Shasta won’t fund election official’s representation amid legal challenge to ballot measure
Curtis asked the board to hire Trump-connected attorney Peter Ticktin in hopes of ensuring the amendment makes it to ballots. A majority said no.
Today, supervisors told election official Clint Curtis they won’t fund an attorney to represent him in a legal petition filed over a local ballot measure that’s slated to appear on ballots this June.
The decision was made during a board meeting that was initially planned to be held in closed session. The conversation was brought into open session by a 4-1 vote from supervisors after more than a dozen people shared public comment. Supervisor Allen Long cast the dissenting vote.
If approved by voters, the ballot measure would amend Shasta’s charter to enact local election practices that contradict current state and federal law, including implementing one-day voting with limited absentee ballots, voter ID and hand counting.
An anonymous petitioner filed the challenge to the ballot measure last month, saying placing it on ballots will lead to irreparable harm through wasted taxpayer funds because it’s doomed to face overwhelming legal challenges. During a first hearing last week, Shasta County Superior Court Judge Benjamin Hanna issued a temporary restraining order halting the county from placing the amendment on ballots, at least until he considers the matter more thoroughly during a hearing that’s been scheduled for April 10. The court’s first ruling was made without any defense on behalf of the county after supervisors voted to take no position on the matter weeks ago.
The board’s decision doesn’t sit well with Curtis who said today he isn’t for or against the ballot measure. Instead, Curtis explained, he feels it’s his duty as a local election official to do his best to ensure that the proposed measure makes it onto ballots, even if it doesn’t succeed with voters or is later shot down in court.
“I haven’t looked at it yet, so I’m not sure I would vote for it,” Curtis said, claiming to have not yet read the language of the measure, “but I will definitely fight to the end to make sure it gets on the ballot, because that’s the process. It’s up to the people. It’s not up to bureaucrats, it’s not up to attorneys. It’s up to the people to decide … what they’re going to vote on.”
The former Florida-based public defense attorney, with no prior experience in administrating elections, was appointed by the board last year. Today he asked the board to hire another Florida attorney, Peter Ticktin, to represent the county against the legal challenge.
According to national media sources, Ticktin is one of the attorneys currently pushing Trump to pass an executive order that would mandate voter ID and hand counted ballots. Both that executive order and Shasta’s prospective ballot measure were motivated by allegations of wide-spread voter fraud that began in 2020 — which in both cases, have yet to be proven. Titkin also represents former Colorado election official Tina Peters — who’s currently imprisoned on felony charges for her role in security breach of an election system she was assigned to oversee.
After discussion, supervisors voted 4-1, with Crye dissenting, not to fund a lawyer to represent Curtis. Several of them also expressed concern about the likelihood that that measure will face immediate legal challenges.
While Board Chair Chris Kelstrom and Supervisor Kevin Crye both expressed support for implementing voter ID as part of a statewide process, they also said trying to implement such changes via a local charter amendment — which would likely be immediately challenged in the courts — isn’t the right approach.
Supervisor Matt Plummer agreed, adding, “the challenge is that we’re trying to change state and federal law by changing county law through a charter amendment.”
That’s problematic because amendments to Shasta’s charter, County Counsel Joe Larmour opined, can’t be used to subvert federal law or matters under federal jurisdictions, including elections. As evidence, Larmour quoted a recent ruling regarding a similar charter amendment implementing voter ID in Huntington Beach, which was recently struck down by the courts after being passed by voters.
But Larmour also told the board he believes that the citizen proponents should be allowed to intervene in the case, in order to defend the measure they proposed and have been advocating for. He asked the board to let him argue that point if need be in future hearings, something supervisors agreed to by a unanimous vote.
Alex Haberbush is a Long Beach attorney who’s representing the citizens who support the proposed ballot measure. He tried to be heard by Hanna during the hearing last week, but did not file the proper paperwork on time, according to the judge. Larmour said Haberbush has filed an appeal of the judge’s ruling in California’s Third District Court of Appeal, with a decision expected tomorrow, March 4.
Today, the county attorney faced steep hostility from the small crowd that attended the county board meeting. Several of those who spoke during an extended public comment period claimed, without evidence, that Larmour had “colluded” with the anonymous petitioner who filed the legal challenge.
In response, Kelstrom and Crye emphasized to the crowd that Larmour had acted on their behalf, saying he shouldn’t be held responsible for the board’s decision not to defend the proposed charter amendment.
3.4.2026 10:03 a.m.: We have updated the story to correct Supervisor Allen Long’s vote on whether to bring the meeting into open session.
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Author
Comments (10)
Leave a comment
Related Articles
Shasta’s League of Women Voters announces candidate forums for June primary
The Shasta branch of the national nonpartisan organization has scheduled four candidate forums this spring. The public is invited to bring questions and hear directly from candidates running for a variety of roles.
