Shasta’s Measure B will remain on the ballot
A legal challenge to the ballot measure was dismissed because it did not specifically demonstrate how placing Measure B on the ballot would violate the law — even though implementing it appears illegal.
A local nurse has failed in her attempt to sideline Shasta’s Measure B before it reaches voters on June 2. The controversial ballot measure calls for significant changes to Shasta’s election process.
Shasta County Superior Judge Benjamin Hanna wrote in a five-page ruling today that he was dismissing the case because of a central legal deficiency in its structure, saying the case didn’t tie its central claim to relevant law.
Hanna did not weigh in on the merits of the plaintiff’s claim that the ballot measure would be illegal to implement if approved by voters. Instead, he suggested that a post-election review would be the appropriate time for the court to rule on such a question.
Measure B is being placed on the ballot after signatures of support from about 7,000 local citizens were gathered last year. It’s a complex election-related measure that local proponents have distilled down on campaign signs to a simple question on voter ID.
In reality, the ballot measure would have more than a dozen layered impacts on the way local elections are run. Some of those impacts — including both the voter ID issue and implementing one-day voting, hand counting, limited absentee ballots and a separation from state voter rolls — would violate a variety of state and federal laws if implemented.
That’s what prompted local registered nurse Jennifer Katske to file her legal challenge in February. She represented herself in the case, drawing up and submitting a volley of legal filings over the last six weeks and arguing her case in court during yesterday’s hearing.
Lex Rex Institute Director Alex Haberbush, who represented election staffer Laura Hobbs and other ballot proponents in the case, said his firm is proud to have defended the rule of law and stands ready to defend the will of the voters going forward.
“Today’s ruling is a complete vindication of the rule of law and the integrity of the electoral process,” Haberbush wrote by email. “This case was an attempt to short-circuit the democratic process, and it rightly failed. The voters of Shasta County will now have the opportunity to decide this measure for themselves.”
Here’s why the case was dismissed
The suit against Measure B was dismissed, Hanna explained in today’s ruling, because Katske did not specifically demonstrate how placing Measure B on the ballot would violate the law, even if implementing it might do so. She claimed in her suit that election officials have a duty to refrain from placing a measure on ballots that would be illegal to implement. But Katske didn’t identify a specific law that clearly backs that claim.
The law she cited in her central claim, Hanna said, has been used in past court precedent in response to ballot measures that have errors or omissions in wording. In Katske’s case, her allegation was that the very substance of the initiative itself is invalid. Without providing further legal backing for that claim Katske was left with a fatal flaw in the case.
Hanna also addressed another central issue: whether it’s appropriate for the court to rule on whether the ballot measure can be legally implemented before voters have had a chance to weigh in on it. Hanna said such a ruling should wait until after voters approve the measure, if they do.
Katske said today she respects the court’s decision, emphasizing that if voters approve the measure, further legal challenges could still lie ahead. She said she feels her legal filing was successful because it drew more attention to what Measure B proposes and what’s at stake if the measure passes.
“Voters are paying attention. They are asking questions,” Katske said. “And they are becoming more aware of the potential negative consequences, civic as well as fiscal, if this measure is not carefully considered.
“At the end of the day,” she continued, “this is about the people of Shasta County—and their right to fully understand what they are being asked to vote on.”
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Author
Comments (24)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
Meet Joanna Francescut for Shasta County’s clerk and registrar of voters
There are two candidates running for Shasta County’s clerk and registrar of voters. Election official Joanna Francescut says she’s running for her children, and to ensure the community knows the truth about elections and has knowledgeable staff running them.
Outside the elections office, Curtis denies evidence of abuse as his supporters campaign against his opponent
A brief press conference held yesterday by election official Clint Curtis was beset by chaotic interruptions from his opponents. Three election staff members spoke in his support, saying they’ve experienced him as a positive leader, despite substantiated findings that he engaged in abuse. One also campaigned on Curtis’ behalf.
Gallagher leads in funds raised for District 5 supervisor race, but only from $30,000 donation to himself
At first glance, it appears that Mike Gallagher has received thousands more in donations than opponents Chris Kelstrom and Gary Oxley. But a closer look shows Gallagher’s lead in donations is the result of a major donation to his own campaign.
