Shasta’s election official Clint Curtis says he took a polygraph exam following last November’s special election. Here’s what we know
Curtis announced on radio station KQMS that he took the exam, also known as a lie detector test, to prove to the public that he didn’t tamper with the last election. Research shows such tests are unreliable.
Shasta County Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis told KQMS host Kelly Frost on a recent radio show that he took a polygraph exam — also known as a lie detector test — to prove he didn’t tamper with last November’s special election.
Taking a polygraph exam is something Curtis has said in the past he’d do after every election he administers. He said he hopes the practice will increase transparency and communicate to Shasta County voters that he didn’t influence any part of the election and doesn’t know of anyone in the elections office who did.
But Curtis hasn’t provided any proof of taking the polygraph exam, and other details about the exam are still unclear. Research also shows such tests are not reliable at determining if someone is telling the truth or not.
Curtis, as well as Assistant ROV Brent Turner, did not respond to multiple requests for comment about the test.
What is a polygraph exam, and what did Curtis say about his?
According to the American Polygraph Association, polygraph exams collect data about the human body’s responses to answering questions, and an examiner analyzes that data to determine the truthfulness of the questions answered by comparing those physiological responses. In CQT polygraph exams — or Comparison Question Tests — the questions asked include ones relevant to the subject at hand, as well as irrelevant ones that serve as control variables to be compared to how the relevant questions are answered.
In California, examiners are required to be accredited for exams conducted in a legal manner — though these exams are not admissible as evidence in criminal trials unless all parties agree to the test as evidence.
That’s because such tests aren’t always reliable or accurate enough to be used in most legal, forensic or employment settings, according to the American Psychological Association. A 2023 National Academy of Sciences report found that CQT polygraph testing identifies lies only 70% of the time, and a 2019 review of scientific literature about polygraph exams reaffirmed that report’s conclusions.
In Curtis’ KQMS interview, he said that he took the exam on Jan. 9 as an “example to the world” of election transparency, adding that he feels every ROV should take the exam after every election.
The election official said there were 10 questions on the exam, with four being relevant and the others serving as controls. He said he came up with the questions himself — though the Global Polygraph Network states that it’s not advisable for examinees to write their own exam questions, and that it’s the responsibility of the examiner to do so.
The first relevant question, according to Curtis, asked if he altered the Nov. 4, 2025 election results in any way, to which he said he answered “No.” He also said he answered “No” to the second question, which was if he had any knowledge of anyone else altering the Nov. 4, 2025 election results.
Curtis said the third relevant question asked if there was any truth to the first paragraph of a memorandum sent to him on Jan. 7, to which he said he answered “No.” When KQMS host Kelly Frost inquired about the memorandum referenced in the question, Curtis said he couldn’t currently provide any details, adding only that “it’s going to take two more weeks to percolate” before he’s able to explain what the memo relates to.
The last relevant question, Curtis said, asked if he believes that additional ballots were added to those cast by voters in the November 2024 election — conducted by former election officials — in an effort to alter the results, to which he said, “Yes, but the answer is absolutely.” In the radio interview, Curtis claimed without providing any evidence that the November 2024 election had over 2,700 more ballots counted than voters who voted. His claim could damage the reputation of those who administered that election, including his campaign opponent in the upcoming 2026 primary, former Assistant Registrar of Voters Joanna Francescut.
According to the KQMS site, Curtis’ polygraph exam was administered by Peter Javan, who appears to be an investigator with Javan Investigations in the Sacramento area. Curtis did not confirm that name or provide any information about the examiner or his qualifications for Shasta Scout.
While Curtis said he passed every question on the exam, he did not provide proof of the exam itself. He also did not address whether it was administered on county time and property or if the exam will be released to the public, as well as who paid for it.
When Frost asked Curtis who has access to the polygraph exam now, Curtis implied that he has it, saying he “just did this yesterday,” which would have been last Friday.
Frost asked Curtis if there’s been any public speculation that he tampered with last year’s election, his first, to which the election official said “no” because “everybody got to see everything.”
“I insulated myself away from actually being able to do anything like that,” he said. “I didn’t touch a single ballot. I didn’t touch the computer. I just directed people on how to do things.”
