisors advised him to create an itemized budget that spelled out his equipment needs and labor costs. His proposed budget submitted this week included the projected costs of rentals and equipment, but many of the line items were not clearly illustrated by quotes from vendors, prompting questions from both supervisors and the public.
Amendments to the county’s budget mid-year require a vote of four of the five supervisors. As before, Supervisors Crye, Corkey Harmon and Chris Kelstrom supported the budget amendment while Long opposed. That meant the issue once again came down to Supervisor Matt Plummer, who agreed to the amendment this week after denying it during Curtis’ last two requests.
After the meeting Plummer emphasized to Shasta Scout that he’s not necessarily in support of Curtis’ ideas, pointing out that he didn’t support Curtis’ appointment to begin with. But he’s willing to compromise, he said, and allow the ROV to try out his new methods this fall ahead of the larger midterm election next June, when Curtis plans to run against former Assistant ROV Joanna Francescut for the long-term Registrar of Voters position.
“What I don’t want to have happen is in June, for Curtis to say, ‘I never really got a chance,’” Plummer said. “I want the voters to be able to assess what he’s done in this November election and make an informed judgment based on that performance in June.”
Long was less flexible during the board meeting, largely based on his lack of confidence in Curtis’ presentation. He probed the ROV on some logistical blindspots. For instance, had Curtis drafted a contract with the county’s former livestreaming vendor AV Capture All given that the election is just weeks away?
Curtis had not, nor could he remember the name of the county’s former livestream contractor. County Counsel Joseph Larmour advised that the county’s former agreement with AV Capture All could serve as a template for Curtis, something that might hasten the pace of legal review once a contract is drafted.
Long, a former law enforcement officer, also asked Curtis if he had worked out a plan for how to store the livestream video files from ballot processing, comparing it to the process that law enforcement has had to develop to store officers’ body-worn camera footage. The ROV’s response was minimal, saying that “essentially, the people who are doing the live streaming,” will be responsible for handling the election footage data.
Long drew on his law enforcement background again as he shared the reason for his vote to oppose giving Curtis a larger budget.
“In order to arrest somebody, we have to have probable cause. In order for the DA to charge, they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt,” he began. “We have never introduced any hard evidence [in the county] that shows me that there is fraud in our elections.”
A recent lawsuit waged against the county over alleged fraud was dropped by the courts for a “profound” lack of evidence.
Curtis’ methods when it comes to elections have caused a major stir in the community among both critics and supporters. His adjustments to the process revolve largely around the implementation of livestreaming and the increased use of temporary staff, including a canvassing board he plans to hand select that will determine voter intent when ballot markings are unclear.
Livestreaming ballot processing will provide only limited information to viewers about the security of Shasta Elections in part because vote by mail ballots — which outnumbered those cast directly at precincts in Shasta’s last presidential election by a ratio of 6:1 — will continue to be opened off camera to protect voter identity as required by state law.
November’s special election will only feature two items: a proposed sales tax for voters in Redding and the statewide proposition 50, which gives voters a voice for or against Governor Gavin Newsom’s proposed redistricting of California. The presence of that second, highly controversial, statewide ballot initiative means the timeliness and accuracy of Shasta’s election could have national implications.
9.25.25 11:51 am: We have updated this story to correct details related to the county’s use of a livestream contractor.
10.13.2025 3:21 pm: We have updated the story to include a link to the Secretary of State’s email.
Do you have information or a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Comments (32)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
Recent flooding closed Cal’s Books. This group of young people is working to bring it back
In December, after Cal’s Books was flooded with two feet of water — and thousands of books were damaged — its owner decided to close the store permanently. Now a team of 20-year-olds has a plan to save the beloved store.
Board majority faces off against Supervisor Plummer on liaison positions, supervisor raises
During the board’s first meeting of 2026, Supervisor Matt Plummer was removed from a number of pivotal liaison positions.
The Doug LaMalfa I covered: Authentic, cranky and deeply caring
After the sudden death of U.S. Rep Doug LaMalfa, a CalMatters reporter who covered him for 20 years reflects on his life and legacy.
Thanks again Shasta Scout for your coverage of this item. Supervisor Long posted a really important message on Facebook explaining why he voted against the $135,000 request from the ROV. Check it out.
