Local Nurse Files Second Complaint Regarding Elections in Shasta County
- Elisa Ballard
- 2 hours ago
- 4 min read
Redding, CA - May 21, 2026
Jennifer Katske is making a name for herself in Shasta County, even though she initially wished to remain anonymous, filing her first complaint in Superior Court as Jane Doe (filed February 17, 2026, as Katske v. Shasta County Board of Supervisors, et al., Case No. 26CV-0209919). The original case was filed against the Shasta County Board of Supervisors and Clint Curtis, Shasta County Registrar of Voters and County Clerk, to prevent Measure B from appearing on the June 2, 2026, ballot. The proponents of Measure B then filed to intervene through their attorney, Alexander Haberbush (Lex Rex Institute). The court treated them as defendants once intervention was permitted, and they filed a successful demurrer, resulting in dismissal.
Katske’s first court appearance was in February via the Court's telephone system; however, Judge Benjamin Hanna ruled that she must reveal her name, and she did so a few days later. Hanna eventually dismissed that case because the courts frown on judicial review of ballot initiatives before elections. The lawsuit filings by Katske were pro se (without an attorney representing her) and contained numerous errors and misstatements, leading some to believe that she may have used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to help draft the pleadings.
Since that case was decided in favor of the defendants and intervenors (the Measure B proponents), the court ordered Katske to pay $3,084.25 in court costs for the intervenors, which is customary; however, Katske also contested the tentative order. The intervenors, having successfully defended against the lawsuit, have still been harmed by Katske because they had to retain their own attorney after the County Board of Supervisors voted to take no action to defend against that lawsuit.
On May 10, 2026, Katske signed her name to another lawsuit and filed for an Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction against Clint Curtis as ROV, the County Board of Supervisors, Laura Hobbs, Richard Gallardo, Diedre Holliday, Kari Chilson, and Jim Burnett (the proponents of Measure B). The hearing was granted to her on Wednesday, May 20, in Judge Hanna’s courtroom again, where she appeared. County Counsel Joseph Larmour appeared on behalf of the County and the County’s employees named in the lawsuit. Larmour stated that he had not been served with the lawsuit.
Katske addressed the judge, explaining that she had attempted to reschedule the proceeding the previous day by contacting the judicial assistant. She was informed that rescheduling would incur additional costs, which she declined to pay, citing the personal funds she had already expended in efforts to protect election integrity in Shasta County.
Katske apologized to the court and requested additional time, stating that proper service had been impossible due to her personal schedule. Judge Hanna responded, “That’s fine.”
Katske then remarked that she was surprised and found it interesting that there was a large number of people present in the courtroom. When Judge Hanna asked what she found interesting, Katske noted that only one individual — identified as Miss Hobbs — had attended the previous hearing. He suggested that the person had informed others, leading to the increased attendance. Katske added that she had been doxxed again that morning by “Shasta Anon” online.
Judge Hanna stated that he was not interested in social media; he was only interested in the legal procedures that needed to be followed.
Katske withdrew the case; however, it appears that she intends to serve the defendants and refile the ex parte application at a later date.
The lawsuit, including exhibits, totals approximately 400 pages; however, the points and authorities Katske cites in her pleading have no apparent relevance to elections. She is requesting that Curtis identify all Elections Office personnel, employees, volunteers, temporary workers, extra-help staff, contractors, advisors, or other participants possessing direct political, financial, organizational, litigation-related, or other substantial interests connected to Measure B or the June 2, 2026, election, be prohibited from participating in election administration, along with other relief, including her suit costs.
Broad preemptive relief like this — disqualifying people from election duties solely based on political donations, support for a ballot measure (Measure B), or perceived "conflicts" without any proven malfeasance or specific misconduct — is extremely rare and generally not granted by courts.
Why Courts Rarely Do This
First Amendment protections: Donating to or supporting a ballot measure/candidate is core political speech and association. Courts strongly protect this. Barring people from public roles, such as election work, based solely on past support risks viewpoint discrimination.
No proven wrongdoing: Election challenges require clear evidence of bias that leads to actual or imminent harm (e.g., fraud or other illegal acts). Mere "appearance of conflict" from donations/support is usually insufficient for disqualification, especially pre-election. Post-2020 litigation overwhelmingly rejected broad claims without concrete proof.
Purcell principle & timing: Courts are highly reluctant to change election rules or personnel close to an election (here, June 2, 2026) to avoid voter confusion. Precedent favors letting elections proceed unless there's a compelling, narrowly tailored reason.
Practical realities: Election offices routinely rely on volunteers, staff, and contractors who hold political views. Blanket exclusions based on donations would disrupt operations and invite endless challenges. Conflicts of interest laws (e.g., for public officials) focus on direct financial gain in specific decisions, not general political support. All ballot processing at the Shasta County Elections Office at 1643 Market St. in Redding is now under camera surveillance, and the public is invited to observe every aspect of the process (except in rare cases of adjudication of ballots with extra markings, which teams of individuals will handle).
There do not appear to be any clear precedents in which a court issued such sweeping injunctive relief (barring people from ballot handling, adjudication, etc.) solely on political/financial ties to a measure, without evidence of misconduct. Similar attempts in recent election cases were dismissed for lack of standing, evidence, or overbreadth. If the case is refiled and proceeds, it apparently would be up to Judge Hanna again to decide the merits of Katske's case.
Katske lived and worked in the San Francisco Bay Area before moving to Redding in 2020. She currently works as a trauma ICU nurse at Mercy Medical Center in Redding. She has been involved in organizing or speaking at election-related forums and describes herself as a proud military mom.
Sources:
Shasta County Superior Court Cases #26CV-0209919 and 26CV-0210685
YouTube Channel for KRCR
