Judge Hears Arguments in Measure B Case and States He Will Issue Written Ruling by Friday at the Latest

Wednesday, March 25, 2026, Shasta County Superior Court, Department 63

Honorable Judge Benjamin Hanna

In a packed courtroom, Shasta County Superior Court Judge Benjamin Hanna heard arguments from petitioner Jennifer Katske, who is representing herself in pro per. Katske seeks a writ of mandate to prevent Measure B—a 14-point election integrity initiative—from appearing on the June 2, 2026, ballot.

Measure B was circulated as a charter amendment initiative in Shasta County. It gathered more than 10,000 signatures and was verified by Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis as meeting the required threshold. Katske named Curtis and the Shasta County Board of Supervisors as respondents, alleging they failed to fulfill their statutory duty to disqualify the measure. However, she was unable to identify the specific statute supporting her claim.

Attorney Alexander Haberbush of the Lex Rex Institute, representing the intervenors (proponents of the measure), argued that Katske’s petition is procedurally and substantively flawed. He noted that she:

1. Failed to properly serve the intervenors with her case filings;

2. Did not attach the exhibits referenced in her petition;

3. Improperly cited case law and made inaccurate statements about legal rulings; and

4. Missed the court’s deadlines for filing briefs.

   
   

Katske had also attempted to amend her original petition by adding a cause of action challenging whether the signature threshold was met, citing Elections Code § 9255. When questioned by the judge, she acknowledged receiving conflicting information on the issue. Under statutory laws, as a charter county, Shasta is governed by Government Code § 23720 for charter amendments, not Elections Code § 9255 (which applies to cities or city-and-county charters). Katske voluntarily withdrew that portion of her petition and elected to proceed solely on the merits of her original claims.

Judge Hanna acknowledged the difficulties faced by self-represented litigants but emphasized that pro per status does not excuse misquoting case law or failing to perform due diligence in presenting arguments.

Haberbush defended the measure, stressing that California courts strongly disfavor pre-election challenges to ballot initiatives unless the measure is “clearly and palpably” illegal on its face—an extremely high bar not met here. He argued that any provisions later found unlawful could be severed, allowing the remainder of the measure to take effect. He provided examples showing that certain provisions (such as maintaining voter registration data on a separate, non-internet-connected computer) could be implemented compatibly with state law, including through updates from the statewide voter registration database.

Katske emphasized fiscal responsibility, arguing that the costs of placing Measure B on the ballot and potential future litigation would burden taxpayers and could be better directed toward priorities such as clearing storm drains or assisting needy families. She cited the City of Huntington Beach’s ongoing Voter ID case (initially upheld by a lower court but reversed by the California Supreme Court, with a planned appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court) as an example of the high litigation expenses involved.

Judge Hanna observed that the compressed timetable for pre-election review of complex election-process issues—especially in an ex parte or expedited context—makes thorough consideration difficult. He indicated that a post-election challenge, if the measure passes, would allow for a more complete and deliberate weighing of the issues with adequate time for briefing and hearings.

The judge stated that he would issue a written ruling by March 27, 2026, at the latest. Both Haberbush and County Counsel Larmour noted that a ruling on March 27 could create problems for any potential appeals and for meeting the ballot-printing deadline of April 2. In response, Judge Hanna indicated he would endeavor to provide the ruling to all parties by tomorrow (Thursday, March 26).

After the hearing, Attorney Haberbush commented in response to Katske’s claim that Measure B would cost taxpayers too much money to put on the ballot, stating “She provided no evidence to support this contention and what claims she did make were based on her own opinion and not facts before the court. The voters of Shasta County have a right to decide this matter for themselves. It should not be decided by a court prior to the election. The real harm threatened by this lawsuit is harm to the voters of Shasta County if they don’t have the opportunity to vote in an election that’s been duly signed and certified.”