Some worry new Shasta election policies won’t safeguard their vote
A Shasta Scout reader survey indicates many people don’t feel comfortable with the plan to “film everything” during ballot processing. Some said the plan worries them enough that they feel discouraged from voting. We asked new election official Clint Curtis to respond.
7.25.25 5:38 pm: We have updated the story to correct an important error. While a majority of Shasta County residents are uncomfortable with the idea of filming ballots, most say they still plan to vote.
Given the approximately 113,000 registered voters in Shasta County, survey responses from 525 represents only about 0.5%.
That’s the number who filled out a short survey Shasta Scout released last month asking how people feel about Shasta County’s plan to film ballot processing during the next election. Despite the relatively small sample size the results were clear.
The majority of survey respondents, about 76%, said they were uncomfortable with the plan to film ballot processing. A much smaller percentage, 17.5%, said Shasta County’s decision to do so might discourage them from voting at all.
Responses on the survey seemed to confirm there is broad confusion among Shasta residents, who posed a variety of pertinent questions about whether the plan is legal, what exactly will be filmed and whether their votes could be exposed to the public.
The idea of filming the ballot counting process is the brain-child of newly appointed Shasta election official Clint Curtis, a former defense attorney, who was chosen by a majority of county board members earlier this year. Provided with the results of Shasta Scout’s survey, Curtis said that the community doesn’t yet understand the process he’s putting in place.
Curtis has never lived in Shasta before and has no direct experience in election management but is working to implement a number of changes to the Shasta County Election process in efforts to increase transparency.
That’s necessary, Curtis claimed during his interview with a reporter this week, to address fraud at the Shasta Election office. Over the last year, two lawsuits by election activists alleging such fraud have been dismissed by the courts. Asked for credible evidence that such illegalities have occurred, Curtis said that filming ballot processing will eliminate the possibility.
What exactly is the plan?
So far, Curtis has spoken only in broad terms about how the new process will work. Asked by Shasta Scout this week if he’s developed any written policies, Curtis said not yet. Similarly, he doesn’t yet have budget numbers documenting how much the plan will cost despite promising county supervisors on June 12 that he’d get them those numbers within a month.
Even without documented policies or an approved budget, Curtis is moving forward. He issued a press release earlier this week reiterating his plan to use cameras and sharing the need for more staffing — including temporary workers, volunteer poll workers and observers — to facilitate that process.
Along with cameras, a new “canvassing board”
The lack of a clearly documented plan has left some Shasta County voters adrift. Part of the problem is that many are not familiar with the process of how ballot processing is conducted. For example, survey responses showed, many don’t realize that voter names don’t actually appear on ballots at all.
Names do appear on the envelopes many use to deliver their ballots, either in person, by mail or via a drop box, to the Election Office. And names can also be written onto ballots by voters, as can other kinds of identifying marks.
Ballots with such writing or marks, the Secretary of State’s Office previously said, shouldn’t be filmed to ensure voter privacy.
Curtis is aware of that, and he’s found a workaround. Ballots that have any kind of extraneous markings won’t be filmed, he said. Instead, he said, they’ll be examined by hand by a “canvassing board” of temporary workers operating out of sight of cameras to determine voter intent.
“It’ll be done in secret,” Curtis said, “by a canvassing board that will decide what their vote is.”
The group, Curtis explained, will be made up of four or five of the “most respected people in the county” including lawyers, doctors and judges. He said they’d be temporary staff, background checked and screened to ensure diverse political representation.
When asked how he would respond to community members who might be concerned about what community members might be examining their ballots, Curtis laughed.
“Well the other way,” he said, “is I look at their ballots.”
Or, he said, voters could fill their ballot out the “right way,” without extraneous markings, so they can be filmed instead of being examined by people from the community.
Curtis said he didn’t know what percentage of ballots in recent elections had to be hand-reviewed by staff because they included extraneous markings, but said it was “very, very few.”
What are some voters afraid of?
In Shasta’s rural and ideologically divided environment, the plan to film ballots and involve more temporary workers and volunteers in ballot processing worries some voters. Many survey respondents expressed discomfort that their ballot might not be private. “My ballot should not be exposed,” one wrote. The secrecy of the ballot is enshrined in every state’s constitution.
