Shasta County supervisors unanimously approve resolution opposing Proposition 50 as public outcry mounts over elections office

The Shasta County Board of Supervisors on Sept. 30 unanimously approved the consent calendar, including a board resolution opposing Proposition 50, after public comment that focused heavily on recent changes at the county Registrar of Voters office and a citizen petition seeking election reforms.

Chairman Krein introduced the measure, calling it a board effort to "push back" on Proposition 50 and noting other counties had taken similar action. "The last thing I wanna touch on is C2 on your agenda today. It's a resolution I put forward about pushing back as a board on Prop 50," the chair said prior to public comment.

Public commenters used the board hearing to press officials on the registrar, who they said had changed ballot-counting methods. "If the board doesn't require this action, this board becomes responsible for any potential mishaps in the upcoming election," said Steve Woodrum, who urged the board to require Registrar Clint Curtis to present written communications between himself and the Secretary of State. Woodrum added that local reporters had been told the Secretary of State's office had not approved the changes the registrar described.

Others repeated long-standing concerns about staffing decisions in the elections office. "He fired Joanna Francescotte the first day," one commenter said, and later alleged that the registrar had hired "election deniers" to handle ballots.

A separate speaker reported that petition organizers had submitted more than 10,000 signatures calling for election reforms — including voter ID and faster results — and referenced state law as a possible avenue for immediate local action. "Election Code 9310 allows you to adopt the ordinance without alteration either at the regular meeting for which the certification is presented," the speaker said.

Supervisor Long, who had earlier described local support for reforms, and other board members did not indicate additional immediate action to subpoena or require the registrar to appear at the meeting; the board proceeded to take the consent calendar vote. After the vote, the chair thanked members "for the vote on C2 specifically," indicating the resolution opposing Proposition 50 had been included in the approved items.

The board did not take additional formal action on requests for further investigation into the Registrar of Voters' procedural changes during the meeting. County counsel later reported that two closed-session items were heard and that there was "no reportable action." The meeting adjourned.

What happens next: Petition proponents said signature validation is ongoing and indicated the matter would return to the board when certification is complete; the county has not announced any additional special proceedings related to the registrar's staffing or procedural changes.