Volunteer dismissed from poll training after pushing back on political commentary by Shasta election official Clint Curtis
Two women say they were told to leave a poll worker training session Thursday after expressing discontent with political commentary made by Shasta’s chief election official. A third poll worker made it through her training earlier in the week but was left with significant concerns.
Clint Curtis was appointed to the role of registrar of voters last year. He was hired from Florida to take up the position in Shasta County despite a lack of experience with election management. He ran his first election last fall, facing a steep learning curve to adjust to a new job in a new jurisdiction.
Now he’s facing another challenge, pushback from poll workers.
Curtis kicked off poll-worker training for the June primary this week, starting the process significantly earlier than usual, about six weeks before the election. He’s been leading the training himself so far, at a pace of four sessions per day, over two days this last week — according to a training schedule shared by a poll worker. The election office did not respond to a request for information about when poll training sessions would occur.
Curtis’ approach to the training is casual, according to a number of volunteers interviewed yesterday, peppered with jokes and opinionated commentary including references to his dislike of the state of California, his distaste for the practices of former election officials and his keen awareness that disability advocates keep a watchful eye on access in poll places.
During at least one training this week, Curtis also brought up a current political controversy, an alleged ballot discrepancy by election activists in Riverside County that has gained national attention. It’s a claim that’s been soundly rejected by Riverside’s election official Art Tinoco.
Shasta County community member Joyce Lively was present at a poll worker training on Thursday when Curtis brought the Riverside topic up about ten minutes into the session. She said he mentioned the matter in passing as he discussed poll worker positions, saying a particular position could be the one to prevent an event like the alleged 45,000 ballot discrepancy in Riverside County. Lively said it bothered her that Shasta’s election official was treating an unproven claim made by activists as fact, especially in a space that’s supposed to be nonpartisan.
“I put up my hand and I said I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t bring politics into the training situation,” Lively said afterwards.
Curtis responded by calling the ballot discrepancy a “statement of fact,”Lively said. She said she pushed back firmly but politely, telling him the allegation was a matter of opinion and something she felt didn’t belong in a poll worker training,
“He looked at me and smiled and said ‘you’re dismissed’,” Lively recounted. “I asked him if he was serious and he said yes he was.”
Lively said she got to her feet and walked out of the small room at the Market Street election office. As she passed fellow poll worker Janet Ugale, who’s worked the polls for three or four elections, Ugale told Lively that she’d probably be joining her soon. It was a form of solidarity, Ugale explained by phone in an interview yesterday, a way to express to Lively — who she’d never met before — that she felt sympathy for her.
Ugale’s comment drew attention from another election staffer, a woman later identified as Marjorie Andrews who was standing not far away towards the back of the room. She said Andrews turned toward her in response and said, “if you feel the same way you can leave now too.” Ugale said she took a moment, wondering if Andrews was serious, before the staffer spoke again.
“She said, ‘you need to leave now as well,’’” Ugale recounted. “I did. I wasn’t there to cause a problem.”
In separate interviews, both women recounted how they talked to other election staffers outside the room for the next few minutes, explaining what had just happened during the training. They said two of the three election staffers they spoke with took Curtis’ side, saying that the allegations in Riverside were factual and that Curtis had a right to discuss them. The third election worker, Lively said, remained neutral.
Ugale said she has always been taught to be cordial to all voters and not to engage in political conversations. That’s an approach she believes Curtis should be taking too, she said, leading by example to model the behavior that every voter should expect at the polls.
“The county clerk and registrar of voters holds a position that is supposed to be non-partisan,” Ugale explained. “Rumor mongering should be beneath the dignity of that position.”
Yesterday, the other dismissed volunteer, Lively, said she was still feeling “wired up” about what happened. She explained that she signed up to work the polls for the first time last fall after Curtis was appointed, citing a civic duty to participate in free and fair elections where she can.
“I’ve been following local politics in the last several years since this whole question of election integrity came up,” Lively explained. “I’ve spoken before the board in the past but I thought I needed to do something rather than just say something and I thought being a poll worker was the best way to be part of the system.”
She explained why she believes Curtis’ comment about Riverside was inherently political, saying she sees the allegation as an attempt to nullify votes that were already certified by Riverside’s election official. She’s also aware that Curtis had been involved with the Riverside election activists behind the allegation, saying his comment was “in furtherance of his political belief that elections have been fraudulent.”