The court held that:
The petition failed to state any valid legal claim, because it did not identify a specific legal duty violated by the County.
The petitioner’s legal theory was fatally deficient on its face, warranting dismissal at the pleading stage.
The defects could not be cured, and the court denied leave to amend due to both legal insufficiency and time constraints.
Jon likes to yell about how we shouldn’t have to follow California laws, but all of a sudden it’s very important to follow legalities.
Who’s going to rent a billboard in town ?: VOTE NO MEASURE B….paid for by the sensible citizens of Shasta County.
WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE SO AFRAID OF HONEST ELECTIONS?
If I read the ruling correctly, the Curtis “loophole” issue was withdrawn. Do we know why? I thought this was the strongest issue.
Shasta Scout good job covering this.
Hi Rick, Yes the alleged issue with the number of signatures not being adequate was withdrawn by Katske. Essentially the signature issue had an entirely different “cause of action” or legal basis than the original filing – meaning it wasn’t appropriate to simply tack it on to the original suit. If Katske had not withdrawn it the judge would have struck it as requested by Haberbush. Had the signature claim been filed separately though, and if the allegations were found to hold legal weight, the outcome of the hearing might have been different as there is legal precedent and clear law to remove initiatives that are found to have inadequacies or irregularities in the process by which they arrived on the ballot.
Might!
If one discounts completely the remarks of Alex Haberbush, the lawyer who opposed Jennifer Katske, one can easily find that she did a great service to the people of Shasta County; also, finding that a great service to the people of Shasta County was accomplished by Superior Court Judge Benjamin Hanna ruling is easily done.
YES ! Katske-Citizen of the Year !
To characterize Measure B as a Voter ID law is disingenuous. Since only about 1 in 10 voters vote at polling places, they are the only ones who would have this additional hurdle. The real impact is to the 9 out of 10 voters who prefer VBM. They would lose that option, forced to stand in long lines for hours to vote. If they can’t get off work, they will be unable to vote. The good news is this voter suppression initiative will be challenged in court and lose if it passes in June. I believe county will not waste a dime fighting State AG and allow this measure to land in the dustbin of Shasta County history. On the other hand, if disenfranchised voters file a class action lawsuit, it could get expensive for local taxpayers.
LA Times is reporting today that clint curtiss went to San Bernadino to assist the sheriff in seizing ballots…
How did curtis travel and who paid for it? Did he charge the travel and expense to the county?
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-03-25/la-me-election-skeptic-trump-shasta-county-california
…and has anyone asked our local ‘constitutional Sheriff’ if he’ll confiscate the ballots if Measure B loses ?
VBM is going back to what it was before the Covid Plan.
Hoping that all the folks who came out to resoundingly re-elect Cathy Darling Allen last time come out and
1. Vote for Joanna
2. Vote against Measure B
I have to have hope that common sense and financial prudence will win in the end.
Haberbush “…said his firm is proud to have defended the rule of law and stands ready to defend the will of the voters going forward…”
.
Lmao, as if.
.
Another outsider interfering with our local elections. He doesn’t want some people to vote and he is trying to disenfranchise them so that certain people can win. Doesn’t sound like it’s anything close to “the will of the voters”.
.
You also have:
1. Laura Hobbs, an outsider who came here to start this whole thing up.
2. Clint Curtis the outsider from Florida who was appointed, not elected. He claimed he found a “legal loophole” to get this on ballot. As a charter county initiative, it did NOT gather enough signatures to be put on mallet.
3. Good ole Revenge Anselmo, The millionaire who has a chip on his shoulder and seeking revenge against Shasta county, financing most of these people who apparently don’t have a day job. (Well ok, Laura H. now has a day job because she was hired by Clint Curtis.)
4. Brent Turner. Don’t have too much to say about that narcissist, but anyone with eyes to see knows what he is all about.
5. Haberbush.
6. Mike Lindell
.
Call it what you will, but the people that are screaming the loudest about “local control” aren’t local, and they don’t want locals to have control.