Duly noted that he is the loan decenter
Thank you Shasta Scout for this outstanding article. I am very disturbed by what is happening in our elections office. This is a prime example of MAGA methodology I.e. hire the LEAST qualified job applicant hopefully causing chaos, hopelessness, and a breakdown of normal order as intended. What a fustercluck! I’m going to vote alright…. I’m so mad I may vote twice! 😂
It’s hilarious to hear some of these same election deniers who have been yelling about massive election fraud in Shasta county for years, still sticking to their guns on the matter.
No evidence, no shred of proof.
Two lawsuits about elections thrown out in Shasta county because they had nothing.
Heck, the election deniers have their man in the office right now even as we speak. Mr Clint Curtis. And has he found any proof of this massive election fraud going on? I mean surely he would make that public if there was.
But yeah, election fraud blah blah blah…
Our elections can be settled the evening of the election! They were always that way for many years. Not until the liberal left regime and the massive male ballot happened. Did this become an issue. The high-speed computers took over 30 days to determine an election!
That is simply not acceptable
Jon: Elections take much longer than one day to count due to stipulations required by California law.
Election law number one.
You cannot have more voters than register voters.
Unfortunately, Supervisor Long does not consider this probable cause to fix this election insecurity issue.
Go, Curtis!
Happy: This might be compelling if you could back it with sound data.
Annelise,
Sorry I meant more ballots cast than voters. The data has been out there all over the country since 2020. Clean voter rolls, AI machines, etc. But the real data is…“Transparency”! And supervisor Long doesn’t think that it’s a probable cause or reason to secure your vote in fair elections. There’s no guarantee on what or who you voted for is credited. Like where’s my receipt of who I voted for?
Oh come on, Nick.
I challenge you: show some proof, any little bit of real proof, of all that election fraud going on here in Shasta County.
Tally hoe! Always the same talking points! “It’s just not possible there was fraud in Shasta county“
No Jon. Is election fraud possible in Shasta county? Sure, and there have been actual cases of individuals who got in trouble for that, but the numbers have been small.
Mass election fraud in Shasta County? Again, you and nobody else has provided any proof or evidence. Where is it?
Clint Curtis is in office, and where is all of that massive election fraud?
And Jon, I will keep repeating that there is no proof or evidence, because it is true! Prove me wrong.
The fact that Curtis lied about getting approval from the Secretary of State is very concerning. I have not seen any evidence of election fraud in the decade that I’ve lived here and voted in every election.
I am concerned that as an old and relatively feeble retiree, that I may have to stand in line for a lengthy time in order to cast my vote. I am satisfied receiving my ballot in the mail and delivering it to the City Hall drop box. The right wing conspiracies about voter fraud are unsubstantiated in my opinion, and do not deserve attention or money spent in preventing a fiction.
Larry: I believe the City Hall drop box has been removed.
It’s already back or will be put back soon.
So Clint Curtis has a concept of a plan… not a proposal approved by the Secretary of State? He’s winging it? And the Board of Supervisors just throws more money at him?
Come on Chris, even a high school student has to follow these criteria’s to get a “A” on their Science Fair Project. We clearly need to bring Joanna Francescut back.
Question & Hypothesis
• Clear, specific, testable question stated
• Hypothesis is logical and based on research
Research & Background
• Includes background research
• Uses multiple credible sources & cites them
Experimental Design
• Step-by-step procedure is clear
• Variables are identified (independent, dependent, controlled)
• Control group included when possible
Data Collection
• Data is accurate and complete
• Multiple trials are conducted
• Data is organized in tables/logs
Data Analysis & Presentation
• Graphs/charts are neat and accurate
• Calculations (averages, percentages, etc.) included
• Analysis explains what data means
Conclusion & Discussion
• Conclusion answers original question
• States if hypothesis was supported or not
• Mentions errors/limitations & improvements
Creativity & Originality
• Idea is unique/creative OR shows a new twist
• Goes beyond basic/obvious experiments
Display Board & Visuals
• All sections included (Question, Hypothesis, Procedure, Data, Conclusion, Bibliography
• Neat, organized, and visually appealing
Oral Presentation / Knowledge
• Student explains project clearly
• Confidently answers questions and shows understanding
Curtis’s shady background and total lack of qualifications to have been appointed as Shasta County’s ROV are now supplemented by him blatantly lying about having his election plans blessed by the Secretary of State. How stupid do you have to be to publicly state something that is so easily contradicted? It will be interesting to see how Curtis spins this contradiction, if he ever does.
