Measure B isn’t just another local proposal—it’s a direct challenge to California law, voting rights, and the integrity of our elections. Disguised as “election reform,” it would fundamentally change how Shasta County votes, counts ballots, and maintains voter rolls—while raising serious legal, financial, and constitutional concerns. Before voters are asked to decide, they deserve to understand exactly what this measure does, what it costs, and why it may not even be lawful in the first place. 

Measure B would completely change how elections work in Shasta County. It sounds like “election reform,” but each part conflicts with existing California and Federal Election laws.

Here’s a clear breakdown:

❌ Voter ID Requirement

What it does:
You would have to show a government-issued ID to vote.

Why this matters:
Right now, most Californians do NOT need an ID to vote. The state has already decided this to make voting easier and more accessible.

Why it is illegal:
California law prohibits local governments from requiring voter ID.

The law:

• Elections Code § 10005 

👉 In simple terms: Counties don’t get to make their own voter ID rules.

A poll tax is any fee or cost imposed on a person as a condition of voting. The Constitution prohibits poll taxes because the right to vote cannot depend on a person’s ability to pay. Requiring voters to obtain and present government-issued identification functions, in practice, as a modern-day poll tax. Even if the ID itself is labeled “free,” voters often must pay for the underlying documents like a birth certificate, transportation to government offices, time off work, or childcare. These are real costs. For low-income individuals, seniors, rural residents, and people with disabilities, these burdens can make voting significantly harder or even out of reach. When access to the ballot depends on whether someone can afford these costs, it raises serious constitutional concerns because it effectively puts a price on the right to vote. 

❌ Hand Counting All Ballots

What it does:
Every vote would be counted by hand instead of using machines.

Why this matters:
Hand counting sounds simple—but in large counties it:

• Takes much longer 
• Costs much more 
• Can lead to more human error 

Why it is illegal:
California law limits hand counting in counties the size of Shasta County (over 5,000 registered voters). 

The law:

• Elections Code § 15270.1 (AB 969) 

👉 Shasta County, having 115,578 registered voters, is far too large to legally switch to full hand counting. 

Interesting fact about AB 969:

AB 969 was not a routine law—it was passed as an urgency measure, meaning it took effect immediately, specifically in response to actions in Shasta County regarding hand-counting ballots. The California Legislature acted quickly to ensure that counties could not move forward with election practices that conflict with state law. Shortly after its passage, in October 2023, the California Secretary of State sent a formal letter to Shasta County making this clear: the law applies to Shasta County, there are no exceptions, and any attempt to conduct elections in violation of AB 969 would be unlawful. This underscores that the state directly addressed Shasta County’s actions and required full compliance with California election law. 

❌ Voting limited to a single day, in-person only, with mail-in ballots restricted to those who are infirm, overseas, or serving in the military. 

❌ Limit on Vote-by-Mail

What it does:
Only certain people (like military or disabled voters) could vote by mail.

Why this matters:
Right now, every registered voter in California automatically gets a mail ballot. This means people can vote:

• From home 
• Early 
• Without missing work 

Why it is illegal:
State law guarantees vote-by-mail for all voters.

The law:

• Elections Code § 3003 

👉 A county cannot take away a voting option that state law guarantees. 

❌ One-Day, In-Person Voting Only

What it does:
Voting would only happen:

• In person 
• On a single day 

Why this matters:
This would eliminate:

• Early voting 
• Drop boxes 
• Voting over multiple days 

That can make it harder for:

• Working people 
• Parents 
• Seniors 
• Rural voters 

Why it is illegal:
California law requires multiple ways and multiple days to vote.

The law:

• Elections Code §§ 3000–3025 
• Elections Code §§ 4005–4008 

👉 The state expanded voting access—this measure would take it away. 

❌ Disconnecting Voter Rolls from the State

What it does:
Shasta County would keep its own voter list separate from the state system.

Why this matters:
California uses one statewide system to:

• Prevent duplicate registrations 
• Keep voter info updated 
• Protect election security 

Why it is illegal:
Counties are required to stay connected to the state system.

The law:

• Elections Code §§ 2101 & 2103 
• Federal laws (Help America Vote Act & National Voter Registration Act) 

👉 A county cannot go “off the grid” with voter data—it would break both state and federal law. 