.
Number 4 of Jolly Roger; Has Brent Turner actually moved to Shasta County or is he a commuter from the Bay area ? His attendance at work is interesting.
Good question, Frank.
Brent isn’t a local, doesn’t live local, and really doesn’t work too hard locally even though he is the assistant ROV.
Just to chime in with info – It is unpleasant to be termed a narcissist but perhaps that comes with public service Please check my background of public service It is a pleasure to serve the good citizens of Shasta County.
I don’t blame Judge Hanna for kicking this Curtis – Hobbs dirty diaper down the road; he tried to do so initially by sending it to the 3rd District Court of Appeals (who said, no thanks, and kicked it back…), and where Hobbs has something still sitting in the dock at the Shasta County Taxpayers’ expense. In total, Hobbs has cost taxpayers around $140,000 that comes out of the general fund.
.
NO ONE is arguing that B is illegal, and would likely face immediate and costly legal challenges. In fact, quoting Clint Curtis, who famously said, “You don’t put ballot measures on the ballot that are legal,… Really? This is the same Curtis who had to sign an oath upon taking office stating that HE WOULD faithfully uphold all California Election Codes, including AB 969, all Federal election laws (such as the Voting Rights Act, HAVA, etc.), and any valid California statutes governing elections. And yet the Hobbs -Curtis Measure B clearly violates at least five or six laws.
.
Oh, I get it. We’re supposed to just break the law, like Hobbs and Ronnean Lund have publicly advocated, and like their leader, Trump, does every day! Cool.
.
This MAGA dirty diaper will not survive, even if voters approve it. The central provisions of Measure B are clearly preempted by higher law and won’t withstand judicial scrutiny. Sorry, Judge Hanna, but you might be seeing this yet again, that is, unless the whole thing gets kicked up to the CA. Supreme Court…
.
But I’m betting a veggie burger that in the end, Shasta County will remain obligated to conduct elections in accordance with existing California and federal law.
.
In the meantime, Shasta County is loaded, right? So, Curtis and Hobbs, just keep flushing all that taxpayer money down the MAGA toilet, after all, it doesn’t cost you anything, right?
Hypocrisy central to support from all those whose lawns sport Measure B (and companion Curtis signs): These are the “conservatives” who’d whine loudest at any number of expenditures of County funds for purposes with which they disagree as wasteful, targeted for populations they hate, etc. Measure B is sure to cost hundreds of thousands of dollar of scarce County funds after the Board of Supes “3/5 Roger Taney” boys vote to defend it post-election, after which it will certainly be found to be as dead as Kelsey’s nuts and Prop. 187 on its first court challenge. Measure B supporters and their politico-philosophical ilk will spend infinite though scarce public moneys chasing spurious, disruptive arguments down rhetorical and legal rabbit-holes. After it’s struck down, they will retreat to their churches and plot-lairs to commiserate over what the terrible California Wokeness has done to them.
I admire Katske’s having taken the initiative, though there is a reason that even with all my own considerable non-lawyer experience in and around courts I’d have never taken this on without the advice of a lawyer. Would that there had been a GoFundMe to provide for such legal advocacy, though that same lawyer might have told her the complaint was unfortunately not ripe yet.
This is a good example of when a layman argues a case without specifically presenting sufficient factual evidence supporting their position to satisfy the legal requirements for a positive verdict. That is what lawyers who get paid and spend hours creating a hopefully air-tight case are for… drat them anyways.
A good many liberals not just conservatives support creating more secure elections. National polls fluctuate depending on whether the pollsters lean left or right, but agree somewhere between 65 to 80% of all the people favor such. The only ones not supporting it are certain liberal groups, and certain media such as… …some we know!
I find it interesting that other ID requirements such as for alcohol didn’t stop people from drinking, or buying it.
Apparently what the left is really saying here is people would rather drink than vote.
Maybe they’re right.
I believe almost ALL voters are for secure elections regardless of party affiliation. This unites us and brings hope
Senate Democrats defeat amendment from Sen. Jon Husted to require photo ID to vote https://share.google/KzdRzoEDir1Tof6Dy