Others expressed fears of repercussions if their vote becomes known. “I don’t want to face harassment or political repercussions from extremist political actors for my voting choices, or undergo any possible scrutiny by the powers-that-be – esp (sic) if those powers have a vested interest in how I vote,” one respondent said, explaining that they worry such a practice “sets a precedent, and can lead to the next stage of a slippery slope.”
“Retaliation is my biggest concern,” said another. “In our community, we have seen examples of individuals doxxing those of which they disagree. I am concerned how I vote could be used to target me.”
But privacy was only one concern expressed in survey responses. Some wanted to know how the video footage would be secured, how long it would be stored, whether it would be accessible to the public, and how they could be sure the footage won’t be altered.
Asked about the last possibility, Curtis said anyone who worries about altering the election video is “just kind of being argumentative. They can’t hack all these videos.”
Survey respondents also asked questions about the legality of the filming process and questioned whether the state would step in to monitor it.
“Is it legal in California?” wrote one.
“I doubt this is legal … at all!”, said another.
“I don’t want it tried out in Shasta County,” a third emphasized, “Too many chances for mistakes to be made. And if there is an oopsie, the damage will be done. There’s no going back once it’s on film.”
A few said they didn’t want a temporarily appointed election official making major changes to the voting process, saying such decisions should be left to whoever is elected by a local majority of voters next year.
Both Curtis and his former high-level staffer Joanna Francescut, have announced their candidacies for the role. Curtis will oversee the 2026 election that will decide Shasta’s next elected official.
Some people like the idea of filming everything
Not everyone who responded to Shasta Scout’s survey was down on the plan. About 25% of respondents said they feel comfortable with filming ballot processing. Such respondents provided relatively little additional feedback but one called Curtis’ plan “perfect,” while another said the idea is “awesome” because it will prevent the “secrecy of the past.”
“Great and Smart Idea,” wrote a third respondent. Another opined: “Best idea ever! How could anyone be against this!”
Curtis tends to agree. He told Shasta Scout that once people understand the process, they’ll be more likely to support it.
“You know,” Curtis said, “you’re going to have to have to trust, because election has a certain amount of trust in it. I wish it didn’t, but it does.”
Here’s what the Secretary of State’s Office had to say
Jim Patrick, a spokesperson from the Secretary of State’s office, said Shasta Scout’s survey results generally match national data when it comes to how people feel about the use of video in the voting process. He said filming ballot processing tends to increase some people’s confidence in voting while having the opposite effect on others.
“It’s not a clear win for producing confidence in elections,” Patrick explained. “It bolsters one group of people who see it as transparency while the other group sees it as potentially invasive, no matter how well it’s implemented.”
“Our office’s concern is of course”, Patrick continued, “making sure counties follow state laws surrounding ballot privacy and security, and we’ll provide any support the county asks for to help follow those laws. And if residents identify any laws being broken in any of our counties, we’ll investigate promptly and thoroughly.”
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Author
Comments (22)
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.
I agree with Shasta Scout.
525 people Poll is not accurate account for Shasta County.
It does appear most Shasta Scout commenters in the survey are liberal Democrats.
And we all know most Shasta County citizens are conservative republicans.
But I digress, and I enjoyed my participation in the survey.
And finally, Clint Curtis got back with the media with our Make America Elections Great Again Transparency Plan!
Go Clint!
Hey Nick, I’m a fiscal conservative and I don’t think Clint Curtis should be anywhere near our ballots.
It’s a damn lie that everyone that disagrees with you is a Democrat or liberal. There was a a healthy number of us fiscal conservatives who don’t agree with you at all.
We just so happen to work, and don’t have all the free time that you apparently do.
Hey Jerry that’s notme.,
Voter suppression and election subversion are always just below the surface. This is why election denialism and election conspiracy is the only nonnegotiable principles of the MAGA movement. It is why Trump insists that the Republican Party focus on shaping, bending, and, if necessary, breaking the laws and rules to ensure the GOP has an electoral playing field tilted in its favor.” (Democracy Docket). If you believe filming or videoing ballots is illegal, you can contact the California Secretary of State’s Elections Division at 1500 11th Street, 5th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814. You can call them as well. English: (916) 657-2166 or (800) 345-VOTE (8683). Spanish: (800) 232-VOTA (8682). Additionally, you can OBTAIN WEB ACCESS to file a complaint, and do so over the internet.
