A proposed ballot measure in Shasta County has received enough valid signatures to qualify for a public vote. The initiative, which would overhaul how the county conducts elections, appears to conflict with several state election laws.
The charter amendment, brought forward earlier this year by local activists seeking to change how the county runs elections, would make in-person voting mandatory for most residents, mandate ballots be hand-counted by volunteers and require voters to show identification.
If approved, the measure would likely face legal challenges. State law generally prohibits hand-counting in most elections, a law adopted in 2023 after Shasta County attempted to create a hand-counting system.
"We believe that the public good requires us to return to time-tested, reliable, and transparent methods to hand-count our votes on election day and determine who will represent us," the proposed charter amendment states.
Organizers of the ballot measure did not respond to requests for comment.
Research shows that hand-counting ballots is more time-consuming, expensive, and error-prone than using voting machines. During a 2023 test in Shasta County, 19 workers took six hours to count 500 ballots — a task voting machines complete in a fraction of the time. To verify the accuracy of the machines, 1% of the ballots cast are counted by hand and compared to machine tallies.
The organizers of the ballot measure say that because Shasta County is a charter county, it should have more powers to regulate the election system.
“We would not have done this petition if we were not a charter county,” said petitioner Richard Gallardo. “That is the basis of our argument.”
The California Constitution states, “The provisions of a charter are the law of the State and have the force and effect of legislative enactments.” But the constitution also requires charter counties perform functions required by state law.
A California Supreme Court case in 1994 defined the authority granted to charter counties as “limited to matters concerning the structure and operation of local government.” The constitution outlines some of those powers, including the makeup and rules for the board of supervisors, the terms of some elected and appointed officials, and the management of county staff.
The county sued the activists in an attempt to block the initiative, but a judge denied the request, ruling the county did not prove the need was urgent.
County Clerk Clint Curtis confirmed that an estimated 8,695 of the 10,110 collected signatures were valid, based on a random sample. A total of 6,852 were needed for the measure to be placed on the ballot.
Curtis is seen by the activists behind the proposal as being more favorable to their cause than previous county clerks. But Gallardo said they want the changes to be permanent.
“We have to put these measures into our local charter as laws, so that all subsequent registrars have to follow it,” Gallardo said.
The Shasta County Board of Supervisors will consider the matter at their next meeting on Nov. 6, where they will have to place the measure on the ballot at the next regular election. That would likely be the primary election on June 2.
