Shasta supervisors won’t defend against state suit over Measure B
Shasta’s board voted today to let the state’s lawsuit against the county take its course, without waging a defense. California sued Shasta over Measure B last week just days after it was approved by 56% of voters. The measure would change local election procedures in multiple ways that defy statewide laws.
“Well, well, here we are, gentlemen. The witching hour,” election activist and local militia member Richard Gallardo told the Shasta County Board of Supervisors as he confronted them over pending litigation relating to Measure B.
Gallardo and several other members of the public attended today’s board meeting to urge the county to allocate public funds toward defending Shasta County against a state lawsuit.
The highest legal authority in California has taken issue with Shasta’s voter-approved initiative, which is slated to eliminate most mail-in voting, mandate single-day elections, require hand-counting ballots, enact voter ID requirements and disconnect local voter rolls from state oversight, all of which appear to violate California election code.
The state’s suit, filed by Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber, is intended to strike down the measure, despite voter approval of about 56%. The suit specifically requests the court to invalidate the measure through a writ of mandate, issue a permanent injunction preventing respondents from ever implementing or enforcing Measure B and issue a declaration that “Measure B violates and is preempted by California law.”
California’s move to sue Shasta comes as no surprise, even according to multiple of the measure’s supporters who have acknowledged over recent months, as well as today, that a lawsuit was imminent. Gallardo is one of the five original proponents of the measure and, like the others, is named in the lawsuit as a party of interest. He likened those who refuse to defend Measure B to American colonists too afraid to resist the tyrannical King George.
“These cowards that say [Measure B] is illegal, they are probably direct descendants of the colonists that were hiding under their damn desks when the brave colonists were fighting,” he said.
Gallardo was one of dozens of public commenters who spoke on the lawsuit before supervisors recessed to closed session to discuss what action to take.
It didn’t take long for them to deliberate. Within a half hour, supervisors voted 4-0 not to defend against the state’s lawsuit before coming back out to report the vote in a statement delivered by Supervisor Matt Plummer. Supervisor Kevin Crye was absent for the vote after having left the meeting early for cancer treatment.
Gallardo, speaking for ballot proponents after the meeting, said he couldn’t comment until they had discussed next steps as a group. Speaking to a reporter last week, James Burnett, another central Measure B proponent named in the suit, spoke with determination of the legal challenges ahead, saying “there’s many ways to fail, and only one way to succeed.”
Speaking with Shasta Scout at the elections office not long after today’s meeting, Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis — who hasn’t taken an official position on the measure but hired several of the proponents behind it to help run the June 2 primary — said he thought supervisors had miscalculated their decision.
He wagered that proponents will hire their own outside attorney to defend Measure B, then sue the county for legal fees. He floated the name of Peter Ticktin, a Florida-based lawyer who has pushed for President Donald Trump to seize control of the November election in response to his own allegations of foreign election interference.
During the meeting, ballot supporters urged supervisors to hire attorney Alexander Haberbush of the Long Beach-based Lex Rex Institute to fight the state over Measure B. He’s represented election activists in their legal battle over Measure B twice already, first when Shasta County Counsel Joseph Larmour attempted to halt the measure before proponents could begin gathering signatures, and again when a local registered nurse unsuccessfully attempted to prevent the measure from appearing on ballots.
Today, Curtis seemed disinterested in the outcome of the legal battle, saying he’ll run local elections in whatever way the courts decide. He added that he is not aware of any federal involvement in defense of Measure B, despite the president’s support for the SAVE Act, which would mandate voter ID on a national level.
Before the county board disappeared into closed session to cast its vote around midday, both county attorney Larmour and the five supervisors were pilloried by dozens of angry constituents. Philosophical questions were raised, such as what the board’s obligation was to defend the will of its voters, even if what they voted for likely violates state law.
Board Chair Chris Kelstrom, in particular, was harangued by some members of the public who supported him in the past.
“I just got attacked by my own side today. It’s a little disheartening, but it is what it is,” Kelstrom told Shasta Scout after the meeting. Unofficial election results show Kelstrom only having narrowly survived a primary that resulted in the defeat of both Crye and Curtis. He’ll face off against his opponent, Mike Gallagher, in a fall election that may — or may not — be run under the stipulations of Measure B.
During public comment today, both critics and supporters of Measure B also brought up the thorny issue of expending taxpayer dollars for legal fees. Those against the measure cautioned against using public funds toward a legal battle, while proponents declared that any amount of money was worth seeing the measure through.