Clint Curtis's "air-gapped" database is still illegal:

Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis has suggested that Shasta County could create an “air-gapped” voter database—meaning a system not connected to the internet or outside networks—and then manually update the state system. But even if this were technically possible, it would still be illegal. Both California and federal law require a single, centralized, and continuously updated statewide voter registration database. Counties are required to directly maintain and synchronize voter data within that unified system in real time to ensure accuracy, prevent duplicate registrations, and protect election integrity. Creating a separate “air-gapped” system would establish a second, disconnected database, which the law does not allow. Trying to manually transfer updates back to the state system does not fix the problem—it breaks the requirement for an integrated, live system and increases the risk of errors, delays, and inconsistencies. In short, the law requires one connected system, not two systems with manual updates, making this proposal unlawful. 

Measure B tries to rewrite election rules at the local level.

But in California:

• Elections are controlled by state law 
• Counties must follow those rules 
•  Charter counties do not have “home rule” authority over issues the Legislature has defined as matters of statewide concern. 

👉 If a local measure conflicts with state law, it cannot be enforced.

That means:  Even if Measure B passes, it will face significant legal challenges from the State of California, and it will never legally take effect. (Huntington Beach is our proof.)

In People ex rel. Bonta v. City of Huntington Beach (2025), the key issue was not just voter ID — it was whether a local government has the power to override state law. The California Court of Appeal made it clear that it does not. 

The court held that election administration is a matter of statewide concern, meaning the Legislature—not cities or counties—has the final authority. Huntington Beach attempted to use its charter powers to adopt its own election rules, but the court rejected that argument, confirming that local governments cannot pass laws that conflict with state election statutes. This is exactly why the case applies to Measure B. Regardless of the specific provisions—whether it’s voter ID, hand counting, or voting methods—the core issue is the same: Shasta County does not have the authority to override state and federal election laws. Under the Huntington Beach decision, any local measure that conflicts with those laws is preempted and cannot be enforced, even if it is approved by voters.

Measure B comes with a serious price tag — and Shasta County’s own data proves it. 

According to the County’s own analysis, just implementing hand counting alone—not the rest of Measure B—would cost taxpayers an additional $445,528 every year, plus a one-time setup cost of $914,146, with total added net costs to the County estimated between $2.9 million and $3.1 million.  And that’s before factoring in the legal consequences. 

When Huntington Beach attempted to pass a similar law that conflicted with state election rules, the California Attorney General stepped in and successfully challenged it in court. That litigation required millions of dollars in public resources on both sides — costing local taxpayers in Huntington Beach and state taxpayers across California. While exact totals vary, the case demonstrates a clear pattern: when local governments pass unlawful election measures, taxpayers end up paying for prolonged legal battles that ultimately fail. 

At a time when Shasta County is already facing financial strain, choosing to move forward with a measure that will trigger costly and avoidable litigation is not just risky — it is a wasteful use of taxpayer dollars. 

The proponents and supporters of Measure B often claim it is about “election integrity,” but the movement behind it is closely tied to the ongoing narrative that the 2020 election was stolen — a claim that has been repeatedly rejected by courts, audits, and bipartisan election officials across the country.

Locally, Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis has been publicly linked to individuals and groups promoting these claims, including figures like Mike Lindell, who continues to push debunked theories of widespread fraud. But even sources frequently cited by proponents of these claims tell a different story. 

The Heritage Foundation’s own election fraud database — one of the most comprehensive collections used by election skeptics — documents only about 1,500 proven cases of voter fraud nationwide over several decades, out of billions of ballots cast. That amounts to a rate so small it is statistically negligible. In California specifically, instances of proven voter fraud are exceedingly rare, reinforcing that widespread fraud is simply not supported by evidence.

What makes this dangerous is how these false claims are used to manufacture a national emergency.

By convincing voters that elections are unsafe, proponents justify sweeping changes that restrict access — like eliminating vote-by-mail, limiting voting to a single day, and adding ID requirements. These changes disproportionately impact working people, seniors, and rural voters — especially in a county like Shasta. The urgency behind Measure B is not based on facts — it is built on a narrative that has never been proven true. And when laws are driven by misinformation rather than evidence, the result is not stronger elections—it is fewer people able to vote. 

In effect, a problem that barely exists is being used to justify policies that risk suppressing lawful voters. 

 At the end of the day, Measure B is not about improving elections — it is about changing the rules in ways that are illegal, extremely costly, and harmful to voters. It would spend millions of taxpayer dollars, trigger avoidable lawsuits, and take away voting options that people rely on. All of this is based on a problem that has not been proven to exist. 

Shasta County deserves elections that are secure, lawful, and accessible — not experiments built on misinformation. 

A “No” vote on Measure B protects your rights, your tax dollars, and the integrity of our elections.