At the end of the interview, Curtis used the opportunity to advocate for his campaign for ROV, claiming if his opponent wins, there won’t be free elections in Shasta for years.
“This is an election that is the most important election that you will probably have in Shasta County,” he said, “because if it goes the wrong way you’re going to be back to where you were, and you’ll probably never have a free election in Shasta County for years, depending on if Trump steps in and makes it that way.”
Francescut did not immediately respond to a request for comment today on Curtis’ allegations. In recent months she’s referred to similar claims he’s made about her and two other former election officials who, have run the office for a combined twenty-plus year as “patently false and completely unacceptable,” emphasizing that “there has never been a credible accusation of election interference in Shasta County. Any allegation of elections mismanagement under my watch was politically motivated and judiciously tossed from court.”
Do you have information or a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Comments (42)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
Appeal court pauses Shasta judge’s ruling in election ballot measure case
Election staffer Laura Hobbs has successfully appealed a temporary restraining order, allowing a controversial ballot measure she helped champion to move forward. If approved by Shasta voters, the measure would amend the county’s charter to implement local election practices that would violate state and national law.
Flight school official says multiple international students have withdrawn enrollments after Chinese espionage claims by Anderson council member
After advocacy by IASCO Flight Training Operations Manager Miranda Vorhis, the Anderson city council adopted a social media policy Tuesday night. But she said there’s already been measurable harm inflicted upon the school.
Council defers decision on REU rate increases; approves open alcohol containers during Kool April Nights Cruise
The council agreed to honor a request from REU to take more time for more public outreach, given low attendance at recent workshops used to explain the rate increase.
Clown show comments already posted so I’ll stick to my opinion on Polygraph exams……reviewed hundreds or possibly 1000 polys and most conclude with, “no significant reactions to relevant questions” for police applicants. Normal process prior to background on the candidates which then require a complete report with dimensions and psychological assessment for fitness.
Mr Curtis has issues and if he had a POST background done I am almost positive he wouldn’t be considered for further processing
What a joke. Well, folks, you want a circus, send in the clowns. Once again, we’ll make national and international news. Pathetic. On June 02, send them packing and on their way.
With that logic, I’ll just say I took a polygraph, and when I said “The county should pay me a 20k a month pension” it didn’t say that was a lie. I even ran it through AI and it agreed. That’s like….DOUBLE proof!!
Curtis shared with me a copy of the exam, written by examiner Javan. I can only assume it was genuine. It did say that he appeared to be truthful in his answers. I had no idea he was bringing that information with him that morning. If you want to hear the interview in its entirety it is available at freedominactionradio.com
Kelly, he made up his own questions.
I guarantee if you allow me to make up my own questions for the polygraph test, I will pass 100% of them.
This is great !! Though polygraph results are not scientifically conclusive .. they make for fun conversation.
It would be interesting to polygraph other election officials past and present .. as well as the vendors. Some might submit but I would guess most would abstain.. hmmm
What is this your way of indirectly trying to imply fraud and malfeasance on the part of others?
Why not just be direct? After all the both of you are supposed to be Mr Transparency.
Also you don’t seem to have taken a lie detector test yet… I’m sure you would abstain from even taking one. Hmmm …
Brent believes unless the public is given the computer code used to program our tabulators to tally votes, something nefarious is happening. Bad actors like Curtis would love voting system vendors to publish their proprietary code so they can rewrite it and install it to corrupt our election counting process. Instead, why not advocate that a bipartisan committee of computer programmers be allowed to privately review the code in a secured setting to eliminate any doubt about its accuracy?
Amazing that Clint Curtis chose a polygraph from the same place Patrick Jones did. I would like for local sleuths to notice the pictures that they both are being spotted in also has been containing a third individual. It’s quite a rabbit hole. The juice is worth the squeeze.
Props on that photo Madison Holcomb, you really captured Brent Turner’s essence
Thank you. You are not the first to mention it !!
Either you are not Brent or WHOOOOOOSSSSHHHHHHH!
Enter the clowns…. Oops, they are already here.
