State tries again, refiling Measure B challenge in Shasta County Superior Court
The state’s lawsuit against the county was initially filed in appellate court, in what the state said was an attempt to expedite a ruling. After the court determined the suit should be considered in trial court first, it was refiled yesterday, here in Shasta.
After an initial setback, the California attorney general and secretary of state have refiled their joint lawsuit against Shasta County, challenging the legality of Measure B in the Shasta County Superior Court.
“Measure B is an unlawful attempt to disenfranchise voters and create a rogue election system that serves only a select few,” said Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber in a press release yesterday evening.
The voter-approved measure seeks to change Shasta’s election procedures in multiple ways that contradict state laws, including mandating voter ID, eliminating most mail-in voting, implementing a hand count of votes, and separating Shasta’s voter rolls from state oversight.
The measure gained 56% approval in Shasta’s June primary, an election that’s scheduled to be certified tomorrow by Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis — after which the county could move forward towards implementing the measure.
In yesterday’s press release, the state said its initial decision to file in the appeals court last month was an attempt to speed the process of a court decision. The Third Appellate District court pushed back the case shortly thereafter, saying it was not the correct venue and redirecting the matter to a trial court.
“Our position remains unchanged: Measure B is legally indefensible,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta in the state’s press release about the refiling.
After the state announced it was suing Shasta over the measure, county supervisors — some of whom have said they believe it would be illegal to implement — voted not to mount a defense against the suit. The five election activists behind the measure, who are named as real parties of interest in the suit, have hired an attorney. Their counsel, a southern California attorney with the Lex Rex Institute, said today that he’s unsurprised by the change in venue.
“On the merits, our position is unchanged,” Haberbush said by email this morning. “The voters approved measure B, the will of the voters deserves to be defended. It remains disappointing that the County chose not to defend it, which is why the proponents are.”
Shasta elections official Curtis has expressed neutrality regarding the suit over Measure B, saying he’ll administer elections regardless of the eventual outcome.
“We will be ready regardless of how they want the election performed,” Curtis told Shasta Scout today.
He said he’s still facing logistical difficulties with the most immediate aspect of implementation — separating Shasta’s voter rolls from the state — something that’s made challenging by a lack of specificity in the measure’s language, which calls for Shasta’s voter rolls to be maintained on a “computer with open-source software that is not connected to the internet”.
“It is not clear how we would implement separation of the voter rolls and [we] need a little more definition. That is something that would probably be better defined as the case moves through the courts,” Curtis said.
The state refiled the case against Measure B yesterday, June 30. A first hearing date has not yet appeared in the court docket.
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Comments (14)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
Shasta Sheriff’s Office calls community meeting on proposed ‘Corrections and Rehabilitation Campus’
Next Wednesday, residents will have an opportunity to attend a community meeting to learn more about a controversial Corrections and Rehabilitation Campus that’s proposed to be built off Eastside Road, the Sheriff’s Office said this week.
Supervisor Matt Plummer launches ‘Front Porch Shasta’
The volunteer initiative aims to strengthen community connections across the county, starting in five neighborhoods.
‘A very, very difficult transition’: Kings View to end mental health services in Shasta, citing HHSA contract delays
Kings View says it has absorbed hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost payments due to the county’s delays in contract execution over recent years. The county’s Health and Human Services Agency said it has paid all “contracted eligible expenses.”
Interesting that Measure B coupled a Republican supported item of Voter ID with a Democratic Party backed issue of open source voting roll systems Obviously we do need to remove all corporate software from elections so at least B addresses the issue of open source and thusly might be a catalyst for further conversation..
Brent: in what way does it address the issue of open source?
I believe the measure B text states open source software to be utilized for voter database management. This would be great. Obviously I have fundamental issues with hand counting and voter ID but the open source aspect is interesting as in alignment with the Democratic Party platform ..
