County plans to shred 2024 election records on Sept. 30. It still has not released the Dec. 3 count records.
Registrar Clint Curtis says a private shredding company is booked for 8 a.m. Wednesday, September 30. He wrote that the job “covers both” the sealed 2024 ballots and the office logs, sign-in sheets, and video from December 3, 2024 — the same file the county closed without producing. He also wrote that “this county is much more concerned with covering up election issues than addressing them.” A separate lawsuit did not fix that records request.
Shasta County has not produced the December 3, 2024 election-office records requested under the California Public Records Act, the law that lets the public demand copies of government files. The registrar has now written that a shredding appointment set for 8 a.m. Wednesday, September 30, “covers both” those office records and the sealed 2024 ballots and envelopes.
That is the story. A lawsuit filed by someone else does not cure a records denial.
What the law required and what the county produced
Request 26-1766, filed September 4, asked for the county’s own December 3, 2024 office file: notices, observer sign-in sheets, ballot and batch records, machine reports of what was counted (including after 5 p.m.), custody and staff records, any video, procedures, and Secretary of State or district-attorney correspondence about that day.
The Public Records Act requires the county to release records that are not exempt, or to name a legal reason for withholding each one. On September 16 the county closed 26-1766. What it released did not match the request: three copies of a December 2–3 schedule, undated observer rules, a June 2026 observer guide, and pointers to older files 24-101, 24-297, and 25-880.
That closeout withheld the logs, the after-5 p.m. machine reports, the observer sign-in, the staff assignments, and the video. No item-by-item exemption was given. An incompleteness letter followed, along with 26-1779, a written demand that the county hold those records and not destroy them. The county said 26-1779 “is not a PRA.”
The public’s right is to inspect the government’s file. Closing 26-1766 without that file is a denial of the request.
What Curtis put in writing this week
On September 22 at 11:08 a.m., Registrar Clint Curtis wrote that 2024 election materials would be shredded the morning of the 30th without a court order or an ongoing criminal investigation; that “a preservation letter does not stop the shred that is required by code”; and that he has “no way of preventing the shred on my end.”
He also wrote that he does not know what the 2024 boxes contain because they predate him; that “chain of custody was nonexistent”; that the boxes had been in a back warehouse where rear-elevator entry would not hit the key-card log; that the same card-slip method later found on the June 2026 ballot-balancing room could open those doors unrecorded; and that “over half the ballot and envelope boxes had their seals broken.”
That afternoon I asked a yes-or-no question: will the December 3 office records go to Hemsted, the shredding company booked for September 30, or are those files stored separately and being held for 26-1766? If already destroyed, give the date.
On September 23 at 9:59 a.m., Curtis answered:
“It covers both. So far nothing has been shredded although I have no idea what is in the boxes since it was before I was here and the previous chain of custody was extremely poor.”
He added that the storage-room doors could be opened by sliding a card past the lock, bypassing the security system; that “absent watch in video, no one would ever know who entered or what they did in the room”; and that the materials “are scheduled to be shred at 8am on September 30th absent a court order on ongoing criminal investigation.”
Curtis: the county is “covering up,” and a records denial’s only recourse is a lawsuit
On September 21 I wrote that 26-1779 was a hold demand, not a second copy request, and asked whether a hold was on the November 2024 sealed ballots and the December 3 office file.
On September 22 at 9:41 a.m., Curtis wrote:
“This county is much more concerned with covering up election issues than addressing them or providing information to others that wish to address them.”
“If your PRA is not responded to properly, the only recourse is to sue the county. There is no administrative agency connected to the California Public Records Act.”
He then pasted instructions for a court petition to force release of records, and added that County Counsel Joseph Larmour had told him the State Bar is “not very aggressive in enforcement but enough complaints eventually make even the most timid entities react.” He suggested the First Amendment Coalition.
That email is the registrar telling a requester that the county will not fix an incomplete records request internally. It is also the registrar accusing his own county of preferring cover-up to disclosure.
On September 24 I sent the itemized list again and asked the county not to destroy the 26-1766 file pending that determination. As of this writing, I have not received an item-by-item reply.
Sealed ballots and office records are not the same thing
California law treats two piles of paper differently. After a federal election, voted ballots and related envelopes are sealed and kept for 22 months. Curtis says those sealed packages go to the shredder after that period unless a court case or a criminal investigation stops it. The December 3 logs, sign-in sheets, machine reports, assignment sheets, and video are office records. That is the file 26-1766 already asked for, and the file the county already failed to produce.
“It covers both” collapses that distinction. If the county puts the withheld office file on the shredder’s truck, it would destroy records it has not released.
A separate lawsuit was denied. That did not decide the records request.
Arne List sued in List v. Curtis, 26CV-0211712. Shasta County Superior Court denied his emergency request to stop destruction of the 2024 materials. A September 17 hearing left the county free to shred on September 30. That case did not decide 26-1766. I am not a party in that case and have not joined it.
On September 20, Curtis told KCNR that federal officers had already come to the office about the June 2026 primary and that, without a court order or an investigation that reaches the 2024 boxes, the September 30 shred proceeds. Those remarks match his emails. They do not replace a records production.
What is still owed before 8 a.m. September 30
A written answer, line by line:
December 3, 2024 ballot, batch, and machine-count reports, including after 5 p.m.
Observer sign-in sheets and notices for December 3
Staff assignments and chain-of-custody logs for that day
Any video of December 3 tabulation or related rooms
Secretary of State or district-attorney correspondence about December 3
For each: on the truck, held separately, or already destroyed — with the date and the authority.
Until the county produces that list or cites a lawful exemption for each item, 26-1766 remains unfulfilled. The shred date does not wipe out the request.
Editor’s note: Kari Chilson is a Shasta County resident, election observer, and the requester on 26-1766 and 26-1779. She is not a party in List v. Curtis, 26CV-0211712. Source emails: Curtis to Chilson, Sept. 22, 11:08 a.m. and 9:41 a.m.; Chilson to Curtis, Sept. 22, 9:46 a.m. and 12:33 p.m.; Curtis to Chilson, Sept. 23, 9:59 a.m.; Chilson to elections / Larmour / Curtis, Sept. 24, 11:58 a.m.
