New California State Holds Legislative Hearing on Election Integrity in Redding, Spotlighting Shasta County Concerns

Updated 7/4/2026,11:38 am

Redding, Calif. — On Wednesday afternoon at the Red Lion Hotel, the New California State movement convened a legislative hearing focused on alleged election fraud and irregularities across California, with extensive testimony centering on Shasta County. Panel members, including state senators and assemblypersons from the movement, joined residents in sharing observations, data analyses, and proposed reforms. The event opened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, underscoring the group’s emphasis on constitutional and faith-based principles.

Speakers framed the discussions around Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution as a pathway for forming a new state, while highlighting what they described as systemic “tyranny” in current governance and elections. Public testimony revealed patterns of alleged issues dating back to 2020, recurring through the 2024 elections in Shasta County.

Shasta County Under Scrutiny: Ballot Handling, Observers, and Voter Rolls

Multiple residents detailed challenges observing ballot processing in Shasta County. Dan Ladd, involved in a local lawsuit against the former Registrar of Voters, described watching nine workers in a side room during the 2024 election:

“There was three tables, three ladies at each table… they all had ballpoint pens in their hands and were marking on various ballots. Any ballot can be canceled if there’s another mark on there. It’s called an overvote… I was infuriated. That was such a breach of the legal system, the election laws.”

Ladd and others reported limited visibility and audibility for observers; issues with “overspray” or misprinted ballots that required duplication (frequently handled without full oversight); and certification of results of the November 2024 election “under duress” by the Board of Supervisors after legal advice. He noted prior ROV resignations following service of citizen declarations.

Kari Chilson recounted witnessing a supervisor mark a ballot in the duplication room during 2024 processing, with explanations she found inconsistent (e.g., writing serial numbers that machines had already printed). She stated she had to jump up to see the ballot being written on because the worker was obscured behind the computer equipment.

Observers described being kept at distances, escorted like “criminals,” and facing restricted access despite pre-scheduled times.

A systems analyst and programmer provided a detailed voter roll analysis for Shasta County, identifying hundreds of irregularities in 2020 that she said persist:

“We had 82 in 2020 people that had a U.S. Post Office, but they did not have a physical address on the state file… We had 22 at a mailing center with no physical address. Then we had 63 addresses that don’t exist… Then there was three people that actually lived in Post Office… I have 16 people that have no address number… nine people that had the address of zero.”

She challenged non-existent addresses (e.g., “22 Seaman Gulch Road”) and patterns such as businesses, empty lots, or even a “flagpole” used as residences, along with changes in voting history and mixed date formats in records. Margaret Cantrell added that her checks showed 505 more votes than registered voters in one election and 2,738 in another. Thomas Hildebrand described observing ballots run through tabulation machines multiple times.

Panelists and speakers noted that voter rolls are fluid—updating multiple times daily via DMV motor-voter (opt-out since 2015/2017), USPS changes, and other sources—making reconciliation difficult. They argued for full re-registration, elimination of most mail-in ballots, paper poll books, voter ID with proof of residency, same-day precinct voting, and hand-counting for transparency.

One speaker contrasted this with historical practices, such as early West Virginia elections, where voters were publicly verified and tallies openly displayed:

“They treasured every voter. They honored every voter, and that’s exactly what we will do in New California State… on paper, and you can say, I voted and it counted. I saw it go down.”

Declarations, Statewide Impact, and Path Forward

A recurring theme was the use of citizen “declarations” or grievances (signed under penalty of perjury) as probable cause to engage county officials and sheriffs. The group has served multiple times and recently reported serving all 58 counties in one day. Past service has led to resignations, investigations (e.g., in Riverside County with Sheriff Chad Bianco), and some positive feedback from officials, including in Santa Clara County.

Broader allegations included non-citizen voting facilitated by DMV processes, ballot harvesting, algorithms, and misprinted ballots. Speakers stressed citizens’ duty to act, citing founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence.

Organizers praised local efforts, such as those of Clint Curtis, to improve Shasta processes while noting ongoing challenges with legacy voter rolls. They announced future hearings, including in Pacific Palisades, and encouraged participation in observations, declarations, and sheriff engagements.

The hearing positioned New California State as offering a “new beginning” with restored Second Amendment rights, parental control of education, economic opportunities (e.g., oil), and clean elections free of what participants called entrenched fraud and tyranny. One closing sentiment captured the mood:

“We shook them down. We really did… There’s good people all throughout the state of California. We’re not here to hammer on the Californians… But leadership is turned into tyrants. That’s what we’re going to stop.”

By compiling resident testimony and data, the Redding event served as both a grievance session and a call to action, advancing the movement’s constitutional objectives while documenting specific local election integrity concerns for potential further investigation and reform.