An appeals court ruling could allow a controversial election measure to appear on the June primary ballot in Shasta County.
The proposed county charter amendment, submitted by voters, would heavily restrict mail voting and require hand-counting of all ballots. Critics say the measure appears to conflict with California election law.
Shasta County was originally assigned to defend the measure in court. But county supervisors voted not to defend it, prompting a Superior Court judge to issue a temporary restraining order that blocked the measure from appearing on the June ballot.
One of the initiative’s lead petitioners, Laura Hobbs, criticized the county’s decision during a supervisors meeting this week.
“He wouldn't even allow the initiative's proponents to speak," Hobbs said of the judge. "That's not due process. The people have a right to decide this at the ballot box, and that's why we're asking the court to step in.”
County supervisors agreed the initiative’s supporters should be the party defending the measure in court and directed their lawyer to request that change.
The board also rejected a request to fund outside legal counsel for Shasta County Clerk Clint Curtis in the lawsuit.
County legal counsel Joseph Larmour said Curtis played only a limited role in the case, a characterization Curtis disputed.
"It involves me completely," he said. "That is the process that I am to protect."
Curtis said he's seeking to hire Peter Ticktin, who has ties to President Donald Trump and helped draft an executive order mandating election procedures similar to those proposed in the ballot measure.
But supervisors questioned whether county funds should be used to defend a proposal that voters have not yet approved.
"If this had been gotten on the ballot and it was voted for by the people, I would have much more appetite to expend county funds to defend something that the majority of the county voted for," Board Chair Chris Kelstrom said. "But the majority of the county hasn't voted for that yet. This is 10,000 people that collected signatures."
Larmour also noted that courts can block local ballot measures if they conflict with existing state law.
The appeals court ruling placed a stay on the Superior Court's temporary restraining order, pending a further ruling from the appeals court.
The restraining order had been scheduled to remain in effect until an April 10 hearing, preventing the measure from appearing on the June ballot because Curtis must send the ballot designs to the printer by April 2.
The appeals court has not yet scheduled additional hearings. The measure could be headed for the ballot unless the courts act before the end of March.
