In a dramatic turn of events, Shasta County voters have seemingly decided to part ways with their embattled Registrar of Voters, Clint Curtis. This shift comes as the county also approved a ballot measure that could significantly alter its election processes, potentially clashing with state laws.
The primary election, held on June 2, 2026, has set the stage for a contentious November election, with Curtis remaining in office until the end of the year despite his apparent defeat. The vote also raised concerns about election safety after a reported incident involving a stun gun at the elections office.
The Rise and Fall of Clint Curtis
Curtis, who styled himself as an elections integrity advocate, was appointed to his position in 2026 despite having no prior experience in election administration. His tenure was marked by controversy, including accusations of employee mistreatment, threats of violence, and campaigning on county time.
Two county investigations uncovered troubling behavior by Curtis, including urging employees to perform illegal acts and expressing skepticism about voting machines. He also significantly reduced the number of ballot drop boxes in the county, a move that drew criticism from voting rights advocates.
A Contentious Appointment
Curtis’s appointment was controversial from the start. The Shasta County Board of Supervisors chose him over Joanna Francescut, who had more experience in election administration. Francescut, who was fired by Curtis soon after his appointment, is now leading in the race to replace him with about 56% of the vote.
Francescut’s campaign spokesperson did not return requests for comment, leaving many questions about her plans for the elections office unanswered. Meanwhile, Curtis’s spokesperson, Brent Turner, has downplayed concerns about a potential power struggle, stating that Curtis is a law-and-order investigator of corrupted systems.
Measure B: A Potential Legal Battle
The county’s Measure B, which requires hand-counting of ballots, in-person voting, and voter ID, was leading by 2,464 votes. The measure, backed by the activist group Shasta Election Reform, could set the stage for a legal battle with the state.
Similar measures in other California counties, such as Huntington Beach’s 2026 initiative requiring voter ID, have been struck down by courts for violating state law. The California attorney general’s office has indicated that it is closely monitoring the situation and stands ready to take action to protect voters’ rights.
A Conflict with State Law
Measure B’s passage could lead to a conflict in state courts that Shasta County is likely to lose. The measure’s requirements for hand-counting ballots and in-person voting could potentially disenfranchise voters and create logistical nightmares for election officials.
Turner declined to address the legal uncertainties surrounding Measure B, referring inquiries to the California attorney general’s office. The office responded with a statement indicating that it is closely monitoring the results and stands ready to take appropriate action.
Concerns About Election Safety
The election was also marked by concerns about safety after a local journalist reported seeing an election worker activate what appeared to be a stun gun. Annelise Pierce, the editor of the nonprofit Shasta Scout newspaper, said she was alarmed by the incident and alerted those inside the elections office, including poll observers from the attorney general’s office.
Turner disputed that the device was a stun gun, stating that it was just a flashlight that made a buzzing noise. However, Pierce maintained that the device was a flashlight-stun gun device, raising concerns about the potential for violence at elections offices.
A Potential New Law
The incident has sparked discussions about the need for a new law to explicitly ban non-lethal weapons such as stun guns in elections offices. California Assembly Elections Committee Chairperson Gail Pellerin said the incident may lead to a new law to address this issue in future election cycles.
Pellerin, a Democrat and former elections chief in Santa Cruz County, stated that the incident is part of a pattern of creative new unacceptable behaviors during elections that require legislative remedies. The incident has also raised questions about the safety of election workers and voters in Shasta County.
Vote Counting Delays
When Curtis took the job, he promised more efficient vote counting. However, election night returns were much slower than in most other California counties. By midnight, several other counties, including neighboring Siskiyou and Lassen, had posted almost all of their preliminary precinct counts online, while Shasta County’s website showed less than 2% reported.
Turner attributed the delay to a power outage in the dilapidated Shasta County elections building, which also happened last year. He emphasized the importance of accuracy and precision in the processing of ballots, stating that the county should desire these qualities over the desire to have a quick answer on election night.
The delays in vote counting have raised concerns about the transparency and efficiency of Shasta County’s election processes. As the county moves forward with implementing Measure B and preparing for the November election, these concerns are likely to continue to be a focus of attention.