Curtis did not respond to a request for comment yesterday but Assistant Registrar of Voters Brent Turner responded to questions by phone, first denying that any poll workers were asked to leave the poll training at all, then claiming that Lively needed to leave because she was “a little aggressive” and “disruptive.”
“I think he was being respectful to the other poll workers who didn’t want to hear conversations about whether his remarks were political,” Turner said of Curtis’ decision to dismiss Lively, noting that he didn’t witness the incident firsthand but had discussed it with his boss.
“Clint does a good job. I think he’s likeable as a professor, as a teacher, to a lot of these folks here, to the grand majority and I hope if he’s rubbing some folks wrong that they don’t leave, that they stick it out and do their duties.”
He added that he believed Lively and Ugale were angry about Curtis’ decision to use paper poll pads rather than electronic ones during this election — although neither community member mentioned such a concern during interviews for this story. Turner also called a preference for the use of electronic poll pads a political opinion, while simultaneously claiming that Curtis’ comment about Riverside was apolitical.
“I can’t say that I find that to be political,” Turner said of the Riverside ballot discrepancy comment. “I think that he has reached conclusions and stood by observations where there is controversy.”
Jennifer Waltman attended an earlier poll training this week. She’s a long-time poll worker who’s held the role of poll inspector at previous elections, and said she was dismayed by the approach Curtis took during poll training this week.
Waltman expressed concern with several of his statements about voting equipment that provides access for those with disabilities, saying he seemed more concerned about not getting caught by disability advocates than with ensuring access for all voters. She also mentioned what she referred to as “flippant” comments by Curtis about accessible voting, noting that he seemed comfortable with leaving voters standing in line if they forgot their ballots at home.
Asked about Waltman’s claims regarding disability access, Turner called the comments “mud slinging,” telling a reporter that repeating those claims was “frankly below your level of journalism,” and emphasizing his belief that accessible voting equipment is rarely used but should still be available.
On the topic of wait times, Turner said that Shasta voters need to get more comfortable with standing in line to vote, saying Shasta’s speed is “amazing” compared to other parts of California. He said the department’s intention this election is to reduce wait times to no more than five minutes, and noted that there are workarounds to a verification process that left some voters disenfranchised last fall after Curtis decided to eliminate the use of electronic poll books.
Waltman also had another, more significant complaint about a new process Curtis laid out during her training that she believes could lead to voter fraud if followed. Waltman said Curtis instructed those in her cohort that when a voter seeks to surrender a vote by mail ballot to vote in person instead, the poll worker should allow the voter to keep the ballot and surrender the associated envelope.
The seasoned poll worker said the approach would allow voters to cast ballots twice, once in person at their assigned polling place with an in-person ballot provided by staff and again at another polling place where they could ask for a new envelope and cast their ballot along with others in the precinct box used for vote by mail ballots.
State election code specifically addresses this issue, stating that ballots surrendered by voters at polling places must be returned to the election office later by poll workers. California’s Secretary of State emphasized that last fall, in a memo sent to all election offices. The poll worker manual provided to Waltman at the training Curtis ran this week outlines a similar process, documenting that surrendered vote by mail ballots should be marked and placed in a secure location for return to the election office.
Waltman said she spoke up in the meeting, calling Curtis’ attention to the reality of how the approach he had just explained could be used to commit fraud. She said he responded by claiming that anyone who voted twice as a result would be “caught later” as a result of checks and balances at the election office.
By phone yesterday, Turner gave a similar response, saying he wasn’t certain of all the details of the poll place process, but was sure whatever steps were in place would ensure voter access.
“We allow everybody to do pretty much everything,” Turner said. “We don’t disenfranchise anyone.”
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Author
Comments (19)
Leave a comment
Related Articles
In Anderson, Shasta’s District 5 candidates debated mental health facilities, Measure B, and county jail operations
Retired nurse and business owner Gary Oxley, Anderson City Council member Mike Gallagher, and incumbent Supervisor Chris Kelstrom duked it out over pressing issues important to voters in the rural south county.
Electoral candidates for Shasta’s District 1 discuss elections, mental health, and the conduct of the county board
Richard Gallardo, Erin Resner, and Kevin Crye answered questions from the public on hot-button issues, outlining their campaign promises ahead of the June primary.
Complaints of alleged misconduct face sharp pushback from Shasta Fire Protection District officials
Former district employee Kelly Hughes accused Fire Chief Michael Steineke of misconduct at the small fire protection district’s board meeting on Wednesday. She was initially discouraged from speaking in the public forum, a right protected by the First Amendment and California’s Brown Act.