Redding No Kings protest draws 2,000 as seniors and veterans show up and speak out
Community members gathered in Redding today to express discontent with the current federal administration. The event, which was organized as part of nationwide protest action, included dozens of veterans and numerous seniors, some of whom attended in wheelchairs.
To save her daughter’s life, she advocated for her rights to be taken away
California’s conservatorship system can be used to force people with severe psychiatric illnesses into involuntary medical care for up to a year. Marci Fernandes said the process has been life-changing for her adult daughter, Ann, but significant obstacles to her well-being remain.
Of course, Crye dissented. He’s too thick to understand that Shasta County is an entity of the State of California and can’t unilaterally defy California law. Good luck running on a record of being nothing but a performative clown, Kevin. That’s going to crater as hard as MAGA is cratering on the national stage right now.
.
Crye, of course, has a lengthy record of viewing public funding as a bottomless milkshake, so money wasted in pursing this nonsense means nothing to him.
.
Rotting heads of cabbage and mushy, overripe tomatoes are coming your way in the next election, Kevin. Best wear a raincoat and goggles.
Every new day, I just wish Sacramento will come up here and just handle these idiots messing everything up worse and worse, month by month
If the Supervisors had followed Curtis’ advice, the County would have wasted tons of taxpayer money. Congratulations to the four who voted for fiscal restraint. Even more congratulations to the Jane Doe who filed the lawsuit. If this foolhardy vanity project is so important, Curtis and his friends should pony up the money.
You are absolutely correct!
Why are we wasting time and money on something that will never pass because of state law.
You can’t make this up!
*Clint Curtis wanted Shasta County to hire Peter Ticktin, another far-right-wingnut attorney from Florida who represented Tini Peters, a criminal convicted in 2024 on seven of ten charges of engaging in election swindling and computer hacking to promote Trump’s and Mr. Pillow’s repeatedly court-debunked conspiracy theories that the election was stolen. Clint aims to have Ticktin defend the blatantly illegal Hobbs–Curtis measure known as Measure VB, the Voter ID, Hand-Counted Ballots, and Absentee Voting Limits Initiative in court.
*Of course, Hobbs, who claims that voter fraud denied her victory as a Shasta County supervisor and whose cack-a-doodle conspiracy theories were defended by far-right Long Beach Alexander Haberbush, and lost, is now claiming jane Doe and County Counsel Larmour conspired against her, is having “Alex” file an appeal to the California Third District Court of Appeals related to the Jane Doe lawsuit against the Hobbs -Curtis ballot measure in Shasta County. And now Curtis, Hobbs’ employer, wants Ticken to do the job!
*This is the same Tickin leading an effort to have Trump issue an executive order declaring a national emergency to enable a federal takeover of the upcoming midterm elections! Seriously! In other words, Tickin plans to use another illegal act to ensure Trump can install neo-fascism into the government of the United States of America.
*Thank you to the Shasta County Board of Supervisors for shutting Curtis down (once again) and telling both Hobbs and Curtis that Shasta County taxpayers will not do his dirty work for them. Do it yourself. And in what may be a new trend, thanks go to the board for bringing this filth out of the dark (closed session) and into the light! The people demand a transparent government!
Perhaps I misread your message however, are you saying you don’t want voter ID? I literally had to show ID to get a library card for my daughter. Hoping I misunderstood your statement.
Heidi, miss ma’am, in order to register to vote in the state of California you must either use your state issued ID/DL and/or the last four of your social; ergo, you have already provided ID to become a registered a voter who can vote. Requiring someone to present their ID at the poll is illegal.
To add to your comment. Other countries who do require you show ID to vote, provide those IDs for free or low cost and have easy access to them. America charges for IDs, and tends to close DMV locations which makes it harder to get IDs. Recently, our federal government has started to shut down or stop passport processing places. So how is anyone supposed to follow these arbitrary laws if the goal posts keep moving? Shall we kick the football that Lucy is holding?
This is why these laws are unjust, because they serve to punish citizens.
Keep in mind that we already have identification requirements in place when we register to vote, and identification processes in place when we cast our ballots. “Voter ID” sounds like a great idea, but it’s long since been handled, so adding requirements is solving a problem that does not exist. Even the Heritage Foundation’s research indicates that voter fraud is nearly non-existent, with statistics collected nation-wide over several decades. That is not to say that election fraud is not an issue but simply that voter fraud, which this legislation aims to address, is not a significant issue.
These election denier nuts want more than just an ID. You will need an original birth certificate or valid passport too. Did the library ask you for those? If not, you are comparing apples to oranges.