This guy has a few objectives. 1. Staff the Elections Office with Far-Right Election Deniers, like Patty, Hobbs, and himself, who try to undermine the election for Trump. 2. Give all Voter ID information, Drivers’ Licences Numbers, Social Security Information, information to try and criminally charge past ROV’s, and GOD knows what else to Trump’s DOJ, and then, 3. Hire Hobbs, The Militia, Patty, and God knows who else, to eventually get Shasta County sued and spend MILLIONS upon MILLIONS in a court battle to “Change the way America votes,” for Hobbs and Jones. Other than that, he doesn’t know his budget facts, lacks any ROV experience (except for having voted before), and has lied about being certified by the Secretary. Of State, has tanked morale in the ROV office, BUT, seems to know where the office is located… But, I guess that’s good enough for Matt?
You quote Supervisor Allen Long as saying, “We have never introduced any hard evidence [in the county] that shows me that there is fraud in our elections.”
EXACTLY!
100% this.
If there’s so much of this election fraud going on in Shasta county, how come no one is doing their civic duty and turning these people in so that they get thrown in the slammer??
Oh that’s right, because there’s still none of that pesky evidence or proof.
For the first time ever, I do not trust my vote will be counted properly. Let’s not forget his claim to fame and sole reason he got the job was his ability to write computer code that flips votes. Suspicious that he is not testing the equipment beforehand as required by law. We may have a Tina Peters wannabe in our midst.
I’m with you on this. With Patty Plumb, “Stones” Gallardo, Hobbes and the rest of the JV MAGA Brigade having some role with ballot tabulation, I have zero hope for this being a fair election in any sense of the word without intervention by the California Secretary of State, by sending up officials to observe the process on election night.
I specifically asked about Rich Gallardo and Patty Plumb. Neither have been hired, per Mr. Curtis.
Good grief. This guy doesn’t have a handle on how purchasing and contracting work in this county, how the laws in the state apply to elections, and apparently, he also is unable to employ the truth in his work. The Board of Supervisors, the CEO, and the County Counsel all had opportunity to at least point out the problems in Mr. Curtis’ plans, and with the exception of Supervisor Long, none of them did.
Shasta County is a conservative place; one which prefers local control over the urban-leaning, one-size-fits-all approach of state agencies and government. And yet, here we are, likely looking at the Secretary of State coming in to take control of our elections.
How does this help anyone?
I hope the Secretary of State does step in to Shasta County’s election process. I would like my vote to count.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, it’s not a question of friendship or whom you like or don’t care for. In local government, one must put the people’s needs before your own or those of your cronies and donors.
This seems to be an overwhelmingly difficult task for Chair Crye who consistently places self promotion and propoganda before the needs of the average taxpaying citizens. I’m 💯 percent sure that the answer to quelling the chaos and confusion in not only the elections office but everywhere his long arm extends in the County. Let’s begin the healing by voting out the source of the problem . With Crye gone in November, I feel the Board will return to a gentlemanly and civil atmosphere. My hope is that normal people will again feel comfortable to visit the Board meetings and not have to deal with the aggravation, stress, dissension, seething rage and machinations, disenfranchisement and the “punching down” of a petty Mob boss drunk with power and wise in his own eyes. Let’s make this happen.
Isn’t a green light from the Secretary of State mandatory for him to conduct the election according to his plans?
In other words, if he goes against the Secretary of State isn’t he in violation of California election code?
Jack: election officials have a lot of latitude in how they accomplish their work but it must be accomplished within the boundaries of the election code. One way to ensure that is to ask for oversight from the Secretary of State.
How does one do that? I was told that the Secretary of State’s office is not the office to contact. Was I misinformed? If yes, can you please provide the correct contact info or link here? Thank you.
Candace: It’s clear from our conversations with the Secretary of State’s Office that they’re watching Shasta closely. Every time we report these stories it’s a mechanism to ensure the state is aware of what we’re hearing on the ground. It’s the responsibility of the local election to ensure their policies are in compliance with law. If you see suspected violations of election law you should always report those both to the local office and the SoS. We’d love if you’d also reach out to us with those concerns.
and what will happen to the votes?