Shasta County counsel says title delivered and litigation will be dismissed after court denied stay; public had urged board to drop suit

County Counsel Joseph Larmer told the Shasta County Board of Supervisors on March 21 that the county’s office had delivered a ballot title and summary and would move to dismiss a lawsuit the board had authorized against five local petitioners.

"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," Larmer said after the board returned from closed session. "The Board sees the litigation as moot and a dismissal will be filed ending the litigation." The board then requested that the parties submit legal costs and fees to the county counsel’s office for review.

The meeting came after more than an hour of public comment in which dozens of residents urged the board to let a citizens’ initiative proceed. Commenters described the litigation as an improper use of county resources, called it "lawfare," and asked the board either to have County Counsel prepare an impartial title and summary for the initiative or to appoint outside counsel to do so. Several speakers also requested reimbursement for legal fees they said they had incurred defending against the suit.

One longtime resident told the board directly, "You guys have gotta drop the lawsuit," and other speakers repeatedly said the county had a ministerial duty to provide a title and summary under the election code rather than act as a gatekeeper. Multiple commenters cited state election law and described the petitioners’ proposal as an "election transparency and security" initiative; proponents said the county’s initial refusal to prepare the title and summary and the later filing of the lawsuit improperly blocked the petition process.

Speakers pressed the supervisors on timing and transparency, and some urged appointing an outside attorney if County Counsel felt unable to prepare a neutral summary. Several people described the financial burden of defending against the county’s action and urged the board to require the county to reimburse those costs.

Larmer’s announcement grounds the board’s next steps: the county will file to dismiss the litigation and review submitted claims for legal costs. The board offered no further comment after Larmer’s report and adjourned the special meeting.

The initiative’s proponents and the county could still pursue other legal steps; the board did not take a formal recorded vote at the March 21 meeting on the dismissal or on reimbursement requests.