The State needs to step in and take over this election. Hopefully someone is keeping them abreast of what is happening in Shasta County.
If the description as reported by the three poll workers is correct, I would advise a quick consultation with an attorney to see if laws and civil rights were broken. But it would be consistent with the established extremist behaviors of the C. Curtis, P. Jones, K. Crye, and the Hobbs clan supporters, who use retribution, retaliation, ignorance, proven-in-local, district and national court lies, and propaganda as “facts” as tools to harm and force Shasta County into submission, at a great social and economic cost to all Shasta County taxpayers.
.
There is now lots of PRA documentation showing Cutris has held discussions about elections with the FBI in Roseville, CA (at Shasta County taxpayer expense), has sent Trump and DOJ Maureen S. Riordan (past Acting Voting Section Chief of Trump’s DOJ) a long list of unsubstantiated and proven in court to be lies and unsubstantiated allegations he claims are “facts” about so-called election fraud committed by his political opponent and about T. Toller, all to amplify and promote false claims that the election was stolen and rigged here in Shasta County. And now, Curtis smiles and demands that personnel at the Shasta County ROV office must accept his lies as facts, or you’re fired. Let’s go back to Riverside.
.
Reported in the L.A. Times, far-right extremist/activist Curtis went to Riverside County to work with a citizen group of election conspiracists and promote claims about ballot fraud and discrepancies, publicly amplify those claims, and help plan an investigation, resulting in extreme far-right Sheriff Bianco seizing 650,000 ballots and election materials from the Registrar of Voters to “investigate.” It’s also in Riverside that Curtis publicly called Shasta County Supervisors “Idiots,” for not following his orders, and, being the grandstanding activist that he is, Curtis was one of the first to announce far and wide that the ballots had been sized, even before the Riverside sheriff! Of course, Curits had to go to Riverside, as he and Hobbs just can’t seem to get Sheriff Jhoneson to seize our ballots.
.
No, Hobbs and Curtis aren’t judges and have NO Standing at this time to represent truth or their lies in court, but they have the right to their opinions. The reality is that the California Supreme Court has halted the Riverside, Curtis / Sheriff Bianco ballot seizures. Unsealing the records shows no legally relevant evidence of fraud in the warrant materials, and, as Riverside election officials had said all along, the claim was false. The most likely outcome is that the seizure will be ruled unlawful, strengthening state control and California’s election law.
.
Next up? Awaiting in the wings is the Curtis / Hobbs Measure B. Talk about chaos and great social and economic cost to all Shasta County taxpayers!
It appears there may be a political operation by those aligned with opponents of the current registrar to cause disruption of the poll worker training process. Sending folks predisposed toward disrupting classes is a gray area but the classes have been very well received by the grand majority of poll workers.
The training classes have been applauded by the students and even this particular incident was acknowledged and applauded by the rest of the class. If in fact people are implementing political strategy by planning disrupting tactics like this it may create a Shasta Scout story but will not impede the functionality of the election.
This is the time, after reading about Curtis basically politicizing his poll workers, undoubtedly by bringing up situations that are hot topics, that we need to write en masse to Shirley Weber. Plus she needs to know about this new wrinkle of the possibility of double voting. I do not trust him with a fair result. Why? Because he continually violates his oath of non partisanship. In California that is covered by these rules:
“Oath of Duty: The official oath requires them to “well and faithfully discharge” their duties. In the context of election administration, this means ensuring fair, accurate, and nonpartisan election processes.
Prohibition on Partisan Activities: While in their official capacity or on duty, ROVs and their staff are generally prohibited from using their authority to advocate for or against political candidates or issues.”
It could not be more clear. Mr. Curtis is clearly weeding out of his poll workers of those persons who are on to him, will question his dubious practices, and will not be intimidated. In other words, he only wants loyalists. Why is he doing this? That is the question that is the most bothersome. What is trying to achieve by getting rid of people who know the rules of running an election, and are challenging him?
The state needs to step in. Now. We need a movement. We need to march to Shirley Weber’s office and get her attention on this. We cannot let this man run this election when so much is at stake. He violates basic rules. He fudged the law on signatures to find a “loophole” to get that illegal Measure B on the ballot. This is not an ethical person, and quite frankly, I do not want him or his election deniers anywhere near my ballot!
I have poll worker training coming up soon. I was already concerned when told Curtis is the trainer. Last November, he left the training to an experienced staff member. Why is he now doing the training instead? Is there an ulterior motive? Is it so that he can train workers wrong? And what are they supposed to do when what Curtis tells them conflicts with the manual provided by the Secretary of State? Like the discrepancy with with the surrendered ballots? If that happens at the polling place, one worker might say “Curtis said do x” and another worker say, “the Secretary of State says that’s not what you do”, how is that resolved? This is not ok. We need intervention from the state.
Thank you
I don’t trust that guy, since day one he has struck me as a little bit on the shady side.
I was not in that training session, but I was in another last week. Mr. Curtis also mentioned the purported Riverside discrepancy, along with a variety of other supposed problems with electronics. He gave a demonstration of his new video system, which seems like overkill but isn’t a problem. He did in passing through a few darts at past office administration.
After November’s election he blamed the poll-worker training and said he’d be fixing it. The new version honestly was just a lot less training. There was some, but it was about half the Clint Curtis show. He was friendly enough and I don’t mind him, but the actual training about what to do at polling places was much less thorough.
Thank you
A few points deserve clarification
I did term the Riverside event non political ( although it has been politicized) as it is unfortunately a systems issue. The Riverside counts were likely off / loose and then it’s a matter of determining the extent of the discrepancy Btw – to acknowledge discrepancies does not make a person a “denier”or a particular party member. A discrepancy is simply noted and becomes part of the certification record.
Similarly I do not consider poll pads to be a political issue but rather a technological issue based in the security realm. People desiring poll pads exhibit a foundational misunderstanding of the election security equation. The United States can NOT afford to continue to degrade best security practices for clerk convenience at the direction of vendors and their software sales team’s tactics. We must all do the extra work necessary and not allow corporations to count our votes or control our poll management
This article is interesting as it shows an apparent predisposition against the current Registrar and toward his political opponents. It also might be viewed as biased and intended to undermine the county’s ability to obtain and retain poll workers.
Let’s all do better soon !!
.
.
Brent – “We must all do the extra work necessary…”
.
That’s funny, it’s not really a secret that you don’t even show up to work.
.
And why would anyone have a bias against the current ROV? Just because he has made partisan allegations and claims with NO proof whatsoever? Or maybe because he is actually making it easier for bad characters to actually vote twice?.
I can’t imagine why anyone wouldn’t want him as our ROV.
.
Btw, Mr T., I’m a dude who likes to speak truth to power. And that just so happens to be you right now. Truth can be painful sometimes.
Hi Brent – I’m curious how or if you can respond to the following information regarding your chronic absenteeism.
Dear Shasta County Board of Supervisors –
I hope this note finds you all well – happy and healthy – as Shasta County launches into another glorious spring.
With respect, every one of you have promoted yourselves as fiscally conservative and with with a heart for what is best for Shasta County – including the use of public, taxpayer funds. Therefore, I expect that you’ll find the following information quite disheartening.
The following facts outline a deeply troubling pattern of conduct regarding the use of public resources and employee accountability within Shasta County government. Taken together, they raise serious concerns about oversight, transparency, and the responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. According to public records, including Mr. Turner’s key card records.
– Assistant Registrar of Voters (ROV) Brent Turner was hired on June 15, 2025.
– Mr. Turner did not have county VPN set up on his laptop until February 3, 2026. This is 233 days after his hiring date, almost 8 months.
– In a time span of his 178 paid work days, the total days which can or likely be accounted for Mr. Turner being to work in-person: 67 days total. This is according to his key card records and access at both the Market Street and Court Street office locations.
– To put it another way, Mr. Turner has been present in the office 37.6% of the work days since he took on the role of Shasta County Assistant ROV, in a position that is NOT considered a remote position.
– Again, according to public records, despite Mr. Turner’s unfortunate health condition, he has also taken no vacation leave, sick leave, nor management/administrative leave afforded his position.
– Further, none of the information in the Shasta County Personnel Manual (Section 15 – Management Benefits), seem to apply to the kind of chronic absenteeism comprising Mr. Turner’s tenure to date.
– The pay range for this position is $93,312 to $119,100 annually, plus benefits. The low end of this would be $7,750/month gross pay, plus benefits.
– In short, Mr. Turner was paid for a total of 189 days (work days and holidays) by the taxpayers of Shasta County, when, in fact, he was only in the office a total of approximately 67 days, and has only had his VPN access to the office server for roughly six weeks.
For his roughly 10 months of employment, Shasta County has paid Mr. Turner MINIMALLY $77,500, plus benefits, for 67 in-person work days.
