Shasta County supervisors take no position in lawsuit over Measure B after closed session; public commenters urge support

At a Feb. 20 special meeting, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors returned from a closed‑session conference with legal counsel and announced it had voted 4–1 to take no position in litigation over a ballot measure known in public comment as 'Measure B,' allowing the courts to decide the matter.

The report was delivered by County Counsel Joe Larimer. Larimer told the board, "Item R1 was heard in closed session. The board voted 4 to 1, with Supervisor Scribe dissenting, that the board voted to take no position in the lawsuit and allow the court to make the decision based on the filings." The chair then closed the meeting with no further public action reported.

Why it matters: dozens of residents attended specifically to comment on the initiative, which speakers described as seeking changes including voter identification and same‑day reporting of results. Commenters urged the board either to support placement of the measure on the June ballot or to increase transparency about the legal challenge. Speakers repeatedly framed the controversy as central to local election integrity and public accountability.

Public comment and claims: Carol, identified as a public commenter, thanked the board for placing "ballot measure number B" on the June ballot and said petitioners collected "10,000 signatures" compared with the "7,000" required, urging supervisors to continue supporting the measure. Christian Gardiner told supervisors the "Hobbs Ladd initiative is illegal," called it "a train wreck" and said the county faces a projected million‑dollar court fight, asserting it "has already cost us over $100,000." Dolores Lucero alleged petition signatures could be invalid because of charter timing and pressed the board to hold election staff accountable, criticizing a named elections employee. Laura Hobbs, one of the speakers identified in the transcript, defended the petition and said fair, honest elections are foundational.

Board deliberations and procedure: Several speakers asked the board to remove item R1 from closed session so it could be discussed in public. Supervisor Price moved to bring the matter into open session so supervisors could "discuss here" and be transparent about how they would vote, but the motion received no second and died. The chair said he preferred first to hear legal counsel because R1 was pending litigation and he did not want to expose the county to undue risk; the board then recessed for approximately half an hour to hold the closed‑session conference.

Formal outcome: After the closed session, counsel Larimer reported the 4–1 vote to take no position in the lawsuit and allow the courts to resolve the case; the transcript records Supervisor Scribe as the lone dissent. The report did not identify which supervisors voted which way beyond the tally, and it did not list a formal motion or mover in open session.

What was not resolved: The board did not vote in open session on the petition itself, and the closed‑session report did not provide further detail on the legal arguments, anticipated costs, or any staff direction. Several public commenters requested public records and more transparent closed‑session descriptions; those requests were not answered on the record during the meeting.

Next steps: The board adjourned after counsel's report. The county will await the court's decision in the lawsuit; the meeting record indicates no additional board action or schedule for further public discussion was set during this session.

Sources: statements and public comments made at the Feb. 20 special meeting of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors and the closed‑session report delivered by County Counsel Joe Larimer as recorded in the meeting transcript.