A familiar political narrative ran through much of the disgruntled public’s commentary, naming the state of California, with its open defiance of the Trump administration’s agenda, as the problem.
“If you look at this from a federal standpoint, they’re coming down [with new laws] and changing California,” said election activist Daniel Ladd, who unsuccessfully sued the county over alleged election fraud last year. “Sacramento’s blown it, so don’t follow their example. Don’t fall into their tyranny.”
Annelise Pierce contributed reporting for this story.
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Comments (36)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
‘I don’t like to limit me’: How North State Senator Megan Dahle continues to use her voice after a life-changing stroke
Megan Dahle, a California senator representing parts of northern California, is living with speech difficulties after having suffered a stroke in late 2023. Her principles, and style of representation, she said, haven’t changed.
Shasta’s Health and Human Services Agency warns against scam phone calls
Criminals have been falsifying their caller ID and impersonating county employees to deceive residents, Shasta’s HHSA warned today.
Board approves Measures E and F for November ballot
The measures, estimated to cost $40,000 to $100,000 to place on the ballot, revisit proposals voters rejected two years ago on eminent domain and midterm vacancies.
On a related popularity/majority aside— internet comment section scoring. On most websites, in the wake of anti-bullying concerns, you can only “like” something. There is no option for, or true representation of, cumulative criticism.
.
There may be a running total tally like reddit or locally over at ANC where they have the ability to score comments into the negative. However, as with your concern that there wasn’t a man on the street majority accurately reflected in Measure B voting, ANC could have a comment with 100 thumbs up and 100 thumbs down, and it would read zero–and you could walk away thinking something wasnt controversial.
.
To paraphrase Esteban: voting numbers represent the participants in the process, not the society. Some folks who want voter ID are not trying to penalize the elderly, or the poor, or overseas citizens but suspect there is soft fraud (registering drug addicts and telling them who to vote for as recently done in LA) and hard fraud (disposing or altering of mail-in ballots).
.
Currently LA is trying to give non-citizens voting rights–citing that undocumented decades of participation in LA society should equal or outweigh that of recent legal transplants from Arizona. Scary… even if it makes a teeny-tiny bit of practical sense (I mean, if you’re illegal but work and pay taxes and have legal kids in school you definitely are ….. something).
.
Should the law deal in moral absolutes? I wish it could. Unfortunately, untill there is a perfectly streamlined voting process where everyone has a couple days off, you have to have bad measures like B and propositions like 50 as reactions to an imperfect world I guess. Im against measure B in principal, not spirit. Im against 50 in every possible way because I dont care about Texas unless it has to do with Willie Nelson.
.
Selah
Not “a majority of people”: Support for “B” = 16.8% of voting age adults in Shasta County
.
.
Support for “B” = 24,184 people
.
Adults/Potential voters in Shasta County: 143,917
.
.
Ballots Cast Recent Election: 43,717
.
Support for Measure B: 55.32%
.
.
Registered Voters Shasta Co: 116,380
.
Persons under 18 years Shasta Co: 21.2% 38,256
.
Population Shasta Co: 182,173
.
.
Did my humble best – found the data from official sources, ran simple calculations.
.
(yes, 56% of voters cuz very few people voted)
Only votes count.
Yes, ‘only votes count’ for a win/loss on a ballot issue. And also – with so very few win votes – the result cannot be said to represent “a majority” of people in our community. That’s incorrect. Clarity matters.
.
Clarity about how many votes on which issues – matters alot – because the misrepresentation of our community interests causes people to disengage and not vote. Misrepresentation — discourages people who hear (incorrectly) that their vote doesn’t matter – that a “majority” of people in their community want x, y, or z …. and so why vote. … Incorrectly thinking – that so many people here in Shasta County and the North State want …. that my vote doesn’t matter, so no reason to bother voting.
And so – The real issue is — few people voting.
I talk to the general public alot, and this is what I hear over and over.
Shasta County conservatives have been faced with that psychological challenge at the state and national level for a long time. Enthusiasm, motivation could come from within, but that is a special person. I keep repeating myself, but my sympathy lies with the kidnapping of Modoc county voters. Extremely deflating to lose control of local representation— very 250esque.
For once, we agree. Technically, she’s right that Measure B wasn’t supported by a majority of Shasta County voting-age citizens. But those who are too lazy or nihilistic to vote count for nothing, of their own choosing.
