Shasta County delivers ballot title after court denies stay; board to seek review of legal costs

Shasta County officials said Friday the county has delivered the ballot title and summary for a proposed initiative after a court denied the county's request for a stay, and the Board of Supervisors will file to dismiss the litigation.

The action, announced at a special meeting of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors on March 21, followed more than an hour of public comment in which dozens of residents urged the board to drop a lawsuit that had sought to block a locally filed initiative on election security and transparency. Many speakers also asked the county to reimburse legal fees paid by proponents.

Joseph Larmer, county counsel, told the board on returning from closed session: "As a result of the court denying the request for stay, the County Council's office has already delivered the title and summary as required by law. The Board sees the litigation as moot and a dismissal will be filed ending the litigation." Larmer's statement was the meeting's only formal reportable action.

Speakers during the public comment period repeatedly urged the board to direct Larmer to prepare the title and summary for the initiative and to stop the county's pre‑election legal challenge. Joseph Fairfield, a retired supervisor at the Shasta County District Attorney's Office, criticized the county's approach, saying the board "chose to waste county funds to sue citizens for exercising their constitutional rights." Several commentators cited Election Code timing requirements and argued county counsel had a ministerial obligation to prepare a ballot title and summary after proponents filed a statement of intention.

After Larmer's report, the board requested that the parties involved in the lawsuit "submit their legal costs and fees for review to the county council's office." The request was presented as a next step; the transcript does not show a separate roll‑call vote on that request.

Background and public concerns: proponents said they submitted a statement of intention for an initiative on or about Feb. 19 and that, under the Election Code, county counsel had a duty to provide a ballot title and summary within a specified period after filing. Speakers described the county's prior court filing as "lawfare" and urged the board to allow the initiative process to proceed so voters could decide. Multiple speakers also urged reimbursement of legal fees incurred by the initiative proponents.

The board also used the meeting to reiterate administrative rules for public participation and to announce that, beginning March 24, speaker request cards must be submitted in person at meetings. The board said the chambers would be closed in April and May and meetings held at the Shasta Lake City Council Chambers at 4488 Red Bluff Street in Shasta Lake City during that period.

No formal vote to file or dismiss the original complaint appears in the meeting transcript. Larmer said the county would file a dismissal after delivering the title and summary and the board asked for submissions of costs for review. The transcript does not show whether the county will reimburse any fees or what timeline the county will use to review submitted costs.

The board adjourned after Larmer's report and the request for cost submissions.