Full Breakdown
Shasta County Supervisors Approve Prompt Release of Election-Related Litigation Information
6/8/2026, 12:39:26 AM
Core Decision and Immediate Context
During a special weekend meeting of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors, a closed-session item concerning the initiation of litigation was discussed. After public comment, County Counsel Joseph Larmour announced that the board voted to “release as much information as legally possible regarding an issue that falls under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State, as soon as possible.” The meeting took place while ballots for the June primary and a combined special congressional election were being processed nearby at the Shasta Elections Office.
Background: Election Oversight and Measure B Controversy
Shasta’s chief election official, Clint Curtis, was appointed last year and has faced scrutiny for implementing new procedures and hiring election activists, including proponents of the controversial Measure B initiative now on the ballot. Measure B supporters have been active in the county’s election office, raising questions about the impartiality of the election administration.
Key Figures & Groups
- Clint Curtis – Shasta County chief election official.
- Laura Hobbs – Election staffer and prominent Measure B advocate.
- Chris Kelstrom – Chair of the Board of Supervisors.
- Kevin Crye – Supervisor who later said he “already knows where I land on all of this.”
- Joseph Larmour – County Counsel who presented the board’s decision.
Timeline
- Saturday (special weekend meeting) – Supervisors convene; public comment focuses on elections.
- Closed-session discussion – Deputies arrive; board deliberates litigation.
- Vote announced – Larmour reports the board’s decision to release information.
- Post-session – Supervisor Crye indicates a statement could be released by Monday.
Official Statements & Responses
County Counsel Joseph Larmour framed the vote as a commitment to transparency, emphasizing the legal obligation to share information within the Secretary of State’s jurisdiction. Supervisor Kevin Crye expressed confidence that a public statement would be issued promptly, noting his prior knowledge of the board’s stance. Chair Chris Kelstrom limited public comment to the litigation topic, directing speakers to stay on that issue.
Criticism & Opposition
Election staffer Laura Hobbs protested the board’s handling of the matter, asserting that “none of those allegations are true” and labeling the interruption of her report to the Secretary of State as “election interference.” She urged the board not to spend taxpayer dollars on litigation against Clint Curtis.
Verbatim Quotes
- “you guys are being played.” — Laura Hobbs, election staffer.
- “Contrary to what this county is claiming, none of those allegations are true,” — Laura Hobbs.
- “Do not spend taxpayer dollars in litigation against Clint Curtis.” — Laura Hobbs.
- “The county attorney said the appropriate thing to do would be to have Hobbs removed by law enforcement, noting that none were present.” — County Attorney (as quoted by Larmour).
- “I already know where I land on all of this.” — Kevin Crye, Supervisor.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
The board’s announcement did not specify which documents will be released or the exact timeline, leaving the public uncertain about the scope and content of the forthcoming disclosure.
Why It Matters
The decision could set a precedent for how county governments handle election-related disputes, potentially involving significant taxpayer expenditures and influencing public confidence in the integrity of local elections.
What’s Next
Supervisor Crye indicated a formal statement may be issued by the following Monday. Further legal action against Clint Curtis remains possible, and the release of the requested information will likely shape subsequent debates over election administration in Shasta County.
