California's top law officers are racing to stop Shasta County from tearing up the usual election rulebook. Yesterday, the state asked an appellate court to block a newly approved county charter amendment that would sharply cut back vote-by-mail, require full hand-counted ballots, and add a government photo ID requirement. In an emergency filing, the state argued the measure clashes with California election law and could derail preparations for the November election. With local results still being certified, the state wants the courts to pause the new rules while judges sort out the legal fight.
State files fast-track legal challenge
The petition, filed yesterday in the Third Appellate District, asks judges to invalidate Measure B and bar its enforcement, arguing that Shasta County exceeded its authority and that several sections are preempted by state law, according to the Office of the Attorney General. The filing says the charter amendment would sever Shasta's voter rolls from the statewide system, prohibit most absentee ballots, mandate a countywide full manual tally, and require government-issued photo identification in order to register and vote.
Measure B's changes and the legal objections
Measure B would overhaul the county charter to require single-day, in-person voting, strictly limit who can vote by mail, and force a hand tally of every ballot, moves opponents say are both unworkable and unlawful. Supporters pitch the measure as an election-security fix, but state law and legal analysts say it conflicts with the Elections Code and a 2023 state law that sharply restricts manual tallies, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Who voted for it and who it would hit
Voters in the mostly rural county approved the amendment with roughly 55 percent support, according to local counts. Shasta Scout reported the measure leading with about 55.3 percent of counted votes. Voting-rights advocates point out that about 85 percent of Shasta residents cast ballots by mail and warn that the amendment would likely disenfranchise seniors, people with disabilities, and rural voters, according to the ACLU of Northern California.
Backers, local drama and the registrar
One of Measure B's most visible backers was Shasta County Clerk and Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis, who lost his reelection bid in the June 2 primary, according to The Sacramento Bee reporting. Curtis has been a lightning rod in county politics. Personnel investigations and news accounts describe accusations that he harassed and threatened staff, including talk of throat-punching, as detailed by the San Francisco Chronicle.
Legal stakes explained
The state's petition argues that Measure B exceeds the authority of a county charter and is overridden by state election statutes. The amendment, it says, purports to create the county's own elections system, in clear violation of the State's constitution and election laws, according to the filing. State officials warn that if Measure B takes effect, it could cancel valid voter registrations, throw off ballot-mailing and voter-information deadlines, and put compliance with federal voting laws at risk, according to the Office of the Attorney General.
What comes next
The state has asked the court to expedite the case and issue a ruling by August 24 so election officials know which rules will govern ballots this fall. The legal battle is unlikely to end there, with appeals and follow-up litigation all but guaranteed. Earlier this year, Shasta County judges rejected two pre-election challenges to Measure B without ruling on the substance of those cases, a point noted by The Sacramento Bee, which leaves the appellate court as the immediate arena for the state's challenge.
For now, the fate of Measure B sits with the courts. If judges block the amendment, Shasta County's elections will run under California's standard statewide rules. If they do not, local officials will have to navigate a high-stakes clash between homegrown election rules and the state's uniform voting system, with more legal filings almost certain in the weeks ahead.
