A judge granted a temporary restraining order that for now prevents Shasta County Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis from putting a contentious initiative on the June 2 ballot that would implement voting rules that run counter to California law.
Curtis, who was at the hearing, told the media afterwards he’s upset that County Counsel Joseph Larmour was at the hearing but declined to respond to the plaintiff’s complaints. Curtis said the county should defend the lawsuit and answer to the allegations.
Shasta County Superior Court Judge Benjamin Hanna on Thursday morning, Feb. 26, also ruled that plaintiff “Jane Doe” must amend her lawsuit so that it states her true identity. Hanna told Doe, who participated in the hearing by phone, that she has five days to do so.
Doe requested to stay anonymous because she has already been harassed and fears for her safety and security.
Hanna, however, upheld Doe’s request to keep her phone number, home address and employer information sealed.
The next hearing for the lawsuit is scheduled for 8:30 a.m. April 10.
The courtroom on Tuesday was filled with about 25 supporters of the ballot initiative.
The measure would require voter ID, that elections take place on one day with limited absentee voting and the hand-counting ballots at precincts.
“Jane Doe” filed the lawsuit on Feb. 17.
“The Initiative, which purports to impose local voter identification mandates, hand-counting requirements, one-day in-person voting, and absentee voting restrictions, is preempted in its entirety by the California Elections Code and Article II of the California Constitution,” the lawsuit states.
In making the case, the plaintiff references the recent California Supreme Court decision not to hear the city of Huntington Beach’s appeal to a lower court’s ruling that its measure requiring voter ID violates state law.
Supervisors on Feb. 20 voted 4-1 not to take a position or defend the lawsuit. Larmour reiterated that to Judge Hanna.
Because Larmour did not respond to complaint, Hanna said the court was left with no other action but to grant the petitioner’s temporary restraining order based on the fact that the proposed ballot initiative, if it passes, would violate state election laws and because of that would be “doomed” on appeal.
But Hanna said the court’s decision does not represent a final determination on the lawsuit.
After the hearing, Curtis approached County Executive Officer David Rickert in the courtroom and told him he wants the county to hire an attorney to represent him so he can refute the plaintiff’s claims. If the county refuses, Curtis said he will hire his own attorney and demand that the county pay for it.
Visibly upset, Curtis told the media outside the courtroom, why did Larmour show up if he wasn’t going to comment.
“They booted it down the road. Larmour gave the advice to boot it down the road. He’s been against it the whole time, and so he tells them to boot it down the road and then gets them to vote that way and he represents it, which is completely illegal, it’s unethical and I think the BAR will have something to say about that. So, I will file a BAR complaint this afternoon. I will ask the county to appoint me an actual attorney that will then go in here and process this correctly,” Curtis said.
Larmour did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
Curtis has argued that the measure deserves to be on the ballot because proponents collected enough valid signatures.
“Until an injunction is provided by the court all measures that received enough signatures and are approved by the board of supervisors go forward. This office does not attempt to decide the measures, that is up to the voters,” Curtis said after the Feb. 20 special supervisors meeting.
Meanwhile, Curtis said because the next hearing is not until April 10, there will not be enough time to put the measure on the June 2 ballot. He said the county’s ballot printing deadline is April 2.
That means, if the judge ultimately rules that the measure can appear on the ballot, it will have to be a special election, Curtis said, and that would cost the county a significant amount of extra money.
(This story was updated with new information.)
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: Shasta judge’s order for now stops work to get measure on ballot
Reporting by David Benda, Redding Record Searchlight / Redding Record Searchlight
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