This is an egregious and indefensible misuse of taxpayer funds. Paying a six-figure public salary and benefits to an employee who has been physically present barely over a third of the time—without documented leave and without functional remote access for most of that period—reflects a complete breakdown of accountability. Taxpayers are being asked to subsidize what amounts to chronic nonperformance, and that is unacceptable.
Thank you for you opinion.
TURNING CONTROVERSY INTO A CASE FOR REFORM IN SHASTA COUNTY’S ELECTIONS OFFICE
Moments of controversy in public administration often create a clear choice: amplify division or elevate standards. The recent report involving a poll-worker training session—where questions about political commentary and the dismissal of a volunteer have drawn public concern—presents such a moment for Shasta County. For a candidate seeking to lead the elections office, the opportunity is not to assign blame, but to articulate a higher standard of neutrality, legality, and professionalism grounded in the California Elections Code and long-standing principles of administrative law.
FOR JOANNA FRANCESCUT, THE STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE LIES IN FRAMING THE ISSUE AS ONE OF INSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS RATHER THAN INDIVIDUAL FAULT. Election administration is a ministerial function, not a platform for advocacy. By emphasizing the statutory requirement that training, procedures, and communications remain non-partisan and compliant with the Political Reform Act, she can position her campaign around process integrity—a message that resonates across political lines and avoids the legal risks associated with personal accusations.
The incident also highlights the importance of procedural fairness. When a participant in a government-run training raises a concern and is removed, even if for legitimate reasons, the situation invites scrutiny under principles akin to viewpoint neutrality and due process. JOANNA CAN RESPONSIBLY ACKNOWLEDGE THIS SENSITIVITY AND ADVOCATE FOR CLEAR, WRITTEN PROTOCOLS GOVERNING TRAINING CONDUCT, DISPUTE RESOLUTION, AND PARTICIPANT RIGHTS—THEREBY DEMONSTRATING A COMMITMENT TO BOTH ORDER AND FAIRNESS WITHOUT PRESUMING ANY VIOLATION OCCURRED.
From a governance perspective, this is an opening to advance a broader reform agenda. MRS. FRANCESCUT COULD PROPOSE STANDARDIZED TRAINING CURRICULA, MANDATORY COMPLIANCE BRIEFINGS ON ELECTION LAW, AND INTERNAL AUDIT MECHANISMS TO ENSURE ADHERENCE TO NEUTRALITY REQUIREMENTS. Coordinating such reforms with the Shasta County Board of Supervisors would further reinforce transparency and separation of powers, ensuring that any improvements are institutionally anchored rather than personality-driven.
Politically, the advantage is subtle but powerful: by refusing to engage in rhetoric and instead offering specific, legally grounded solutions, FRANCESCUT DISTINGUISHES HERSELF AS A CANDIDATE FOCUSED ON COMPETENCE AND STABILITY. Voters concerned about election integrity are often less interested in conflict than in predictability, compliance, and trustworthiness. A platform centered on codified procedures, training standards, and accountability mechanisms speaks directly to those concerns.
Ultimately, the lesson of this incident is not about a single training session, but about the expectations placed on an office that safeguards democratic processes. BY ADDRESSING THE ISSUE THROUGH THE LENS OF LAW, POLICY, AND INSTITUTIONAL REFORM, JOANNA FRANCESCUT CAN CONVERT CONTROVERSY INTO CREDIBILITY. In doing so, she would not only strengthen her candidacy but also advance the broader goal that should guide any elections official: an administration that is demonstrably neutral, legally sound, and worthy of public trust.
Please, Brent. Stop.
.
You aren’t nearly as clever as you think. You give yourself away in your effort to be incognito.
Thank you
So according to this, anyone who votes in person at one polling location only has to turn in their vote by mail envelope as Curtis has instructed in trainings and verified by news interview response and they can then go to a different polling location, ask for an envelope and submit the mail-in ballot, thus submitting two ballots for one election. 🗳️ If this scenario occurs, both incompetentCurtis and his bumbling assistant Liam thus will be “caught later” as a result of the checks and balances. How are these checks and balances any different now than before with regard to the unsubstantiated and ridiculous concerns about sending mail-in@ ballots and allowing voters the option of using the mail in ballot or going to a poll center to cast their votes? His “new” approach allowing voters to keep their mail-in ballot seems ridiculous.
This is outrageous. He doesn’t have enough poll workers as it is. Alienating people at this point puts our entire election in jeopardy in Shasta County. Clint Curtis’ actions are not those of an experienced elections official who knows what he’s doing.
Former poll worker, I WILL NOT work with that man.