“This is Not A Fishing Expedition”: Judge Seeks Dismissal of Lawsuit Alleging Shasta County Election Fraud

During a May 29 hearing, Shasta County Superior Court Judge Stephen Baker said he felt the election case filed by Laura Hobbs may amount to a fishing expedition that seeks facts she should have found prior to filing the case.

Baker said Hobbs had filed a “vague and ambiguous complaint alleging (the election) was unfair”.  After preliminary review, Baker said, his current intent is to dismiss the case. He’ll hold another hearing in two weeks to give Hobbs an opportunity to dispute his tentative decision.

Hobbs filed the case after she lost her bid for county supervisor to Allan Long during the March 5 primary. She has alleged “mal-administration” of the elections process resulting in undue favor for Long and a loss of approximately 539 votes for Hobbs. Long won the primary by only thirteen votes. 

Her winning opponent Long is named as a defendant in the case, as is the former Registrar of Voters Cathy Darling Allen, who retired from her role in early May.

Alex Haberbush, who’s affiliated with the Long Beach-based Lex Rex Institute is now representing Hobbs in the case. He appeared by phone and said election law prevents the case from “being dismissed or rejected due to form.” By “form”, Haberbush meant Hobbs’ failure to cite relevant law as part of her suit.

Darling Allen and Long were represented by Christopher Pisano, an attorney with the L.A.-based firm Best, Best and Krieger, who also appeared by phone. He pushed back on the idea of another hearing, calling Haberbush’s claims of intentional election mal-conduct “speculative” and saying he thought it would be more prudent for Baker to dismiss the case.

Baker agreed with at some of Pisano’s comments, saying that he currently views Hobbs’ allegations as “somewhat speculative Monday-morning quarterbacking” and pointing out that she had called for a recount of the vote and then terminated that request by not paying for it as required by law. 

“I can’t stress how important it is these days that people have confidence in our elections process,” Baker said, before quoting 2003 election case law he said he had reviewed that morning.

“Reading from Rawls vs. Zamora,” Baker said, “The function of the election process is to winnow out and finally reject all but the chosen candidates, not to provide a means of giving vent to short-range political goals, pique, or personal quarrels.”

Hobbs initially filed the suit on her own behalf on April 2 and  followed up with an amendment on April 3. Both fell within the thirty-day legal limit for complaints to be filed after the March 5 election, Judge Baker said, and will be considered by the courts.

Another amendment to the complaint was filed by Haberbush on May 17. Baker said he may not accept that complaint as part of the case because it was submitted after the thirty-day deadline and the law does not allow petitioners to “perpetually amend” their cases. Haberbush said the judge had asked on May 2 that issues with the case be corrected which prompted the new amendment.

After about an hour of discussion, the judge said a hearing to consider possible dismissal will be held June 11, at 10:30 a.m. Haberbush told the judge he expects the hearing might take up to two days and he plans to subpoena witnesses from the elections office to testify.

Baker responded by making clear the hearing’s intent.

“This is not a fishing expedition,” Baker said. ‘It’s an opportunity for the petitioner to make clear whatever evidence she had when she filed the election contest.”

Do you have a correction to this story? You can submit it here. Do you have information to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org