I agree with you many times.
I mistook you for someone else. My bad.
Doesn’t change the fact that Anne has a point.
I posted earlier but it wasn’t published not sure why. Trump has made measure B is a moot point by ordering the PO to NOT mail ballots unless and until the State sends the voter role, with all voter personal information to the Federal government. No more mail in ballots unless State surrenders voter information to the Feds. This is happening while we .are distracted with Measure B. MAGA wins we lose.
The mail in ballot Bank is in the courts. It might not stick.
.
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-hears-challenge-to-trump-executive-order-restricting-mail-in-ballots
One way or another this is going to cost us taxpayer money
I did NOT vote for measure B and I am a staunch conservative
I did not vote for it because it isn’t right and just but I didn’t vote for it because of the self professed patriots who pontificate to the rest of us about the constitution and our rights… again according to them.
Yet.. and glaringly I might say… they have no problem violating the law
May I draw a Measure B analogy? I want you to rob a bank. For me. I’m not seeing a show of hands!
The supporters of Measure B need to bring their checkbooks and ID to Mr. Quackenbush’ office to start the legal defense.
Unfortunately for all Americans it doesn’t matter. Trump and his minions are forcing a bill that prohibits USPS from processing mail in voter ballots in any state that refuses to send its voter registration roles to the Federal government. That removes states rights and hands over election control to the Federal Government. And we thought we were winning.
Not so fast, there, Gloria.
The SAVE ACT is quoted often by the Jones-Hobbs-Curtis Coalition as the golden pill that will save Measure B. But “The More Americans Learn About the SAVE Act, the Less They Like It,” according to Navigator Research, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune says the votes aren’t there (to pass it), with prediction markets placing its odds of becoming law at around 10%.
.
As the court adjudicated a rapist / 34-count convicted felon’s polls are in the toilet, and the criminal and his Republicans are deathly afraid they are going to lose big time in the November 3, 2026, General Election, tRump is boiling over demanding its passage as a way to control the election…. But, because the SAVE ACT would federalize all elections under Trump, Democrats and a few Republicans are holding the line.
.
For more information, see: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/save-act-and-election-power-grab
Wish/hope you are right; however as I understand it, Trump is trying to use his executive power over the PO to push this through. Whoever is really running this knows how to use the constitution and a weak congress to push through the far right agenda.
Of course every American voter wants their vote to count. Name calling serves only to divide us. So, how are we to find the best solution? First look at the myriad of reasons why California law is what it is. Laws do not become law by a few misguided or power-hungry folks. Facts, data, existing law and purpose are all considered by the legislature as a whole (democrats, republicans and independents). Laws are passed by a majority. We have laws in place to protect voter integrity, access and security. Voter fraud has been researched exhaustively (and nationally) by scholars and judges from both sides of the aisle and no significant fraud has been discovered. Instead of beating this dead horse, perhaps both sides can move forward by instead, supporting our local elections office to the best of our ability, thereby assuring that all of our votes count! If you still think the law needs to be changed, I agree with writers above who state that you will need to fight it at the state level. We do not have the resources at a local level to fund this endeavor. Our current budget has serious shortfalls that we need to address in a constructive manner.
Oh my gosh, please post the court dates when those become available. These lunatics get their day in court! I’ll bring some popcorn as this blatantly illegal measure gets flushed down the toilet. All that work getting signatures, and all that time wasted….for nothing. Just the opportunity for these sleazeballs to pay hefty legal fees. Have a day Dickie!
Gallardo is a Spanish surname.
.
There have been two major Spanish emigrations to the USA: (1) The colonial period (16th to 18th centuries) in which the Spanish settled in what was then Mexico (including California), and (2) the Industrial Revolution (1880-1930). The former became Americans as the USA acquired lands formerly part of Mexico, stretching from CA to TX, plus FL and PR.
.
At least for the Spanish side of his family, it’s more likely that Gallardo’s forefathers fought in the Mexican Revolution (1910-1920) than our Revolutionary War. (If they fought, and this isn’t familial stolen valor.)
I voted for B, although I knew it would be tossed. I’m a strong proponent of voter ID requirements. But, this is not just a local issue; it’s a national one. That, ultimately, is where the matter will have to be addressed.
Yeah, that’s the MAGA dream. Alas, the U.S. Constitution leaves running of elections up to the states, unless the way a state runs its elections violates the Constitution. Intervention by the federal government is rare and has been upheld by the courts generally only when the states are violating civil rights of voters.
