Jane Doe vs. 10,000 Sovereign Citizens: One Cowardly Lawsuit Cannot Erase the Sacred Right of the People to Resist Tyranny

Opinion Piece

In Shasta County, California, more than 10,000 flesh-and-blood Americans—not faceless bureaucrats, not shadowy special interests, but neighbors, veterans, parents, and taxpayers—did something extraordinary. They gathered 10,110 signatures, far exceeding the required threshold, and lawfully placed Measure B, the Voter ID, Hand-Counted Ballots, and Absentee Voting Limits Initiative, on the June 2, 2026, ballot. They did so openly, with their names attached, knowing full well it challenges Sacramento’s one-size-fits-all election mandates. They exercised the most American act imaginable: reclaiming control over the very mechanism that gives government its legitimacy—the ballot box itself.

Now comes “Jane Doe.” One anonymous plaintiff, hiding behind a veil of secrecy, filed a pro-se lawsuit on February 17, 2026, demanding a temporary restraining order to rip Measure B off the ballot entirely and halt any county preparation. She doesn’t want the people to vote. She wants the courts to silence them first.

This is not democracy. This is tyranny by lawsuit—the raw, naked attempt by a single hidden voice to nullify the deliberate, lawful will of thousands. And every patriot who still believes in the founding principles of this republic should be outraged.

Let us return to first things.

In 1215, at Runnymede, English barons forced King John to seal the Magna Carta. Clause 61 did not meekly ask for reform—it empowered a council of 25 barons to “distrain and distress” the king, seizing his castles and possessions if he violated the charter’s liberties. The principle was clear: when authority overreaches, the governed have a lawful right—even a mechanism—to resist. That seed of defiance against arbitrary power traveled across the ocean and took root in the American soul.

By 1776, it burst into flame. The Declaration of Independence did not whisper. It thundered:

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed… whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”

And crucially: “it is their right, it is their duty.”

Thomas Jefferson and the Founders were not speaking only of polite petitions. They were declaring that when government—whether king, parliament, or today’s state legislature—systematically erodes the safeguards of liberty, the people are not merely permitted but obligated to push back. Secure elections are not a minor administrative detail. They are the bedrock of consent itself. Without them, every other right becomes a privilege granted by those who count the votes.

The United States Constitution opens with three sacred words: “We the People.” Not “We the bureaucrats in Sacramento.” Not “We the anonymous litigants.” The Preamble exists to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The Bill of Rights enshrines the mechanisms: the First Amendment guarantees “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Gathering 10,000 signatures and qualifying a charter amendment is that petition on steroids.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments make it explicit: rights not enumerated are retained by the people, and powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people. Shasta County voters, having made their county a charter county, are exercising precisely that reserved power to tailor their own election system in response to what they see as state overreach.

Measure B is no radical invention. It demands:

• Voter ID to confirm you are who you say you are.

• Hand-counted ballots at the precinct, observed in real time, finished on election night.

• Clean, locally controlled voter rolls—offline, transparent, and removing the dead and the moved.

• One day, in-person voting with narrow exceptions for absentee voting.

These are not “attacks on democracy.” They are the restoration of the safeguards that existed for most of America’s history—until Sacramento decided uniform mail-in chaos and machine-count secrecy were preferable to local accountability.

Yet one hidden plaintiff now asks a judge to declare the people’s will null and void before a single additional voter can weigh in. On February 20, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to take no position and defer to the court. Supervisor Kevin Crye stood alone for the people. The rest chose bureaucratic neutrality, while one anonymous actor tries to erase the sovereign voice of 10,000 citizens.

This cannot stand.

The same initiative process Jane Doe now seeks to weaponize against election integrity has been used for abortion rights, housing policy, criminal justice reform, and countless other causes. When progressives use it, it is hailed as “direct democracy.” When citizens are concerned about vote security, they suddenly find that it is “preempted” and must be strangled in the cradle.

No. The governed have a right—and a duty—to speak when they believe government rules infringe their inalienable rights. The right to honest, transparent, verifiable elections is as fundamental as any listed in the Bill of Rights, because without it, the entire edifice of consent collapses.

“Jane Doe” chose anonymity. The 10,000 citizens of Shasta County chose courage. They signed in daylight. They followed every legal step. Their petition was certified. Their measure belongs on the ballot.

Let the people vote. Let the conflict with state law be tested after the sovereigns have spoken, not before. Let courts remember they serve the Constitution, not override the people who created it.

Because if one anonymous litigant can erase the lawful petition of 10,000 Americans, then Magna Carta was in vain, the Declaration was a lie, and “We the People” becomes “We the Permitted.”

Shasta County is not asking for revolution. They are asking for the ballot—the peaceful, orderly, constitutional remedy the Founders provided precisely for moments like this.

The court must honor that remedy. The people have spoken. Now let their voice be heard on June 2.

The republic itself depends on it.