Susanne Baremore , it is my understanding you were not happy with the way the last election was ran. Would you like to go on my Mountaintop Media podcast with Clint Curtis and discuss the last election with him? It will be a nice friendly environment and I will guarantee you a fair conversation as well as your safety.
Nick Gardner
There goes Nick Gardner trying to campaign for Clint Curtis again.
Isn’t it amazing how someone is put on the spot they change the subject?
LMAO if you think I’m Suzanne. You do you.
Nick, any time you are put on the spot, you either change the subject or won’t answer. LMAO you are one of the biggest hypocrites I know.
Hey Nick, are you no longer a happy citizen?
Deal me in !!
Says the man who can’t even spell his OWN last name correctly.
Mr. Turner, I don’t think that instills a lot of confidence in voters.
Brent wants state to allow open source code instead of proprietary software to program our tabulators. That would make it easy for a rogue ROV like Curtis to install code on tabulators to flip votes. Turner wants to make it easy for
Clint to pull a Tina Peters. Open source code is a nonstarter Brent. Time to resign and head home.
I wonder what it could be if it looks like a clown, walks like a clown and talks like a clown.
Probably one of the Failed Recallers who spent many thousands of dollars and still couldn’t buy a recall.
Interesting. You seem to be implying that is a bad thing to “buy” an election. (And it is.)
What about the local politicians who’ve been financed by good ol’ Reverge Anselmo, the millionaire who swore to destroy Shasta county?
Surely you can’t think that would be a good thing, could you Nick?
Bingo. Total hypocrisy to chide those local citizens who contribute time and money to campaigns while ignoring the guy who lives 3000 miles from here but donates more than a million to local candidates. What say you Nick?
Really? Documentation Please
You first Nick.
You never provide documentation for any of your claims. When you are directly challenged on your claims, all of a sudden you’re silent.
Anyone can verify this for themselves, go ahead and read some of the comments in previous articles, and you will notice that Nick never provides proof.
Slow learners like Curtis can easily pass a polygraph.
Apparently, the memorandum Curtis was referring to was an investigation of claims of harassment by Curtis and the results of that investigation sustained the claims.
What claims? Me think you make up stuff.
LMAO
You mean, kinda like you, Nick? Because you definitely make up stuff.
You calling me a democrat/socialist? give me an example of something I made up.
Nick, let me be clear: I’m calling you a hypocrite. You do know what that is right?
You never answer any questions when you are challenged. Tell you what, you start answering first, and then maybe you’ll get some answers back.
You vote in morons. They appoint other morons. It’s the old insanity theory…
Who actually administered the test, what questions were asked and what were the conclusions? Why did he wait three months to bring the subject up? I’m not making any accusations but, I’ve come to think he doth protest too much.
👍🏻👍🏻
He wrote his HIS OWN questions??
LMAO
But of course, there shouldn’t be any surprise here. Sure why not?
This is basically the same as Mr Curtis saying: “Let me design a question so I can arrange the wording in a way that I can manipulate the results of the polygraph test. Trust me. I’m honest.”
For the love of God, if there are still people who can’t see Mr Curtis for the grifter he is…
Yeah Patrick Henry supposedly took and passed a polygraph test too and he never made it public. Sure he had a fancy little video supposedly showing himself taking one but where were the results? Same place CC’s is, buried. Was the question, “Are you really an idiot like you portray yourself to be”, asked? I’d pay $2 to actually see how he answered that one and see the machine jump off the table.
LOL. Great comment. I’ve got $2 also.
Didn’t former Supe Jones do something like this during his circus days?
He needs to take a cognitive test! I bet he would ace it!
Thank you for doing such a thorough job of explaining polygraph examinations in the context of what ROV Curtis shared during his interview with Kelly Frost on KQMS. It is important for readers and listeners to understand the many flaws with how Curtis has portrayed the value of a polygraph examination.
The timing of this polygraph examination is highly questionable. Why was it not administered closer to the certification of the election?
Polygraph exams are not reliable, ESPECIALLY when bought and paid for by the examinee. As for him writing his own questions, come on Clint, don’t pee on our legs and then tell us it’s raining flowers.