.
Of course, the SCOTUS is now so heavily politicized that it regularly throws a hundred years of legal precedents and settled law overboard to achieve political goals, so who knows?
Like Ms. Rachel said, “Big feelings are okay.” Mama & Daddy won’t hang the kids’ little group project on the fridge, & now they’re acting out. Personal experience with my toddler makes me think that the best course of action may be to ignore the initial outburst & then help them find something else to do. Hopefully little Richard doesn’t take it out on the squirrels again. The gang does seem to be moving on to cosplaying as legal experts, so that’s a good sign.
An obvious majority of people realize the importance of voter ID and want some version of this measure. Regroup and repackage it.
.
If 58% voted Joana, 56% voted Measure B, and 54% voted Erin, there’s major grounds-well and crossover.
.
A lawsuit filed by a corrupt attorney general and govenor who have never had California’s interest in mind should not deter anyone.
California already has modes of voter ID, and any alternative version we come up with locally would be an attempt to usurp state law. If certain failure doesn’t deter you, knock yourself out.
Ahhh, so now you like the law.
You make no sense.
Supervisor Kelstrom opined that his District 5 opponent, Mike Gallagher, beat him 49% to 41% because many voters thought they were voting for James Gallagher, who won LaMalfa’s seat in Congress. Okay, sure, but that’s like saying people who voted for The Hobbs-Curtis Measure B did so because they thought they were voting for the voter I.D. initiative Assemblyman Carl DeMaio (who publicly opposed Measure B) got on the ballot for November, which DID NOT INCLUDE all the other garbage included in the Hobbs–Curtis measure.
.
A CPRA would need to be filed, but Huntington Beach could have spent $300,000 to $1 million only to lose in court, and Shasta County’s cost to defend the delusional, BIG LIE-based fantasy called Measure B would likely have been higher. If the Jones–Hobbs–Curtis coalition (JHCC) decides to, and the court allows them to, intervene, Measure B will lose in the Third District Court of Appeals and then in the CA State Supreme Court.
.
The JHCC doesn’t care about money (unless it’s to buy more of their far-right-trumpian BIG LIE opium for their delusion), but the SCBOS does. And Shasta County’s voters, as evidenced by this election and today’s action by the SCBOS, are done paying for the JHCC’s BIG LIE dope.
.
Finally, after too many years and millions of taxpayer dollars spent on their BIG LIE dope (and other conspiracy-based junk), the spell of the JHCC delusional fantasy that has grabbed Shasta County by the throat has snapped. Hopefully, the board can recover and return to its role as a nonpartisan body handling the day-to-day administration of the county, including health, safety, and infrastructure. What a concept!
galardo you’re wrong.
I voted no on B and I have several ancestors who fought in the revolutionary war, on the side of USA.
Me too. He got a pension and it was not because he crouched under a table.
I must admit I enjoyed watching Gallardo spin out today… Will those vexatious litigants finally go away? Or hire that Eatabush or whatever his name is attorney?
https://youtu.be/IUZEtVbJT5c?si=W_7AOhgR01SaT2Tn
Give it up; you lost
Looks like Kelstrom is serious about trying to keep his seat, an encouraging development. As to the election fabulist fruitcakes, looks like their 15 minutes are finally up, and they are going to throw one last tantrum. They are going to defend Measure B(ozo) on their own and then sue the county for legal fees? Good luck with that. I’m sure there will be a line of law firms willing to front Hobbs and Gallardo legal fees.
Selah
Glad the board is finally standing up for the Constitution by refusing to spend our scarce tax dollars to defend unlawful Measure B by a unanimous vote. Let Hobbs, Gallardo, Ladd and their ilk hire Hackinbush at their own expense.
I asked my teenager what she thought. Since the voters did pass it, should the county spend money on lawyers to defend it?
Wise reply: “If they’re going to lose, then no.”
That would be, of course, Dr. Hugo Quackenbush of “Day at the Races” fame. He would be perfect for this clown show.
Selah
So I wonder, now that the county is refusing to defend where does that leave Curtis? As the respondent he would be the one to provide the argument on behalf of the county’s defense. Does that mean that the lawsuit is now directed just to the Ferocious Five to defend themselves. I assume that Curtis now has no say or any B responsibilities unless he does it completely on his own outside of the ROV duties to support B. So if he does take any role, the country would not provide his legal defense funds.