Shasta County supervisors vote 4–1 not to use county funds for registrar’s private counsel, allow proponents to seek their own defense on appeal

Shasta County’s Board of Supervisors on [date not specified] voted 4–1 to refuse county funding for a private attorney for the registrar of voters while approving a separate action aimed at letting the petition proponents pursue their own defense on appeal in the litigation Jane Doe v. Shasta County.

The vote followed extended public comment from about 17 speakers and more than an hour of legal briefing from County Counsel Joe Larimer, who told the board the county and its elections official are named as "nominal" defendants and that, in his view, "there's no case in controversy that either the county or mister Curtis needs to be defended from." Larimer cited City of San Diego v. Dunkel and said recent authority, including Huntington Beach litigation, limits the scope of home-rule defenses in election administration.

The motion that carried by roll call (4–1) was the board’s decision not to "expend county funds to grant ROV Curtis the ability to hire an attorney on county funds," as stated by the supervisor who moved the measure. At the same time, supervisors approved a motion to give county counsel…