Investigation Yields Bombshell Revelations About Alleged Election Interference

Shasta County Board of Supervisors to Consider Censuring Curtis at Special Meeting on Tuesday

April 26, 2026 — Shasta County Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis disclosed to Shasta Unfiltered on Sunday that he intends to file a defamation lawsuit against one or more Elections Office employees who lodged false complaints against him with the County’s Human Resources Department. The Shasta County Board of Supervisors has scheduled a special meeting for Tuesday, April 28, to consider Item R1: “Discuss the conduct of the Clerk and Registrar of Voters, Clint Curtis, and consider adopting a resolution of censure against Clint Curtis for substantiated findings of managerial misconduct following an investigation.”

Former Assistant ROV Joanna Francescut and Current ROV Clint Curtis at a recent candidate forum.

Curtis told Shasta Unfiltered that no one in Human Resources has informed him of the specific accusations or the identities of his accuser(s). He has been questioned by only one HR employee, who asked whether he had ever yelled at people or been violent—questions to which he answered “No.” Curtis has offered to take a polygraph test, as he has done in the past, to prove the allegations are false.

He noted that he and another staff member have written up more than one employee for ongoing insubordination. Long-time staff members—who previously worked under former Registrar Cathy Darling Allen and former Assistant Registrar Joanna Francescut—are reportedly slow-walking or refusing to file required reports with the Secretary of State’s Office, despite Curtis’s direct instructions. Curtis contends that they are now failing to perform tasks they routinely completed under the prior administration. He also described at least two veteran employees as harassing and undermining newer staff through condescending and uncooperative behavior.

Multiple anonymous sources inside the Elections Office echoed these concerns, telling Shasta Unfiltered that two longtime employees—previously under Francescut, who is now a candidate for Curtis’s position—are allegedly sabotaging workflows to undermine the current Registrar. Sources described the behavior as passive-aggressive, uncooperative, and unprofessional, including incidents of harassment against newer workers. One newer employee reportedly received incomplete information that sent her “on a wild goose chase,” while others witnessed a veteran employee yelling at and harassing a colleague. Disturbing incidents included strong-smelling white balls placed in a closed cabinet above a worker’s computer (which she linked to unexplained headaches) and a crocheted bomb with the letter F on it placed on her chair inside her office cubicle.

Another account involved a large Christmas gift from an Elections Office vendor, valued at approximately $250, containing Hickory Farms sausages and cheeses. Curtis initially refused to open it, citing policy concerns, and emailed County Counsel Joseph Larmour for guidance. He received no response. When other employees opened the box and later asked Curtis if they could have the items, telling him that they looked forward to receiving them every year, he instructed two of them to email Larmour as well—again with no reply. This raises questions about why County Counsel declined to address a straightforward policy matter and whether it reflected poorly on prior practices of accepting vendor gifts.

Despite these challenges, many newer employees plan to provide testimonials at Tuesday’s board meeting. They credit Curtis with making significant improvements to office operations and transparency, ultimately benefiting Shasta County voters.

Curtis stated he will first file a claim for a hostile work environment with the California Civil Rights Department, followed by a defamation lawsuit in Superior Court. He has sent a preservation notice to County Counsel for all relevant records. No details of the complaints against him have been provided to Curtis. Curtis has also filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice. He contends that these actions amount to certain employees interfering with a Federal Election, which is a Federal offense that, depending on the statute involved, can carry penalties of $5,000 or more and up to 10 years' imprisonment.

Because the employees in question are union members, Curtis said disciplinary action is difficult and often requires 10 to 20 write-ups before meaningful steps can be taken. His immediate goal is to have the two employees transferred to other County departments.

Intrusion into Elections Department's Messaging System - In another very serious development, Curtis presented evidence that former Assistant Registrar Joanna Francescut—terminated 11 months ago—and at least one other unidentified individual gained unauthorized access to the Elections Department’s messaging system. Francescut had been removed from the system upon her termination, yet access was restored. Additionally, a separate messaging channel was created within the main system that neither Curtis nor the current Assistant Registrar, Brent Turner, has access to. Curtis has turned this evidence over to the County’s IT Department and the U.S. Department of Justice. Because the County retains chat messages for only seven days, he was unable to view the content, but he hopes federal investigators can recover it. Curtis indicated that the DOJ has much more sophisticated capabilities to trace the activities and actual conversations on these types of systems. More concerning to Curtis is that the County IT Department is unable to tell him when, who, or how these individuals were given access. Also of concern to Curtis is that they cannot tell him which other, perhaps more sensitive, IT systems these individuals may have access to. If Curtis' concerns are proven correct, it will certainly add to his Federal complaint.

Curtis expressed concern that County Counsel Larmour is steering the Board toward a predetermined outcome rather than providing balanced information. He questioned why the County is relying on an internal investigation rather than hiring an independent outside investigator with no ties to the County. Curtis has already filed three State Bar complaints against Larmour. He also noted that Supervisors Allen Long and Matt Plummer have consistently opposed him, voting against his appointment and repeatedly questioning his efforts to increase transparency. Long has twice raised allegations of electioneering by Curtis during board meetings—allegations later cleared (described as "incidental" by Larmour)—leading Curtis to view the current censure effort, coming just weeks before the June 2 election, as potential election interference.

The special meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 28, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in the Board Chambers, 1450 Court Street, Redding.

Public Opinion on Social Media - Many residents have strongly objected to the Board’s handling of this matter. One widely shared perspective echoes sentiments circulating online:

“I am writing to express my strong objection to the inclusion of this censure item on the April 28 agenda. The timing, process, and substance of this action raise serious concerns about fairness, transparency, and the appearance of political influence so close to an election in which Mr. Curtis is a candidate.

The resolution contains broad, unspecific allegations based on an entirely internal county investigation with no independent outside review. Given the contentious history of election administration in Shasta County and known disagreements between Mr. Curtis and certain officials, any such investigation should be conducted by a neutral third party.

Placing this on the agenda mere weeks before the June election creates the unmistakable appearance of political interference. The process itself becomes the punishment, damaging Mr. Curtis’s reputation and casting a cloud over the transparency improvements he has brought to the office. Some supervisors appear eager to see his opponent return to the Registrar’s position, raising legitimate questions about impartiality.

If a review is truly warranted, it should be deferred until after the election and conducted by an independent investigator. Proceeding now is inappropriate, unnecessary, and damaging to public trust in our local government and elections. The Board should withdraw this item from the agenda.” - By Bruce Russell

Residents urge the Board to prioritize fairness and transparency as the June election approaches.

Editor's Note: This article has been corrected regarding how long ago Francescut was terminated from her position.