Brent: Here’s what the text says … Shasta County voter rolls shall be maintained on a computer not connected to the State of California, nor any other third party. A new voter roll shall be created upon implementation of this measure. The voter rolls shall be maintained on a computer with open-source software that is not connected to the internet (through cable or wireless modem) with periodic back-up onto external hard drives. Only
Aren’t the state and county voter rolls reconciled prior to each election? Isn’t it true there are dozens of discrepancies between the two that are corrected before ballots are printed and mailed due to these voter rolls being cross-checked? This requirement of Measure B will only make our voter rolls dirtier, right? Patti Plumb said it best when she used this analogy during an election commission meeting: “Cleaning up the voter rolls is like sweeping a dirt floor. When you’re done, the floor is still dirty”. Open source code is only a problem if you have an unscrupulous ROV (Tina Peters comes to mind) with nefarious intentions. Once you have the code, are capable of altering the code to flip votes, install on tabulators, then rig the hand count audit, election fraud becomes a reality.
Brent, you are still pimping the lie that open source is part of the Democratic Platform. Do you still claim to be a Democrat? Curtis did until he spent time living with Patty Plumb… In any case:
“Open-source voting machine software is not included as policy or plank in the current Democratic Party platform. The platform discusses protecting voting rights, election administration, election security, and confidence in elections, but it does not state that voting systems should be open source or call for a national requirement that voting machine source code be publicly available.” This was taken from a Politico article titled “Democratic Party platform makes one thing clear: We’re not Trump!”
.
Three things we might agree on:
.
1. Shasta County Measure B is not part of either the national Democratic Party platform or the California Democratic Party platform. In fact, the principal provisions of Measure B are completely at odds with positions that Democratic leaders in California have taken on election policy.
.
2. The Democratic State of California has sued Shasta County to block Measure B, because it explicitly violates California election law.
.
3. You and Clint, along with Jones, Hobbs, Cerye, Curtis, and the Shasta 5 are going to lose in court, no?
Might as well lie your ass off on your way out the door, right? You’ve got nothing to lose at this point—the losing is all in the rear-view mirror. The voters have rejected you election fabulists, and you and Clint disembark the gravy train in about six months.
.
Unless you think there’s a chance that Joanna will retain you… LOL
Might it be speedier to dispense with Measure B by tacking an amendment onto an existing bill to remind red counties and cities, state, not local jurisdictions make election laws? AB 969, which voided our county’s desire to hand count, made it through the legislature in short order as I recall.
Who is the drooling window-licker in AG Bonta’s office who decided to treat the 3rd District Court of Appeal as a court of original jurisdiction like, you know, a first-level trial court, which the DCA is not. In California, only two circumstances dictate going to the DCA right out the door: 1) challenge a demurrer or 2) challenge a summary judgment dismissal, neither of which are/were present here. November is bearing down on us, and court hearing dates don’t grow in an orchard full of plenty. This should have been filed in Shasta Superior with speed. If the AG/SoS were afraid of getting the suit homered, they could have gone for a venue change, though PC for such a finding wasn’t exactly growing on trees, either. The idiots wasted the entire month of June.
I’m not a lawyer, but I worked in and around local trial courts for enough time I know procedure. It’s not like this is even hornbook law that some first-year law student should know. This is just civics, a subject on which I’d figured the AG and SoS would be good to go.
The statement by attorney Haberbush that, “[t]he voters approved measure B, the will of the voters deserves to be defended, ” continues the pattern of ignorant, misleading and dishonest tactics employed from the beginning by the Measure B proponents. This case is not about voter ID or mail-in ballots or the “will of the people.” Those are all red herrings. The issue is whether a charter country has the legal power to implement its own election rules, and whether a county charter amendment that conflicts with and attempts to supersede state and federal election law is constitutional.
Attorney Haberbush wrote: “The voters approved measure B, the will of the voters deserves to be defended. It remains disappointing that the County chose not to defend it, which is why the proponents are.” Are what—idiots? Whatever Haberbush’s qualifications as an attorney may be, simple English grammar is not in his toolbox.
Hopefully, whichever judge gets the case will follow the law and rule it blatantly illegal and hand down an injunction preventing any implementation. Probably also a good idea to have state investigators ready to respond in case some “patriots” try to intimidate the judge. Way past time to stop humoring these freaks.
Selah
Measure B will be shit-canned by Shasta County Superior Court for violating State law, and that will likely be the end of it since the County BOS has already voted not to defend it.
.
Though, it’s possible that the local MAGA loons who sponsored it have standing and could appeal it to the Appellate Court. That’s assuming those broke-ass election fabulists have enough Anselmo bucks left to pay the Lex Luther Institute to rep them in court.
.
Good luck, rubes.
Measure B will be deposited in the burn barrel soon.