I strongly suggest that a contingent, 3-4 concerned locals, make an appointment with the appropriate staff person at the SOS post haste. Bring written concern to the attention of the SOS staff re: Curtis’ plans. This needs to be nipped before it happens, not after the election…too late. Then what would we do, ask for a recount with SOS staff ? Remember Curtis is Interim Co. Clerk, with very little official capacity; his assistant as well. They apparently sit around and run this kind of tomfoolery up the flagpole with Hobbs & Co. Knowing full well that most are illegal.
Where’s the Republican Central Committee on this ? By not providing a pubic statement makes them complicit.
Frank: Mr. Curtis is not an interim county clerk. He’s an appointed county clerk, a position that comes with all of the authority and responsibility as an elected county clerk, just a shorter timeline in office.
Thank you Shasta Scout for another excellent article. I’m afraid Mr. Curtis might be suffering from a bit of conspiracy theory delusion, that his video scheme may entail some serious legal action against Shasta County. We will need to see, however, your well-written article was sent directly to the Secretary of State. Thank you very much again
For context – please publish how and where the survey was available/distributed and the total number of respondents?
Hi Eric: We published the survey on June 23 and ran it through July 5. It was available on our site during that time. We sent one email with a link to the article and mentioned it once in our weekly newsletter. In total, 525 people responded. https://shastascout.org/survey-filming-ballot-counting-process/
And the party affiliations
Thanks for the update Annelise. Please keep pressing for answers especially on these items-
1-When is Curtis presenting an updated budget? Don’t see an agenda item at the Board of Supervisor meeting yet. This is overdue now.
2-Who will be on the canvassing board? The names need to be public knowledge as well.
Same as post the party affiliations of those polled on this issue
So if I don’t want my ballot on video, I just have to make marks on it? But then a group of misc. people will look at it?
THIS IS SO PATHETICALLY RIDICULOUS.
Mr. Curtis was asked about this video plan during a press conference held directly after his appointment at the May 14th BOS meeting in Shjasat Lake. I believe Shasat Scout was there. Cuirts issued his plan, with no details. I asked him if he seriously thought the Ca. The Secretary of State would approve the videoing of voter ballots. He laughed and said, “Probably not.” Mr Crutis, a well-known election denier provocateur, promotes the standard Mr. Pillow – pro-Trump MAGA lie that elections are rigged. Cyrtis actually lived with neo-confederate secessionists – anti-democracy fellow election liar Patty Plum while going through the ROV process. Mr. Curtis was chosen by Crye, Kelstorm, and Corky to, as Crye openly stated, follow the election liar-in-chief Trump’s executive order, found illegal in the courts, to overhaul and take control of significant parts of the nation’s election systems, at the city, county, state, and federal levels. The Curtis Plan aligns with much of the mandate issued by Trumpers Jones, Crye, Plumb, Hobbs, Corley, Killstorm, and their Extreme Far-Right Cartel as a means to rig our free elections in favor of the Cartel. Hopefully, the State of California will step in to review the Curtis Plan before the BOS allocates millions of taxpayer dollars to Mr. Curtis to enact the attack on Shasta County Voters.
I have yet to see any evidence of fraud having occurred in any elections in Shasta County.
Election fraud seems to be a prominent area of focus by conspirators.
Spending money from the county budget on appeasing those who harbor conspiracy theories is a travesty. I am not worried about the consequences of filming the election counting process. I am concerned about volunteers doing incompetent work.
Agreed!
0.5% response? Huh, it would be interesting to know the party affiliation by those concerned and those unconcerned.
I suspect SScout does not have an even distribution across Party affiliations. Guess that data was not collected.
So convenient for them !! Typical
“And if residents identify any laws being broken in any of our counties, we’ll investigate promptly and thoroughly.” So the law could be broken during the filming process but investigated afterwards. A lot of good that does. Once the horse is outta the barn…
Concerned: Lawbreaking does usually have to happen first before an investigation into it can occur.
Clint better hurry with those written instructions. I see that there’s an election re: the sales tax increase coming soon. It’s a city election, but the election office will handle it.
I asked him about that. He said no official word yet.