Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Commission topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Shasta supervisors adopt elections-commission ordinance after heated public comment
Summary
After more than an hour of public comment split between calls to restore and calls to suspend the Elections Commission, the Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance that sets meeting and reporting requirements for the commission; a proposed amendment to reference state and federal constitutions failed and the original ordinance passed 5-0.
The Shasta County Board of Supervisors voted March 11 to introduce and adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 2.07 of the Shasta County Code governing the Elections Commission, after more than two hours of public comment and debate.
Chief Deputy Clerk Stephanie Blankenship presented the ordinance changes, saying they adjust the number of required meetings in election and non‑election years and specify reporting requirements. The board took public comment from dozens of residents with sharply divided views: some speakers said the commission is necessary to improve election transparency and urged lifting a pause on its meetings, while others called the commission costly, politicized or outside the county's jurisdiction.
Several public commenters asked the board to change ordinance language from "in alignment with the law" to "in alignment with federal and state constitutions." One commenter, speaking as a county resident, said: "If you require that reports and recommendations for future elections be limited to the narrow confines of hostile legislation, you will, in essence, be cooperating with their attempts to suppress our elections." Another commenter labeled the commission a "QAnon circus" and urged its abolition.
Supervisor Plummer moved to approve an amendment adding explicit reference to the state and federal constitutions; that substitute motion failed on a roll-call vote. The board then voted 5-0 to adopt the ordinance as drafted. In discussion Supervisor Plummer said he favored wording that protected constitutional principles, but County Counsel and other supervisors emphasized that county election actions must still comply with state election code.
The meeting record shows the board approved the ordinance by roll call and recorded a unanimous final vote. The ordinance's changes will be handled according to standard reintroduction procedures for substantive amendments if the board chooses to revisit the language.
Public testimony also pressed the board for clarity about earlier actions that paused the Elections Commission's meetings and whether legal justification existed for that pause; multiple speakers requested the board disclose the legal rationale. County counsel did not provide legal analysis in open session beyond noting that legal advice and active litigation may limit what can be discussed publicly.
The board's action closes the public-comment period on the ordinance and moves the change forward under the adopted language; supervisors said staff would return the item to the board consistent with ordinance procedures and any further substantive edits would require reintroduction.
