Betrayal of the Voters: Shasta Supervisors Refuse to Defend Measure B

Editor’s Note:

The following is the full text of a letter emailed to the Shasta County Board of Supervisors by Redding resident Bruce Russell on June 19, 2026. Mr. Russell has given Shasta Unfiltered permission to publish it as a Letter to the Editor. It addresses the Board’s 4–0 vote on June 16 to refuse to defend Measure B, which passed with 55.6% of the vote.

---

Honorable Supervisors, 

Your 4–0 vote on June 16, 2026, refusing to defend Measure B — a measure passed by 55.6% of Shasta County voters — was not a misunderstanding or a cautious legal decision. It was a betrayal. A direct rejection of the people who elected you and entrusted you with the responsibility to defend their voice. Measure B would have passed with a much higher margin if not for the biased mainstream media constantly regurgitating misinformation and half-truths about Measure B.

Measure B is now the law of this county. The voters spoke clearly. And instead of standing up for them, you stood down.

 A stunning display of arrogance and disregard.

Your vote told every voter in Shasta County: “Your vote doesn’t matter if Sacramento disagrees with it." That is the message you sent. And it is unacceptable.

Long and Plummer: Predictable. Kelstrom and Harmon: Inexcusable.

Supervisors Long and Plummer have long insisted that California and Shasta County’s election systems are nearly flawless and that concerns about fraud are imaginary. Their votes were expected. But Supervisors Kelstrom and Harmon — your votes were a slap in the face to the very conservatives who put you in office. You campaigned on accountability, transparency, and standing up to Sacramento. When the moment came to actually do it, you folded.

You didn’t just disappoint your base — you abandoned them.

Crye’s absence was understandable — but the rest of you had no excuse.

Supervisor Crye’s chemotherapy treatment is a legitimate reason for his absence. I have no doubt he would have supported the defense of Measure B. But the four of you who remained had a duty to defend the voters’ decision.

Instead, you surrendered without a fight.

Did you even try to learn from those who are fighting?

Huntington Beach — a charter city — is aggressively defending its home‑rule authority and is prepared to take its cases to the U.S. Supreme Court. They are fighting Sacramento with everything they have.

Did any of you call their legal team?

Did you seek guidance from a city that is actually standing up to state overreach?

Or did you simply decide that capitulation was easier?

You ignored the one attorney who actually knows this case.

Attorney Alexander Haberbush — who has already defended Measure B successfully — sent you a detailed letter outlining two clear, lawful paths to defend the measure immediately. He knows this measure, this litigation history, and this legal terrain better than anyone else in California.

Did you consult him?

Did you ask for his assessment?

Did you even read his letter?

Or did you rely exclusively on County Counsel Joseph Larmour — a man who opposed Measure B from day one and whose past statements are now being used by the Attorney General against the County?

The legal reality you ignored.

Charter counties do have election authority.

The California Constitution — Article XI, Section 4 — gives charter counties real authority over the “conduct of elections.” The State claims this authority is limited by the Elections Code — but that is exactly the kind of conflict courts are meant to resolve. Your duty was to defend the voters’ law until a court ruled otherwise.

The State’s lawsuit admits the law is unsettled.

The Attorney General’s complaint does not say Measure B is clearly illegal. It argues that it may conflict with state law. That alone means the issue is unsettled — and when the law is unsettled, you defend the voters’ law until a court decides otherwise. You did the opposite.

Courts — not County Counsel — decide conflicts between state and local law.

Whether Measure B conflicts with the Elections Code is a judicial question. It is not for County Counsel, the Attorney General, or Sacramento to decide unilaterally. Your role was to present a defense, not to surrender on the people’s behalf.

The Attorney General filed suit before the vote was even certified.

The AG filed the lawsuit before certification — a political power play designed to intimidate Shasta County into backing down, not a neutral legal process you were helpless to resist.

County Counsel’s statements are now evidence against the County.

One of the most alarming elements of the Attorney General’s lawsuit is that it relies heavily on County Counsel Joseph Larmour’s own public statements to argue that Measure B is unlawful.

The State cites his attempts to keep Measure B off the ballot, his public comments criticizing the measure, his internal memos expressing opposition, and his repeated claims that the County “cannot” defend the law.

These statements are now being used as evidence against the County, not because they are binding law, but because they reveal bias and a pre‑determined outcome.

In plain terms, the Attorney General is using your own lawyer’s anti‑Measure B opinions to strengthen the State’s case.

Any reasonable Board would have immediately recognized the need for independent counsel. Instead, you allowed the one attorney whose opposition is now weaponized against the County to be the sole legal voice guiding your decision.

That is not caution.

That is not prudence.

That is a catastrophic failure of judgment.

You had full legal authority to hire independent counsel, seek a second opinion, and mount a real defense of Measure B. You simply chose not to.

Free and fair elections are the sword worth dying on.

Every legitimate government rests on one foundation: the consent of the governed. If the people’s right to choose how their elections are run can be overridden by Sacramento — or ignored by their own Supervisors — then local government becomes nothing more than an administrative arm of the state.

If this is not a hill worth fighting on, then what is?

If the integrity of elections is negotiable, then everything else is negotiable.

This is the sword worth dying on because without free and fair elections, the people no longer rule — the state does.

You were elected to represent Shasta County — not to act as an extension of Sacramento’s political machine. Your refusal to defend Measure B will define your political careers. Voters will remember who stood with them and who surrendered.

Many in the community are outraged — and rightfully so.

Rex Ballard’s article in Shasta Unfiltered (https://www.shastaunfiltered.com/post/shasta-county-supervisors-side-with-sacramento-tyranny-over-local-voters-on-measure-b) captures the anger spreading across this county. Many people are furious — and they have every reason to be.

California’s one‑party rule will only tighten if you refuse to fight.

California is a one‑party–dominated state where dissent from conservative counties is treated as a threat. The laws around home rule are not clear‑cut — which is exactly why you fight, not retreat.

And California’s voting system is widely criticized for loopholes that undermine public trust. When even high‑profile races like the LA Mayor’s contest raise serious questions, it only reinforces why counties like ours must demand transparency.

If you refuse to defend our local authority now, Sacramento will only become more aggressive. If you refuse to defend Measure B, what will you refuse to defend next?

Where does it end?

You still have time to correct this — but not much.

You can still consult independent counsel.

You can still authorize a defense.

You can still stand with the voters who trusted you.

But the window is closing.

Respectfully,

Bruce Russell

Redding, CA