Another "Nothing Burger" Served up by Katske

Opinion

Katske Lawsuit Against Shasta County ROV, et al. Appears to Be a Big Nothing Burger — Void of Legal Precedent or Substance

Jennifer Katske, a Shasta County resident, political activist, and ICU/flight nurse who relocated from the San Francisco Bay Area around 2020, has filed two pro se (self-filed) lawsuits challenging aspects of the June 2, 2026, election and Measure B — the citizen-led charter amendment initiative focused on voter ID, hand-counted ballots, single-day voting, and limits on absentee ballots.

First Lawsuit (Case No. 26CV-0209919): Originally filed under the pseudonym “Jane Doe” on February 17, 2026, this action sought to remove Measure B from the ballot entirely. Katske argued the measure’s provisions would violate state and federal election laws and waste taxpayer funds (estimated at approximately $250,000). Judge Benjamin Hanna initially granted a temporary restraining order on February 26, 2026, but later lifted it. After Measure B proponents intervened, the court sustained a demurrer and dismissed the case in late March 2026, ruling that pre-election judicial intervention to disqualify a qualified initiative was inappropriate. In a subsequent hearing, Judge Hanna ordered Katske to pay court costs of approximately $3,000, which she objected to.

Second Lawsuit (Case No. 26CV-0210685): Complaint signed May 10, 2026; Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction filed May 18, 2026. This latest filing names Registrar of Voters/County Clerk Clint Curtis, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors, and Measure B proponents (Laura Hobbs, Richard Gallardo, Deidre Holliday, Kari Chilson, and Jim Burnett) as respondents. Katske seeks broad relief requiring the identification and disqualification of any Elections Office personnel, volunteers, contractors, or others with alleged “political, financial, organizational, litigation-related, or other substantial interests” connected to Measure B or the election.

At the May 20, 2026, ex parte hearing before Judge Hanna, Katske withdrew her TRO application due to improper service on the respondents. She indicated plans to serve the parties properly and refile the request. The case remains active as of May 23, 2026.

Despite Katske’s public statements to news outlets that her actions are nonpartisan and that she is acting solely to protect voters and taxpayers, records show she established Shasta Exposed LLC in October 2025. She has used the associated website (ShastaExposed.com) and a Change.org petition under that name to criticize Registrar Curtis and Measure B. The site operates an online shop selling items promoting Antifa, a recognized terrorist organization in President Trump's Executive Order dated September 22, 2025.

Screenshot of ShastaExposed Store

Shasta Unfiltered has reviewed the latest complaint and its voluminous exhibits (totaling around 400 pages). While we are not attorneys, the following observations are based on common sense, the filings, and readily searchable California and federal case law.

Katske’s core theory is that partisan ties — particularly support for Measure B or Republican-leaning views — create disqualifying conflicts of interest for anyone involved in election administration. She cites various authorities in her points, but many appear to have little or no direct relevance to elections or conflict-of-interest disqualification.

Notable elements in the exhibits include:

• Campaign contribution schedules for Clint Curtis, Shasta Election Reform, and Yes on Measure B.

• Numerous articles by Shasta Scout, the left-leaning online paper that often reports that President Trump’s claims of fraud in the 2020 election have been debunked, unsubstantiated, and baseless. The exhibited articles are reprinted with all of the comments from their readers.

• Details of Curtis’s open house events and presentations on transparent elections (including in Riverside County).

• Declarations from two people who viewed Curtis as making partisan statements or statements pertaining to the vulnerability of the election systems.

  
  

Critically, California conflict-of-interest laws (e.g., Gov. Code § 87100 et seq.) focus primarily on financial interests, not political speech, ballot measure support, or ideological alignment. There is no clear Elections Code provision authorizing the categorical disqualification of election officials or volunteers solely for supporting a qualified initiative. Courts have historically been reluctant to intervene pre-election in this manner, as seen in the dismissal of Katske’s first case.

Additionally, Registrar Curtis is on the June 2, 2026, ballot as a candidate for ROV — a common situation for county clerks/ROVs. His predecessor, Cathy Darling Allen, also ran her own elections without disqualification. Prior officials have had varying political leanings, with some having documented ties to left-leaning organizations.

Katske had help from a West Virginia woman named Consuela Bradford, who signed a declaration that she accessed and downloaded the exhibits from the internet.  Two local Anderson residents, Tammy Cole and Jeffrey Carr, signed declarations that they no longer had confidence in the election process or Curtis's impartiality.  Carr attended the January 15, 2026, Open House Election Office tour, conducted by Curtis for election-integrity researcher Dr. Douglas Frank, podcaster Kim Yeater, various independent and Republican gubernatorial candidates, members of the press, and the public. Carr questioned Curtis during the tour, and when the subject of hand counting came up, Carr stated that studies have shown machine counting is more accurate than hand counting. Apparently, Carr trusts the machines, even though they can have hidden programs that flip votes or connect to wireless networks. Carr is active on Facebook, posting photographs of himself with anti-Trump signs on freeway overpasses.

Kari Chilson (a Shasta Unfiltered co-founder and Measure B proponent) is named in the lawsuit despite not working in the Elections Office. The suit appears to be aimed at the broad preemptive disqualification of Measure B supporters who want more secure elections rather than addressing specific, proven misconduct.

Conclusion: Based on the filings, there appears to be little in the record that would compel a judge to grant the extraordinary relief requested. Pre-election disqualification on political grounds raises serious First Amendment concerns and lacks strong statutory or precedential support. While election integrity remains a legitimate public concern, this particular lawsuit seems to be nothing more than partisan lawfare and extremely unlikely to succeed on the merits. If Katske continues to file baseless lawsuits in pro se, she could be labeled by the court as a vexatious litigant, someone who repeatedly files lawsuits that are frivolous, harassing, or without merit, often with the intent to annoy, embarrass, or burden their targets rather than to pursue legitimate legal claims. These types of suits are a waste of court resources. If she is declared a vexatious litigant, Katske would need court permission before filing any new lawsuits.