Election Observers Report Serious Irregularities During 2024 Shasta County Election Under Joanna Francescut’s Leadership
- Elisa Ballard
- 7 hours ago
- 3 min read
REDDING — On Sunday morning, April 19, 2026, three Shasta County citizen election observers were interviewed on the KQMS radio program “Poke the Hornet’s Nest” with host Nick Gardner (9:00 - 10:00 a.m.; 1670 AM 105.7 FM). They detailed multiple concerns they observed during ballot processing and tabulation for the November 2024 General Election and the subsequent canvass.
At the time, Joanna Francescut served as Assistant Registrar of Voters, effectively running day-to-day operations under Registrar Thomas Toller, who was new to elections administration and had limited hands-on experience. Francescut, who had worked in the office for approximately 17 years, was terminated shortly after Clint Curtis was appointed Registrar by the Board of Supervisors in April 2025. She is now challenging Curtis in the June 2026 election for the position.
Citizen observers Kari Chilson, Jim Burnett, and Thomas Hildebrand described several issues that they say undermined transparency and meaningful observation:
Observers were kept outside the building for about 15 minutes one morning, even though ballot tabulation had already begun inside.
On December 3, 2024, while attempting to view a tabulation screen from outside the room, Chilson observed discrepancies between numbers written on a log and those displayed on the screen for the final 17 ballot batches. When she was noticed, papers were reportedly turned over to block the view.
In the duplication room, observers saw workers using black pens to write on ballots in areas away from public view. When questioned, Francescut reportedly explained that staff were writing serial numbers, a claim observers found implausible, since ballots already carry printed serial numbers.
The layout of the election office was deliberately arranged, observers said, to restrict visibility of key processes. Even Board Supervisor Patrick Jones was reportedly limited in what he could observe.
On December 3, observers were told operations would end at 5 p.m. Most staff left early, and observers were escorted out shortly after 5 p.m. However, two workers reportedly found more ballots and continued processing them until 9:30 p.m., without any public observation.
Additional concerns included:
Ballots were stored in unsealed or poorly sealed stacks in multiple rooms, with limited camera coverage (only two cameras downstairs on the sorting machine and one in the hallway upstairs).
Use of the second-floor breakroom for ballot processing, away from observer access.
One observer witnessed a stack of ballots being run through a tabulation machine multiple times.
Observers reported being kept at a distance where they could not clearly hear instructions or procedures. Complaints about audibility were allegedly met with suggestions that elderly observers lie on the floor to listen through vents.
Security personnel were assigned to follow observers rather than secure the ballots.
During the 1% manual tally, observers faced strict rules against whispering while workers were loud. Restroom access required escorting through an alley to substandard facilities.
During the hand count, counters used the similar-sounding words “one, none, or done,” which caused confusion, so an observer suggested clearer terminology.
Observers also noted 2,783 more ballots counted than voters who had voted, with no satisfactory explanation provided at the time. They contrasted this with the current administration under Clint Curtis, describing significant improvements: widespread camera coverage with live online viewing, closer observer access (including sitting directly behind workers), a comfortable observation lounge, and zero discrepancies in the most recent 1% hand count audit (compared to over 500 under the prior election).
A caller to the program, Bruce, questioned Francescut’s qualifications to lead elections, citing her lack of a college education, a law degree, or a technology background. Bruce also pointed to her support for returning to prior procedures, opposition to hand counting, attempts to bypass the Board on a CTCL (“Zuckerbucks”) grant, and an error in candidate ordering that violated the state’s random alphabet draw requirements. The caller also stated Francescut had no vision for improving the office and, if elected, plans to return to the way things were done before Curtis’s changes.
Burnett described the difference between the two administrations as “night and day,” with Curtis’s changes emphasizing cameras on all processes, real-time public viewing, and greater accessibility for observers. Chilson stressed that transparency, security, and integrity must be the foundation of elections, saying these elements were lacking during the 2024 cycle.
The observers encouraged listeners to review detailed comparisons of election procedures before and after the leadership change, available on ShastaUnfiltered.com and Shasta Anon.
As the June 2026 race for Shasta County Clerk and Registrar of Voters approaches, these accounts add fuel to the ongoing debate over election administration, transparency, and public trust in Shasta County.
To hear the full broadcast of “Poke the Hornet’s Nest”, go to:
