Like it did for an earlier legal challenge to the controversial local election measure that would require voter ID, Shasta County will not defend against a lawsuit that California officials launched over the June 2 passage of Measure B.
Coming out of closed session on Tuesday, June 16, Supervisor Matt Plummer announced the decision.
“The board has voted 4-0 to provide no defense for the county or Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis,” the District 4 supervisor said.
Joining Plummer in making the decision unanimous were Supervisors Corkey Harmon, Chris Kelstrom and Allen Long. Supervisor Kevin Crye was absent and did not attend the closed session.
The board recessed into closed session after 25 speakers — the majority of them imploring the county to defend against the lawsuit — addressed supervisors.
They said not fighting the state would be taking away the will of the people, who overwhelmingly voted for Measure B. With all ballots processed, the measure easily passed with 56% yes votes. Results from the June 2 election still need to be certified.
“These cowards that say it’s illegal, these are probably direct descendants of the colonists that were hiding under their damn desks, when the brave colonists were fighting the tyrannical king. Look it up, look up your genealogy. We have to be brave,” said Richard Gallardo, co-chair of the Shasta Election Task Force, the group that was instrumental in getting the measure on the ballot.
On Friday, June 12, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the lawsuit, calling Measure B an “illegal election overhaul, including ending mail voting and requiring hand counting of ballots.” It would also require voter ID.
The state’s lawsuit contends that Measure B exceeds Shasta County’s authority as a charter county, and even if the county had such authority, the measure is preempted by state law.
Most who spoke Tuesday said that County Counsel Joseph Larmour should recuse himself. Larmour has drawn the ire of Measure B proponents for raising legal concerns before the election about the measure.
The county in early 2025 sued Gallardo, Laura Hobbs, Diedre Holliday, Kari Chilson, and Jim Burnett — the five people who sponsored the measure — over whether Larmour had to write a title and summary for the ballot measure. But the county dropped the lawsuit in March 2025 after a judge denied the county’s request to delay work on the measure.
On Tuesday, proponents asked supervisors to hire Long Beach attorney Alexander Haberbush to defend against the lawsuit. Haberbush represented Laura Hobbs when she successfully appealed on March 3 a temporary restraining order that had kept Measure B off the ballot.
A month earlier, in February, supervisors voted not to defend a lawsuit filed by a local resident that attempted to keep Measure B from appearing on the June 2 ballot.
Before Tuesday’s meeting, Haberbush sent a letter to supervisors that outlined why the county should take up this legal fight with the state.
“I gave my clients an open letter. It basically urges the defense of the initiative, saying it’s the will of Shasta County voters that this be approved … and the county should defend the will of the voters,” Haberbush told the Record Searchlight after Tuesday’s supervisors meeting.
“If the county does not provide a defense of the initiative, the proponents will be forced to go it alone out of their own pocket to defend this measure. I think people should know that,” he added.
But some who spoke Tuesday urged the county not to fight the lawsuit. The county can’t afford the legal battle and Measure B is indefensible, they said.
“I would like you to think with your fiscal conservative hats on,” Dawn Duckett told supervisors. “This is a losing case. We are not going to win this. … We can’t afford to fight the state on principle. We just don’t have the money.”
Plummer said to the Record Searchlight that the board was consistent with its position on Measure B and Tuesday’s action reflected that.
Meanwhile, speaking for himself, Plummer said he announced the closed session vote, rather than Larmour, because “Counsel Larmour has received a lot of flack” over decisions that have been made by supervisors related to Measure B.
“It’s unwarranted because it’s always been the board’s jurisdiction to make the decisions that the board has made and not Counsel Larmour’s,” Plummer said.
Echoing Kelstrom, Long said this was not the route to take to change election law.
“If you want to effect change, you go to the state level and that is where you can get change,” Long told the Record Searchlight after the meeting.
“The Constitution of the federal government defers to the states the ability to run elections. We are one of 58 counties. … We are part of the state and the state is in charge of elections. … So if change is to be effected, it has to occur at the state level.”
David Benda covers business, development and anything else that comes up for the USA TODAY Network in Redding. He also writes the weekly “Buzz on the Street” column. He’s part of a team of dedicated reporters that investigate wrongdoing, cover breaking news and tell other stories about your community. Reach him on Twitter @DavidBenda_RS or by phone at 1-530-338-8323. To support and sustain this work, please subscribe today.
This article originally appeared on Redding Record Searchlight: Relief, anger as Shasta County says it won’t fight for voting measure
Reporting by David Benda, Redding Record Searchlight / Redding Record Searchlight
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
By David Benda, Redding Record Searchlight | USA TODAY Network
