Shasta County Superior Court Judge Benjamin Hanna is expected to decide by the end of the week whether Measure B should be removed from Shasta County’s June primary ballot.
The proposed charter amendment would make sweeping changes to the county’s elections system. Some provisions appear to conflict with state law, including requiring voter identification at polling places, mandating hand counts of all ballots and restricting access to vote-by-mail.
One of the measure’s proponents, Laura Hobbs, said that some details aren’t finalized and could be tweaked to meet state election requirements. During the hearing, her lawyer, Alexander Haberbush, outlined potential changes. For example, the county could request identification at polling places while still allowing voters without ID to cast provisional ballots.
Jennifer Katske, who filed the lawsuit, said the measure is misleading and a clear violation of state law. She said placing it on the ballot would waste taxpayer money.
“We are here because the right to vote is not a local experiment,” Katske said.
Supporters of the measure argue courts should rarely intervene before an election. Pre-election challenges are typically limited to cases in which voters lack the authority to enact a measure, such as administrative decisions or when the matter is plainly illegal. Hanna cited an example of a hypothetical measure allowing a property owner to kill anyone who sets foot on their land.
Haberbush said the legality of Measure B is less clear, particularly when considered as a whole. He noted some provisions mirror current practices by the county elections office, including filming ballots as they are counted.
He argued that conflicts between local initiatives and state law are typically resolved after voters weigh in, not before.
Hanna questioned whether the court needed to act before the election. If voters reject the measure in June, the issue would be moot.
Katske said a pre-election decision is needed because the measure fundamentally conflicts with state law. She said defending it in court after an election would create unnecessary costs for taxpayers.
“It sounds like the judge understands the implications and what's at stake here, which is our democratic process, the right to petition our government for redress,” said Hobbs.
Hanna said he would decide the case by the end of the week. Ballots must be finalized by April 2, leaving no time to appeal the ruling.
If the measure is removed from the June ballot, supporters could seek to place it on a future ballot.
